True, and that it is successful.
Look, Obamacare is closely modeled on a Republican Governors plan. As long as it was Romney’s plan, the hatred of Obamacare wasn’t there. Sure,* some* conservatives object to all plans of that sort. But the white hot hatred is due to the fact that Obamacare is from a black liberal Democratic president.
Because racism.
Romneycare had little significant opposition, and was passed by both parties. Nor did he say “federal”.
I can answer for myself as a Republican
Does nothing to lower actual health care costs.
My insurance went up $20/mo
Health insurance is a scam. I pay a lot of money per month to turn around and pay out the ass to cover co-pays/deductables/percentage of coverage when I need it*. NOTHING was done to reform this and now it is mandatory.
Overall, it may not have made things much worse but except for guarantied acceptance it didn’t make things any better except for insurance companies.
You have the right to refuse any test or treatment you don’t want. That hasn’t changed.
Yes, a strange example. Doctors can’t force you to take a sleep test you don’t need. And, to the extent you felt pressured, the doctor would have had exactly the same motivation with your pre-ACA health insurance as he or she would now.
I said federal. I said federal in the post he responded to, and my post responding to his reply. That’s the whole point. There are many things that states are allowed to do that the feds cannot. As I already said, plenary vs limited powers.
More like ‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.’
Did you mean ‘insured’?
That’s Vulcan philosophy.
It’s pretty much the definition of a society.
Anyway (I have to make this quick because I’m still working) ISTM that the main objection I hear about is the individual mandate. How about a compromise? Get rid of the individual mandate. That way people who know they will never get old or sick or have a catastrophic injury or devastating illness or whatever, can opt out. To pay for the needs of society, add a small tax to everyone’s paycheck. That way, societal needs are met, the people who have opted in have insurance, and the people who have opted out can choose to die quickly.
Not a civilized society. The main reason we have a government that recognizes individual rights is to prevent the many from exploiting the few.
Rude? Getting answers you don’t like is rude? From your posts it sounds you just wanted another Dope thread calling Republicans doody-heads.
A civilized society is one which recognizes value in the well-being of society itself – in social justice and social solidarity – because “society” defines the nature of the immediate world we live in and how we treat each other. Individual rights are important but there’s always a balance between individual rights and the well-being of society as a whole. Establishing that balance is the very essence of civilization. Allowing individual rights to trump everything is easy to do but that’s not civilization, it’s libertarian anarchy and is usually conducive to a plutocracy. Enforcing collective rights as paramount is essentially communism and is usually conducive to totalitarianism. Neither extreme is a terribly good idea or consistent with democratic ideals.
I don’t disagree with that. I was responding to someone who said the definition of society is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That would be a excellent definition of an insect society, but not of a human society.
The purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from exploiting the weak.
Please look at the post I was responding to. Do you agree with Johnny LA?
I was responding to your post, not Johnny L.A.'s. You made an assertion, and I corrected it.
Your correction is wrong. Individual rights are secured against the government, which is represented by “the many”. We institute laws to protect you from “the powerful”, but not rights. If you look at the Bill of Rights, for example, none of them is to protect you from “the powerful” outside of government.
Cite?
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
-Thomas Paine
Society is not government.