I did?
I don’t recall saying that. Can you provide a quote? Is this something you inferred simply because I said states should manage it?
I don’t think that would survive daily viral images of poor people dying outside of hospitals.
True, but the objection to having to “buy something” arises from the uniquely commercialized circumstances of American health care coverage. In the end, one either accepts the imperative of health care as an essential human right for every American resident or one doesn’t – a human right based on the ethical and compassionate principles of a civilized society. That’s the argument, not the “mandate” thing.
There could have been a public option, or, in an ideal world, there could have been a tax-funded UHC system, or lots of options in between. The mandate to buy something from a private company arises from the health care system that Americans have chosen for themselves, for better or for worse. You can’t reject the mandate without also rejecting the ethical principle behind it. Rejecting the mandate can only mean being OK with letting people die from lack of health care, letting the young and healthy opt out of the system and take their chances, and letting everyone else pay more, perhaps beyond their means, for lack of balanced risk-sharing.
What it all amounts to is how one prioritizes the supremacy of capitalism as a social principle versus the value of a compassionate and cohesive society.
Depends on how you spin it.
"He opted out.
Don’t opt out."
But yeah, the basic problem with healthcare is that many of us are generally not willing to watch people die when we can save them.
Unfortunately, there are enough people that are willing to watch people die when we could save them, if it saves them or makes them a buck, that it becomes an interesting battle to save as many as we can.
I would have no constitutional objection to that. Then it becomes a matter of spending prioritization along with all other spending and the merits or demerits can be weighed against other spending. I think health care acting differently than a traditional market good can be well argued that it more worthwhile than many other spending programs.
No. It’s saying I don’t think the federal government should be constitutionally allowed to force people to buy something. Forcing a person to buy broccoli should not be a constitutionally valid power.
Well, like these posts:
Again, we werent comparing “per capita” anything. We were comparing my personal individual costs.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=805352
… I was talking about my personal situation
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19667981&postcount=170
The problem with these sorts of anecdotes is that they’re neither representative or reliable compared to aggregate health care statistics from many different sources. By “not reliable” I mean that they’re not statistically validated and can easily overlook major subsidies or major out of pocket costs that are unknown to the writer or left unstated and completely invalidate the anecdote. It reminds me of an ongoing argument with a poster on a different site who took the position that his American private insurance was the greatest thing since sliced bread, it cost him almost nothing, and Canadian health care sucked. Yet in a different forum there he was a few months later ranting that some hospital wouldn’t admit him without a major payment of cash up front, and was this even legal? Yeah, welcome to the land of the Almighty Dollar and for-profit everything including life itself.
It should not be a controversial position that per-capita health care costs in other countries are a fairly accurate representation of, well, their health care costs.
I don’t think it worked out that well for that fire department in the “fire insurance” story and thread about it. But no matter, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just waiting for 4:30 to get here 
Yes, we were comparing individual costs, so? They were also trying to make the points that Uk healthcare is magically "free’ just because taxes pay for it.
How do you get from there to “You’ve also argued over here that health care cost statistics make no difference to you,” Since I have never made that point at all?
Yes. That was my inference. Because you said moving away from ACA is a good thing and because the architects of the AHCA are making the claim that states are in better position to manage the healthcare needs of their constituents.
And who gets to define words. I think if we really wanted a compassionate society we’d ban abortion, since aborting an unborn child represents an extraordinary lack of compassion towards the unborn child. But obviously you disagree.
But that’s clearly two different things. I said moving away from the ACA is a good thing, but didn’t give as a reason, “I agree with the AHCA claims that states are in better position to manage the healthcare needs of their constituents.” It’s manifestly unfair for you to impute their views to me, and worse still to actually claim I said something I didn’t:
Not even “you’ve suggested,” but a clear claim that I’ve STATED those words? This, on the heels of:
I’m beginning to think that accurately portraying my words is not one of your priorities!
Again, that absolutism does lead to certifiable inhumanity.
[QUOTE=Amnesty International]
Draconian abortion laws kill women and girls
[/QUOTE]
And again, the fact that even if they manage to replace ACA, the replacement does not leave the ones in need completely out, the government will fund the high risk pool.
So as I pointed before one does winder what the heck you are talking about, the idea that government should not help is in reality the idea that is dying in front of your eyes.
With you (or Amnesty International) getting to define “inhumanity.”
Sorry, when miscarriage or bad health of the fetus are the issue you should complain to your deity for being so shitty that we have to intervene. In the first case to not assume automatically that there was a crime and accuse or arrest the mother and on the second that we do not wait until a religious man tell us to have an abortion. They are not doctors.
You are also on the inhumane side still as by implication you are supporting then the prevention of abortion in the cases of rape and incest.
With all due respect, we’re into eight pages of this debate and I’m still not clear on what your position is. I seem to be in good company based on the comments of others. So perhaps it’s not my failure to portray your words accurately that is the core issue?
So then it is really just about where you where you enter the charge on the ledger.
Government making you buy some insurance is not ok.
Government taking that same amount of money from you and buying that insurance is fine in your view.
End result is exactly the same.
At least with making you buy it there is a cost saving (one less bureaucracy to send money to) and you have some choice in what you buy and what it costs rather than the government telling you what you get and how much you must pay.
Also, comparing buying health care to buying broccoli (or whatever) misses some important distinctions. No one chooses to buy health care and everyone will need health care at some point in their life. Without insurance those costs are carried by others in society through higher insurance premiums and higher prices for healthcare. You are already paying for it. This is just a different and more transparent and better way of doing it.
But we can’t have that because it is wrong for the government to make you buy something you were already paying for. :rolleyes:
Yeah Bricker. Also, don’t know if this has been asked or answered, but would you be in favor of the state of Virginia starting their own UHC?
No, no – the cure for lack of clarity is to ask – much as I did with you when trying to clarify your understanding of “plenary legislative authority.” It certainly does not allow you to announce, “You have stated…” when I never stated any such thing.
It would be interesting to know how and when Christianity shifted to the belief that their compassion ought to be means tested. It’s an interesting twist you have to admit.
I’m pretty sure that Book of theirs dictates that the least worthy are the MOST deserving of compassion. Christians sometimes seem pretty slippery to me.
Well, that’s a tough one. I can’t really decide. 