The President's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally

[Zoe]

The President does not have the responsibility of exploring every nook and corner of every possibility that may be an indirect result of the change in the law. His responsibility is to explain to us what his plan requires and allows. It’s reasonable that other White House officials, the Associated Press and other news media, bloggers, conservatives, activists of all kinds bring to light the possible consequences of turning the plan into a law.

Bricker, I’m beginning to feel that your rhetoric shouldn’t be taken seriously. You haven’t mentioned any of the beneficial consequences of turning President Obama’s plan into law. Looking for only the dim side of any possibilities isn’t where we want to be – is it?

[BigT]

@Zoe

The President does not have the responsibility of exploring every nook and corner of every possibility that may be an indirect result of the change in the law. His responsibility is to explain to us what his plan requires and allows. It’s reasonable that other White House officials, the Associated Press and other news media, bloggers, conservatives, activists of all kinds bring to light the possible consequences of turning the plan into a law.

Bricker, I’m beginning to feel that your rhetoric shouldn’t be taken seriously. You haven’t mentioned any of the beneficial consequences of turning President Obama’s plan into law. Looking for only the dim side of any possibilities isn’t where we want to be – is it?

I’m not gonna get into this debate, because it’s over my head*, but I will point out that, having one person who is always against everything** is not a bad thing. That person helps you explore all the possibilities that the proposition is bad. Sure, that person is only going to be right half the time, but it makes sure you’ve thought of all the possible downsides and made an argument against them or demonstrated that the upsides are worth it.

*I’m not good with politics, so I elect people who are. IMHO, that’s the whole point of a representative democracy. If my elected official doesn’t seem to be working, I kick him/her out and get another one, rather than try to figure out what was wrong with what (s)he did.

**I’m not saying that Bricker actually qualifies.

[MichaelQReilly]

@Bricker

No.

But if the government offers health care of some variety at $X per month, some employers may well choose to save money by ceasing offering their own health care, reasoning that their employees can get now the government plan at no additional cost to the employer.

The government may not credibly disclaim any responsibility for that result.

This may not be compared to an employer switching to a cheaper private plan to save money, because the government’s plan doesn’t have to be profitable, and thus does not compete fairly with private plans.

Well, I’m one of those people who thinks that everyone going to a government plan would be a good thing, but for argument’s sake, couldn’t this problem be avertedby mandating that employers of x size make a health plan available to their workers?

[Sinaijon]

@Bricker

It seems to me we’re entitled to rely on the promises made by the President, and not hear that “his rhetoric should not be taken literally.”

I’d like to think so as well, but the fact and history is, politicians use soaring rhetoric to deliver promises they can’t and never intend to fulfill.

So, I guess I agree with the others in this thread: No rational person actually believes what Obama (or any other politician) says in speeches. Instead, you pass it through a reality filter, throw most of it out, and come away with something that conforms to your preconceived notion of what you want him to be saying.

Oh, and thanks for the new sig!

[MichaelQReilly]

@bobthebuilder

When the government gets involved true competition can no longer take place. Because the government gains all capital by having a** monopoly on the use of force**.
I have trouble understanding why any civilized person would want to increase the use of force to provide healthcare. I do not believe the use of force can be justified for such a thing. I thought we humans as progressed beyond the use of force to solve our problems.

Bolding mine.

Alert! Alert! Libertarian catch phrase.

Thanks for putting all your chips on the table right away. This way we all know better than to waste our time arguing against your Randian fantasies.

[bobthebuilder]

@MichaelQReilly

Bolding mine.

Alert! Alert! Libertarian catch phrase.

Thanks for putting all your chips on the table right away. This way we all know better than to waste our time arguing against your Randian fantasies.

sorry Im not an Randian. How about you argue about whether what I said was true or not rather than just name calling because of a perceived philosophical difference?

I am a libertarian, I will admit that, but not all libertarians agree with the Randian mode of ethics. I personally believe that I have an obligation to help others, I just do not believe that force is justified in this situation. I believe that people should recognize that every action of the government uses force and thus when we argue that the government should fix something we are arguing that force should be used to bring about the ends that we desire. I question this line of reasoning believing that force should only be used when absolutely necessary.

(quick note: I also do not agree with Kantian Ethics which are just as ridiculous and Randian ethics.)

[bobthebuilder]

@Lobohan

I can’t understand why any educated person would describe our government’s taxation and services as a use of force. Seriously, it’s ignorant, it’s inflammatory and it makes your associated arguments laughable.

Just because you hear an angry conservative talk-show host say it, doesn’t mean that it’s actually an intelligent or insightful idea. In fact, it’s probably closer to the opposite.

How is not the use of force? Think about it for a second. Any action that government does is backed up force, it must be or it would be ineffectual. Taxes are simply money taken from you by force. If your an empiricist, how about you test it empirically, stop paying your taxes and see if the government uses force.

And to let you know I cannot stand angry conservative talk-show hosts. They are extremely annoying and inconsistent. They support the use of violence for their ends just as liberals do.

[MichaelQReilly]

@bobthebuilder

sorry Im not an Randian. How about you argue about whether what I said was true or not rather than just name calling because of a perceived philosophical difference?

I am a libertarian, I will admit that, but not all libertarians agree with the Randian mode of ethics. I personally believe that I have an obligation to help others, I just do not believe that force is justified in this situation. I believe that people should recognize that every action of the government uses force and thus when we argue that the government should fix something we are arguing that force should be used to bring about the ends that we desire. I question this line of reasoning believing that force should only be used when absolutely necessary.

(quick note: I also do not agree with Kantian Ethics which are just as ridiculous and Randian ethics.)

I’m not going to argue with it other than to note that the Libertarian fixation on the government’s use of force completely ignores and marginalizes the many other ways that one can be “coerced” to do something through lack of meaningful choice.

[gonzomax]

I have a government health policy. I am on Medicare. I could use the same doctor the family has used for years ,if I chose to.
I got a letter this month informing me ,I am now eligible for 6 preventative tests. They also provide physicals and will monitor your health. They actually have a vested interest in keeping people healthy. They have weight control programs and drug programs.
The 55 MPH analogy falls flat. Like Sanford in S.C. who wanted to refuse the government bailout money,you can opt to give your employees a adversarial health plan if your principles demand it. Just say no.

[bobthebuilder]

@MichaelQReilly

I’m not going to argue with it other than to note that the Libertarian fixation on the government’s use of force completely ignores and marginalizes the many other ways that one can be “coerced” to do something through lack of meaningful choice.

Honestly I agree with you. And I believe that we should help those people. And by we I mean people voluntarily working together to take care of the poor. The government should focus on stopping the violent kind of coercion allowing individuals to help those near them who need it most.
This is probably why I do not like angry conservative talk show hosts. My end goal is in actuality the same as yours, to help people, I just do not believe that ends justify the means, and I feel that I cannot support violence to gain my desired end.

[Little_Nemo]

sorry Im not an Randian. How about you argue about whether what I said was true or not rather than just name calling because of a perceived philosophical difference?

Any claim that the government has a monopoly on the use of force is obviously ridiculous. Sure the government uses force. But other people and organizations use force all the time. The main delusion of the libertarians is that by eliminating the government they will eliminate all coercion.

[bobthebuilder]

@Little_Nemo

Any claim that the government has a monopoly on the use of force is obviously ridiculous. Sure the government uses force. But other people and organizations use force all the time. The main delusion of the libertarians is that by eliminating the government they will eliminate all coercion.

I guess monopoly may be an overstatement of the case, because others do use force. Now their is a distinguishing mark on the difference of government used for and non government used force. For instance take the redistribution of wealth, If I want to take money from you and then split it between several poor people, people would still say I was wrong. If the government did the same thing many people would not view that as wrong. So maybe its not that the government has a monopoly on force but that people view the government as being able to wield force for good ends more readily than a normal person. The problem I see with this is that the government is made up of people, many of whom are not honorable. Ethically I believe if it is wrong for me to do something that I should not vote for others to be able to do it.
I do not believe in eliminating the government. Governments are necessary, I just believe that they should focus on stopping coercion and threats thereof above all else. I believe that many Libertarians would agree with me, their is a difference in anarchy and libertarianism. I personally believe that in that absence of government tyrany would quickly arise as the smartest and the strongest began to run things, most likely in a violent fashion.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Little_Nemo

Any claim that the government has a monopoly on the use of force is obviously ridiculous. Sure the government uses force. But other people and organizations use force all the time. The main delusion of the libertarians is that by eliminating the government they will eliminate all coercion.

See, for example, Robert Heinlein’s short story “Coventry”.

[tomndebb]

@MichaelQReilly

Alert! Alert! Libertarian catch phrase.

Thanks for putting all your chips on the table right away. This way we all know better than to waste our time arguing against your Randian fantasies.

I stayed out of all the stupid cheap personal shots on page 1 of this thread in the hope that the thread would straighten out into a serious discussion without Mod intervention–which it mostly has.

Please do not derail the thread with more attacks on the posters. Stick to arguing the statements posted and leave the personalities out of the equation.

Thank you

[ /Modding ]
ETA: This includes ALL general dismissals of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, anarcho-syndicalists, thumb-suckers, or any political party to which any given position might be attributed.

[Rhythmdvl]

Wait, what? So all along Bricker has been espousing libertarian/Randian philosophy?

So let me get this straight.

Some form of government-run health care becomes available.

Some employers decide to cut benefits, because … because… because they didn’t really mean to offer them in the first place, they accidentally included them when composing their compensation package. They never thought that health benefits were part of the incentive to attract workers, nope. They secretly hate their workers and are constantly looking for ways to screw them over and cut their pay.

Some employers decide to cut benefits because … um… because they secretly love their employees, and realize that by cutting benefits, the employees will use their savings (i.e., their share of the health plan’s premiums) to buy government health care. Or something.

Some employers will decide to cut benefits because though they love puppies, they want to find places to cut costs. They’ve been waiting for an opportunity to cut health care from their compensation package, but were afraid of Marley’s ghost. Now they can boot the plan from their package, but know that the employees will have a cheaper alternative to turn to (on x-mas eve, no less).

Some … oh man, this is getting almost as ridiculous as the OP’s contentions.

All the above private decisions are actually the result OF COERCIVE GOVERNMENT FORCE because they have a MONOPOLY on FORCE and all sorts of Randian/LaRuchian evil overlord POWERS.

And Obama lied because of course the average person will know that when the government enters the market, what their really doing is tacitly mandating change from a private to public service. Wink wink nudge nudge?

[Bricker]

@Sinaijon

I’d like to think so as well, but the fact and history is, politicians use soaring rhetoric to deliver promises they can’t and never intend to fulfill.

So, I guess I agree with the others in this thread: No rational person actually believes what Obama (or any other politician) says in speeches. Instead, you pass it through a reality filter, throw most of it out, and come away with something that conforms to your preconceived notion of what you want him to be saying.

Oh, and thanks for the new sig!

Well, that approach, if believed, certainly disposes of any complaint I have.

[Bricker]

@Rhythmdvl

Wait, what? So all along Bricker has been espousing libertarian/Randian philosophy?

So let me get this straight.

Some form of government-run health care becomes available.

Some employers decide to cut benefits, because … because… because they didn’t really mean to offer them in the first place, they accidentally included them when composing their compensation package. They never thought that health benefits were part of the incentive to attract workers, nope. They secretly hate their workers and are constantly looking for ways to screw them over and cut their pay.

Some employers decide to cut benefits because … um… because they secretly love their employees, and realize that by cutting benefits, the employees will use their savings (i.e., their share of the health plan’s premiums) to buy government health care. Or something.

Some employers will decide to cut benefits because though they love puppies, they want to find places to cut costs. They’ve been waiting for an opportunity to cut health care from their compensation package, but were afraid of Marley’s ghost. Now they can boot the plan from their package, but know that the employees will have a cheaper alternative to turn to (on x-mas eve, no less).

Some … oh man, this is getting almost as ridiculous as the OP’s contentions.

All the above private decisions are actually the result OF COERCIVE GOVERNMENT FORCE because they have a MONOPOLY on FORCE and all sorts of Randian/LaRuchian evil overlord POWERS.

And Obama lied because of course the average person will know that when the government enters the market, what their really doing is tacitly mandating change from a private to public service. Wink wink nudge nudge?

Is this your idea of good faith argument?

I’m not a libertarian, and I’m not arguing a libertarian position.

Your last paragraph is somewhat close to the mark. I’m saying that when the government enters this particular marketplace in this particular way, they will in effect force some change upon end users. And I’m saying that the average person listen to Obama’s speech would not understand this to be his message.

I am NOT:
[ul]
[li]saying that the government programs are better[/li][li]saying that the government programs are worse[/li][li]saying that the government programs are wise[/li][li]saying that the government programs are foolish[/li][/ul]

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Hmmmm.

How will it cause the price sprial to halt, exactly?

Well, seems to me we bear the costs of uninsured people receiving health care as it is. The hospital will recover that price by raising prices on everyone else. More, I believe the hospitals charge it on their balance sheets as a full-priced service rather than the negotiated lower price services insurance companies negotiate.

So, one way or another, it all comes back to us in higher costs of services and insurance and perhaps taxes.

Now, if everyone had insurance and that insurance negotiated much lower prices than uninsured we should see prices drop overall.

[Bricker]

So far as I can tell, the folllowing posters have addressed arguments I have actually made:

Sinaijon, who says, “Yeah, his soaring rhetoric is typical political-speak, and we have to accept that and parse it to find meaning.”

LilShieste, who says “Private industry retains the advantage of innovation, and their collective ability to innovate balances the disadvantage of competing with a government program that doesn’t care if it makes a profit.”

And ashman165, who makes what I think the is most direct and debatable attack on my argument: he denies my speculation that the government program will operate at a loss.

It’s possible Whack-a-Mole was making a similar argument and I just didn’t follow it, which is why I asked for clarification.

Everyone else’s contributions to this thread have argued vociferously against points I haven’t made. A frequest target is something like, “Well, why is it bad if people switch?” or “So what if the government program is chosen, if it’s better?”

Sinaijon’s proposal, if accepted, certainly defeats my point. I just don’t agree that’s the standard to which political speeches should be held.

Nor do I agree that LilShieste’s vague idea about innovation as a balancing force for lower prices is any real balancing point. There’s no innvation in existence right now. If companies switch plans, they’ll do it because of costs. And a government programs that cost less, being subsidized by the taxpayer as they will be, will certainly compete at an unfair level.

Which brings us nicely to ashman165’s argument.

And I acknowledge that if he’s right, then I got nuthin’.

But I haven’t heard anything about this plan being required to operate “qua business” and show no net loss. If it does, then Obama’s right say what he said. And if I have missed something that suggests it will, I’m open to learning it. Failing that, though, I have to say that in my view the default speulation for a government program is that it will operate as a “benefit,” not as a business model. If I’m wrong here, then I agree my complaint is unmerited.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Well, seems to me we bear the costs of uninsured people receiving health care as it is. The hospital will recover that price by raising prices on everyone else. More, I believe the hospitals charge it on their balance sheets as a full-priced service rather than the negotiated lower price services insurance companies negotiate.

So, one way or another, it all comes back to us in higher costs of services and insurance and perhaps taxes.

Now, if everyone had insurance and that insurance negotiated much lower prices than uninsured we should see prices drop overall.

OK, I got you.

You’re saying even if this program operates at a loss, and extends that cost to the general pool of taxpayers, it’s still not going to hurt us, because right now, uninsured people get health care, the care-givers subsidize that by taking the loss, and the cost is born by the insured payers anyway, so it’s roughly even.

Hmmm. OK, might have a point there.