+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma (/thread-637.html)
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 08:28 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Another case of freedom being inversely proportional to equality. Strangely I've recently read a book over a century old about their mindset, of course back then, they called them the Radicals. Honestly I think that term is far more accurate than Progressive.
After scanning that work it seems that you are right. The progressive name was adopted in order to convince people that they were the future even though their ideas are very old and have failed every time. Perhaps you will consider the words of Murray Rothbard on the subject.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 05:01 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-09-2017, 03:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The best thing that can happen with most-anything Trump and the Gophers do, is for it to go nowhere. All the action for democracy, freedom and justice now is in the resist movement; period. Thankfully, the red menace has an orange menace as its general. Cheeto Nero Benito.
Ironic that you should suddenly now be in favor of gridlock.
No, it's called turn-about is fair play.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Translation: "Those who make mistakes are losers are should be allowed to die on the streets."
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 09:25 AM)Odin Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:01 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-09-2017, 03:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The best thing that can happen with most-anything Trump and the Gophers do, is for it to go nowhere. All the action for democracy, freedom and justice now is in the resist movement; period. Thankfully, the red menace has an orange menace as its general. Cheeto Nero Benito.
Ironic that you should suddenly now be in favor of gridlock.
No, it's called turn-about is fair play.
In the general case I have always considered gridlock to be a good thing. Experience has shown that nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 09:26 AM)Odin Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Translation: "Those who make mistakes are losers are should be allowed to die on the streets."
If people are not allowed to experience the consequences of their decisions then they will have no clue as to what is right or wrong.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 09:39 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-11-2017, 09:26 AM)Odin Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Translation: "Those who make mistakes are losers are should be allowed to die on the streets."
If people are not allowed to experience the consequences of their decisions then they will have no clue as to what is right or wrong.
The "consequences of their decisions" should not be a death sentence. If you lose everything because you were a dumb-fuck and end up on public assistance you are going to be poor, that's enough consequence.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Kinser79 - 03-11-2017
I have news for you Odin. Life is a death sentence. Honestly humanity would be better served by letting the dumb fucks die out early. Preferably before breeding.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 09:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have news for you Odin. Life is a death sentence. Honestly humanity would be better served by letting the dumb fucks die out early. Preferably before breeding.
In evolutionary theory this is called 'natural selection'.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Bob Butler 54 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 08:28 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Another case of freedom being inversely proportional to equality. Strangely I've recently read a book over a century old about their mindset, of course back then, they called them the Radicals. Honestly I think that term is far more accurate than Progressive.
clicky
I too would like to see health care in the hands of the states.
I don't see the Progressives as alone in trying to force one size fits all solutions. They are willing to pay more for an inclusive system. The Conservatives don't want to share this particular burden. They have a health care plan that seems to optimize the situation for the healthy and wealthy. I am sympathetic with the UN perspective, that access to health care is a basic right, as per UDHR 25. Ideally, this means an inclusive economy where everyone can afford their own. Ideally, the less poverty, the less the burden, the less the burden has to be shared. Alas, we are dealing with a reality which doesn't have that much to do with 'ideally'. The burden is large, and a great number of people have no interest in sharing the burden.
I think you are confusing freedom with privilege. A slave, becoming free and equal to the privileged whites, reduces privilege. A woman, gaining the right to own property and to vote, becomes more free and equal to the privileged males, reduces privilege. A nobleman, whose legal status becomes the same as everyone else, reduces privilege. Equality is the enemy of privilege, not of freedom. As a servant of the ruling capitalist class, you seem to have difficulties perceiving this.
Granted ideas can be taken too far, perhaps including 'all men are created equal.' The inequality that was the norm during the Agricultural Age was much worse than today. The need for revolutions and civil wars is way less today. In the old days, when laws defined and enforced inequality and privilege, the need to push for equality was impossible to doubt.
Today those interested in maintaining privilege have fewer tools to do so. The capitalist class derives its privilege through wealth. As ever, we have prejudice. The cultures who have been here longest attempt to diminish the place of the more recent arrivals. The form of the inequality and privilege today is different from the old nobility, slavery and gender privilege laws. They are still very real.
And those in a privileged place are quite as sanctimonious as ever about maintaining it. Once upon a time, the king had divine rights, slavery was the cornerstone of civilization, and women were to be protected and nurtured by the superior gender. The privileged have always invented creative justifications for maintaining their privilege.
You're good at it.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 10:00 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-11-2017, 09:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have news for you Odin. Life is a death sentence. Honestly humanity would be better served by letting the dumb fucks die out early. Preferably before breeding.
In evolutionary theory this is called 'natural selection'.
Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
You people are fucking sick. Go to Hell.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Bob Butler 54 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 10:50 AM)Odin Wrote: Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
A quibble. I would suggest that 'some members of some species' might be more accurate if you intend to imply that humans have a place in your statement.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 11:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 10:50 AM)Odin Wrote: Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
A quibble. I would suggest that 'some members of some species' might be more accurate if you intend to imply that humans have a place in your statement.
Fair enough.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Kinser79 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 10:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 08:28 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Another case of freedom being inversely proportional to equality. Strangely I've recently read a book over a century old about their mindset, of course back then, they called them the Radicals. Honestly I think that term is far more accurate than Progressive.
clicky
I too would like to see health care in the hands of the states.
I don't see the Progressives as alone in trying to force one size fits all solutions. They are willing to pay more for an inclusive system. The Conservatives don't want to share this particular burden. They have a health care plan that seems to optimize the situation for the healthy and wealthy. <snip> meaningless babble intended to make one sound intelligent </snip>
Here's the thing. Having universal access to health care (but not necessarily health care insurance--which is quite different) is good. Some would even call it moral. However, we have to take into account that the US is a very large (indeed to the point of being ungovernable, Canada manages despite being larger by being mostly empty, Russia is larger still but manages through autocracy, and China while close in size is also autocratic) and very diverse. And not only on racial/ethnic lines either.
California, New York Florida and Texas are all fundamentally different from each other despite being the 4 most populous states. Their racial make up is also different. And the residents of those four states all have different expectations from their government. And this doesn't get into the issue of the small states and their various needs.
As such, it seems most prudent to me to turn this matter over to the states. They are best able to determine what their people need, and what the government can afford (assuming that it spends anything at all). On the federal level we need a law that says that going to the doctor when you're sick is considered a right (and I don't mean using the ER for a GP either--that is highly inefficient and places victims of traumas at risk) and it is the duty of the states to ensure that this right is protected.
They can choose how that right is protected. California for example could have a single payer system (Vermont wants to implement that but is prevented from doing so by Obamacare no less). Texas may want to try something like Obamacare (it wouldn't work there either, but they could try it), and Florida could do a hybrid system of clinics for the destitute (a fully state run system) and personal insurance for everyone else.
The key here is that the biggest obstacle to addressing the problem of health care in the US is the notion of employer based health care. If it is agreed that it is health care insurance (and not health care provision--I.E. going to the doctor) that is the choke point then the solution is obvious. For those who can afford to pay some, they should buy on the private market personal insurance. This insurance is in no way connected to their employer (which itself is a hold over from WW2 war-time regulations) but is instead tied directly to the patient.
What this means is if you quit your job, or get fired, or laid off or whatever, you don't lose your insurance. (A problem I'm told occurred regularly with my BF's father--layoffs at the plant.)
But simply the fact of the matter is that none of these potential solutions can even be tried so long as we have a federalized system in place.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Kinser79 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 10:50 AM)Odin Wrote:(03-11-2017, 10:00 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-11-2017, 09:49 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have news for you Odin. Life is a death sentence. Honestly humanity would be better served by letting the dumb fucks die out early. Preferably before breeding.
In evolutionary theory this is called 'natural selection'.
Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
You people are fucking sick. Go to Hell.
There was nothing social about my Darwinism. That being said when it comes to humans they have only a limited capacity for actually caring for other humans. Typically this is limited to their family and their tribe. All others are strangers and are at best easily ignored and at worst are enemies.
The fact is humans evolved for a Stone Age. This whole civilization thing is still rather new, being only 6000 years old.
Also just because you are pathologically altruistic doesn't mean everyone else is. One of the reasons why diversity is not a strength but a weakness. You might want to look into the Putnam Hypothesis.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Kinser79 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 11:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 10:50 AM)Odin Wrote: Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
A quibble. I would suggest that 'some members of some species' might be more accurate if you intend to imply that humans have a place in your statement.
An even bigger quibble..Some members and only towards some other members of some species. Humans are tribalistic in nature.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Bob Butler 54 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 11:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 11:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 10:50 AM)Odin Wrote: Social Darwinism is an evil, vile bastardization of evolutionary theory for ideological purposes and betrays a complete lack of understanding how how natural selection actually works. Some species are social, altruistic, and cooperative because natural selection caused them to be so.
A quibble. I would suggest that 'some members of some species' might be more accurate if you intend to imply that humans have a place in your statement.
An even bigger quibble..Some members and only towards some other members of some species. Humans are tribalistic in nature.
All too true. Various groups will seek wealth, political power, a perception of cultural superiority and other forms of privilege. Striving for equality in the face of tribal tendencies is a long up hill fight.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Bob Butler 54 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 11:33 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 10:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 08:28 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(03-11-2017, 05:05 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-10-2017, 10:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not so fast skippy....Rand has already floated the same repeal that passed the Senate twice.
As for a replacement I think this is a matter that should be turned over to the states. Give them a mandate to provide universal coverage some how and how to pay for it some how. This shouldn't be a federal matter. That way Commiefornia can have what it wants and Alabama can have what it wants.
Federalism...it works...mostly
The modern liberal or progressive can't stand the idea of people making decisions for themselves. If they allow this then those who are better at decision making may end up better off than those who don't and that simply can not be allowed.
Another case of freedom being inversely proportional to equality. Strangely I've recently read a book over a century old about their mindset, of course back then, they called them the Radicals. Honestly I think that term is far more accurate than Progressive.
clicky
I too would like to see health care in the hands of the states.
I don't see the Progressives as alone in trying to force one size fits all solutions. They are willing to pay more for an inclusive system. The Conservatives don't want to share this particular burden. They have a health care plan that seems to optimize the situation for the healthy and wealthy. <snip> meaningless babble intended to make one sound intelligent </snip>
Here's the thing. Having universal access to health care (but not necessarily health care insurance--which is quite different) is good. Some would even call it moral. However, we have to take into account that the US is a very large (indeed to the point of being ungovernable, Canada manages despite being larger by being mostly empty, Russia is larger still but manages through autocracy, and China while close in size is also autocratic) and very diverse. And not only on racial/ethnic lines either.
California, New York Florida and Texas are all fundamentally different from each other despite being the 4 most populous states. Their racial make up is also different. And the residents of those four states all have different expectations from their government. And this doesn't get into the issue of the small states and their various needs.
As such, it seems most prudent to me to turn this matter over to the states. They are best able to determine what their people need, and what the government can afford (assuming that it spends anything at all). On the federal level we need a law that says that going to the doctor when you're sick is considered a right (and I don't mean using the ER for a GP either--that is highly inefficient and places victims of traumas at risk) and it is the duty of the states to ensure that this right is protected.
They can choose how that right is protected. California for example could have a single payer system (Vermont wants to implement that but is prevented from doing so by Obamacare no less). Texas may want to try something like Obamacare (it wouldn't work there either, but they could try it), and Florida could do a hybrid system of clinics for the destitute (a fully state run system) and personal insurance for everyone else.
The key here is that the biggest obstacle to addressing the problem of health care in the US is the notion of employer based health care. If it is agreed that it is health care insurance (and not health care provision--I.E. going to the doctor) that is the choke point then the solution is obvious. For those who can afford to pay some, they should buy on the private market personal insurance. This insurance is in no way connected to their employer (which itself is a hold over from WW2 war-time regulations) but is instead tied directly to the patient.
What this means is if you quit your job, or get fired, or laid off or whatever, you don't lose your insurance. (A problem I'm told occurred regularly with my BF's father--layoffs at the plant.)
But simply the fact of the matter is that none of these potential solutions can even be tried so long as we have a federalized system in place.
I don't know that the problem is size, or primarily size. Most every civilized nation has found some sort of solution, most of which could be scaled up.
There is a problem with tradition. When America was Great, most everyone had full time jobs with medical benefits mandated for the full time employed. As the New Deal ethos faded, more corporations shifted towards part time jobs where many benefits are not mandated. Good for profits. There's a solid greed motive that makes the old 'when America was Great' solution no longer effective.
There is a problem with the profits of the insurance industry. They make a lot of money so long as they get to skim of the top. They had a big role in the old system and have the political clout to try to maintain it.
There is a political / cultural divide. The progressives see a problem to be solved, a burden to be shared. The conservatives favor independence, choice, and smaller payments. If one chooses one's values carefully, one can make a case in either direction. I just happen to take access to health care as being a basic human right, but somebody's got to pay for it. The long established patterns of the old days and the self interest of the healthy and wealthy has many leaning the other way.
Letting the states handle it would break the problem into fifty parts. Many states are less divided than the country as a whole. Once a solution is found that pleases a given state's population, it would be more apt to stick. If we keep trying to attack it at the federal level, and the dominant party keeps making the population unhappy, every four or eight years the whole health care system might get thrown upside down. Not ideal.
In Massachusetts, just switching from Romneycare to Obamacare required enough reprograming of computers and shifts in bureaucracy to create a big mess. The confusion was great enough that they had to give free health care to anyone who vaguely might be eligible as they were about a year behind in figuring out who was truly eligible. I have little doubt that should Obamacare be repealed, Massachusetts will stick with something vaguely like Romney - Obama care, but anticipate that the Massachusetts Health Connector organization is going to go dizzy and inefficient again.
And if one believes that health care is a basic human right, letting each state decide who has that basic human right is kinda dubious morally. As soon as the phrase 'human right' is in the mix, local solutions that deny such rights can seem questionable.
Anyway, big mess. Going state might be worth doing. I don't know that it is ideal, but we're so far from ideal that it isn't a reasonable goal.
***
The history of how nobles, slave owners, male chauvinists, the capitalist elite class, and dominant cultural groups have fought to maintain privilege and resisted equality is not meaningless babble. You are more intelligent than that. It is possible to learn from history. It's just that you are currently on the side of the privileged elites, or are pretending to be, so you have to dismiss the notions of equality and progress. Yes, I'm a Whig of sorts. I am naturally suspicious of inequality, privilege, prejudice and elite ruling classes such as Marxists and Republicans. I don't really get where you are pretending to come from, but a brief Big Lie isn't much of an argument.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - SomeGuy - 03-11-2017
Quote:And if one believes that health care is a basic human right, letting each state decide who has that basic human right is kinda dubious morally. As soon as the phrase 'human right' is in the mix, local solutions that deny such rights can seem questionable.
Which is probably why the term should not be continually expanded to include more and more policy preferences. It makes governing a large and heterogenous country kinda difficult.
Quote:The history of how nobles, slave owners, male chauvinists, the capitalist elite class, and dominant cultural groups have fought to maintain privilege and resisted equality is not meaningless babble.
Nor is the history of people claiming to fight these groups, only to replace them at the top of the heap in turn. The Marxists you referenced are a good example of this.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Eric the Green - 03-11-2017
The best we can hope for now, is simply to stop the gophers from tearing up Obamacare. Reforms can come later when and if we get a sane government.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Bob Butler 54 - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 03:27 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:And if one believes that health care is a basic human right, letting each state decide who has that basic human right is kinda dubious morally. As soon as the phrase 'human right' is in the mix, local solutions that deny such rights can seem questionable.
Which is probably why the term should not be continually expanded to include more and more policy preferences. It makes governing a large and heterogenous country kinda difficult.
In abstract, I agree with you. The Supreme Court has been more aggressive than I like in inventing new rights.
In specific, do you feel confident, seeing someone sick, in saying they shouldn't get access to health care? UDHR 25 wasn't declared by five old men. Eleanor Rosevelt somehow wrangled it out of the UN General Assembly.