# I pit all conservatives who have bought into the Halbig/King ACA trutherism nonsense **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 19, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625 "2014-12-19T00:04:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/121 "2015-01-01T18:20:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, I wasn’t trying to be a jerk, either, but you were just fighting it so hard. Frankly, I’m on your side, politically, on this, I was just unclear whether you were aware of all your options. However, it appears things are more complicated since you are married and have a “household income” that is \> $23K. If you have kids, it’s going to be even more complicated. > > At any rate, the ACA doesn’t help everyone. In fact, it hurst me, but I think best measure is whether it helps the country as a whole. I’m willing to give it more time to see how things pan out as the entire law gets implemented. I do agree that the requirements for a “qualified plan” are not as flexible as they should be, but that should come as no surprise in legislation that affects 300M people. For better or worse, though, you are going to find it cheaper to pay for insurance than to pay the fine real soon, as I’m sure you know. Yep, and fuck everybody who isn’t getting hit as hard by this as I am. I’m getting nailed for everyone ELSE’S poor lifestyle choices. I’m over here not smoking, rarely drinking, eating plenty of fruit, wild-caught fish, and basically never eating fried foods, sweeteners, or grains ( except for a little rice with sushi). I exercise in moderation, practice good posture, and encourage my family to do the same. Thanks, assholes, for dragging down my finances with YOUR health choices. Where is my subsidy for good health choices, bitches? LOL ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/122 "2015-01-01T18:31:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …My view is that paid health care should not be considered a responsibility of government to supply. > > I’d like to see the country return to that view. I am a radical lefty, because I am mostly a humanist, and lefty programs align with those values. I don’t give a rat’s about whether or not health care is a responsibility of the government. I don’t believe it, and I don’t _not_ believe it. Political science is interesting in the same way that theology is interesting, to observe the complex rationalizations of the human mind, the mental gymnastics as men seek a solid and reliable Truth to be the bedrock support of what they are already inclined to believe. And so it goes. If this thing goes forward as the Republicans would wish, many thousands of people, perhaps millions, will be adversely affected. Some will suffer longer from relatively minor but chronic health issues that could otherwise be resolved, some will die. And that’s wrong. Just flat out wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/123 "2015-01-01T18:39:17Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Yep, and fuck everybody who isn’t getting hit as hard by this as I am. I’m getting nailed for everyone ELSE’S poor lifestyle choices. I’m over here not smoking, rarely drinking, eating plenty of fruit, wild-caught fish, and basically never eating fried foods, sweeteners, or grains ( except for a little rice with sushi). I exercise in moderation, practice good posture, and encourage my family to do the same. Thanks, assholes, for dragging down my finances with YOUR health choices. > > Where is my subsidy for good health choices, bitches? LOL Does your employer’s healthcare plan not offer a discount for non-smokers? But the fact is, any type of insurance is going to pool risk. Some people are going to have more risk factors than others. Some of those are lifestyle choices and some are just bad luck. At some point, you are going to have to buy insurance. Or, I should say, you are going to be stupid not to. And no matter what the deal is, you’re going to be subsidizing other people who aren’t as careful as you are. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/124 "2015-01-01T19:32:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Does your employer’s healthcare plan not offer a discount for non-smokers? > > But the fact is, any type of insurance is going to pool risk. Some people are going to have more risk factors than others. Some of those are lifestyle choices and some are just bad luck. At some point, you are going to have to buy insurance. Or, I should say, you are going to be stupid not to. And no matter what the deal is, you’re going to be subsidizing other people who aren’t as careful as you are. there is no discount for nonsmokers. Fuck pooling controllable risk. I deserve a subsidy, even if it’s mainly a token one. People need motivation, and that would provide such. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/125 "2015-01-01T20:01:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But the fact is, any type of insurance is going to pool risk. Some people are going to have more risk factors than others. Some of those are lifestyle choices and some are just bad luck. At some point, you are going to have to buy insurance. Or, I should say, you are going to be stupid not to. And no matter what the deal is, you’re going to be subsidizing other people who aren’t as careful as you are. There is no risk of this guy having a baby or needing emergency contraception. He shouldn’t have to pay for that type of risk. If he is under age 30, his rates shouldn’t be jacked up to pay for older people. He shouldn’t have to pay the same rate as a healthy person as he would if he had stage 4 cancer. Traditional underwriting standards that were outlawed by the ACA has hurt this guy who is barely scraping by. The ACA has also created a system that is filled with loopholes which he falls in. In a perverse sense, he would be better off if his employer scrapped health insurance and didn’t treat its employees as well. Admittedly, the ACA has helped some and hurt others. But the winners and losers don’t fall into any meaningful category where one group should be winners and the other losers. My basic problem with the ACA stems from the fact that prior to its enactment, between 85 and 90 percent of people were happy with their current insurance. Why not draft a carefully crafted policy to address those 10 to 15 percent instead of a re-write that effects everyone? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/126 "2015-01-01T20:08:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Admittedly, the ACA has helped some and hurt others. But the winners and losers don’t fall into any meaningful category where one group should be winners and the other losers. Of course, the role of the government should not be “to help some and hurt others”. Whether they fall into meaningful categories or not. At least IMO. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/127 "2015-01-01T20:44:21Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > There is no risk of this guy having a baby or needing emergency contraception. He shouldn’t have to pay for that type of risk. If he is under age 30, his rates shouldn’t be jacked up to pay for older people. He shouldn’t have to pay the same rate as a healthy person as he would if he had stage 4 cancer. Traditional underwriting standards that were outlawed by the ACA has hurt this guy who is barely scraping by. > > The ACA has also created a system that is filled with loopholes which he falls in. In a perverse sense, he would be better off if his employer scrapped health insurance and didn’t treat its employees as well. > > Admittedly, the ACA has helped some and hurt others. But the winners and losers don’t fall into any meaningful category where one group should be winners and the other losers. > > My basic problem with the ACA stems from the fact that prior to its enactment, between 85 and 90 percent of people were happy with their current insurance. Why not draft a carefully crafted policy to address those 10 to 15 percent instead of a re-write that effects everyone? Even so, if the country as a whole is better off, then the legislation is good, even if it isn’t the best there can be. Any legislation coming out of Congress is going to be a compromise between what is possible and what is perfect. I’ll prefer to judge the ACA on how it affects the country as a whole, not on how it might help or hurt any particular individual. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/128 "2015-01-01T22:19:13Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > I was referring to the EV count - Obama’s 332 to Romney’s 206. [Even Republicans were calling such a huge EV total a landslide.](http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?84788-Republicans-agree-Obama-won-by-a-landslide&) Seriously? I realize this isn’t the Great Debates forum, but that’s what passes for a cite around here? A link to a message board post, on an obscure fishing magazine’s website? Where none of the quotes attributed to “Republicans” are even sourced? Do you have a link showing where actual Republicans “were calling such a huge EV total a landslide”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/129 "2015-01-01T22:34:12Z")
Yeah, that cite was lame, but there ARE different definitions of a landslide, and they don’t all rely on the popular vote. The popular vote has some major flaws in terms of gauging a US presidential election, not the least of which is that the candidates don’t campaign with the goal of maximizing their share of the popular vote. If we chose our presidents by popular vote, they’d campaign differently, and the results would most likely be different. It’s like the World Series. You can bitch and moan that the winning team scored fewer total home runs, but that’s not how the winner is picked. Or, in match play in golf. The winner might have more total strokes, but you’re playing to win holes, not to minimize your total number of strokes. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/130 "2015-01-01T23:30:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, that cite was lame, but there ARE different definitions of a landslide, and they don’t all rely on the popular vote. Yeah, I’m fully aware that the President is chosen by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Nevertheless, it seems absurd to say that a candidate won a “landslide” when only 51% of the people voting cast ballots for him. Even more absurd is the claim that 51% should then be considered a ringing endorsement of Obamacare. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/131 "2015-01-02T00:13:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Even so, if the country as a whole is better off, then the legislation is good, even if it isn’t the best there can be. Any legislation coming out of Congress is going to be a compromise between what is possible and what is perfect. I’ll prefer to judge the ACA on how it affects the country as a whole, not on how it might help or hurt any particular individual. No. There are principled positions that should not be impacted by a measure of outcomes. We recognize this in our laws and while I don’t think this is the position you are taking here, some things should not be subject to a balancing test. If legislation violates these fundamental principles then it makes no difference whether the country is better off - the legislation is bad. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/132 "2015-01-02T00:49:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. There are principled positions that should not be impacted by a measure of outcomes. We recognize this in our laws and while I don’t think this is the position you are taking here, some things should not be subject to a balancing test. > > If legislation violates these fundamental principles then it makes no difference whether the country is better off - the legislation is bad. I think that goes without saying, but I guess it never hurts to be clear on that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/133 "2015-01-02T04:40:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. There are principled positions that should not be impacted by a measure of outcomes. We recognize this in our laws and while I don’t think this is the position you are taking here, some things should not be subject to a balancing test. > > If legislation violates these fundamental principles then it makes no difference whether the country is better off - the legislation is bad. Principled positions need to be reexamined if when violated everyone is better off. That isn’t principle, it’s intellectual laziness. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/134 "2015-01-02T06:53:27Z")
Wait a minute! Are you guys saying that, like, say, if one guy got more actual votes than the other guy, he still could lose because of the Electrical College? That some fucked-up shit, right there! That can’t be right. That way, some guy might have a half a million more of the votes about him being popular, but still lose to some puffed-up nitwit. No fuckin’ way! Shit, when has _that_ ever happened! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/135 "2015-01-02T12:43:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wait a minute! Are you guys saying that, like, say, if one guy got more actual votes than the other guy, he still could lose because of the Electrical College? That some fucked-up shit, right there! > > That can’t be right. That way, some guy might have a half a million more of the votes about him being popular, but still lose to some puffed-up nitwit. No fuckin’ way! Shit, when has _that_ ever happened! From the trivia desk: [ul][li] Obama’s winning margin of 9.6 megavotes in 2008 is the largest margin ever by a non-incumbent.[/li][li] In percentage terms, Obama’s 2008 margin outperformed all Democratic non-incumbents since Woodrow Wilson except for FDR’s 1932 victory.[/li][li] The voter turnout percentages in 2008 and 2012 were each greater than those of any other year since 1968.[/li][li] Barack Obama has received more popular votes for President than anyone including FDR, 20% more than GWB.[/li][li] Obama’s 51.1% vote share in 2012 becomes 52.0% when votes for Libertarian and Green candidates are excluded.[/li][li] There have been six elections where the probable popular-vote winner lost in the electoral college (or House of Rep.):[/li][LIST][li] Jackson lost to J.Q. Adams in 1824 despite a huge popular vote advantage.[/li][li] Tilden probably deserved the electoral vote as well as popular vote in 1876 but Hayes was made President after agreeing to withdraw federal troops from the South, thus ending Reconstruction.[/li][li] Al Gore accumulated the then-largest ever popular vote total in 2000, but lost to G.W. Bush due to shenanigans in Florida.[/li][li] Incumbent Grover Cleveland lost in the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison in 1888, after Tammany Hall betrayed the pro-free trade Cleveland.[/li][li]Garfield beat Hancock handily in the 1880 electoral college, though the popular vote was too close to call.[/li][li] Many objective observers agree that, absent election-day frauds, the 1960 electoral vote should have been Nixon’s over Kennedy.[/ul][/li][/LIST] ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/136 "2015-01-02T16:35:54Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Principled positions need to be reexamined if when violated everyone is better off. That isn’t principle, it’s intellectual laziness. First - the ACA has helped many folks, but it has also negatively impacted many folks as well. Not everyone is better off. Second - There are things that we allow/condone that I would say makes almost everyone worse off but continue for the sake of principle. Many things related to free speech for example. That is not laziness. Third - there are things that would make everyone better off in terms of some metrics. Forcing everyone to have a nutritionally balanced diet would certainly make everyone better off in terms of healthy outcomes. We don’t do this because it has negative implications in other metrics. It would be unusual to have a course of action that makes everyone better off in all metrics, while simultaneously requiring government force to implement. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/137 "2015-01-02T16:37:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Even so, if the country as a whole is better off, then the legislation is good, even if it isn’t the best there can be. Any legislation coming out of Congress is going to be a compromise between what is possible and what is perfect. I’ll prefer to judge the ACA on how it affects the country as a whole, not on how it might help or hurt any particular individual. One other comment on this I neglected to mention - the idea that you want to evaluate the impact on the country as a whole rather than how it impacts individuals to determine if the legislation is good strikes me as not consistent with your other libertarian leanings. Have you given that much thought and how you reconcile your other positions with this one? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/138 "2015-01-02T17:10:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > One other comment on this I neglected to mention - the idea that you want to evaluate the impact on the country as a whole rather than how it impacts individuals to determine if the legislation is good strikes me as not consistent with your other libertarian leanings. Have you given that much thought and how you reconcile your other positions with this one? I usually approach these matters from 2 perspectives: 1. Would I endorse this policy if we were starting this country from scratch? 2. Do I endorse this policy given the facts on the ground as they are now? I would not support for the ACA under scenario number 1 for several reasons, one being that I’d prefer these things were done at the state, not the federal, level. And the individual mandate is something I wouldn’t endorse, either. But, moving to scenario #2, we have the law in place, the commerce clause is interpreted such that federalism doesn’t mean very much anymore, and the individual mandate is declared constitutional. So, will the legislation be good or bad given the rules of the game as they exist today? I am first and foremost in favor of democracy, and since our constitution is a product of that democracy, I accept it and, until it’s changed, am willing to evaluate a law as being good or bad as long as it a) is declared constitutional and b) does more good than harm in the current environment. We built up this crazy system in the US where health insurance is tied to one’s job. That was a huge mistake, and while the ACA doesn’t eliminate that, if it makes things better overall, then good for us. I wish we could dismantle the tax incentives that tied health insurance to employment, but that isn’t politically possible. I don’t really see the ACA as hugely anti-libertarian when compared to the way things would be without it. The individual mandate certainly is “anti-libertarian”, but that battle is lost. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/139 "2015-01-02T17:29:19Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Fuck pooling controllable risk. Well, eventually you will likely need health care you can’t afford, no matter how much you think you can control your health care needs. Who pays for that? Also, from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States): > [@](#): > > According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011. I mean, someone’s got to pay for that. 17.2% of GDP, and $8,608 per person. 8.9% of your $25k doesn’t seem quite so unreasonable, as much as it sucks personally. No one anywhere has yet proposed a reasonable way to drop costs significantly while ensuring that people actually get 21st century health care. Do you have any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/140 "2015-01-02T20:37:20Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > No one anywhere has yet proposed a reasonable way to drop costs significantly while ensuring that people actually get 21st century health care. Do you have any ideas? Rationing care, tort reform, probably some others. Unless “21st century health care” means “everything we have now or want, except for less money” in which there is no way possible. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625.md?page=8)