3 ms·

I'm genuinely interested in your positions of opposition to the Affordable Care Act, if any. You're right in saying the OP did not provide any, and I'd be curi

I'm genuinely interested in your positions of opposition to the Affordable Care Act, if any. You're right in saying the OP did not provide any, and I'd be curious to hear some cohesive argument against it that doesn't necessarily tow a party line. As far as the general timbre of the article, I would say it's pretty plainly stating that 'whether to provide healthcare?' offers no moral gray area whatsoever, and that it's a plain obligation on behalf of the employer.

bmelton 13y ago
Since you asked for points of opposition, I'll assume you have arguments in support readily available. The most obvious ones I can think of are: 1) The health care system is really broken, very expensive, and should be fixed outright. Letting the government foot the bill isn't a fix, and is just a waste of citizen tax dollars. 2) It isn't the American way. Instead of taxing Americans for health care, cut taxes, give them more money back, and let them spend it how they want, whether on health care or on preventative care. Create legislation that puts reasonable caps on health care expenses instead, and actually make health care affordable. 3) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design. Managing this at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is, because now in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors, you've also got to pay the government middle-men as well. 4) It's a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states. Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it, which should lower the administration costs.
- Cushman 13y ago
  It's pretty easy to see how these "criticisms" may seem less obvious (and less valid) to someone who a) is not deeply invested in American party politics and b) comes from a state with a well-functioning universal health care system. Or in other words, those work as reasons for a political enemy of health care to oppose the bill; they don't fly so well as reasons for a reasonable person to think everyone shouldn't have access to affordable health care.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but that also doesn't discount them as valid critiques of the bill as it exists. I mentioned elsewhere that, upon reflection, I think what the author meant to suggest is what you just said, which is that if you divest this particular bill from the situation, there should be no valid critiques against affordable health care. That I think almost everybody would agree with. So then the question evolves into whether or not the Affordable Care Act actually meets that measure. We do not currently know, and only time will ultimately tell, but again, there are many very obvious arguments suggesting that it won't actually deliver affordable health care, or that even if it does, that cost is masked by all the other costs. If, in an extremely hypothetical example, Americans went from paying 35% in income taxes in general to paying 75% in income taxes, but all health care were free, then it might have succeeded in making health care affordable, but at the expense of making everything else you might want to spend money on more expensive. Anyway, just food for thought. It's obviously a very complicated issue, and one on which I can easily see both sides of the argument. I tend to be against the particular implementation for various reasons of cost and efficiency, but that doesn't mean that supporters of the Affordable Care Act have no valid arguments either.
    - nijk 13y ago
      Of you think the debate has only two major sides, you never understand it.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        I don't.
- dantheman 13y ago
  And more importantly why does it have to be at the Federal level, clearly MA thought it was a good idea and passed it -- it's not working well, but hey that's there choice. Why must everything be a national policy?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  1) Isn't an argument, but a series of assertions of fact completely unsupported by any argument. 1a) health care system is broken 1b) health care system is very expensive 1c) health care system should be fixed outright 1d) government footing the bill for the health care system isn't a "fix." [what is a "fix," then, and what distinguishes them?] 1e) government footing the bill for the health care system is a "waste of citizen tax dollars." [what wouldn't be a "waste of citizen tax dollars," then, and what distinguishes them?] ----- 2) No "true" Scotsman, and the presentation of the author's opinions as the description of an actual "true" Scotsman. ----- 3) Starts with extremely controversial statements of fact mixed with conspiracy... 3a) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done [where, and in comparison to who?] 3b) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done by design [now, I'm afraid.] ----- 3 cont.) ...then presents its first argument to back an assertion: 3c) Managing health care at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is [ASSERTION] 3d) in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors [costs(MCHD)], you've also got to pay the government middle-men [costs(GMM)] as well if you manage health care at the federal level [MFL]. [Summary: costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM) = costs(MFL)] That's three premises: (3d1): the only costs associated with health care unmanaged at the federal level [costs(~MFL)] are costs(MCHD) [i.e. costs(MCHD) = costs(~MFL)] (3d2): managing health care in general [HCIG] requires that MCHD be paid for [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(MCHD)] (3d3): for health care MFL, GMM must be paid in addition to the costs of MCHD [i.e. costs(MFL) = costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM)] ----- 3c-d: commentary) 3d2 and 3d3 are fairly uncontroversial as premises, but in 3d1, you assume the conclusion by defining MCHD both as the minimum necessary costs, and equivalent to the costs of the status quo [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(~MFL)]. If costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) > 0 is true, then this statement reduces to costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) <= costs(GMM) which is simply a naked assertion, not an argument. The only tests that I can think of that would validate this would be if Medicare had more overhead than the US private insurance system [VERIFIABLY FALSE], or if foreign systems with socialized health care were in any case more expensive than ones without [VERIFIABLY FALSE.] ----- 4a) Federally managed health care is a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [APPEAL TO AUTHORITY] 4b) The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states [NAKED ASSERTION] 4c) Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it [CALL TO ACTION] 4d) Allowing states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose should lower the administration costs [NAKED ASSERTION, and a strange one too. Having health care administered by 50 different state government administrations should have a lower cost than a having health care administered by a single federal administration? You don't think an argument is necessary for this assertion, or are you relying on "The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design" to do the heavy lifting here?] ----- Honestly, I don't even think you're trolling. This thinking is just murky.

bmelton 13y ago

Since you asked for points of opposition, I'll assume you have arguments in support readily available. The most obvious ones I can think of are: 1) The health care system is really broken, very expensive, and should be fixed outright. Letting the government foot the bill isn't a fix, and is just a waste of citizen tax dollars. 2) It isn't the American way. Instead of taxing Americans for health care, cut taxes, give them more money back, and let them spend it how they want, whether on health care or on preventative care. Create legislation that puts reasonable caps on health care expenses instead, and actually make health care affordable. 3) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design. Managing this at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is, because now in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors, you've also got to pay the government middle-men as well. 4) It's a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states. Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it, which should lower the administration costs.

Cushman 13y ago
It's pretty easy to see how these "criticisms" may seem less obvious (and less valid) to someone who a) is not deeply invested in American party politics and b) comes from a state with a well-functioning universal health care system. Or in other words, those work as reasons for a political enemy of health care to oppose the bill; they don't fly so well as reasons for a reasonable person to think everyone shouldn't have access to affordable health care.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but that also doesn't discount them as valid critiques of the bill as it exists. I mentioned elsewhere that, upon reflection, I think what the author meant to suggest is what you just said, which is that if you divest this particular bill from the situation, there should be no valid critiques against affordable health care. That I think almost everybody would agree with. So then the question evolves into whether or not the Affordable Care Act actually meets that measure. We do not currently know, and only time will ultimately tell, but again, there are many very obvious arguments suggesting that it won't actually deliver affordable health care, or that even if it does, that cost is masked by all the other costs. If, in an extremely hypothetical example, Americans went from paying 35% in income taxes in general to paying 75% in income taxes, but all health care were free, then it might have succeeded in making health care affordable, but at the expense of making everything else you might want to spend money on more expensive. Anyway, just food for thought. It's obviously a very complicated issue, and one on which I can easily see both sides of the argument. I tend to be against the particular implementation for various reasons of cost and efficiency, but that doesn't mean that supporters of the Affordable Care Act have no valid arguments either.
  - nijk 13y ago
    Of you think the debate has only two major sides, you never understand it.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I don't.
dantheman 13y ago
And more importantly why does it have to be at the Federal level, clearly MA thought it was a good idea and passed it -- it's not working well, but hey that's there choice. Why must everything be a national policy?
pessimizer 13y ago
1) Isn't an argument, but a series of assertions of fact completely unsupported by any argument. 1a) health care system is broken 1b) health care system is very expensive 1c) health care system should be fixed outright 1d) government footing the bill for the health care system isn't a "fix." [what is a "fix," then, and what distinguishes them?] 1e) government footing the bill for the health care system is a "waste of citizen tax dollars." [what wouldn't be a "waste of citizen tax dollars," then, and what distinguishes them?] ----- 2) No "true" Scotsman, and the presentation of the author's opinions as the description of an actual "true" Scotsman. ----- 3) Starts with extremely controversial statements of fact mixed with conspiracy... 3a) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done [where, and in comparison to who?] 3b) The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done by design [now, I'm afraid.] ----- 3 cont.) ...then presents its first argument to back an assertion: 3c) Managing health care at the federal level just makes it even more expensive than it already is [ASSERTION] 3d) in addition to all the costs associated with the medicine, care, hospitals and doctors [costs(MCHD)], you've also got to pay the government middle-men [costs(GMM)] as well if you manage health care at the federal level [MFL]. [Summary: costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM) = costs(MFL)] That's three premises: (3d1): the only costs associated with health care unmanaged at the federal level [costs(~MFL)] are costs(MCHD) [i.e. costs(MCHD) = costs(~MFL)] (3d2): managing health care in general [HCIG] requires that MCHD be paid for [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(MCHD)] (3d3): for health care MFL, GMM must be paid in addition to the costs of MCHD [i.e. costs(MFL) = costs(MCHD) + costs(GMM)] ----- 3c-d: commentary) 3d2 and 3d3 are fairly uncontroversial as premises, but in 3d1, you assume the conclusion by defining MCHD both as the minimum necessary costs, and equivalent to the costs of the status quo [i.e. costs(HCIG) = costs(~MFL)]. If costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) > 0 is true, then this statement reduces to costs(~MFL) - costs(HCIG) <= costs(GMM) which is simply a naked assertion, not an argument. The only tests that I can think of that would validate this would be if Medicare had more overhead than the US private insurance system [VERIFIABLY FALSE], or if foreign systems with socialized health care were in any case more expensive than ones without [VERIFIABLY FALSE.] ----- 4a) Federally managed health care is a further abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [APPEAL TO AUTHORITY] 4b) The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, not dictate commands to citizens in states [NAKED ASSERTION] 4c) Allow states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose, and let the money stay closer to the people who need it [CALL TO ACTION] 4d) Allowing states to implement their own health care acts if they so choose should lower the administration costs [NAKED ASSERTION, and a strange one too. Having health care administered by 50 different state government administrations should have a lower cost than a having health care administered by a single federal administration? You don't think an argument is necessary for this assertion, or are you relying on "The federal government is woefully inefficient at getting things done, and that is by design" to do the heavy lifting here?] ----- Honestly, I don't even think you're trolling. This thinking is just murky.