The Primary Ethical Dilemma of Trumpcare

[OrdinaryGentleman]

I was just on a local lawmakers page and saw posts from people making zero sense. Claiming that healthy young people should not pay any costs for those with preexisting conditions and they should not pay higher premiums because of people who choose to live in hurricane zones.

Here are my thoughts, please comment with your thoughts.

First, if you are born, one day you will die. Probably because of some illness. If you are lucky, it will be when you are old. Anyone can get sick at any time in life from babies to grandparents. Anyone can get cancer or other diseases. Diabetes, autoimmune diseases. Any one of us can have an accident. How will you feel if your child is born with problems, like Jimmy Kimmel's son? How would you feel to be told this child is uninsurable, and for this child's entire life all of your income and theirs when grown, will go to pay for insurance or care or they die. We must protect all of us from this. If that means we all pay a couple hundred more a year in premiums, it is so worth it, for the kid across the street, for our kid, for the grandparents out there. Because we will all at some time in our lives have an issue with health, period.

No one gets out of life alive.

We must call and protest and vote out those who will not protect health care for each and every American. We must keep it affordable and not allow any American to be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition or make premiums high to afford.

Secondly, we must factor into other types of insurance coverage, things that happen all over our country from sea to shining sea.

Maybe your area doesn't have hurricanes, but flooding or a tornado or lightning or a tree fall or an earthquake. Jesus, half of Georgia is burning right now. The costs need to be shared by everyone. You never know what could happen to you today.

Then you will be the first to yell help.

Say you live in the north; not much happens there. Then the blizzard from hell hits and ice in the south, if we don't all share the costs, those up north cannot have the food trucks deliver your food to the market. Better be prepared to be hungry and go hunting. Like driving? What if the gas cannot be produced? Think people, we are all interconnected and we had better think as WE, not I. Paying for floods, winds, tornados whatever to help other Americans is what we do, you never know when it will happen in your backyard.

Sean Spicer "SPICER: It's 'literally impossible' right now to know what the GOP bill will do to sick Americans' healthcare coverage" Link

"The latest version of the American Health Care Act, also known as Trump care, would toss sick patients into risk pools with a “questionable history” while still causing millions of Americans to lose health coverage, several doctor groups and patient advocates said Wednesday."

Link

While many trump supporters may mean well, weathering through criticism and taking heat from the left; things are not panning out. Needless to say, while politics is one thing, robbing the healthcare of some desperate individual is not the way to go about saving money, healthcare is not relevant to the national debt. Cutting off life-saving medical techniques for citizens who have done nothing wrong runs counter to the ethical boundaries of our established government is not the way to cure our economic instability.

>GET INVOLVED<

[nalaa]

Well I guess republicans have been taking a bit of heat for this because it becomes harder for them to hide the fact that they think affordable health care is not the governments problem.
Which is not a view that is shared by most americans

60% of americans think health care coverage for all should be ensured
assets.pewresearch.org/.../...01.13_healthcare.png

Even among Trump voters most people don't believe you should not be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, low income families should be supported and that children should be able to stay on their parents coverage well into their 20s
assets.pewresearch.org/.../...01.13_healthcare.png

And I read the other day that Obamacare is more popular than ever. And that's because republicans have failed to produce a viable alternative

[nalaa]

second link was meant to be this
kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/.../8940-figure-12.png

[OrdinaryGentleman]

I won't deny your facts, and I agree with what you are saying, many trump supporters need the ACA more than ever. Don't you think though, after this election season polls cannot be trusted?
Leading up to the election we had so many polls say Hillary was going to win. Low and behold trump won via gerrymandering or getting enough county/state representatives to vie for his seat as president. This poll is much more clear.

[nalaa]

Of course polls get it wrong sometimes but it was always Hilary by small margin never 60 or 70%

And you already mentioned gerrymandering. The American system is in my opinion flawed. At the very least it's not ideal for doing surveys. It's quite a easy to get an idea of what candidate people are gonna vote for. And the polls got it right, more people voted for Hilary. But with the electoral college and so many winner takes all districts it's a bit more complicated than that.

Of course polls can easily be manipulated but I linked two very credible institutions there

[OlderAndWiser]

"How would you feel to be told this child is uninsurable. . . If that means we all pay A COUPLE HUNDRED MORE A YEAR in premiums, it is so worth it." I didn't read any further than this statement. Under Obamacare, premiums did not go up a couple of hundred a year. If you are going to base your argument on "facts" which don't comport with reality, then it is not worth reading and responding.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

It's an argument for ethics, that's what this entire take is about. If you missed that... well... here is a reminder. Obamacare is flawed, it does tax the bejesus out of specific groups of people. I can't sit here and say it's oh so glorious, but I will admit it is the best we have got.
I don't understand where all the anger is coming from, none the less I am welcome to questions about the take itself. As for your private and personal issues, this isn't a place for that.
Before we continue i must ask, do you lean left or right? Based upon your answer it may help determine how you understood it.

[OlderAndWiser]

I tend most toward libertarian values. If the question is, "Wouldn't it be great if all citizens had health care coverage?" I would answer yes? If the question is "Shouldn't the government provide health insurance coverage for everyone?" then I would answer, "That question needs to be rephrased: shouldn't people who have jobs and earn their income be forced to buy insurance coverage for people who don't work?" This is one more example of a wealth redistribution plan premised on the idea that people should not be responsible for themselves but should depend on 'the government' (their taxpaying neighbors) to take care of them.

[ak666]

The biggest practical difficulty I have with socialized healthcare specifically in the US is that the US government is so incompetent. If we look at federal spending and public education, for example, here's what we get:

education-curriculum-reform-government-schools.org/.../coulson-2-9-11-2.jpg

We get an exponential curve in spending while the results stay pretty much the exact same. If the government can't even get p[public education right after spending an exponential amount of money, how can we expect them to get healthcare right? That's one of the most fiscally-challenging services in countries that provide it to all citizens.

Further, they just went from a previous president who wanted to radically reform the healthcare system only for his successor to want to overhaul it. Do we really trust politicians to run the economy properly and furthermore, to continue to do that over subsequent terms?

If we look at Venezuela, for example:
www.theguardian.com/.../venezuela-crisis-hospitals-shortages-barcelona-caracas

>> For years, among the proudest boasts of the Bolivarian Socialist administration was that it eradicated hunger, reduced poverty and improved healthcare for the poor.

Of course I don't want to sound alarmist and claim that the US is going to become like Venezuela as it heads further down this route. Yet the only way to seriously mismanage an economy like this is for a central power to actually be "managing" it.

To vote for more and more government provisions is to vote for more and more central management of the economy. To do that you have to have quite a bit of faith that the government is actually capable of managing things effectively. I don't have that faith in government, especially not the US government.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Just as a foreminder I appreciate that there are like minded individuals who keep things civil all while providing an opposing view. I will read this later when i have time :)

[ak666]

Cheers. I also want to see an end to the suffering and also agree that affordability should be a huge goal. I'm just a little bit worried when we look to government to solve these problems.

There's an interesting paper here on the struggles in Canada to keep healthcare affordable.
irpp.org/.../pmvol5no8.pdf

The single-payer system definitely reduces administrative costs but, as the paper pointed out, their approach inadvertently created monopolies among hospitals and healthcare professionals.

The proposed solution towards affordability is actually to inject market forces (i. e., competition) back into the system.

While healthcare in the US is not socialized with the exception of Medicaid, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration, it's highly-regulated by the government. Those government regulations often have a contributing part in producing the notoriously high costs of healthcare in the US. It's why I think deregulation is a big part of a feasible solution.

[ak666]

About affordability, check out the Surgery Center of Oklahoma:
https://surgerycenterok.com/pricing/

https://youtu.be/0uPdkhMVdMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkXywMBYfLM

[NearlyNapping]

This is naive. I haven't followed what Trump or Congress are doing with health care, nor do I care. There is a saying, "you can't make silk from a sow's ear". What is happening is that they are trying to fix something that is so utterly broken that it can't be fixed.

The AHCA was irresponsible to the extreme. They only succeeded in making it worse. Health care reform started becoming a real issue back in the 80s. The issue was supported by both liberals and conservatives. It kept getting talked about but nothing was done.

It was originally about skyrocketing medical costs. Over time it became more and more about health insurance, and potentially universal health care. Those are entirely different issues. Also over time it changed from health care "reform" to a complete overhaul. That's when it became a partisan issue, when conservatives and liberals started diverging.

If they had stuck with the original idea of reform, meaning limited and targeted tweaks, it would have had much broader support.

The US health care system is one of the biggest economies in the world. To completely overhaul the system the way they did was totally irresponsible. It's like taking the economy of one of the larger countries in the world, and completely overhauling it. It was a major undertaking, yet it was done at breakneck speed and pushed through just to be doing something, with serious arm-twisting to get it passed.

So now what? The system is even more fucked up than it was before. The AHCA can't simply be shut down. It's too late for that. Too much irreversible damage has already been done. We had a sow's ear before, now we have one that's been shredded. There is nothing that can be done to fix it, not anytime soon anyway. Anything that is done will be flawed.

I understand the sentiment about preexisting conditions. but sentiments and emotions obscure reality and rational thinking. The fact is that people are abusing the hell out of the system that forces insurance companies to insure preexisting conditions. People simply sign up for a year, get tons of medical work done, then drop their insurance the next year.

Somebody else has to pay for that. Somebody who is playing fair, by the rules, pays for all the people who are cheating. That's not political rhetoric, that's what's really happening.

In the big picture, health insurance is a lose-lose situation. ALL insurance is like that. Insurance is always a net loss.

[NearlyNapping]

"We must call and protest and vote out those who will not protect health care for each and every American."

No, we must protest and fight against all the people who think it's the government's job. People can provide their own health care. I will NOT pay for some lazy mother fucker who sits on their ass all day, smokes and drinks all day, gets no exercise, is a hundred pounds overweight, and doesn't follow their doctors advice to make life style changes.

"We must keep it affordable"
But that's not what they are doing. They are barely touching on that issue. Oh wait. I see what you want. By "affordable" you mean somebody else should pay for it. Got it. Just stick a gun to somebody else's head and force them to give you money. Fuck that. That's not affordable. It's the same price. It just means somebody else is paying for it. Actually it's more expensive that way.

It's quite simple. Pay for your own damn shit.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

"This is naive. I haven't followed what Trump or Congress are doing with health care."
On the one hand, you say naive and on the other, you say you haven't followed what trump nor congress is doing. How can I treat your opinion as informed rather than objective?

[NearlyNapping]

I'm going by what you say. It has almost nothing to do with what Trump or Congress is doing. It's mostly just generic health care and insurance stuff. There is nothing in what you said that is specific to the bills being proposed.

There may be some totally new ideas in those bills, but everything you mentioned has been debated forever. I've been listening to it for at least 30 years. I've been listening to the larger debate about welfare and socialistic programs for much longer. Much of this is about the role of government. That debate has been going on 250 years in this country and who knows how much longer before that.

[goaded]

"To completely overhaul the system the way they did was totally irresponsible"

But it wasn't completely overhauled, the insurance companies still run everything, and the hospitals are still businesses. A real overhaul would be single payer and hospital and pharmaceutical cost controls.

[NearlyNapping]

@goaded
It was an overhaul. Just because other things could have been done doesn't mean it's not an overhaul. Sure, they could have done more. A lot of people were expecting a lot worse. A lot of people were relieved that it wasn't socialized health care. But it was still vastly more than what they should have done.

They should have done some tweaks, some obvious things that had bipartisan support. Then stood back to see how it affected things. What they did was way too ambitious, with too many unknown variables, and too much room for unintended consequences. Unintended consequences is exactly what happened. It was just way too much, way too fast. That's why it was irresponsible.

I fully understand the political pressure that was on them to do something. It had been talked about for so long with nothing being done that the pressure built up to the point that they had to do something. But what they did was the wrong way to go about it.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

That was one of the dumbest things I ever attempted to read. Congratulations, you have taken the bar to a new low.

YOUR medical conditions are not MY responsibility. If you choose to live somewhere that hurricanes or tornadoes come through and destroy everything on a pretty consistent basis, that is YOUR problem. That's a choice YOU made. If an insurance company chooses to insure you, that's a choice they make. If you choose to go without insurance because you don't want to pay the extra premium for living in Tornado Alley or Hurricane No-Man's-Land, again, that's on you.

I am not living your life. I get no say in your life. I shouldn't be forced to PAY for the choices you make.

When something gets subsidized, you get more of it. And stupidity has been subsidized for decades. So now, w're LIVING in the movie Idiocracy.

I am sick of watching my paycheck disappear to go to someone else. Someone who didn't work for it. Someone who most likely just voted for whoever promised them more Gib Me Dats, and then sat down with their hand out.

People are responsible for their own choices. And sometimes, shitty things happen, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's life. Deal with it. Improvise, adapt, and overcome. Don't expect everyone else to pick up your slack.

[Map4Territory]

Thank you! But honestly you really don't go far enough. So you got mugged? How is that my problem, I shouldn't have to pay for police. Your house caught on fire? why should my dollars pay for firefighters? I shouldn't have to pay to have your roads re-paved or have your children educated. Everyone needs to realize that all bad things that happen to them are the result of their own choices and take financial responsibility.

And even private institutions are thieves. Insurance in all forms has always and only ever will work by taking money from good people who never have anything bad ever happen to them in order to subsidize the bad people who get things like cancer. That's criminal. Insurance should be criminalized.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Thanks for your opinion. But to clarify you don't want the best for other American's? Because in that case, we are wrestling with an ideology, an objective opinion, a personal system of belief.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

@Map4Territory

So you're going to equate police and fire services with making me pay for your health insurance?

Got any other good ways you'd like to put your idiocy on display? Maybe post a pic of you eating your own shit, or trying to fuck your toaster?

Well, even if you do, I don't want to see them. And I'm not going to sit here and tell you all the ways you're wrong. I know you're wrong, YOU know you're wrong, but you don't care because Feelz.

Your Feelz don't matter to me.

I'm done. I don't care about your response, and I won't be reading it. So make sure you pour your bleeding heart out replying. Hit all the libturd 'talking points', and make sure you throw out all kinds of name calling. I'm not a cuckservative, though, so maybe you should avoid the typical names. I'm sure if you dig deep into your bag of Feelz you can find something that will give you a warmfuzzy.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Haha, fuck a toaster.
Listen, while it is nice to have a strong opinion about most things don't you think it wise to critique yourself? Question why you hold that opinion in the first place. PM me if you would rather this conversation remain private.

[Map4Territory]

I have to hand it to you. And I mean that in a completely non-satirical way. Your response has built a steel cage around yourself that leaves me with no way to counter. I could attempt to summarize the concept of decommidification, one of the most written about and debated concepts in economics. A topic you seem completely ignorant to. But you have set yourself up to just yell, "Libturd Feelz" and ignore it. I could also give a snarky response like, "go get your shine box" or I could criticize your form. In both cases you have already primed yourself to shout that, "looks like the snowflake got his feel feelz hurt". You have walled yourself off from any attempt at actual debate or thought. And any attempt by me to breach that wall would make me seem desperate.

So since debate is no longer a possibility, let's try dialogue. Why should we pay taxes for police but not for healthcare? You seem to think I already know the answer, but as you said, I'm an idiot. Help me to understand.

[WalterRadio]

You have no clue how insurance works.

"Maybe your area doesn't have hurricanes, but flooding or a tornado or lightning or a tree fall or an earthquake. Jesus, half of Georgia is burning right now. The costs need to be shared by everyone. You never know what could happen to you today."
If you live in Wisconsin, you do not buy earthquake insurance. If you live on Signal Hill in San Francisco, you do not buy flood insurance.

Insurance only works when the premium is related to the risk.

Each individual should be responsible for his own personal welfare. If he chooses to pool his risk with others (Lloyds of London started by ship owners who mutually insured each other's voyages), then he should have that choice. If he chooses to accept the risk himself, then he should also have the choice.

The flaw in our system is that a person can choose not to have insurance and gets treated anyway. That is wrong. If someone cannot pay either with cash, credit, or insurance, then he should not be treated. If he dies, then it was his choice.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

I needed a good laugh, thank you.

[WalterRadio]

Never took an economics class, eh?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

I would expect no less coming from a washed up mid-life crisis guy wanting to argue on the internet. Well said

[WalterRadio]

Hmm, I went out and bought an extra house today for cash. What did you do today?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

You are trying to equate your life to someone over the internet?
i3.kym-cdn.com/.../ed8.jpg

[Izumiblu]

Trumpcare is an idiotic plan. It's not even conservative minded.

Trumpcare or Obamacare. They're both beyond stupid.

It's like being asked if you wanna eat a giant bowl of turd soup or if you would like your foot long turd on a sandwich... but hey we added cheese!.

Both the ACA and whatever Trump proposes are a friggin joke and should be metaphorically castrated.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

The ACA is the best we have at the moment and considering healthcare is hardly a dent in our federal budget it should be of little relevance but yet... here we are.

[Izumiblu]

Unfortunately, I tend to agree that the ACA is the best we have at the moment. A testament to the ineptitude of our government.

[curiousnorway]

I thinks a welfare system would work well. In the Scandinavian countries it works. If people pays higher taxes and the richest contributes more, it would be a lesser gap between poor and rich. The Norwegian welfare system gives free education and health care for everyone, and support for people who's too sick/injured/old to work.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

The median household income after taxes though is an incredible poor ratio.
Whereas an ethical capitalist economy (at least mostly ethical) such as Switzerland is both the happiest and most profitable per head.
I would like to know your thoughts on this as well since you happen to live in one of the countries mentioned. I have never been so i am only able to hold a personal opinion, not a one based upon fact. Check it out: thefederalist.com/.../

[goaded]

"The median household income after taxes though is an incredible poor ratio."

Does it even up much if you count health insurance payments as a tax in the US?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

@goaded Hmm?
It does if most of our national budget is allocated to bombing the heck out of other countries.

[rjroy3]

I think socialism is morally inept to begin with and that there's nothing ethical about forcing people to pay for the healthcare of others, then turning around to label people not getting robbed of their money as "robbing" other people of that healthcare.

They don't have a right to my money or your money. If you want to pay for them, then that's awesome. But there is nothing moral or ethical about a universal healthcare system. It's not even effective. That's why America still has the best healthcare, even with the parasite of Obamacare. Trumpcare sucks, but the one good thing was relieving others of the tax burden from the ACA. There was nothing righteous about it.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

That's not even an old way of thinking. It's time to live in the present and for our fellow Americans bud.

[Waffles731]

'That's why America still has the best healthcare, even with the parasite of Obamacare. Trumpcare sucks, but the one good thing was relieving others of the tax burden from the ACA. There was nothing righteous about it.'
No, not by a longshot, according to the WHO the best healthcare system is actually france.
Even Canada is ahead of us.
The American Medical association is hardline against this bill

[Waffles731]

'But there is nothing moral or ethical about a universal healthcare system. It's not even effective.'
Thats again not true, even Canada has a better rating than the U. S by the WHO.
And if you honestly think that lower taxes are more important than the lives of 24 million americans who lose insurance,
DON'T EVER LECTURE SOMEONE ABOUT MORALS CAUSE YOU CLEARLY HAVE NONE

[ak666]

Ethically this line of thinking is correct. Imagine a scenario where a wealthy man passes a homeless man on the street. The homeless man is clearly malnourished and asks feebly for a dollar so that he can eat. The wealthy man insults him and then walks off.

We might find this scenario reprehensible but what happens when we point a gun at the wealthy man's head and tell him he has to pay the homeless man or else we're going to lock him up or shoot him?

That's the moral dilemma with socialism. It has to try to suggest that two wrongs do make a right.

There is an argument to be made that a free society, not a controlled one, is capable of being charitable provided it values charity from a cultural perspective. There are moral tools like education and upbringing that don't require the use of force, as with the case when we try to control people through government mandate.

[Waffles731]

@ak666 the only thing that changes in that scenario is who dies. Only in reality, taxes are done with lawyers and accounts not guns. If you want to say that its immoral, the only argument you can make is that the wealthy mans life is more important due to having money

[ak666]

@Waffles731 What happens to someone who evades taxes? Typically he has his property confiscated and may even be thrown in prison. If we resists he might even be shot and killed. It's why government is a forceful entity from my standpoint. It's not necessarily a pacifistic and benevolent entity, and it tends to be prone to greater corruption the more we empower it.

I think there could be an argument made for socialism but I think that recognition that we are, in effect, forcing people is worth considering. Perhaps in some cases two wrongs do make a right, but I still tend to see it as fundamentally wrong to force people to do things against their will when they are not infringing upon another person's ability to do the same.

[ak666]

@Waffles731 In general I think it's a misconception that those of us who favor greater economic freedom are somehow in favor of letting that poor homeless man starve to death, e. g. Of course with freedom, people in society are free to turn their backs on him, but they're also free to help him. I just tend to believe there's a different way to help him than through the force of government.

[Waffles731]

@ak666 and the same could be said with economic power, money is also a form of power probably th purest form today, to act like economically of entities are different in their actions is delusional

[ak666]

@Waffles731 Well, between the state and a free enterprise, both can accumulate a great deal of power and influence, yes. But it would be illegal for the latter to point a gun at you and force you to do something against your will. With government, it can be legal and there wouldn't be anyone to come to your protection. The government answers to no one.

[Waffles731]

@ak666 except without the governmebt, it would be legal to point guns and kill people

[ak666]

@Waffles731 Communism is actually beautiful in that respect from an idealistic standpoint as an example. The significant elimination of income inequality is a lovely idea.

The practical problem is that any implementation of that, even partially, usually requires the state to become incredibly powerful. At that point the people are no longer free. They're controlled, and controlled people are often miserable and have a tendency to want a revolution that at least gives them back their freedom.

The other practical problem to me is that government isn't very efficient typically. It's hard to find a case of a very prosperous society where a huge portion of the population isn't suffering in misery that is largely absent of freedom.

[ak666]

@Waffles731 >> except without the governmebt, it would be legal to point guns and kill people

That's why I think the fundamental principle of the United States is wonderful. It maximizes practical freedom by keeping government limited to protecting it. That is its primary function: to prevent one individual from depriving another individual of their freedom.

That's maximum practical freedom. If you extend government far beyond that, then we start losing freedom instead of gaining it.

[Waffles731]

@ak666 you actually don't understand communism, what you think of as communism bears zero resemblance actual communism, there is no state, there is no leader either, communism as described would now be called anarchosocialism

[ak666]

@Waffles731 It's why I was careful to say "practical implementation". What I described is what I think you typically would end up seeing if you tried to implement Marxist ideas on a large scale. It's not true communism, I agree, and we've never seen it on a large scale. The point I'm trying to make is that it's probably impossible to see it on a large scale.

[ak666]

@Waffles731 As an example, consider trying to implement a communist system in the US. Most likely after the initial revolution, they'd need an extremely powerful state to ultimately even attempt to reach the goal of a classless, stateless society without currency. That highest state also requires everyone to subscribe to the same ideals, making it so a great deal of bloodshed may also be necessary. I don't see the state simply withering away as a result. I think we end up trapped in a scenario where everyone has to be controlled. It's the most likely outcome as I see it even though this is not at all what Marx had in mind.

Greed and corruption is a constant in my view. It's just a matter of where it lies from my point of view. I'd rather have a totally corrupt employer who I can just leave in favor of working for someone else or starting my own business than, say, a totally corrupt government that can tell me exactly what to do.

[rjroy3]

@OrdinaryGentleman

Not murdering your fellow man is also an old way of thinking. An old idea doesn't make it any less relevant today.

[rjroy3]

Socialism has two assumptions:
1. Humans are inherently selfish, evil beings.
2. Humans must be forced to do what is deemed good, otherwise they will not do so freely.

I personally know many business owners who donate goods to homeless on a weekly basis as a way to give back to the community. What if we all just encouraged that behavior, rather than legislating it a punishing people with the penalty of being locked up in jail for not obeying the overlord?

[ak666]

I think there can be a third one as well as the services provided get more complex:
3) The government is more efficient, more competent, and less corrupt than anything you find in the private sector.

[rjroy3]

@ak666

I consider it all a dichotomy of thought. Because people are inherently evil in their book, but oftentimes a Socialist or socialist advocate will say they think people are inherently good and it's only due to outside circumstances that they will do evil. But then turn around and say we HAVE TO legislate this, because otherwise people won't do the right thing. If people are inherently good, then the logical assumption is they will do the right thing unless outside circumstances make it too difficult. It's only if people are inherently evil that the logical conclusion is you must legislate it or the benevolent outcome you want will not occur.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Not murdering your fellow man is also an old way of thinking. An old idea doesn't make it any less relevant today.
And yet so many equate barbarism with Muslim and African males these days. It doesn't take someone with a degree in engineering to know that old world political establishments used fear or destruction to instill loyalty.

[rjroy3]

@OrdinaryGentleman

" It doesn't take someone with a degree in engineering to know that old world political establishments used fear or destruction to instill loyalty."

I see what you did there ; ). Cute.

That aside. Your argument is still an illogical emotional argument.
Old does not inherently mean obsolete or irrelevant. Old just means longstanding. Plus the argument doesn't hold water, because Socialism isn't new or modern in any stretch of the imagination. There are longstanding Socialist countries where socialist ideals are infact the old way of thinking. So is Capitalism the "fresh" ideal to live by so that they can "live in the present" as you say?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

My argument that old world politics is barbaric?
uh huh I am not even arguing about socialism.
I know what I said "there" because you claimed you were a mechanical engineer on a previous post did you not?

[rjroy3]

@OrdinaryGentleman

That I did. Your statement just reeked of sarcasm so I shed light on it.

This argument: "It's time to live in the present and for our fellow Americans bud."

Universal Healthcare is Socialist, which is what your post was arguing for in essence. So arguing for Universal Healthcare is one in the same as arguing for Socialism. Maybe it's not full fledged Socialism, but it's still Socialism.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Ill answer this later.

[1truekhaleesi]

I wish we could have a single payer system. Anyways, I really don't mind paying an extra hundred dollars so the child of a poor family can get a much needed open heart surgery or whatever. I just ask that it's there for me when I need it. Only in America can people vote to deny healthcare and still call themselves pro-life.

[MarkRet]

The whole healthcare concept is socialism, but you have to know when too much is too much. Socialism is like a drug, and when it's taken in small doses, it can do good things, like relieve pain, and make life a little more comfortable. The problem is, socialism is addictive and habit forming, and delving deeper into it gets you to the point where it's more harmful than good. Our money and resources only go so far, and the question is 'where is the cutoff point?'

Even now, whenever somebody has some rare medical condition, they'll be moaning about, "The government should do something about this!", or, "the government should spend more for stem cell research!" Really? Where does it end?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Because we pay a ton to the government and can't get at least some of that back. Our government is the ones who have to take care of the citizens. That is why we have firefighters, medics and police officers. It's a very old concept to say socialism leads to complacency, and sloth but that simply isn't how things work. An excellent example of quasi-socialism is the EU specifically Norway and Sweden. Now be that as it may the household income after taxes and everyday items is minimal when compared to Switzerland's ethical capitalist economy. But people are happy, they have excellent healthcare, they are taken care of and happen to be home to some of the most intelligent people per-capita in the world. All because they cast off the western way of thinking "I have to be moving or working all the time or i am worthless."

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Thanks for the reply by the way. It's some of the better constructive criticism i've read in the comments here.

[RationalMale]

"Jesus, half of Georgia is burning right now. The costs need to be shared by everyone. You never know what could happen to you today."

Your need is not a claim on my wallet. Nor are we one people--the USA government hasn't even bothered to cut public money off from illegal aliens.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

And yet we have copious debts racked up by previous governments inadvertent spending, causing the economic instability we have today.

[RationalMale]

You mean the national debt? Thats been a long time in the making. It still doesn't mean i should pay 10% of my gross income for health insurance (cheapest aetna plan offered at work) to help pay for cancer or diabetes treatment of others.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

And yet you pay for the 600B dollars that fund the US war budget to bomb other countries rather than putting citizens, your peers, first? Healthcare is hardly even relevant to the national debt, let alone budget and yet the decision to cut that first is your immediate choice. hahaha

[RationalMale]

Yup. Unless I decide to do tax fraud and claim I have 30 kids, I can't really do much more to shrink my tax bill. I did vote for the guy who argued the Iraq war was a huge mistake, both in primaries and the general. However, your MyTake is about Trumpcare and taking care of other people.

Hence, I commented I'm not going to spend $2700 a year to buy healthcare insurance... that's actually a good bit more than 10% of my net income.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Every person after Bush argued their side didn't choose the war even going as far as to blame the opposing party, blaming people who weren't even in power. That's just it; it's about the ethical dilemma of Trump care. It also goes without saying that when you support something such as eliminating taxes, it runs counter to the founding principles of our social order. Not only does it not deny funding but places a heavier tax burden on future generations
Putting more emphasis on war power than your fellow citizens goes against what America stands for and is in direct violation of being false logic.

[RationalMale]

Then let's meet halfway.

We close military bases around the world, stop spending billions on foreign conflicts, and on the home front we deport all illegal immigrants whether they have anchor babies or not, stop doling out foreign aid, and stop accepting foreign "refugees."

Would you be happy if someone ran on that?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

That's hardly halfway. I can agree we limit the influx of immigration into the US. So we can start there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

[OrdinaryGentleman]

The reason we reach such status in the world in terms of science and technology is due to foreigners who left their country to look for better places to live. However, we deprived those individuals of being the change in their country that they need. We should instead focus our foreign aid efforts into school and education programs, changing the government there as well.
No, meeting halfway would mean we still have troops abroad who would be stationed at those bases but instead we would sell those bases to the country they are in. We would still have troops abroad but instead we would no longer have to worry about upkeep. That goes without saying the countries would want to buy them. Rolling back to being an equal contributor rather than the majority to the UN and allied forces would greatly reprieve the US of having a ridiculous monetary burden.

[RationalMale]

The USA gained it's status from immigrants? You mean Colonists from England and Germany and Netherlands?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Nope the US gained its current day _technological status_ from places such as India, China, Africa and the Middle East.

[RationalMale]

Oh really. Do you have any sources to actually back that up? For example--the lunar landing was in the 60's. In 1970, the USA was 87% white. When did the USA become a technological lead? Are you claiming it became so in 2010 with high abuses of H1b visas? Bullshit.

[John_Doesnt]

The problem is we elected an illiterate businessman with no political experience to run an entire country.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

I agree i will say this though. He destabilized the right, in such a way to have those of extreme religious sentiment vie for the rights of others; he may have polarized both the left and right but he got people involved. He got people on the left to get off their asses and protest paving the way for a generation to understand the worst of the worst and strive for the best. This is an opportunity in my eyes.

[John_Doesnt]

I will add that my biggest moral objection to this bill is that only the richest will get a tax break, while the middle class (the idiots who voted for Trump) will get an increase in taxes.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

And the poor who believed him will get jack

[Elarra]

Obamacare - Help each other

Trumpcare - Every man for himself

[Dred1614returns]

I'm not on board with Trumpcare. I want a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

What would your ideal alternative be to the ACA?

[goaded]

@OrdinaryGentleman That's the big question. Once you've decided that the Republican alternative to universal healthcare (which is what the ACA/Obamacare is) is terrible, whose plan do you go with? The only alternatives that don't kill thousands of Americans are to the left of the ACA. But you don't get tax breaks from them.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

@goaded That is the dilemma, everyone will arrive at their own answer but in truth, the ACA or "Obamacare" is the best thing we have at the moment.

[vishna]

Nice MyTake :) I like when you tackle more serious topics as well as your light hearted posts.

[Anonymous]

The real trouble with Obamacare and why it's failing was forcing citizens to buy extortionate healthcare from private insurance companies rather than set up an American Health Service where everyone is covered at a low cost.

[Opinion Owner]

I believe in capitalism but certain things should not be corporate owned or run such as police, national healthcare, military, etc

[dissolute_dog]

Very good write-up. Very good points. :)

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Thanks bro :)

[Pimop95]

Good job I completely agree

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Thank you bud

[Waffles731]

I love this take