Obamacare

Bubble181

Bubble181

"Forcing" everyone - including the young and healthy - to get health insurance is what pays for the elderly with pre-existing conditions and the like. Just like car insurances - it's by spreading the cost and risk over everyone that costs stay manageable for all/most.

And yes, most young 24 year old men won't be happy...But it's a reverse lottery. Get into a decent car crash, or get cancer, or turn out to have picked up HIV, or get a child with a serious congenital disease, and you're suddenly damn glad you got that crappy legally obligated insurance thingie instead of selling your house.

Of course there have to be checks and balances. Of course it's, up to a point, redistribution of wealth. Yes, extremists will claim that's "socialist".
However, it is perfectly reasonable to have government mandated/enforced/minimum/whatever health care from a liberal perspective. Assuming everyone-starts-off-equal-and-has-to-rely-on-themselves-to-succeed (opposed to everyone-starts-out-uneven-but-gets-the-same), it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed. Only the most thick-headed of egoists can claim anything and everything coming your way is your own fault/responsibility. Yes, you can start with things liek lung cancer and smoking, or obesity and heart attacks, or even elective medicine (etc etc) as things that might've been avoided, or unnecessary risks taken....Which is exactly what the right is doing over here all the time.
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy; giving everyone not necessarily an equal start but at least protection from certain aspects (turning off "disasters" in SimCity so to speak :p) allows more people to achieve their full potential. Which is what it's supposed to be all about.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
"Forcing" everyone - including the young and healthy - to get health insurance is what pays for the elderly with pre-existing conditions and the like. Just like car insurances - it's by spreading the cost and risk over everyone that costs stay manageable for all/most.
Click to expand...
Except in the case of car insurance, you have the option not to drive a car. The comparison doesn't work.

And yes, most young 24 year old men won't be happy...But it's a reverse lottery. Get into a decent car crash, or get cancer, or turn out to have picked up HIV, or get a child with a serious congenital disease, and you're suddenly damn glad you got that crappy legally obligated insurance thingie instead of selling your house.
Click to expand...
Currently, the penalty for ignoring this "legal obligation" is still much lower than the cost of complying by at least a 20-to-1 ratio - if it wasn't, it's doubtful the legislation would have survived. But the pre-existing condition exclusion is also toast now. So what you describe doesn't happen. I can wait till my HIV diagnosis to decide to get insurance, and the private insurance company has to take me same as anyone else. That's why this will break them.

Of course there have to be checks and balances. Of course it's, up to a point, redistribution of wealth. Yes, extremists will claim that's "socialist".
However, it is perfectly reasonable to have government mandated/enforced/minimum/whatever health care from a liberal perspective. Assuming everyone-starts-off-equal-and-has-to-rely-on-themselves-to-succeed (opposed to everyone-starts-out-uneven-but-gets-the-same), it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed. Only the most thick-headed of egoists can claim anything and everything coming your way is your own fault/responsibility. Yes, you can start with things liek lung cancer and smoking, or obesity and heart attacks, or even elective medicine (etc etc) as things that might've been avoided, or unnecessary risks taken....Which is exactly what the right is doing over here all the time.
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy; giving everyone not necessarily an equal start but at least protection from certain aspects (turning off "disasters" in SimCity so to speak :p) allows more people to achieve their full potential. Which is what it's supposed to be all about.
Click to expand...
More Americans are coming around to your point of view, that the individual is subsumed by the good of the collective and that government must provide everything for citizens. But there was a time when it was considered better here to die on one's feet than live (off scraps) on one's knees in subservience. Because a government that can give you everything you want or need can certainly take everything that you have - and it's just a matter of time until the changing of who's calling the shots.
 
strawman

strawman

Bubble181 said:
it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed.
Click to expand...
It's a way of evening out the play field so no one has to succeed. When your food, housing, and medical care are taken care of by a benign entity, why work?

Ever noticed how Europe has such staggeringly large unemployment numbers? How it's often not seen as a place for leading edge innovation compared to the US where those things are not provided?

There is a dark side to socialism, and it isn't just the cost.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy
Click to expand...
This is probably a fair description of my situation. My ability to contribute is being severely inhibited because I have to spend sooo much time patching all my financial leaks. I will never succeed if I continue to be nibbled to death by ducks.
GasBandit said:
you have the option not to drive a car.
Click to expand...
Do I, now?
I certainly have the option of getting a job within walking distance of my home, if I want to take a 60% pay cut. I need to lose weight, but not that badly.
I could switch over to public transportation, but that would more than double my already 1hr commute time with no savings in cost. It would actually be more expensive to do so.
I have practically already done the unthinkable and survived without a cell phone until today, which is when I am starting my first ever cell phone contract, a thing I still would not have been able to do if it weren't for a discounted contract through my job. It will be less expensive to give up my landline + Internet (at a house I no longer occupy) and switch to the cellular plan, and that is the only reason I am able to do so.

Yes, I could save a sizeable amount of money if I were to give up all these "luxuries," but unfortunately the rest of society has become so dependent on them that we would once again be talking about my inability to contribute meaningfully to society, just from a different angle.

--Patrick
 
Covar

Covar

but that would more than double my already 1hr commute time with no savings in cost.
Click to expand...
Only figuring gas sure, but I would assume that if you have a car payment and insurance payments you would see big savings.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
The stark reality is that most places in the US are not set up as a viable living/working life unless you own a motorized vehicle of some sort. Our cities are so spread out and our mass transit (in most cases) are so abysmal that it's barely an option, if it is one in the first place. We really did some poor urban planning in the case of most cities.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
The stark reality is that most places in the US are not set up as a viable living/working life unless you own a motorized vehicle of some sort. Our cities are so spread out and our mass transit (in most cases) are so abysmal that it's barely an option, if it is one in the first place. We really did some poor urban planning in the case of most cities.
Click to expand...
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?
Click to expand...
If those licenses (or non-driving state alternatives) could be provided for free and not require physically going to the DMV after the very first one (and sensible alternatives to lost/stolen IDs are available), I would agree with this.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Covar said:
Only figuring gas sure, but I would assume that if you have a car payment and insurance payments you would see big savings.
Click to expand...
Let's see (all figures are round trip)...

Private:
Gas cost/day of work=$10.33 (at current prices)
Car pmt(100)+Ins(30)/days of work in an average month(23)=$5.65
Total ≈ $16.00/day (not counting days off)
Travel time is ≈ 45min
--------
Public:
Leg1=$4 (but operational hours are 5a-5p only)
Leg2=$2.5 $5* (operational hours are 6a-6p only)
Decent cost savings (60% 45%*), but job requires availability from 8a-11p, so that's out.
Travel time is ≈ 85min assuming absolute best-case xfer (Leg2 is waiting when Leg1 drops off), or up to 130min if I miss my connection, so it's really out. 2 incidents of > 30min late within a 90-day period and I will be fired, and this is not negotiable.
--------
Semi-Public (ride sharing):
Absolute best case is 50% savings (split costs 50/50) but only if I can find someone else who has the exact same scheduling needs as myself.
...and this doesn't obviate the need for a car, it only obviates the need for me to have a car.
Travel time at least stays the same.

Sooo...for the time being, the infrastructure is not there to support this sort of lifestyle in my location, and family obligations prevent me from relocating, so here we are.
GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?
Click to expand...
No, because you do not need to be a licensed driver to vote. You merely need to be a citizen.
Citizenship is not derived from your abililty to operate a motor vehicle.

--Patrick
*Forgot to include the transfer price.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
SpecialKO said:
If those licenses (or non-driving state alternatives) could be provided for free and not require physically going to the DMV after the very first one (and sensible alternatives to lost/stolen IDs are available), I would agree with this.
Click to expand...
PatrThom said:
No, because you do not need to be a licensed driver to vote. You merely need to be a citizen.
Citizenship is not derived from your abililty to operate a motor vehicle.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
But if having to drive is already a "stark reality," as Dave puts it, in this country, anyone who is showing up to vote should by that very necessity already have a driver's license on them, suitable for proving their identity. So the cost of a driver's license isn't an issue because we apparently don't have the option of not driving a car - and to do so unlicensed is a crime.
 
strawman

strawman

No, no, no. You're going about this all wrong gas.

What they're saying is that driving is necessary, and a natural human right.

The government should be forcing cars and drivers licenses on anyone unable to pay for one themselves, otherwise they are undoubtedly going to live a life of poverty, and die in the gutters with their children.

It is unthinkable that a human being, in their time of greatest need, might be turned away from the car dealership.

But comprehensive transportation reform isn't going to happen for decades, so we should probably just force car dealerships to give cars to anyone who asks for one in the absences of a method of payment.

Eventually, though we should have bread in every breadbox, band aids in every cabinet, and a car in every garage.
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?
Click to expand...
Showing some form of official ID is already a requirement in Virginia. This doesn't really affect me one way or the other, as I've had some form of government ID since I was 16. But much like ACA, I'm not the demographic that will be most affected by this legislation. I can understand problems with disenfranchisement by requiring an ID. Virginia's list of requirements seems fairly expansive--they'll even take a utility bill. But one wonders, then, how do the homeless vote if they've lost everything (including their id)?

Granted, it's a small number of folks that may not be able to meet the ID requirements, and yet they have the right to vote nonetheless. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the number of illegal aliens voting (ie voter fraud) is also a small number of folks. I haven't seen any reputable information otherwise (though I certainly would be happy to see some hard numbers).

So, that leaves me with the question: do we disenfranchise the small handful of voters that have a legitimate right to vote in order to keep out the small handful of voters that don't? I don't think either group really wields enough power to swing an election, but I find the thought of disenfranchising the powerless fairly repugnant. A right is a right. As a nation, we often go to great lengths to avoid trampling on other sacrosanct ideas, such as the right to free speech. It makes me sad that we're so quick to chuck other hard-won rights in he gutter for the sake of political expediency.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tinwhistler said:
Showing some form of official ID is already a requirement in Virginia. This doesn't really affect me one way or the other, as I've had some form of government ID since I was 16. But much like ACA, I'm not the demographic that will be most affected by this legislation. I can understand problems with disenfranchisement by requiring an ID. Virginia's list of requirements seems fairly expansive--they'll even take a utility bill. But one wonders, then, how do the homeless vote if they've lost everything (including their id)?

Granted, it's a small number of folks that may not be able to meet the ID requirements, and yet they have the right to vote nonetheless. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the number of illegal aliens voting (ie voter fraud) is also a small number of folks. I haven't seen any reputable information otherwise (though I certainly would be happy to see some hard numbers).

So, that leaves me with the question: do we disenfranchise the small handful of voters that have a legitimate right to vote in order to keep out the small handful of voters that don't? I don't think either group really wields enough power to swing an election, but I find the thought of disenfranchising the powerless fairly repugnant. A right is a right. As a nation, we often go to great lengths to avoid trampling on other sacrosanct ideas, such as the right to free speech. It makes me sad that we're so quick to chuck other hard-won rights in he gutter for the sake of political expediency.
Click to expand...
My argument is less about the actual merits of requiring ID to vote than to point out the inconsistency of asserting universal driver's license ownership is already a fact when it comes to comparing car insurance to health insurance, when the same people have been disclaiming it for the purposes of of debating Voter ID laws in previous debates.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518476,1381518438][/DOUBLEPOST]
Charlie Don't Surf said:
oh my fucking god steinman and gasbandit you are so staggeringly wrong on this issue
Click to expand...
Thanks for the affirmation, CDS. My wavering resolve is strengthened knowing you disagree.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.

I'm also a little boggled that you guys think that employment is the same thing as citizenship.

Then again, I guess that explains why you're in favor of poll taxes.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
SpecialKO said:
I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.

I'm also a little boggled that you guys think that employment is the same thing as citizenship.

Then again, I guess that explains why you're in favor of poll taxes.
Click to expand...
It's my old buddies mischaracterization, ad hominem, and hyperbole. Thanks for coming to the party, guys!

My actual point was, if you consider requiring ID (driver's license) to be a poll tax, then you can't put health insurance in the same category as auto insurance for rhetorical purposes.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

SpecialKO said:
I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.
Click to expand...
I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What? :confused:
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Reverent-one said:
I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What? :confused:
Click to expand...
It's simple, if you mock the self-contradictory nature of Progressivism, you're a horrible person who obviously french kisses Hitler's brain behind closed doors and pines for the good old days when brown people were property.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Reverent-one said:
I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What? :confused:
Click to expand...
GB and Stienman are the only ones allowed to be snarky and assholish in this thread? My deepest apologies!
 
strawman

strawman

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I never argued for poll taxes, but the way this thread keeps spinning around the same arguments over and over again I no longer expect anyone to read carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1381535612,1381535580][/DOUBLEPOST]Snark is its own reward.
 
Krisken

Krisken

stienman said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I never argued for poll taxes, but the way this thread keeps spinning around the same arguments over and over again I no longer expect anyone to read carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1381535612,1381535580][/DOUBLEPOST]Snark is its own reward.
Click to expand...
That's certainly why I bowed out long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top