Rand Rover couldn’t own his own ass with both hands.
Do you have a cite for the proposition that the majority favore HCR with a PO?
Not saying you don’t, just asking for one.
Ah yes, back to the staunch libertarianism of the 2000-2008 days. If only the Republicans were back in power, all this big government stuff would come to a screeching halt.
Bolding mine.
You’re saying that even if it turned out that everyone was better off with government involvement in health care, you’d still be opposed to it, because it’s not on your list of legitimate government functions?
How is it that you determine what’s on this list? Police and a court system I can understand - it’s absolutely critical to the function of a society that we have an impartial justice system backed by force of law. But what about roads? We could survive as a country with a network of road systems controlled by the various owners of the land. It would be inefficient and a pain in the ass, but it could work. Why, then, is making roads a legitimate government function to you?
In my view, their nature has a lot of advantages that gives them the ability to be a superior provider of roads than a hodge-podge network of private systems. They get access to the important chunks of land, they can enforce a consistent set of laws on public roadways, they can afford to think long term in their planning, and have access to the resources necesary to take on huge projects like the interstate system. It’s good for society if all roads are treated equally - and some roads aren’t arbitrarily denied to some people and/or have excessively high toll costs which precludes a person’s ability to travel. So essentially because the government can do better on this specific, necesary issue, then I think it’s a legitimate government function. But there’s no stone tablets of libertarian philosophy that require it to be.
Similarly, if we concede that it’s ultimately best for everyone for the government to become involved in health care (and in this case we’re not even talking about single payer although everyone talking about a “government takeover” acts as if we are), then what’s the compelling reason not to? If the advantages of government involvement (if we were talking about a public option) - huge pools, low overhead, coverage de-linked from employment freeing up economic mobility, healthier workforce improving economy, etc outweigh the costs, then we’re shooting ourselves in the foot to arbitrarily stick to a specific list of Rand Rover’s Legitimate Functions of Government.
Now - there’s a lot of debate as to whether or not the current proposals would actually result in a net a good. And that’s where the debate should be. But what you’re essentially saying that even if it was better for everyone, you’re still saying “nope, not on the list, can’t do it” … which is arbitrary and counterproductive. What seperates the road network from the health care system as a legitimate government function, if you’re conceding that it will ultimately have net positive results?
There are six pages posted and counting giving this asshole a forum. What a shame
SB, I think that using force against people is a bad thing. The government can only do stuff by taking money from citizens under the threat of force. The only activities that justify such use of force are activities that confer a more-or-less equal benefit on all citizens. So, everybody benefits pretty much equally from the military and police (you can quibble about those on the coasts or those in high-crime areas, but the benefit everyone receives is more-or-less equal). Similarly, everyone can drive on the roads (and again you can quibble–some people don’t drive or are hermits).
Now let’s look at health care reform. None of the various health care proposals are like the government being in charge of roads. They are more like the government mandating that you must buy a car or telling car manufacturers that all cars must be four-wheel drive. Other health care proposals necessarily involve wealth redistribution (i.e., UHC).
It’s your forum too, bub. Dazzle us with your acerbic wit or keen grasp of the issues. Or just call another poster an asshole and slink away, your choice.
Are you still waiting for someone to Google the polling on public support of HCR, or did you manage to find that on your own?
And everyone needs healthcare. Providing UHC would confer a more-or-less equal benefit on all citizens. Sure, some people will be unlucky and need more, just like some people will be unlucky and need help from policemen or firemen more often, but apart from those quibbles it’s an equal benefit for all.
Healthcare isn’t a consumer good. Most people don’t want to have to go to the doctor, just like most people don’t want to have to call the cops or the fire department. Consuming police/fire/medical resources isn’t pleasurable or fun. You only do it to protect yourself from something worse.
By your own standards, UHC is a “legitimate government function”. If you had any principles, you’d be strongly in favor of it. You’re not, not because of any grand convictions, but because you’re a selfish bastard.
Of course, most libertarians and Randians are selfish bastards who latch onto the ideology to lend a respectable veneer to their assholery. Everyone likes to be the hero in their own personal story, and if, by nature, you’re a selfish bastard, you have to find a narrative frame that makes being a selfish bastard a fine thing to be. But it doesn’t have anything to do with actual convictions. It’s just a comforting story you tell yourself so you don’t have to admit what a shit you are.
Nope. Not even close. I’m talking about those types of activities that confer a more-or-less equal benefit on everyone due to the very nature of the activity. That is, it is impossible to have an army to defend the country and then somehow cause that army to only benefit certain citizens and not benefit any others. The very nature of an army defending a country is that all citizens benefit.
Providing health care to an individual confers a huge benefit on that individual and an increasngly smaller benefit on the rest of society as they become more removed from that individual (i.e,. the individual’s immediate family is benefitted alot, some random joe across the country is benefitted only a miniscule amount). It’s just not the same thing.
Also, the flip-side of my idea that the government should only engage in those activities that confer a more-or-less equal benefit on everyone is that I think the government has an obligation to engage in those activities. The reason for this is that the very nature of a government is something that existst to do these types of activities. If we took your notion that UHC confers an equal benefit on everyone, then that would mean that the government must provide UHC.
And not only that. Everyone also needs food, and clothing, and shelter, and heat in that shelter, just like you are saying everyone needs health care. Should the government also provide all this stuff to everybody? Your idea that UHC fits my definition of a legitimate government activity would lead to the conclusion that the government must provide all these things to all citizens, which I think is absurd.
First, being called a “selfish bastard” doesn’t really offend me. Maybe that’s what I am. I don’t really care.
But I didn’t latch onto some philosophy. I’m not even all that well-read in this area, as Maeglin and panache45 and others will be glad to point out to you. I came up with my ideas on my own through lots of struggle and thinking about the issues. I don’t pretend that my ideas are new or unique, but they are mine–I didn’t just read a book on libertarianism and say “hey, that philosophy would allow me to be a selfish bastard, super duper!”
To a minimum extent, yes. Which is why we have welfare, food stamps, public housing projects, etc.
The trouble is that you’re a stupidly blind ideologue. You’ve decided that your bullshit ideology is the best and are too mentally sessile to ever change.
Facts, evidence and reason are spitballs against your thick, hot shield of mouth-breathing ignorance.
It’s possible to say plenty of things about Rand Rover, but I do not think this is one of them. Give it a rest. You’re not even putting your own bullshit ideology on the block here.
RR hasn’t questioned his beliefs that I’ve ever noticed. Perhaps I’ve missed where he was persuaded off his mindless ideological ground by reasoned debate.
As for my bullshit ideology, I’d be happy to defend it with real logical arguments if you have any particulars. This thread is already a train-wreck.
- Is the productivity of a nation a benefit to everyone?
- Would “Random Joe” benefit from going into a workplace that had less sick people?
- Would “Random Joe” benefit from going into a store that had less sick people working?
I don’t think you are actually being fair to RR or in general here. Look, I don’t agree with Rand Rover’s first principles or the logic of how he derives any of his arguments. But it’s not actually mindless ideological ground here. He is actually articulating a logical chain that goes from non-coercion to the proper role of the state. To be honest, it’s more systematic than anything I have seen from you.
Generally speaking, I question my beliefs and arguments all the time as I articulate them. I just don’t shout it from the rooftops ever time someone here forces me to reconsider. Why should I? Who really cares? What matters is the argument. Much of the time, I revise and confirm my own beliefs through argument. I have no doubt that RR does the same. I am sure that by elaborating the causal chain, he asked himself at each step if he is right. Furthermore, the last thing I would do to people who attack me is concede that anything they say forces me to reconsider my core principles.
I think we get more mileage out of focusing on the words on the page than on what we think our conversation partners may be thinking or questioning.
I might ask you to re-read the OP. RR has decided that there is no place for health care and the government, period. An assertion that’s wrong on the face of it. We have the VA, we have Medicare, we have Medicaid, we have examples the world over that are cheaper, that garner better results, that cover more people. He is immune to evidence, because the fact in his wee little head is that “health care is a luxury and the government has no place providing luxuries. Period.”
His words are nonsensical, so finding out the thoughts behind them are all we are left with.
Yes, it was rhetorically over-the-top trash. There’s been plenty of water under the bridge since the OP. In what follows, we talked about the provision of public goods, the role of coercion, etc.
And you’ve decided that there is a place for health care in the government. That’s just super.
As it turns out, I am pretty certain that the right answer to this debate is not obvious.
This does not follow. If the words were nonsensical then the thoughts behind them are nonsensical as well. If nonsensical words are not worth consideration, then surely nonsensical thoughts aren’t either. So what’s the point? There must be something more to it for you.
No, I do think that. But I’ve decided that there is currently government run health care. So anyone arguing that it is prohibited by the constitution is wrong. America has government provided health care now. So arguing that the government is prohibited from providing health care is wrong. Get it?
If you were designing a country from scratch you’d be a fool to not have universal health care. You can see the evidence the world over. No one has our system, no one likes our system and no one pays as much as we do for so little. If you want to have a steam powered car, go right ahead, but while you’re shoveling coal don’t pretend that it’s a better idea than a gasoline motor.
Sure it does.
Not necessarily. He isn’t arguing rationally, so he’s fumbling for answers that *sound *right. If there is any hope of convincing someone like him you need to find out why they are flailing around to protect this idea. What is the root idea. In his case it seems to be he’s just a vile, stinking asshole. He doesn’t think that anyone who has less than him is worth pulling out of a fire.
This debate isn’t about convincing RR. He’s too hidebound to even consider being an honest debater. The fact is trashing RR’s ideas does little more than show lurkers who might side with him how utterly without merit his ideas are.
Aside from that, I like to see the bullshit he’ll come up with to cover his shame. 
I’d agree with you if you said that the ROLE of government or the amount of Government in healthcare is not obvious. However, there is some evidence that government should at least have a place in healthcare in the first place.
I suggest you compare countries where there government is involved in healthcare with those where the government has no place at all. For the first group, you could look at Great Britain, France Germany, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or many others. For the second group, where governments have no place at all in healthcare, you could look at… I’m not sure - you pick. Not the USA in it’s current state though, because there is already lots of government involvement in healthcare.
Compare the population health in these two comparison groups.
This may give you some evidence about whether or not governments should have a place in healthcare. Ask yourself why it is that there are not many examples you can find of first world countries with no government involvement in healthcare.
We really need a ninja smilie…