Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]1. It forces me to buy health insurance

I believe this has already been refuted.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129200&page=2

Originally posted by sh76
""We "have to" buy auto insurance (if we want to drive).

Doctors "have to" buy malpractice insurance if they want to practice,

etc.

So, we'll a ...[text shortened]... e passed.[/b]

Agreed. But this bill doesn't fall into this category.[/b]

"So, we'll all "have to" buy health insurance if we don't want to pay an extra tax."

It's exactly this subterfuge that I have a problem with. When government pins you down and twists your leg and you tap out, was it solely by your volition? What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force. Law is a negative concept. Frederic Bastiat, in The Law, explains it thus:

"...the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property."

The legality of the issue becomes a moot point to me when law makes a mockery of justice. Law need only concern itself with what it has been created for: the protection of rights.

All of this, of course, doesn't have much bearing on what the courts eventually decide. What will happen is yet to be seen. But, I hope this helps make it clearer to you where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by Beyer
"So, we'll all "have to" buy health insurance if we don't want to pay an extra tax."

It's exactly this subterfuge that I have a problem with. When government pins you down and twists your leg and you tap out, was it solely by your volition? What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force. Law is a negat ...[text shortened]... yet to be seen. But, I hope this helps make it clearer to you where I'm coming from.

It's exactly this subterfuge that I have a problem with

you may have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean the govt is acting unconstitutionally.

What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force

are some sort of anarchist? do you think you should be able to live as you like and the govt should basically be nonexistent?

people have to pay tax too, does that mean its nazi germany all over again?

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people./b]

Yes, but everybody knows this isn't the case. Im in favor of small government, but do I think people should live in a state of anarchy with no rules or regulations whatsoever simply for the sake of their "freedom"? no.

[b] Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property."

sorry but you're being far too melodramatic for my taste.

The legality of the issue becomes a moot point to me when law makes a mockery of justice. Law need only concern itself with what it has been created for: the protection of rights

agreed. and this bill does exactly that, it attempts to protect people from being cheated by insurance companies.

What will happen is yet to be seen. But, I hope this helps make it clearer to you where I'm coming from.

indeed, it was very revealing. I sort of get where you're coming from, but I just don't think your worry is justified.

Originally posted by generalissimo
It's exactly this subterfuge that I have a problem with

you may have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean the govt is acting unconstitutionally.

What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force

are some sort of anarchist? do you think you should be able to live as you like an ...[text shortened]... sort of get where you're coming from, but I just don't think your worry is justified.[/b]

I'd like to know how you equate my disposition against government health care to anarchy. You make the comment that "it isn't always a slippery slope" just recently and then post this? You then go on to refute yourself in the next line by posting the equally absurd fascism comparison. Thanks?

agreed. and this bill does exactly that, it attempts to protect people from being cheated by insurance companies.

I find it funny that you can accuse the insurance companies of cheating but you can't extend that reasoning to my argument. Further, I'd argue that the reason we're in this mess right now is exactly because of government intervention.

Originally posted by Beyer
I'd like to know how you equate my disposition against government health care to anarchy. You make the comment that "it isn't always a slippery slope" just recently and then post this? You then go on to refute yourself in the next line by posting the equally absurd fascism comparison. Thanks?

[b]agreed. and this bill does exactly that, it attempts to protec at the reason we're in this mess right now is exactly because of government intervention.

[/b]How do you explain other countries provide much cheaper health care with much more government meddling?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How do you explain other countries provide much cheaper health care with much more government meddling?[/b]

Because they're not the US?

Originally posted by Beyer
Because they're not the US?

Elaborate. Is there something specific about US geography which prevents efficient health care spending?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Elaborate. Is there something specific about US geography which prevents efficient health care spending?

If the US implemented "more government meddling", whatever that is, equal to another country, if that's even possible, do you think the cost will be the same, lower, or higher than that country?

Originally posted by Beyer
If the US implemented "more government meddling", whatever that is, equal to another country, if that's even possible, do you think the cost will be the same, lower, or higher than that country?

Well, it's likely that costs in the US would go down significantly, considering the large margin by which US health care is more expensive than in comparably rich countries.

Originally posted by Beyer
I'd like to know how you equate my disposition against government health care to anarchy. You make the comment that "it isn't always a slippery slope" just recently and then post this? You then go on to refute yourself in the next line by posting the equally absurd fascism comparison. Thanks?

[b]agreed. and this bill does exactly that, it attempts to protec ...[text shortened]... at the reason we're in this mess right now is exactly because of government intervention.

I'd like to know how you equate my disposition against government health care to anarchy

you didn't seem to be attacking only govt healthcare, your statement was pretty general, it was about govt using force.

"What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force." there's nothing here indicating you were only talking about healthcare.

You make the comment that "it isn't always a slippery slope" just recently and then post this?

Yes. You seem to be under the illusion that govt shouldn't force anything on anyone regardless of the circumstances, if we were to follow this you could argue that people shouldn't be forced to pay tax either, this is a perfectly valid conclusion.

there wasn't a slippery slope in my argument, I was only applying your own theory.

You then go on to refute yourself in the next line by posting the equally absurd fascism comparison. Thanks

"people have to pay tax too, does that mean its nazi germany all over again?"- this wasn't a comparison, it was a question.

I find it funny that you can accuse the insurance companies of cheating but you can't extend that reasoning to my argument

Im sure you're aware of the reasons behind healthcare reform, right? don't you know people were refused treatment because of their "pre-existing conditions", if that wasn't cheating I don't know what is.

Further, I'd argue that the reason we're in this mess right now is exactly because of government intervention.

Laughable, can you expend on that?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, it's likely that costs in the US would go down significantly, considering the large margin by which US health care is more expensive than in comparably rich countries.

Costs will go down, but not to what they should be. US heathcare costs are the product of the worst of both worlds -- people who vigorously look to make a buck AND government effing things up with strangling regulation.

Abandoning a free market and employing socialist methods (like other countries) will produce somewhat lower costs, but never the lowest possible costs -- only a free market can do that.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Costs will go down, but not to what they should be. US heathcare costs are the product of the worst of both worlds -- people who vigorously look to make a buck AND government effing things up with strangling regulation.

Abandoning a free market and employing socialist methods (like other countries) will produce somewhat lower costs, but never the lowest possible costs -- only a free market can do that.

Yes, it would be great if you could cite some empirical evidence for this.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]I'd like to know how you equate my disposition against government health care to anarchy

you didn't seem to be attacking only govt healthcare, your statement was pretty general, it was about govt using force.

"What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force." there's nothing here indic ...[text shortened]... use of government intervention.[/b]

Laughable, can you expend on that?[/b]

My statements were about government using indiscriminate force. An important distinction. To conclude that my statement about coercion and force had nothing to do with the topic of the health care bill is either disingenuous or missing the point. I was merely trying to expound on my earlier statement of subterfuge: If the end is the same, then what difference does it make if the means are different?

I never claimed government had no right to use force. My argument is government shouldn't use force for the wrong reasons. Your slippery slope argument wasn't warranted. Your rhetorical question was supposed to be a counter to the argument "government shouldn't force anything on anyone regardless of the circumstances", but, I never made that argument. It was you who incorrectly inferred that argument. And so the whole point of your rhetorical question was to point out the absurdity in it. Thank you, I know.

Moving on, your next statement about the insurance companies cheating the consumer is the basis for my argument. That's why I find it perplexing that you can apply that reasoning to insurance companies but cannot fathom the government doing the same thing. Are the insurance companies doing something illegal? No... well, neither is Congress by passing the health care reform, so you assert. So what exactly is the problem? Why do you feel this way? Well, because quite frankly, you can clearly see the injustice. And by admitting that, you have to admit that your sense of justice does not emanate from laws. Likewise, my contention against the current health care bill doesn't arise so much on its constitutionality as much as it does on my sense of justice. Therefore, if you want to dismiss my argument on the grounds that the Supreme Court has already decided or intends to decide in favor of the legality of the bill, then you have no basis to shout "injustice!" when the insurance companies' legality is not at stake.

Originally posted by Beyer
My statements were about government using indiscriminate force. An important distinction. To conclude that my statement about coercion and force had nothing to do with the topic of the health care bill is either disingenuous or missing the point. I was merely trying to expound on my earlier statement of subterfuge: If the end is the same, then what diff ...[text shortened]... no basis to shout "injustice!" when the insurance companies' legality is not at stake.

My statements were about government using indiscriminate force. An important distinction

you're saying that now but your previous posts didn't necessarily suggest this in any way, but lets suppose that was indeed the case (for the sake of argument), do you really believe the obama admin. is using "indiscriminate force"?

To conclude that my statement about coercion and force had nothing to do with the topic of the health care bill is either disingenuous or missing the point

I never said it had nothing to do with the healthcare bill, what I said was that your statements were pretty general, they weren't referring to any bill or law in particular, you seemed to be attacking any use of force by the govt.

My argument is government shouldn't use force for the wrong reasons.

really? where did you say this in your previous posts?
Do you believe the obama admin. is using force for the wrong reasons?

Your rhetorical question was supposed to be a counter to the argument "government shouldn't force anything on anyone regardless of the circumstances", but, I never made that argument.

well, you certainly implied it. I showed you the exact quote, Im not making stuff up.

Are the insurance companies doing something illegal?

no, but they're doing something immoral.

No... well, neither is Congress by passing the health care reform, so you assert.

exactly, so why do you claim the obama admin. is acting unconstitutionally?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]My statements were about government using indiscriminate force. An important distinction

you're saying that now but your previous posts didn't necessarily suggest this in any way, but lets suppose that was indeed the case (for the sake of argument), do you really believe the obama admin. is using "indiscriminate force"?

To conclu ...[text shortened]... rt.

exactly, so why do you claim the obama admin. is acting unconstitutionally?[/b]

Here's a list of statements I've said in previous posts, starting from earliest to latest. If you want to keep insisting that I never made such a claim or extrapolate far reaching conclusions by using sentences out of context, well, that's your prerogative. The irony in all this is that you're commiting the same problem that I'm accusing the courts of: interpreting the texts to reach powers/conclusions... wait for it.... extraneous to the intended function of government/my text. Which leads to the obvious result: government using force for the wrong reasons. I'd call that indiscriminate power.




He's suggesting that the state has no right to force citizens into these programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.

My criticism is when the lawmakers overstep their limits, and create programs ...programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.

But you raise an important point that there were differing views among the Founding Fathers. I obviously hold Madison and Jefferson in high esteem, based on my political philosophy

I wouldn't say ignoring, but bending the Constitution to fit his agenda. Obviously, this depends on how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. You already know my opinion on this.

"So, we'll all "have to" buy health insurance if we don't want to pay an extra tax."

It's exactly this subterfuge that I have a problem with. When government pins you down and twists your leg and you tap out, was it solely by your volition? What difference is there between coercion and force? Both include intent, and intent is positive force. Law is a negative concept. Frederic Bastiat, in The Law, explains it thus: ....

The legality of the issue becomes a moot point to me when law makes a mockery of justice. Law need only concern itself with what it has been created for: the protection of rights.




Reread my posts if you need further clarification.

Originally posted by Beyer
Here's a list of statements I've said in previous posts, starting from earliest to latest. If you want to keep insisting that I never made such a claim or extrapolate far reaching conclusions by using sentences out of context, well, that's your prerogative. The irony in all this is that you're commiting the same problem that I'm accusing the courts of: interpr ...[text shortened]... protection of rights.




Reread my posts if you need further clarification.

The irony in all this is that you're commiting the same problem that I'm accusing the courts of: interpreting the texts to reach powers/conclusions... wait for it.... extraneous to the intended function of government/my text. Which leads to the obvious result: government using force for the wrong reasons. I'd call that indiscriminate power.

Are the courts supposed to interpret laws/the constitution like it was 1788?
Its impossible nowadays to have a system of government similar to that of the an 18th century republic, its simply illogical.

I don't believe that is an obvious result at all, the govt. isn't using force "for the wrong reasons" simply by expanding its role to more than what was proposed centuries ago, do you also think child labor laws were "for the wrong reasons"?

You may well call it indiscriminate, but that doesn't make it so.

He's suggesting that the state has no right to force citizens into these programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.

well, the state does have that right if the people (through their elected representatives) wish that to be so. After all isn't it a govt "by the people and for the people"?

My criticism is when the lawmakers overstep their limits, and create programs ...programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.

Yes, I understand your point, Im sure there is a possibility that govt could become too big, and ultimately endanger personal freedom as well as society in general through unnecessary bureaucracy, but I don't believe that is the case with the healthcare bill.

But you raise an important point that there were differing views among the Founding Fathers. I obviously hold Madison and Jefferson in high esteem, based on my political philosophy

I see.

I wouldn't say ignoring, but bending the Constitution to fit his agenda. Obviously, this depends on how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. You already know my opinion on this.

Yes, I know your opinion on this.

The legality of the issue becomes a moot point to me when law makes a mockery of justice. Law need only concern itself with what it has been created for: the protection of rights.

I admire your philosophy, I just don't agree with you on this particular subject. In my point of view the healthcare bill does exactly that, it ensures there is justice in the healthcare industry, it protects people from exploitation, while still being more pro-business than anything existent in europe. I genuinely don't see what is bad about it.