ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.