My official political positions are probably more Libertarian than anything else, but I don't like to assume labels because people apply the whole package to you. For instance, while I support freedom to own a gun (I don't own one), I don't like the way the gun show thing works. Also, I would at a minimum apply much stricter laws to assault and body armour piercing weapons and ammo. (step back from the keyboard - I know all the arguments). I think the rule of law, which is critical to our country's history, is being eroded. That's why I despised Obama's GM bailout plan. In practice it was an end around established bankruptcy laws to take assets away from one group of people (stakeholders in the company) and give it to another group of people (who just happen to be key supporters of the Democrats). But I don't think that's not the worst part. The worst part is that GM is more likely to fail again than if they had gone through the established reorganization process than the political process this bailout went through. A political process always includes a lot of fat. But this thread is about health care. I have many problems with it but a special one is I think the mandate is a huge step in the erosion of personal liberty. Again put down the keyboard I know the arguments. I agree, the mandate really shouldn't be a horrible thing in practice - the fines are minimal, enforcement via IRS has been overblown - but it sets a precedence that concerns me. It creates a mandate just for being. I can almost guarantee, if it is upheld by the courts, that this will not be last time we see this concept used by Washington.
I think my beliefs are fairly spread evenly among the parties. I favor the Libertarian ideal of personal liberties and freedom, I don't like the gub'ment snooping around in my business. I like the traditional Republican standard of fiscal conservatism and, further, I would add that the idea of a balanced budget amendment has it's merits. It's sad to say but it will likely take a constitutional amendment to accomplish this. I would add that the only exceptions to a balanced budget would be in times of war, and I mean the kind that is declared by congress, not by executive order. I favor the democrats on many social issues but stop short of endorsing things like welfare without timelines, etc. People don't take responsibility for themselves enough these days and there is no doubt about that. I would add that it has been proven time and again that socialism is a failed form of government that is theoretically attractive but proven time and again to be impractical. That said, I detest how social security is referred to as an entitlement. Each of us pay into social security during our working careers. An entitlement is a handout. The irony here is that if we balanced the budget every year, we could stop robbing social security. Sorry to ramble but on hydrocodone after trip to Dentist today.
I read this post twice and couldn't find a word to disagree with. EXCEPT - I would use a good tequila or Irish whiskey instead of that hydrocodone crap. Much more dependable with well known side effects. Good post. Take care of your Dentist inspired pain.
Interesting. Do you really think it creates a mandate? But how is this "mandate for being" any different than social security or medicare? Or mandatory liability insurance? Or Selective Service?
Social security, medicare, taxes, ect only apply if you work for wages. Liability insurance only applies if you drive. Selective service applies during times of war - declared by congress or executive branch. The health insurance mandate applies if you are an American citizen and you're old enough not be be on your parents coverage. By not buying health insurance, by doing nothing, you have broken the law.
Which is essentially everybody. Or own property or run almost any kind of business. Again, essentially everybody. The draft is imposed during wartime. But male citizens are required to be available to Selective Service as a requirement of citizenship. They don't get to decline it without breaking the law. And the punishment should be that you receive no health care, yet we know that people will be treated at emergency rooms anyway, making these people freeloaders at the expense of the rest of us. I don't follow your logic. Why wouldn't anybody want to be insured? With medical costs these days it is essential. There are far more people that want to be insured by the insurance companies won't take them.
As I said earlier, I know all the arguments. My concern is the principal involved - not this particular use of it. For the first time in the history of this country you can wake up on one day after your 26th birthday and for no reason other than you are still alive and didn't buy health insurance, you are a criminal. That's a power our government hasn't had before, and I believe once its in place it will be used again. For instance you brought up liability insurance, can you not see these facts being presented by Congressman Dowhatsbestforthepeople; Driving in America is an absolute necessity in order to hold a job. The country's economy needs everyone to work The low wage earners can't [EDIT ADDED AFFORD] afford auto insurance because of the cost One of the ways to reduce insurance is by doing what we did with health insurance; mandate everyone have it no matter what their situation. Therefore for the good of the people; for the good of the country all citizens will be required to have auto insurance upon the age of 18 no matter what their situation. The auto insurers would flow money to Congressman Dowhatsbestforthepeople just like the health insurers did for Obamacare sell out to no cross state insurance. It could happen. And it's more likely now that it was before Obamacare.
Ahhh . . . Well, in that case I agree with you, on principle. I was once a blind idealist. :wink: But I have come to understand that it is almost always best to seek an optimum balance point that ameliorates the problem, rather than stand solely on principles in martinesque fashion. No one person and no one party reveres principles that are perfect and agreed on by all. I'd rather take half of your principle and half of mine to reach a workable solution and move on instead of wasting years in obdurate dispute. This inflexibility of principles is at the heart of the gridlocked uselessness of our Congress and political parties. They treat every issue as an opportunity to impose their own principles upon everybody rather than negotiate and compromise a "better-than-before" decision, then move on to the next issue.
I find much to agree with in your treatise on how principles are effecting our ability to govern ourselves. HOWEVER; some principles should be considered sacrosanct and only compromised if absolutely necessary. An important example is the ability to vote in private. That's why to me Card Check's plan to 'help' workers organize by publicly signing a card is not defensible. What vital need is served by the elimination of secret ballot? When is secret ballot ever a bad thing? Why does this principle need to be compromised? I don't think congress is paralyzed by principles as much as they by the need for re-election campaign funds and support. This requires sucking up to the party bosses; who suck up to the hardliners (left and right) who pass out the money. I think this causes a lot of congress not to vote their conscience (principles) on votes of principle. Which further empowers the hardliners and the cycle is repeated. So in a way I'm saying your right, principles are causing paralysis, but not the principles of the public figures we elected. And I think that's a bad thing. I'm sure you can tell I'm not a believer in concentrating all power in Washington. And unlike Obama, I want the sausage making process out in the open. If we can't see the warts, we can't heal them. Sadly, the Sunshine laws have been obscured by clouds.
