The Conservative Case for Obamacare

[dblack]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couldn't I ask the same question of you, since you favor abortion restrictions but also want "individual choice" in health care?

What restrictions on abortion do I advocate for? I have always said it is wrong, but you cannot find a single instance of me supporting the government having a say in it.

That said, there is a difference here, abortion is not a medical issue unless the life of the mother is affected. This makes it a legitimate role of society to say something about the issue, just like it does about transplants when it makes paying a donor for an organ illegal.

If there is a difference, how am I being hypocritical? Or is it only hypocritical because I don't share your opinion?

You are being hypocritical because you argue that the government should not have a say in doctor patient relations vis a vis abortions, yet you have no problem with it when it comes to Obamacare.

Personally, I oppose it across the board.

 

[Polk]

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, every single court ruled against that claim because the the mandate was clearly not a tax, so it never got decided by the Supreme Court. There is another case that is working its way through the courts challenging Obamacare on that issue now that it is a tax.

I'd like to see some sources for this, as it appeared in none of the reporting.

Maybe you should read instead of watching MSNBC for your news. Peterson v Obama is one case that challenged Obamacare on the presentment cause issues that was dismissed.

I actually watch very little television. I was referring to cases that actually had legs (NFIB v. Sebelius, etc.), not the health care equivalent of birther suits.

 

[Polk]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards). To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

 

[Polk]

What restrictions on abortion do I advocate for? I have always said it is wrong, but you cannot find a single instance of me supporting the government having a say in it.

That said, there is a difference here, abortion is not a medical issue unless the life of the mother is affected. This makes it a legitimate role of society to say something about the issue, just like it does about transplants when it makes paying a donor for an organ illegal.

If there is a difference, how am I being hypocritical? Or is it only hypocritical because I don't share your opinion?

You are being hypocritical because you argue that the government should not have a say in doctor patient relations vis a vis abortions, yet you have no problem with it when it comes to Obamacare.

Personally, I oppose it across the board.

Where did I argue that the government should have a say in doctor-patient relations? The question being asked is about what the community will pay for. Medicare doesn't pay for face lifts, yet there are thousands of them performed every year.


If anything, that's the net result of your preferred system of taking the power away from patients and giving it to insurance companies (I am aware you'll dispute that's what your position does, but it does).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd like to see some sources for this, as it appeared in none of the reporting.

Maybe you should read instead of watching MSNBC for your news. Peterson v Obama is one case that challenged Obamacare on the presentment cause issues that was dismissed.

I actually watch very little television. I was referring to cases that actually had legs (NFIB v. Sebelius, etc.), not the health care equivalent of birther suits.

Your dismissal of the rights of individuals just proves how stupid you are. Individuals have as much right to challenge federal laws as states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If there is a difference, how am I being hypocritical? Or is it only hypocritical because I don't share your opinion?

You are being hypocritical because you argue that the government should not have a say in doctor patient relations vis a vis abortions, yet you have no problem with it when it comes to Obamacare.

Personally, I oppose it across the board.

Where did I argue that the government should have a say in doctor-patient relations? The question being asked is about what the community will pay for. Medicare doesn't pay for face lifts, yet there are thousands of them performed every year.


If anything, that's the net result of your preferred system of taking the power away from patients and giving it to insurance companies (I am aware you'll dispute that's what your position does, but it does).

You support punishing hospitals that discharge and readmit patients without once considering the fact that doctors and patients both might see a reason for a discharge and readmission, deal with it.

 

[Polk]

Maybe you should read instead of watching MSNBC for your news. Peterson v Obama is one case that challenged Obamacare on the presentment cause issues that was dismissed.

I actually watch very little television. I was referring to cases that actually had legs (NFIB v. Sebelius, etc.), not the health care equivalent of birther suits.

Your dismissal of the rights of individuals just proves how stupid you are. Individuals have as much right to challenge federal laws as states.

The National Federation of Independent Business isn't a state. The point is that Peterson's suit was completely without merit.

 

[Polk]

You are being hypocritical because you argue that the government should not have a say in doctor patient relations vis a vis abortions, yet you have no problem with it when it comes to Obamacare.

Personally, I oppose it across the board.

Where did I argue that the government should have a say in doctor-patient relations? The question being asked is about what the community will pay for. Medicare doesn't pay for face lifts, yet there are thousands of them performed every year.


If anything, that's the net result of your preferred system of taking the power away from patients and giving it to insurance companies (I am aware you'll dispute that's what your position does, but it does).

You support punishing hospitals that discharge and readmit patients without once considering the fact that doctors and patients both might see a reason for a discharge and readmission, deal with it.

Once again, that's not a determination on if the patient can be readmitted. It's about what the community will pay for.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

Perpetuation of the will of the proletariat isn't -our- government's function, thankfully, as we're not a democracy.

Our government's role is pretty clearly spelled out in the founding documents.

This doesn't necessarily apply to the current topic, but I do like to point it out when I see the misconception.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I actually watch very little television. I was referring to cases that actually had legs (NFIB v. Sebelius, etc.), not the health care equivalent of birther suits.

Your dismissal of the rights of individuals just proves how stupid you are. Individuals have as much right to challenge federal laws as states.

The National Federation of Independent Business isn't a state. The point is that Peterson's suit was completely without merit.

Peterson's suit was not without merit, it was without standing. Since he was challenging a tax that did not exist at the time, I can see why there was no standing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I argue that the government should have a say in doctor-patient relations? The question being asked is about what the community will pay for. Medicare doesn't pay for face lifts, yet there are thousands of them performed every year.


If anything, that's the net result of your preferred system of taking the power away from patients and giving it to insurance companies (I am aware you'll dispute that's what your position does, but it does).

You support punishing hospitals that discharge and readmit patients without once considering the fact that doctors and patients both might see a reason for a discharge and readmission, deal with it.

Once again, that's not a determination on if the patient can be readmitted. It's about what the community will pay for.

By telling the hospital it cannot discharge a patient for any reason and later readmit him you are interfering in the doctor client relationship. Doesn't it make more sense to send a patient home, if possible, in order to save money, than to force them to stay in the hospital?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards). To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

Unconcerned with what it means to her. Sorry if that sounds "socially Darwinian", but if the government's only means of paying for her treatment is forceably taking my money to do it, at what point does what I feel become a consideration?

In absence of a hard moral standard (proof of God, proof of some purpose for our existence, none of which we have), nobody's morality can said to be correct. This is why the purpose of government, in my view, should simply be to protect everybody's freedom to act according to their -own- morals, free from the subjugation of anyone else's. The purpose of government should -not- be to decide that, because this patient is in a really bad position, the moral thing for me to do is pay for her procedure, and then force me to act according to that morality.

Hate to sound cold, because on a personal level I'm actually a very generous person. Regardless of my personal code, however, I DO NOT condone forcing people to be generous. Ever. My morals say it's better for that patient to die than for society to be subjugated to any degree on her behalf.

Don't like it? Show me proof that your morals are correct and mine are wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Polk]

You support punishing hospitals that discharge and readmit patients without once considering the fact that doctors and patients both might see a reason for a discharge and readmission, deal with it.

Once again, that's not a determination on if the patient can be readmitted. It's about what the community will pay for.

By telling the hospital it cannot discharge a patient for any reason and later readmit him you are interfering in the doctor client relationship. Doesn't it make more sense to send a patient home, if possible, in order to save money, than to force them to stay in the hospital?

Nothing prevents the hospital from discharging a patient. What the provision does is prevent hospitals from pushing patients out the door as quickly as possible, then racking up money on readmissions. It instead creates an incentive to completely treat the illness the first time.

 

[Polk]

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards). To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

Unconcerned with what it means to her. Sorry if that sounds "socially Darwinian", but if the government's only means of paying for her treatment is forceably taking my money to do it, at what point does what I feel become a consideration?

In absence of a hard moral standard (proof of God, proof of some purpose for our existence, none of which we have), nobody's morality can said to be correct. This is why the purpose of government, in my view, should simply be to protect everybody's freedom to act according to their -own- morals, free from the subjugation of anyone else's. The purpose of government should -not- be to decide that, because this patient is in a really bad position, the moral thing for me to do is pay for her procedure, and then force me to act according to that morality.

Hate to sound cold, because on a personal level I'm actually a very generous person. Regardless of my personal code, however, I DO NOT condone forcing people to be generous. Ever. My morals say it's better for that patient to die than for society to be subjugated to any degree on her behalf.

Don't like it? Show me proof that your morals are correct and mine are wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

That's an odd argument, since you state no one's morals are right, but that your morals deserve superior consideration.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, that's not a determination on if the patient can be readmitted. It's about what the community will pay for.

By telling the hospital it cannot discharge a patient for any reason and later readmit him you are interfering in the doctor client relationship. Doesn't it make more sense to send a patient home, if possible, in order to save money, than to force them to stay in the hospital?

Nothing prevents the hospital from discharging a patient. What the provision does is prevent hospitals from pushing patients out the door as quickly as possible, then racking up money on readmissions. It instead creates an incentive to completely treat the illness the first time.

Exactly my point. If the patient wants to go home, and the doctor sees no problem with it, but they both understand that the illness will require a readmission, they are fucked.

 

[dblack]

I don't care about the force in any case. The role of government in a democracy is to represent the community's preferences, not any given individual (including myself).

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards).

How would you characterize that limit? Isn't that what constitutionally limited government is all about?

To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

So, I'm not quite sure how to parse this. I can certainly understand that in a desperate situation freedom is a moot point, and one might be willing to violate the rights of others. I know, speaking for myself, I'd be willing to lie, cheat and steal etc..(and suffer the consequences of whatever laws I broke in the process) if it were truly necessary to save the life of a loved one. But at the same time, I don't think such behavior should be 'legal' per se. And it certainly shouldn't be institutionalized as state policy.

You seem to be suggesting that simply needing something is justification for taking it from someone else. Can you elaborate? Am I missing something?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards). To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

Unconcerned with what it means to her. Sorry if that sounds "socially Darwinian", but if the government's only means of paying for her treatment is forceably taking my money to do it, at what point does what I feel become a consideration?

In absence of a hard moral standard (proof of God, proof of some purpose for our existence, none of which we have), nobody's morality can said to be correct. This is why the purpose of government, in my view, should simply be to protect everybody's freedom to act according to their -own- morals, free from the subjugation of anyone else's. The purpose of government should -not- be to decide that, because this patient is in a really bad position, the moral thing for me to do is pay for her procedure, and then force me to act according to that morality.

Hate to sound cold, because on a personal level I'm actually a very generous person. Regardless of my personal code, however, I DO NOT condone forcing people to be generous. Ever. My morals say it's better for that patient to die than for society to be subjugated to any degree on her behalf.

Don't like it? Show me proof that your morals are correct and mine are wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

That's an odd argument, since you state no one's morals are right, but that your morals deserve superior consideration.

More of a logical assertion than a moral one. Since nobody's morals are right, none should be forced on anyone.

Think about it: Taking my money to do something moral is, in essence, forcing me to act according to that morality.

Me not giving my money to this patient is -not- the same as me forcing my morals on her. I've forced nothing on this woman.

See the difference?

I'm saying my morals deserve -equal- consideration, i.e. don't force yours on me and I won't force mine on you. Very simple.

 

[Polk]

By telling the hospital it cannot discharge a patient for any reason and later readmit him you are interfering in the doctor client relationship. Doesn't it make more sense to send a patient home, if possible, in order to save money, than to force them to stay in the hospital?

Nothing prevents the hospital from discharging a patient. What the provision does is prevent hospitals from pushing patients out the door as quickly as possible, then racking up money on readmissions. It instead creates an incentive to completely treat the illness the first time.

Exactly my point. If the patient wants to go home, and the doctor sees no problem with it, but they both understand that the illness will require a readmission, they are fucked.

But that doesn't make any sense. Why would the patient want to be discharged, then turn around and come back to the hospital in a few days for the same condition?

 

[Polk]

And that simply comes around to a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I DON'T think the role of government is, or should be, to "represent the community's preferences". It should be to protect our rights and freedom to live our lives according to our own preferences.

We need government to resolve situations where our preferences come into conflict, not to decide which preferences are "correct" and force them on all of us.

I stated my position in a maximalist manner (there is obviously some limit at which the freedom of the individual is not constrained by community standards).

How would you characterize that limit? Isn't that what constitutionally limited government is all about?

I think that's a much more fact-specific question.

To address your rebuttal, the problem is that simply protecting the "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" often presents a meaningless choice. If someone is dying from an easily treatable medical condition, but doesn't have the resources to afford going to the emergency room, that the government won't pay for her treatment because that would restrict "freedom to live our lives according to our preferences" doesn't mean very much to her.

So, I'm not quite sure how to parse this. I can certainly understand that in a desperate situation freedom is a moot point, and one might be willing to violate the rights of others. I know, speaking for myself, I'd be willing to lie, cheat and steal etc..(and suffer the consequences of whatever laws I broke in the process) if it were truly necessary to save the life of a loved one. But at the same time, I don't think such behavior should be 'legal' per se. And it certainly shouldn't be institutionalized as state policy.

You seem to be suggesting that simply needing something is justification for taking it from someone else. Can you elaborate? Am I missing something?

I think you've got the idea generally, but your suggestion is quite a bit further than I would be willing to go (unless you're framing it in a "taxation is theft" way).