Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, it sounds to me like you're just quibbling. You don't seem to have much against Obamacare, you just don't like the lies, and in the end it will cost the Dems politically. If Obmacare is a good thing, then the Dems are to be admired for their courage and willingness to lose votes.

I am not necessarily saying I think Obamacare is a good thing, not at all.

I am saying, that it seems fair and decent to me, that we have some risk-sharing mechanism where healthy people (who could get sick at any time) subsidize sick people in some way. If we could accomplish that without the federal government being involved, I would prefer that. I know that Catholic hospitals (which I donate to) will treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. So we do have some of that. But maybe we could level the playing field a bit more?

I don't think anyone should endure a lifelong financial burden for something they have zero control over. Nor do I think that healthy people 'deserve' the lifelong financial windfall that comes with being healthy.

I am not talking about health expenses that are within one's control...if you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, I don't want you reaching into my pocket.

I'm not saying I like Obamacare. But I guess I am saying that the strict libertarian view on this, seems a bit callous to me.

Maybe I'm not saying anything, I don't know.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am not necessarily saying I think Obamacare is a good thing, not at all.

I didn't think you did. I was just baiting you to bring you out into a wider discussion. To delve into more than the economics and feasibility of it. Which, to a brief extent, you did.

I am saying, that it seems fair and decent to me, that we have some risk-sharing mechanism where healthy people (who could get sick at any time) subsidize sick people in some way.

That is an economic consideration that needs to be worked out after the decision to implement such a mechanism. The initial stage involves the fairness of forcing people to share in something they don't wish to do. And it involves who decides. It involves PRINCIPLES of fairness and decency and coercion and liberty. Collectivist societies have little problem deciding and implementing such mechanisms, and the cost, for such societies, is secondary, or even less in importance. Consider in what kind of society you live in, or wish to live in, before you decide what kind of mechanism creates the subsidies and who, or what part of your society decides.

If we could accomplish that without the federal government being involved, I would prefer that.

I agree with that. Further, I believe it is beyond preference, but a necessity that the federal government stay out of mandating, decision making, and the mechanics of how it works. I believe, not just because of constitutionality, that the federal gvt. would be far more effective and less costly to run if it stuck to its constitutional limitations. The all expansive role it plays in our lives and the massive and expanding size of its bureaucracy, are absolute prescriptions for failure, for snafus, breakdowns, constant need of repair and reform, not to speak of the accompanying dictatorial methods required to operate as it does. How less likely a Benghazi incident would be if the federal gvt. were only involved with its constitutional duties. The time, resources, money, effort, systemic planning involved in managing a myriad of duties is far more costly and susceptible to failure compared to the focus on more limited objectives and their financing. Benghazi is a constitutional federal responsibility. More attention paid to it than on nonconstitutional objectives would auger more success in eliminating such tragedies.

I was amazed how the government's prescription for making General Motors successful was to downsize it, to eliminate two of its car lines, renegotiate union contracts and pension liabilities so that they were affordable, yet it couldn't look in the mirror and see that it needed to do the same thing. So GM is now financially viable, mean and lean heading toward a future of success--so long as it stays the course of fiscal responsibility and remains a competitive size. The federal gvt. on the other hand is a bureaucratic mess, verging on the bankruptcy it bailed GM out of, failing on many "small" missions while it tries to gather larger and more expansive ones--as was GM before it employed the government prescription.

I know that Catholic hospitals (which I donate to) will treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. So we do have some of that. But maybe we could level the playing field a bit more?

Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate on contraceptives may mean that those hospitals will either have to abandon a core belief or abandon the wonderful charitable work. I haven't followed that--maybe that has been favorably resolved?

And I strongly believe we would have much more of that kind of charity if mandated federal "help" to the needy were eliminated and left to local governments and private concerns. That has always been an American tradition which has been dampened by government takeover of charity. That has "leveled the playing field" but dampened the natural human spirit of kindness, compassion, and charity. I think that has even contributed to an expansion of cruelty, violence, and lack of human empathy in our society.

I don't think anyone should endure a lifelong financial burden for something they have zero control over. Nor do I think that healthy people 'deserve' the lifelong financial windfall that comes with being healthy.

I am not talking about health expenses that are within one's control...if you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, I don't want you reaching into my pocket.

Charitable help exists even outside of Catholic charities--there are actual charities that can be applied to for help by the needy and to whom hospitals can refer patients who are unable to pay. I do think that those who are more conscious of health maintenance and practice it (which BTW can be costly) do deserve a financial break for their effort

I'm not saying I like Obamacare. But I guess I am saying that the strict libertarian view on this, seems a bit callous to me.

Maybe I'm not saying anything, I don't know.

Yeah, you are saying something. You are a very fair and decent man. Your heart is very much in the right place and you have good things to say about most issues. I don't know what a libertarian is, nor a strict one. So many say they are libertarian but disagree on much. If the core value that all subscribe to is liberty with its cognate of responsibility, I don't thing that portion is callous. I think it is that portion that creates the wealth, and innovation, and distribution of both in society at large. What may seem compassionate, if doled out by a dispassionate distant monopolizing central power, can be destructive of the spirit that informs that portion.

[Jim in CT]

Good debate as usual detbuch. My fear is that in the absence of government programs, more sick people will suffer than I am comfortable with. The government programs, however, must be well-run, and our federal government doesn't do much well.

Some famous person said something to the effect of "that government is best which governs the least". I subscribe to that. One of the limited things that I'd prefer that the government attempt to do, is help people, especially those who are suffering through no fault of their own.

There are a lot of people out there, doing incredible charitable work, but I'm assuming there's not enough voluntary charity to help everyone who needs it. I'm no expert on these things, but I wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy.

My view on a strict libertarian is someone who believes everyone should be left to their own devices. I always found that to be self-centered.

Thanks for the kind words.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are a lot of people out there, doing incredible charitable work, but I'm assuming there's not enough voluntary charity to help everyone who needs it. I'm no expert on these things, but I wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy.

My view on a strict libertarian is someone who believes everyone should be left to their own devices. I always found that to be self-centered.

should probably start with a pretty good definition...like most things there is a spectrum...there is in fact "libertarian socialism"..I assume a true libertarian socialist would agree that he may and is free to "reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management" but not force that ideaology on others through government force..

I think you confuse "left to their own devices" with a desire to be "free" from the "initiation of force" from government....I think a libertarian would tell you that charities would benefit far more in terms of charitable works and contributions if the individual, "left to their own devices", was working more for their own benefit and those that they associate with and less an effort to support the machinations of a behemoth central government, the government that you would like to have dole out only what charity is necessary and to only those who need it has sufficiently proven itself unable to do so in any responsible or sustainable way....this concept that without government there to provide, many would be left to wallow is something that I've heard many times from our President

"President Obama today delivered an impassioned attack on what he called Republicans’ “cramped narrow conception” of liberty, during a fiery speech at a campaign fundraiser in Vermont.

Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] The Cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power . Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

so you see the.... "positive conception of liberty"(conveniently created) is not liberty at all but socialism which is the polar opposite of "negative conception of liberty"(mis-named by the creators of the positive conception of liberty) and the two are not compatible which explains the ultimate problem that we have currently in our society....the most successful dictators on the planet historically have built their causes on the "positive conceptions of various "liberties", it's a ruse ...and it works"



Before an electrified crowd of 4500 – his largest of the campaign to date – Obama framed the 2012 campaign as a stark choice between two diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies.

“Their philosophy is simple: you’re on your own,” Obama said of the GOP.

“You’re on your own if you’re out of work, can’t find a job. Tough luck you’re on your own. You don’t have health care: That’s your problem. You’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own. They believe that’s how America is advanced,” he said.

“That’s the cramped narrow conception they have of liberty, and they are wrong,” he said. “They are wrong.”


under Obama's "warped concept of liberty"....we give government the excuse to take and dole out and grow beyond it's necessity and means as it pleases all on the assumption that individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves and those around them when it is fact proven time and again that it is government that is ill equipped to preform this task(I think you have pointed this out repeatedly)...pretty sure the Founding Fathers pointed this out too...a long time ago when the concept of libertarianism was hatched

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold freedom as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent.[7] While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17] (see libertarian socialism).

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19] The U.S. Libertarian Party promotes individual sovereignty and seeks an end to coercion, advocating a government that is limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force.[20


btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?

"CNN has been pondering what they call “a particularly tough few days at the White House.” “Four out of five Americans have little or no trust in their government to do anything right,” says chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “And now Obama probably feels the same way.” Our hearts go out to him, poor wee disillusioned thing. We are assured by the headline writers that the president was “unaware” of Obamacare’s website defects, and the NSA spying, and the IRS targeting of his political enemies, and the Justice Department bugging the Associated Press, and pretty much anything else you ask him about. But, as he put it, “nobody’s madder than me” at this shadowy rogue entity called the “Government of the United States” that’s running around pulling all this stuff. And, once he finds out who’s running this Government of the United States rogue entity, he’s gonna come down as hard on him as he did on that videomaker in California; he’s gonna send round the National Park Service SWAT team to teach that punk a lesson he won’t forget."

"But the fact remains that nowhere in the Western world has the governmentalization of health care been so incompetently introduced and required protection by such a phalanx of lies. Obamacare is not a left–right issue; it’s a fraud issue."

brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?


brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.