5 ms·

Now, I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare. I can also understand the point of view of the "free market" health care solution. But calling a repeal of Obamaca

Now, I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare. I can also understand the point of view of the "free market" health care solution. But calling a repeal of Obamacare "evil" is hyperbolic at best.

ceejayoz 9y ago
Taking away health insurance from 24M people isn't evil? Might need to recalibrate the evilometer.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  That's quite the loaded question. If you're framing it as simply thus giveth, thus taketh then sure in a vacuum just taking healthcare away from people is evil (assuming a certain moral framework). But that's now what is happening here. There are some who believe that the government should stay out of healthcare (not me) and that prices will be lower, and care will be of higher quality. For them, repealing this act will move toward that outcome, which they believe to be good. There's certainly a philosophical argument to be made here. On the other hand, people such as myself believe that a nation should just provide healthcare for all citizens because we can afford to, and if managed properly (questionable at best considering the US government) could be cheaper and result in better care and will help make the United States more fair. So yes, I think it's quite hyperbolic to call the repeal of the ACA evil, and it's disingenuous to say that the repeal is simply "taking away health insurance from 24m people" as if that action is happening in a vacuum.
badlucklottery 9y ago
>But calling a repeal of Obamacare "evil" is hyperbolic at best. How about "profoundly amoral and uncaring"?
- muninn_ 9y ago
  As I mentioned to another poster, it depends on your point of view. On one hand, I sympathize with people who believe in a minimal state, are are fearful of our (mostly shitty) government getting involved in the health care industry. It's uncaring if you believe that all people should have healthcare provided by the government and through taxation of other people whether they want it or not. It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. I am in favor of government run healthcare for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider the opposite point of view to be profoundly uncaring or amoral. In fact, I'd say that if you ignore that the intent of the ACA was to continue to entrench the government into the healthcare industry, it seems quite immoral to essentially guarantee corporate profits for health insurers. Neither the democrats or republicans in charge really want single-payer. I think at least the republicans are more honest about it.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    > It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. Yeah, that pretty much is what "uncaring" is.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      You can care about people and think they should provide for themselves.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        And if they can't take care of themselves, and you leave them to rot, then no—you don't actually care about them.
        muninn_ 9y ago
        You leave people to rot every day. Why aren't you paying for healthcare in Africa or paying for healthcare for people in rural West Virginia? So are you a hypocrite or callous? There is a far larger philosophical discussion to be had. Summarizing healthcare as "if you don't pay for it you don't care about people who die" is either a political talking point of no value, or a lack of philosophical training and understanding.
        mcphage 9y ago
        > So are you a hypocrite or callous? ...or merely not omnipotent? I don't do anything for healthcare in Africa, true, because I can only do so much, and so donate money to more local organizations. However, I don't think that they should be left to fend for themselves, and do want help to be provided—and so am supportive of organizations that help. That's a far cry from "I think people should fend for themselves", which conveniently ignores those that can't.
        muninn_ 9y ago
        Why not donate to Africans instead of those local to you?
rbanffy 9y ago
There are no words more appropriate than "evil" that are also polite enough to be used in a forum like this.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  No. More appropriate words would be like "difference of opinion" or "I own my labor" or "I don't agree with this action because I think it's solved better in another way". Painting people who disagree with you, especially if they have sound philosophical backing, as evil discredits my cause to bring healthcare to all people. If you want to bring healthcare to people, you have to find a way to get them to agree with you or change their mind. Calling them evil does harm.
c0nducktr 9y ago
It really isn't, when you take into consideration what will happen to people because of it's removal.

Now, I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare. I can also understand the point of view of the "free market" health care solution. But calling a repeal of Obamacare "evil" is hyperbolic at best.

ceejayoz 9y ago

Taking away health insurance from 24M people isn't evil? Might need to recalibrate the evilometer.

muninn_ 9y ago
That's quite the loaded question. If you're framing it as simply thus giveth, thus taketh then sure in a vacuum just taking healthcare away from people is evil (assuming a certain moral framework). But that's now what is happening here. There are some who believe that the government should stay out of healthcare (not me) and that prices will be lower, and care will be of higher quality. For them, repealing this act will move toward that outcome, which they believe to be good. There's certainly a philosophical argument to be made here. On the other hand, people such as myself believe that a nation should just provide healthcare for all citizens because we can afford to, and if managed properly (questionable at best considering the US government) could be cheaper and result in better care and will help make the United States more fair. So yes, I think it's quite hyperbolic to call the repeal of the ACA evil, and it's disingenuous to say that the repeal is simply "taking away health insurance from 24m people" as if that action is happening in a vacuum.

badlucklottery 9y ago

>But calling a repeal of Obamacare "evil" is hyperbolic at best. How about "profoundly amoral and uncaring"?

muninn_ 9y ago
As I mentioned to another poster, it depends on your point of view. On one hand, I sympathize with people who believe in a minimal state, are are fearful of our (mostly shitty) government getting involved in the health care industry. It's uncaring if you believe that all people should have healthcare provided by the government and through taxation of other people whether they want it or not. It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. I am in favor of government run healthcare for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider the opposite point of view to be profoundly uncaring or amoral. In fact, I'd say that if you ignore that the intent of the ACA was to continue to entrench the government into the healthcare industry, it seems quite immoral to essentially guarantee corporate profits for health insurers. Neither the democrats or republicans in charge really want single-payer. I think at least the republicans are more honest about it.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. Yeah, that pretty much is what "uncaring" is.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    You can care about people and think they should provide for themselves.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      And if they can't take care of themselves, and you leave them to rot, then no—you don't actually care about them.
      - muninn_ 9y ago
        You leave people to rot every day. Why aren't you paying for healthcare in Africa or paying for healthcare for people in rural West Virginia? So are you a hypocrite or callous? There is a far larger philosophical discussion to be had. Summarizing healthcare as "if you don't pay for it you don't care about people who die" is either a political talking point of no value, or a lack of philosophical training and understanding.
        mcphage 9y ago
        > So are you a hypocrite or callous? ...or merely not omnipotent? I don't do anything for healthcare in Africa, true, because I can only do so much, and so donate money to more local organizations. However, I don't think that they should be left to fend for themselves, and do want help to be provided—and so am supportive of organizations that help. That's a far cry from "I think people should fend for themselves", which conveniently ignores those that can't.
        muninn_ 9y ago
        Why not donate to Africans instead of those local to you?

rbanffy 9y ago

There are no words more appropriate than "evil" that are also polite enough to be used in a forum like this.

muninn_ 9y ago
No. More appropriate words would be like "difference of opinion" or "I own my labor" or "I don't agree with this action because I think it's solved better in another way". Painting people who disagree with you, especially if they have sound philosophical backing, as evil discredits my cause to bring healthcare to all people. If you want to bring healthcare to people, you have to find a way to get them to agree with you or change their mind. Calling them evil does harm.

c0nducktr 9y ago

It really isn't, when you take into consideration what will happen to people because of it's removal.