From the VOMITORIUM
Everyone of us has heard the argument on the individual mandate….whether it is good or bad or maybe even a bit evil……but why the individual mandate? And since so many of us will be voting with the idea that Obamacare can be repealed, I thought I would tackle the most controversial part of the health act.
It was a compromise to keep the public option off the negotiating table….yep, it is that simple! What about a simple explanation? Andrew Turner’s explanation…….
The reasoning behind the individual mandate is simply that everyone uses healthcare, whether they are insured or not, because doctors and nurses treat everyone whether they can or cannot pay, because of an oath they take as healthcare providers. So, when those without insurance receive treatment, the cost of that treatment is placed on those who are insured, driving up costs exponentially each year. If everyone is mandated to buy insurance, everyone will “pay his or her fair share.” That’s the idea behind it, at least.
Many Republican leaders would have you believe that the individual mandate was a devil child of Obama and Stalin, but it’s actually forced capitalism, not socialism. Until Obama advocated for the mandate, many Democrats and Republicans supported it. In fact, it was a Republican idea originally, implemented by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney while he was governor of Massachusetts.
Simple, huh?
In closing let me quote “Political Wire”…….
The Obama administration will soon announce $1.3 billion in rebate checks to nearly 16 million Americans from health insurance companies.
Mark Halperin: “From almost the moment the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a “ObamaCare”) was signed into law, the administration has been playing defense… But the rebate provision of the law — the fruits of the so-called ’80/20 rule’ — is about to kick in big time, as millions of Americans receive rebate checks or premium reductions from insurance companies who have failed to spend enough on patient care. This cash could be a true game changer in public attitudes about whether the law actually is beneficial and good public policy.”
How will it play in the campaigns?
Yes, it would seem the true Libertarians and the pro-corporate conservatives are at odds over this mandate because it is the health insurance industry that is pushing for the mandate and who hope to gain all these new accounts from the young turks who don’t yet feel they need health insurance
Larry, I am thinking that if SCOTUS rules against Obama…it could make the public option more appealing….
REALITY!! And A Fix for Unemployment, Homelessness and Hunger
In addition to fixing healthcare the right way we need a NewDeal. We need a permanent and updated FDR WPA (Works Progress Administration). A Full employment act requiring the government to provide a job for everyone able to work that wants to work at a living wage or better. At safe, meaningful work where they live. Guaranteed by the US government. With free or very affordable excellent healthcare and free or very affordable education and training for advancement or just personal enrichment.
( http://my.firedoglake.com/iflizwerequeen/2011/05/16/how-about-a-little-truth-about-what-the-majority-want-for-health-care/ )
( Gov. Peter Shumlin: Real Healthcare reform — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yFUbkVCsZ4 )
( Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator — http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html )
( Briefing: Dean Baker on Boosting the Economy by Saving Healthcare http://t.co/fmVz8nM )
START NOW!
As you all know. Had congress passed a single-payer or government-run robust Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one, our economy and jobs would have taken off like a rocket. And still will. Single-payer would be best. But a government-run robust Public Option CHOICE! that can lead to a single-payer system is the least you can accept. It’s not about competing with for-profit healthcare and for-profit health insurance. It’s about replacing it with Universal Healthcare Assurance. Everyone knows this now.
The message from the midterm elections was clear. The American people want real healthcare reform. They want that individual mandate requiring them to buy private health insurance abolished. And they want a government-run robust public option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one. And they want it now.
They want Drug re-importation, and abolishment, or strong restrictions on patents for biologic and prescription drugs. And government controlled and negotiated drug and medical cost. They want back control of their healthcare system from the Medical Industrial Complex. And they want it NOW!
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT, AND MUST NOT, ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO STAND WITHOUT A STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
For-profit health insurance is extremely unethical, and morally repugnant. It’s as morally repugnant as slavery was. And few if any decent Americans are going to allow them-self to be compelled to support such an unethical and immoral crime against humanity.
This is a matter of National and Global security. There can be NO MORE EXCUSES.
Further, we want that corrupt, undemocratic filibuster abolished. Whats the point of an election if one corrupt member of congress can block the will of the people, and any legislation the majority wants. And do it in secret. Give me a break people.
Also, unemployment healthcare benefits are critically needed. But they should be provided through the Medicare program at cost, less the 65% government premium subsidy provided now to private for profit health insurance.
Congress should stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on private for profit health insurance subsidies. Subsidies that cost the taxpayer 10x as much or more than Medicare does. Private for profit health insurance plans cost more. But provide dangerous and poorer quality patient care.
Republicans: GET RID OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Democrats: ADD A ROBUST GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION TO HEALTHCARE REFORM.
This is what the American people are shouting at you. Both parties have just enough power now to do what the American people want. GET! IT! DONE! NOW!
If congress does not abolish the individual mandate. And establish a government-run public option CHOICE! before the end of 2011. EVERY! member of congress up for reelection in 2012 will face strong progressive pro public option, and anti-individual mandate replacement candidates.
Strong progressive pro “PUBLIC OPTION” CHOICE! and anti-individual mandate volunteer candidates should begin now. And start the process of replacing any and all members of congress that obstruct, or fail to add a government-run robust PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! before the end of 2011.
We need two or three very strong progressive volunteer candidates for every member of congress that will be up for reelection in 2012. You should be fully prepared to politically EVISCERATE EVERY INCUMBENT that fails or obstructs “THE PUBLIC OPTION”. And you should be willing to step aside and support the strongest pro “PUBLIC OPTION” candidate if the need arises.
ASSUME CONGRESS WILL FAIL and SELLOUT again. So start preparing now to CUT THEIR POLITICAL THROATS. You can always step aside if they succeed. But only if they succeed. We didn’t have much time to prepare before these past midterm elections. So the American people had to use a political shotgun approach. But by 2012 you will have a scalpel.
Congress could have passed a robust government-run public option during it’s lame duck session. They knew what the American people wanted. They already had several bills on record. And the house had already passed a public option. Departing members could have left with a truly great accomplishment. And the rest of you could have solidified your job before the 2012 elections.
President Obama, you promised the American people a strong public option available to everyone. And the American people overwhelmingly supported you for it. Maybe it just wasn’t possible before. But it is now.
Knock heads. Threaten people. Or do whatever you have to. We will support you. But get us that robust public option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one before the end of 2011. Or We The People Of The United States will make the past midterm election look like a cake walk in 2012. And it will include you.
We still have a healthcare crisis in America. With hundreds of thousands dieing needlessly every year in America. And a for profit medical industrial complex that threatens the security and health of the entire world. They have already attacked the world with H1N1 killing thousands, and injuring millions. And more attacks are planned for profit, and to feed their greed.
Spread the word people.
Progressives, prepare the American peoples scalpels. It’s time to remove some politically diseased tissues.
God Bless You my fellow human beings. I’m proud to be one of you. You did good.
See you on the battle field.
Sincerely
jacksmith – WorkingClass 🙂
Andrew Turner’s explanation is decent, but misleading. For example, healthcare professionals treat uninsured people because a Federal law says they must, not because of some lofty oath.
The best response I’ve read to the “everyone uses health care” rationale is by Ilya Somin of George Mason School of Law;
So the rationale is really quite ridiculous because health insurance is quite different than health care. Liberals never seem to want to point that out.
The Public Option is only appealing to those who don’t care about the quality of the American healthcare system.
That’s not true at all Terrance. That’s a political perspective that’s created part of the gridlock in this country.
Liberals look at more than how health insurance affects the ability of some to get quality health care by trying to address factors that affect childhood obesity and lung diseases in all age groups, to cite just two examples.
Promoting healthy diets and exercise would reduce childhood obesity but the Sarah Palins and Michele Bachmans of the American political scene deride Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! efforts simply because they have made the President’s wife their enemy.
Efforts to curb the use of coal-fired power plants would reduce serious lung-related diseases in this country yet pro-corporate politicians oppose such efforts by the EPA while they promote the use of the dirtier sources of oil and coal.
If you want to have an open, honest debate about this don’t initiate it by declaring everything bad as a “liberal” factor. That’ll shut the conversation down post haste.
Larry,
Whoa! Are you talking to me? Anyway…
What part isn’t true? You have five options:
1). Andrew Turner’s explanation is decent, but misleading…
2). Healthcare professionals tend to the uninsured because a Federal law says they must….
3). Somin’s explanation…
4). The rationale is quite ridiculous because health care and the health insurance market are two different things…
5). The Public Option is only appealing to those who don’t care about the quality of the American health care system…
I fail to see which assertion is untrue…Based on the rest of your reply, I’m guessing you take issue with the fifth assertion. So, I’m going to respond in kind…
Basically, you’re suggesting that liberals somehow corner the market on pushing preventative care. I think that’s a patently ridiculous and insulting suggestion. Conservatives realize the dangers of childhood obesity, smoking, drinking, and so on. We not only view those things through the moral prism of humanity, but also, to your dismay, the economic prism of cost/benefit analysis. When people don’t take care of themselves, it costs more money! That reason alone is enough for conservatives to support preventive care measures, but the crucial difference is that conservatives also believe in freedom and individual decision making. LIberals want to force things on people; conservatives want to encourage people to make better decisions.
Terrance, just because our health care is the most expensive in the world does not make it the best. I think that a good basic are could do a lot to prevent the more expensive tests that all doctors want to run….a good basic care could help prevent diabetes or a much more debilitating disease….
Lobotero,
The quality of the American healthcare system far surpasses that of any other nation. That’s just a reality you’re going to have to accept.
Terrance, I will say that our doctors and nurses are dome of the best….unfortunately, the insurance situation is part of that system and that sucks.
Lob,
If you would, in my post to Larry above, could you edit it and find where I failed to close the blockquote tag…Thxs…
Terrance, the comment is okay…it came thru fine.
How goes the car thing? And how is baby Kian and wife?
Lobotero,
The car thing? LOL. Ugh. I hate Chryslers! I’m still in the process of rebuilding the engine, but right now I’m making my own gaskets to save money. A gasket kit for my car is over $230! That’s just for the head gasket, valve cover gasket and head bolts. I dont’ have that kind of money to spending on things like that, so I make my own gaskets.
Kian is doing quite well, but we had to switch his formula to Gentlease because he was spitting up too much. We might still have to switch him to Prosobee or some other soy-based formula, as he may be lactose intolerant. Don’t know just yet.
The wife is doing well. Thanks for asking.
BTW, if I decide to blow up my car with heavy explosives, I’ll be posting it on my blog.
Terrance, I understand the frustration…I use to own a FIAT, a “Fix It Again Tony”, I worked on the damn thing for a year and finally after lots of cash and scrapped knuckles and time wasted…I drove it off a pier and turned it into a fishing reef….
Glad to hear all are doing well…..when can we see the young man?
You’re right. I should have been more specific. I was commenting on your unsubstantiated general premise of how ” Liberals never seem to want to point the difference between health insurance and health care”.
And if you think Sarah Palin’s comments about Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program is about forcing things on people or else making them feel guilty about their lifestyle then you are being overly sensitive. Childhood obesity is a reality and a health threat for that generation and effects out of pocket expenses for ALL Americans, whether you have health insurance or not. Bringing it to the publics attention is a service and an effort we should all be engaged in and trying to make this some kind of bogey man about “government over reach” is just plain silly.
“Basically, you’re suggesting that liberals somehow corner the market on pushing preventative care.”
This is why it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with you Terrance. I made no such suggestion but was merely pointing out how you were engaging in hyperbole. I agree completely that there are both conservatives and liberals who are working on preventative health maintenance. The fact that liberals think their government should also be involved doesn’t signify that they don’t want some non-governmental efforts to achieve success here. But even if the government is there for information purposes only, as is the Let’s Move campaign, why should this be offensive to someone who still gets to make their own choices. The Let’s Move program is no more an undue influence than the hype that is presented in any quarter pounder ad for McDonald’s
So please. Next time you make such a broad based assertion, allow for the fact that there are plenty of exceptions to such a premise. Your comment was derogatory and subjective. It presents itself as wanting to fight rather than debate the issue.
Larry,
In case you didn’t notice, my claim is clearly not unsubstantiated. Somin does a nice job of explaining the difference between the two markets, so I suggest you give it another peek and then explain to me why the liberal reasoning for the individual mandate couldn’t also be used to justify a massive expansion of federal power.
The reason most medical breakthroughs happen in the United States is due to the profit motive. Drug companies don’t produce lifesaving drugs for the hell of it. To take the profit incentive out of the American healthcare system, like liberals want to do, will result in fewer breakthroughs. Government-run healthcare will also result in cost containment strategies, like denying palliative care to children like Canada’s baby Joseph. Notwithstanding your bastardly cries to the contrary, these are truths whether you like it or not.
The Let’s Move program is part of a larger effort to totally transform school lunchrooms. Healthier school lunches is fine, but when home-brought lunches are being taken away or supplemented because they “don’t conform to FDA standards,” then government is definitely putting its big nose where it doesn’t belong. The effort to make kids and parents feel bad about their lifestyle is yet another example of government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. That’s what Palin and Bachmann were reacting to, whether you realize it or not.
You said:
You mentioned liberals but not conservatives. If you agree completely that both are concerned with preventive care, why were you so exclusionary?
For you to even suggest that liberals don’t try to modify “bad behavior” via higher taxes or force, then you’re delusional. Look at the taxes in New York City, for crying out loud. Regular pop (soda to you) is taxed at a higher rate than diet soda. In San Francisco, Happy Meals can no longer be sold with toys. How ridiculous. Shouldn’t it be left to the parents to decide whether their child will eat at McDonald’s? Shouldn’t people exercise some personal responsibility and tell their children “NO!”
So don’t pretend that liberals aren’t in the business of forcing their agenda on people. These are the things that Palin, Bachmann, and myself (if I can include myself alongside such wonderful conservatives) are opposed to. We see something like the Let’s Move campaign and the simultaneous modification of school lunches and naturally we become suspicious – for good reason. Government should mind its own business, which, if I may say, doesn’t include what I choose to eat or drink or feed my children.
My comment was utterly true and supported. I don’t want to fight with liberals. It’s no secret that I can’t stand them, but I do make an effort to get along with them. I don’t, for example, end friendships or ban people over political differences.
“Somin does a nice job of explaining the difference between the two markets, so I suggest you give it another peek and then explain to me why the liberal reasoning for the individual mandate couldn’t also be used to justify a massive expansion of federal power.”
Somin’s essay has several errors in fact and judgement. For example, he states that the new law’s “individual mandate,” requires most American citizens to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014 or pay a fine.
The fact is “Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week — the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate — because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income — or given subsidies to comply.” SOURCE
He then conjectures that if the mandate is accepted by the courts, “they would give Congress the power to enact virtually any mandate of any kind.”
Based on what? His own innate fear? Throwing stuff out there like that without citing any precedent is simple fear mongering? And how pray tell too are private insurance policies NOT a commercial product as he states?
Sorry, if you think Somin has the answers then your either pretty gullible or simply unwilling to fact check this guy.
“You mentioned liberals but not conservatives. If you agree completely that both are concerned with preventive care, why were you so exclusionary?”
I mentioned liberals sans the conservatives because you stated that “Liberals never seem to want to point” out the distinction of health insurance and taking preventative action. The fact that I didn’t mention them in my response to you on this comment doesn’t negate my general understanding that some liberals and conservatives are on the same page about this.
“For you to even suggest that liberals don’t try to modify “bad behavior” via higher taxes or force, then you’re delusional.”,/i>
You keep putting words in my mouth. Please direct your comments to what I am really saying. I believe we were talking about the Let’s Move! program. You took my comments and tried to extrapolate them to something that had nothing to do with Let’s Move! If you think there is legislation that has derived from the Let’s Move program, please provide an authoritative link, not some comment from a right-wing talking head.
“Shouldn’t it be left to the parents to decide whether their child will eat at McDonald’s? Shouldn’t people exercise some personal responsibility and tell their children “NO!””
If they were doing so in significant numbers we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. You give some people too much credit for doing the right thing. Both you and I know too that there are people out there that know very little what good child rearing is all about. When they don’t raise their kids with minimum social skills and educate them on how best to take care of themselves, society usually wounds up having to deal with it in some form, including monetary and legal costs. A better educated public would help improve this but then gee, we don’t want to have people trying to make us smarter do we?
I understand your libertarian take on any government action that tries to prevent people from killing themselves, like the law in some states to make them wear helmets if they ride a motor cycle. But things like obesity and injuries sustained from not wearing a helmet really don’t affect just the people who gorge themselves are let their hair fly free in the wind. When epidemics occur like obesity
or injuries start to escalate from helmet-less bike riders, everyone who buys insurance is affected by such acts because their rates will go up to cover these insurance company losses. Self-serving behavior may be an unalienable right but it may not always effect just the one who chooses to behave as such.
“Government should mind its own business, which, if I may say, doesn’t include what I choose to eat or drink or feed my children.”
Compared to McDonald’s advertisements, how many government information pieces have you heard or seen suggesting that eating too many greasy hamburgers can contribute to serious health issues? And if you heard two or three a year, that would not only be rare but it would have no affect on you still deciding what to eat. Your promoting a straw man argument here when you take this tact Terrance.
By 2014, employers MUST provide government-approved health plans to employees or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee. Close to 30% of employers would financially benefit from paying the fine, so employees would then be responsible for providing their own healthcare — or paying a fine. It’s very simple, straightforward, and true. The Urban Institute study takes into consideration the raw numbers from 2011, not, quite obviously, 2014 when the law is fully implemented. I can link studies which show that 30% of employers will drop coverage altogether because it’ll be cheaper.
He explains:
Whenever conservatives raise objection to some liberal idea, the self-styled “progressives” it as being rooted in fear. It’s been the liberal tactic since time immemorial.
It seems to me that it’s contrary to liberalism to be so exclusionary. You should choose your words carefully. After all, you don’t want people to get the wrong impression. But I would also note that I didn’t exactly say that. I said: So the rationale is really quite ridiculous because health insurance is quite different than health care. Liberals never seem to want to point that out. I was talking about health insurance being different from health care; the two are separate markets. Liberals seem to believe they are one in the same, but they are not.
Who do you think you’re fooling, Larry? Your rhetorical games and typical liberal trickery doesn’t work on me, buddy.
Oh, you mean like you just did to me above? Typical liberal hypocrisy…
Try the Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which is listed on LetsMove.Gov under “Accomplishments” of the Let’s Move program. On it’s face, the law sounds pretty good. We don’t want or need hungry kids running about. But the law goes much further, in fact. It’s a government-overreach with a price tag of $4.5 billion.
The bill authorizes the USDA to set guidelines for local school districts. To force them, in fact, into compliance with Big Government.
The bill authorizes the supplementation of home-brought lunches to make them “USDA Approved.” Big Government.
The bill also extends so far as to limit the items that can be sold at school fundraisers, bake sales, and parties. Big Government.
The bill will result in more expensive lunches for students who do not qualify to receive free lunches. Big Government.
The bill’s rather loose language is another potential danger. Who knows what could be permissible…
If you want to reduce obesity, poor parenting, and whatever other new “destructive behavior,” then the best way to do so is through education initiatives – not big government mandates that interfere with one’s Constitutional rights. I realize that liberals don’t hold the Constitution in very high regard – except in such cases when it can be twisted to justify the slaughter of innocent children – but it is the supreme law of the land, whether you like it or not.
To the liberal-progressive-socialist, the Constitution is nothing more than a 200+ year-old document that isn’t very useful in today’s world. Of course, you guys have been saying the same thing for over a century. Progressives have been trying to change and devalue the Constitution at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, who actually wrote a rather dismissive book on the Constitution.
If the liberal logic is that anything which may potentially affect society be regulated, then EVERYTHING is regulated. Don’t you understand that? Or don’t you care? Is that what you want? Government involved in every aspect of your life? No thanks.
I don’t care if the government wants to ENCOURAGE healthier lifestyles. The new-fangled anti-smoking campaigns, which I’ve seen quite a bit of, don’t bother me. As long as they don’t FORCE or MANDATE things, I’m fine with education initiatives that encourage healthier lifestyles.
No, I’m not. Do you deny that “unhealthy” foods and drinks are taxed at a higher rate in some areas around the country, like New York City and San Francisco?
“The Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 authorizes the USDA to set guidelines for local school districts. To force them, in fact, into compliance with Big Government.”
Well you make this sound all scary Terrance but the kids still have a choice of what they want to eat by bringing their own lunches. Besides the government that funds these lunches has a right to set certain standards. Standards that many citizens agree with. Thse are not standards that would negatively effect kids but would ultimately make them healthier and more productive; virtues employers seek and serve to keep overall health care costs down.
I should point out that many government over-reach claims you make are simply policies that the electorate has pushed to implement. That’s what elective government is all about. It’s not always this monolithic entity out there to feed itself. On occasion it does do the will of the people. Sometimes you’re in the majority; sometimes your not. That’s how a republican form of government works Terrance.
The fact that this legislation is seen as favorable by the Let’s Move! program is not a testament to your belief that this program forces people to do things they may not choose.
“I can link studies which show that 30% of employers will drop coverage altogether because it’ll be cheaper.”
Perhaps you can but what you can’t do is link me to any study that validates Somin’s claim that the new law’s “individual mandate,” will requires most American citizens to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014. The key word here is “MOST”. That means that at least 50.01 percent of the people will have to be seen as having to “to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014”. Can you provide this link based on statistical analysis, not what the red state bloggers say.
regarding Somin’s premise here: “Notice that the government does not argue that everyone will inevitably use health insurance. Instead, they define the market as “health care.””
I think he is going after a connection that really can’t be supported. His conjecture is that liberals and Democrats can’t tell the difference when they’re talking about insurance and how it is a part of the broader health care issue. That’s just nonsense. The ability to pay for health care when people really do become ill is an argument that is stressed by Democrats where conservatives seem to want to dance around this and complain that “if they had taken better care of themselves then they would have to pay for treatment”. Well duh! If people are not properly informed about preventive care with such sources as Let’s Move! and even nudged toward it by such laws as the Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 then making insurance less of an issue is not likely to happen. The fact that people can make choices doesn’t mean they know all the options.
One thing that I probably should have done from the very beginning Terrance is address an underlying assumption of your – that liberals somehow support the mandate. Nothing could be further from the truth and though some pundits may support it in their blogs and columns, they do reluctantly to get the weak health reform law established and into the mainstream. Some benefits of the AffordableCareAct are important and need to become part of the law of the land, like eliminating the right to refuse insurance to anyone with a “pre-existing” condition.
The mandate is odious to all liberals simply because it provides more customers for the private health insurance companies. This industry may oppose many of the new rules in the ACA but the mandate is secretly something they’re pushing and rooting for. The last thing we need is more middle-man coverage for financially strapped people where their bottom line takes more away from what should be covered by a consumer’s premium dollar.
“If the liberal logic is that anything which may potentially affect society be regulated, then EVERYTHING is regulated. Don’t you understand that? Or don’t you care? Is that what you want? Government involved in every aspect of your life?”
No, we’re on the same page in general here Terrance but you can’t make exceptions. When the government wants to invade the privacy of a woman who has become pregnant by forcing them to view a vaginal probe of their uterus or that wants to deny some the right to choose their own same sex partner, that a position that you don’t seem to defend, based on your views of government over reach.
But I’m not paranoid when it comes to some government regulations affecting my life. On simple matters like drinking sodas with higher taxes, my life isn’t being altered for the worse. I may disagree with their attempt to alter my buying habits but in the long run I win if I avoid these sources of ill-health. I simply don’t see this as a threat to my freedom. Extrapolating the worst scene scenarios on such small time matters makes for good soap box drama but is really not the bogey man many imagine it is. We all share space here so there will be some rules that as a community we have to endure. Panicking isn’t a solution.
“Do you deny that “unhealthy” foods and drinks are taxed at a higher rate in some areas around the country, like New York City and San Francisco?”,/i>
No I don’t, but neither do I leap to the hysterical position that this represents a big-brother state. Higher taxes on soft drinks in a city and state that accommodate about 5% of the country’s population is hardly a menace to someone like you who lives in Michigan. If you want to oppose the use of taxes that hurt many while helping a few, you might want to focus more on corporate welfare like the oil subsidies we keep providing for the very profitable oil companies. A closer look at who really benefits from government policy might be an eye-opener to you Terrance if you ever get out side the narrow confines that focus only on low and middle income family programs.
Larry, local school districts should be allowed to serve whatever they want. They were doing a fine job of providing healthy options to begin with, since the Department of Education had standards and regulations as well. The crucial difference is that this law takes things much, much further. Did you miss the part where I factually stated that it authorizes schools to SUPPLEMENT home-brought lunches?
Secondly, not all students who attend public school are receiving free lunches. Despite coming from an utterly broke family, I paid for mine. Why should my options have been limited? The government wasn’t buying me lunch.
Such as?
It certainly forces local school districts into compliance by threatening to withhold funds. It forces the individual less, but there is still some mandated modification of behavior. The idea that the lunch I pack for my children will be rifled through and supplemented according to some standard set by some half-assed scientist is infuriating!
The law may not represent intrusive big brother to you, but it certainly does me.
I don’t think anyone truly knows the impact ObamaCare will have, Larry. The Urban Institute admittedly used numbers that exist apart from the law’s implementation. The law doesn’t go into affect until 2014, so to make the assumption, as they did, that employers will continue to provide health insurance after full implementation is simply absurd.
I would also mention that Democrats claim RomneyCare is the template for ObamaCare. If that’s even marginally true, then you would expect a number of affected Americans at least as high as 50%, since 98% of all people in Massachusetts are now covered thanks to RomneyCare. So Somin was simply playing off a popular liberal talking point.
The Urban Institute study itself leaves much to be desired. Consider this article written by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. She is a conservative writing a conservative piece, but using testimony given in front of U.S. Congress as evidence of her point. I could provide you the testimony directly, but I’m too lazy to find it; I had the article bookmarked.
It’s interesting that you criticize me for failing to fact check Mr. Somin, but you didn’t bother to fact check the Urban Institute. A story about a pot and a kettle comes to mind…
You’re smart enough to realize that ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. Given enough time, ObamaCare will usher in a completely government-run healthcare system. Premiums will continue to increase, employers will continue to drop coverage, and eventually people will be forced onto a government plan that they can never get off of. ObamaCare is all part of a broader plan to usher in socialized medicine. This isn’t a rightwing conspiracy, but a simple consideration of the likely and natural evolution ObamaCare must take.
I agree with that portion of the law. So many conservatives liken the rule to a homeowner buying fire insurance after his house has burned down, but that’s an utterly ridiculous comparison. If conservatives want the distinction between humans and non-humans to be understood in other discussions (e.g., abortion), we would do well to understand ourselves. We’re talking about flesh and blood human beings, not brick & mortar buildings.
Don’t even go there, Larry. Abortion involves another human being entirely. Women who abort are negatively impacting and harming another human being. Government most assuredly has a responsibility to step in.
I don’t care one way or the other about same-sex marriage, Larry. In general, I say alter civil unions to the point where they mirror marriages almost exactly. Let homosexual couples enter into civil unions or another contract that mirrors marriage, but don’t call it marriage. I would be fine with that. But all in all, I don’t care about same-sex marriage.
These issues are decidedly different, however. Homosexuals are asking for society to be fundamentally altered and a 2,500 year old custom changed. That isn’t quite the same as government telling me what I can and cannot eat.
The rest of your post makes you sound like Neville Chamberlain.
Larry,
I quite like you. You may not believe it, but I certainly do. I realize you’re an uber-liberal, but I don’t care. You’re a knowledgeable individual from whom I’ve learned quite a bit. You may not realize it, but my argument AGAINST disqualifying people for pre-existing conditions is derived from something you once said.
I am absolutely a conservative Republican, but I’m not automatically opposed to liberal positions. If I hadn’t read your words, I probably would support the disqualification of people based on pre-existing conditions. So you might think I’m some closed-minded Tea Party fanatic, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I can deal with the fact that I’m against abortion and you’re for the choice. I can deal with your liberalism. If you can deal with my conservatism, then there is no reason we can’t be friends who simply disagree A LOT!
LIfe is just too damn short to be so angry all the time. It’s just not worth it. Most conservatives and liberals are GOOD-HEARTED people who simply disagree on the best way to accomplish things. It’s really as simple as that. I have some strong rhetoric at times, but my heart realizes always realizes this truth.
You’re a good man Terrance. Thanks for the olive branch and I will of course gladly accept it.
You feel strongly about your positions and so do I but there is no reason we can’t live in the same space and live without thinking the earth will disappear tomorrow if everyone doesn’t adapt to our ways.
Let’s keep the conversation going without trying to see who can best the other one.
BTW, I’m reading a new book you might find interesting entitled, Justice? What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael J. Sandel. It breaks down a way of looking at justice from three different perspectives: Utilitarian, Freedom and Morality. The Freedom view is one that Libertarians lean towards.
So far it’s helped give me a better insight on how true Libertarians think while also putting some meat on the bones of the other philosophical views I tend favor, not that I don’t share some understandings with the libertarian POV. You ought to check it out and then we might share our own personal takes on it.
Larry,
Thanks. I purchased that book on Amazon, so hopefully it’ll arrive soon. I’m a political book junkie, so thanks for telling me about it.
“Thanks. I purchased that book on Amazon, so hopefully it’ll arrive soon. I’m a political book junkie, so thanks for telling me about it.”
Your welcome Terrance. I look forward to a conversation with you on this.
*always realizes. Ugh. Computer malfunction…
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!|