Are you conceding that it is a medical issue?

It is not an issue of insurance. It's an issue of not being able to earn the same income that the person did before.

So a debt caused by a reduction in income stemming from medical issues isn't a debt caused by medical issues?

IMHO if someone feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances, that person should be sterilized and prevented from passing on their genes...

In no fecking way should such people be enabled in their destructive behavior by being told, "there there it is not your fault, you're sick you can't help it."

You're being disingenuous. If a person is physically unable to work anymore because of an illness, it's not a debt caused by insurance. It's nothing that Obamacare will fix. Obamacare will give the person insurance; it won't give him back his job if he's physically unable to handle the job anymore.

Regardless, reducing the cost of health insurance by a little is only going to help around the margins. The real problem (one of them, anyway) is that there are some people who can't support themselves any way you slice it. They can't afford health insurance - or rent, or a car payment, or food - not because these things cost too much or are "unaffordable," but because the people ended up in a place - for whatever reason - where they cannot financially provide for themselves and their families. In that case health insurance is just one of a number of things they can't pay for. And so the problem is not the cost of health insurance per se. Now, the ACA forces everyone to pay for them. Fine. But I reject out of hand the notion that the core problem was the cost of something that the vast majority of people were affording.

Not that I'm defending the policy, but the fire department showed up and watched this guy's house burn (to make sure the fire didn't spread to other, participating homes). IIRC, the homeowner offered to pay on the spot, and the fire department refused. (That I have a problem with. Just charge the guy cost and a penalty if you're committed to the program.)

Crosby, the problem is that the penalty would have to be very high to make up for the fact that the guy hadn't been paying all along.

For now, the courts deem the ACA to be constitutional. When Ginsburg has to retire midway through Gary Johnson's first term as president, and she's replaced by someone who cares about freedom, then the Court will change its collective mind. And since the Constitution won't have changed in that time, one of those two Courts will have been wrong, by definition.

If you insist on your ideologically-loaded interpretation as The One Truth. All texts require human interpreters. Your definition of "freedom" is highly subjective and ideological. Your understanding of the Constitution is similarly charged. Pretending otherwise, and then expecting others to play along with the charade, is a rhetorical strategy masking itself as an argument.

Nobody's saying that court decisions can't be subjectively "wrong", according to one's various premises.

This is gibberish. What on earth does "subjectively wrong" mean?

This is the part where you recognize that others have different opinions, David, and you have to coexist with them. This is something everyone but Libertarians learned when they were growing up.

"Wrong according to your interpretation of the text and the values you're bringing to bear on it" = "subjectively wrong"

That you want there to be an objective truth beyond your interpretation doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Once again, non-responsive. Libertarians of course know that others have different opinions. It's just that those opinions are wrong.

Your nihilistic approach to constitutional interpretation simply leads to the question: why have judicial review at all?

OK. Take your ball and go home.

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.

It makes perfect sense. They can't work because they are sick? Why, I do believe that is a medical issue!

The whole history of rhetoric (let alone poetry) would seem to indicate otherwise. To take just the most obvious example, there are multiple contradictory interpretations of the Bible, and multiple viable religions built on them, none of them obviously "wrong." The same would be true of Moby-Dick or the Fourteenth Amendment. The difference would be that in the case of the 14th Amendment, you can't have a functioning government unless someone has the "final" (albeit always provisional) say on how it should be currently put into practice.

Those cited in the Warren study as having had medical bankruptcies had an average net worth of -$44,622. Their out-of-pocket medical expenses had been an average of $17,943, but for uninsured filers it had been $26,971, which of course doesn't include those still-unpaid bills.

Somehow I don't think that the issue here was expenditures on designer shoes.

(The cutoff they used, in order to inflate their numbers, was $1,000 in out-of-pocket medical bills.)

Saying there's no such thing as Absolute Legal Truth does not lead to nihilism, it just recognizes the fundamental fact that all laws are grounded in discourse, and all discourse is bound up in the necessarily-changing context of the participants. "Constitutional" truth has to be discursive, rather than metaphysical, because the Constitution is a product of human discourse. Welcome to 20th century philosophy.

The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit?

To take just the most obvious example, there are multiple contradictory interpretations of the Bible, and multiple viable religions built on them, none of them obviously "wrong."

Somehow I don't think that your out-of-context factoids that you cut and pasted from a magazine article about a study are actually that useful. Note that "average" (that's mean, not median) tells you little about how much most bankruptcy filers actually racked up in bills. Note that these numbers are over the entire course of the illness, which could be over many years. (In the original 2005 study, in which the average was a somewhat lower $11,854, that was just $3,686 in the year preceding the bankruptcy.) The bottom line is that the study in no way looked at whether bankruptcies were "caused by" medical bills; the study looked at whether bankrupt people had any medical bills. (The cutoff they used, in order to inflate their numbers, was $1,000 in out-of-pocket medical bills.)

The phrase "bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" comes to mind.

(1) In the post LBJ/Great Society & Nixon (who was much more domestically liberal than people think) years, you have to give credit to the Reagan Administration for fundamentally changing the public discourse. Government suddenly was almost never viewed as a solution or positive actor in a given scenario.

The debate surrounding Obamacare suffers from occurring in this environment. Why are liberals/progressives even engaging folks like RDP/DN in debates as silly as what "affordable" means, or whether this is wealth redistribution? Of course it is wealth redistribution...but why aren't we standing up, and proudly proclaiming, for all to hear, that yes, this is wealth redistribution. And why are we doing it? Because, from a philosophical/social standpoint, access to basic healthcare is a human right. We don't care about libertarian the market this, the market that nonsense. It is a human right. You live in our society, you get healthcare. Period. And in this political climate, this is the best way (for now), we know how to go about achieving that goal.

It continues to amuse me to no end that people provide studies when David asks for them, but never demand he supply any data of his own... I'm developing a very strong suspicion that I might be finally getting to the bottom of the Six Sigma fad...

The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit?

Speaking for myself, no, and I daresay that I'm speaking for the overwhelming majority...

To be sure, I am grateful to Reagan for some of what he did in that area, but you have to ask yourself: why could he do that? And the answer is because the Great Society was already viewed as a failure. He was nurturing what people already felt, not brainwashing them.

Because, from a philosophical/social standpoint, access to basic healthcare is a human right. We don't care about libertarian the market this, the market that nonsense. It is a human right. You live in our society, you get healthcare. Period. And in this political climate, this is the best way (for now), we know how to go about achieving that goal.

Why should he? If I bring up the point that I feel x law is good because of y condition, the burden's on me to prove that y condition actually exists. David's argument stems from first principles, not some particular study that says that bankruptcies are *rarely* due to medical bills - in fact, it's irrelevant to his beliefs so there's no reason for him to require any such study.

And you're free to feel that. That's a matter of opinion. Period. Period. See, I said period twice, which makes the argument three times as strong rather than merely twice as strong, so I win.

David's argument stems from first principles, not some particular study that says that bankruptcies are *rarely* due to medical bills - in fact, it's irrelevant to his beliefs so there's no reason for him to require any such study.

OK. Take your ball and go home.

Is this a new drinking game? You keep repeating it.

You can't declare a good or service a "right" and then force private actors to provide it. If you want to treat is as a "right," fine. Make the system entirely public.

Of course it is wealth redistribution...but why aren't we standing up, and proudly proclaiming, for all to hear, that yes, this is wealth redistribution. And why are we doing it? Because, from a philosophical/social standpoint, access to basic healthcare is a human right. We don't care about libertarian the market this, the market that nonsense. It is a human right. You live in our society, you get healthcare. Period.

And of course, plenty of people want to do exactly that.

What could possibly be the origin of a "right" to someone else's labor?

Fine, but the comment above was supporting the current law.

Fine, but the comment above was supporting the current law.

this is the best way (for now)

You live in our society, you get healthcare. Period.

And you're free to feel that. That's a matter of opinion. Period. Period. See, I said period twice, which makes the argument three times as strong rather than merely twice as strong, so I win.

When I was a teenager, I jumped into a pool to save a drowning child, who had fallen in by accident and didn't know how to swim. I wasn't employed as the pool's lifeguard, and the kid's mom didn't slip me a sawbuck so that I'd drag her boy out of the water. I just jumped in and swam because my conscience told me that it'd be wrong to stand by and let a helpless kid drown, when with a small effort I could save him. In that sense, the kid had a "right" to my labor, even though he neither provided nor promised compensation for my efforts.

When I was a teenager, I jumped into a pool to save a drowning child, who had fallen in by accident and didn't know how to swim.

I wasn't employed as the pool's lifeguard, and the kid's mom didn't slip me a sawbuck so that I'd drag her boy out of the water. I just jumped in and swam because my conscience told me that it'd be wrong to stand by and let a helpless kid drown, when with a small effort I could save him. In that sense, the kid had a "right" to my labor, even though he neither provided nor promised compensation for my efforts.

Healthcare is no more a human right than yacht ownership or dating a supermodel. Governments may choose to provide it until the money runs out, but it's a category error to confuse government entitlements with human rights.

Please describe some of these human rights, especially those the government does not have to spend any money on to help provide.

If you're confused, that's pretty damning on your part. I support the right to free expression, freedom to practice religion, freedom to freely engage in a variety of acts with other freely consenting adults in a wide variety of acts, from sexual to financial. I support these rights, as a matter of first principles, regardless of whether or not there is data proving that these rights are beneficial to society based on some financial bottom line.

I just jumped in and swam because my conscience told me that it'd be wrong to stand by and let a helpless kid drown, when with a small effort I could save him. In that sense, the kid had a "right" to my labor, even though he neither provided nor promised compensation for my efforts.

If you use data as the basis for your opinion, then yes, you have to actually provide the data.

But if you believe that someone providing your health care in an inherent right, then data that supports whether or not it is a financially beneficial idea is irrelevant to your position. But if your position is that it's a financially good idea rather than an inherent right, then data that supports whether or not is a financially good idea.

OK, so the "right" to your labor, derived from the individual conscience of you, the person who provided the labor. The people who have a "right" to health care derived from the good conscience of fellow individual citizens can likewise help themselves to health care from those particular citizens.

You included this part in your quote, but maybe you didn't read it?

this is the best way (for now)

(2) Libertarian arguments are very rarely called to task for the "what now?" aspect that they completely ignore. Assume for a moment that we can somehow configure a society where opting out of, say, fire control, only puts your specific property at risk. (Put aside the inanity of that assumption.) A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit?

And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?* A very similar argument can be made for healthcare. The Hobbesian fantasyland where there are these isolated choices that don't affect others simply doesn't exist. We live in a society, where your choices affect me. Deal with it.

You voluntarily did it because you wanted to.

Is it your contention that all services provided by a government are human rights?

The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit?

Yes.

Unless you propose taking people's children away from them and raising them in state homes, children will always face the consequences of their parents' decisions, good or bad. The government can't equalize all of that.

I don't think discussion of human rights has much to do with spending money, but you brought it up, so I am curious as to what are rights (if health care is not one) and what is the connection to spending money in your mind?

so they created standing armies, and federal governments, and taxation, and all sorts of things they, too, were skeptical of at the outset of the grand experiment.

XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Then why would we pay anybody at all for it? Let's just have Carousel pick 5% of the population to be medical provider-slaves, and another 5% of the people to be manufacturing-slaves to collect the raw materials necessary to provide the medicines and devices the medical provider-slaves require to provide this inalienable right?

I'm a pragmatist, so it's the most practical solution we have. But if someone's going to argue that their personal views are superior to mine because Period, I'm going to get pretty hostile. And if someone's going to whip out the compassion card against me, I'd be happy to whip out my tax returns for some good ol' fashioned charitable dick-measuring.

You're not standing up and proudly proclaiming for all to hear that, yes, this is wealth redistribution because most Americans don't like the idea of wealth redistribution.

Actually, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law. Period. Period. Period to infinity.

I can say this about a lot of things that liberals don't like, too. Period. Period. Period. Period. Period. (Don't want to waste all my Periods. in one specific argument).

I'm a pragmatist

That's incompatible with being a libertarian.

All of your examples center around government action/expediture. Do you believe that humans have any rights that do not stem from the government?

Do you believe that health care is a right, if it turned out that providing health care to those that can't afford it reduced the health care of those that could by a greater degree? Not saying it does, but if it did, would you still think it was a right? If you did, then clearly, your belief about that right is derived from your first principles, not the data, so the data itself would be irrelevant to whether you think it's a right or not.

As I said, if someone proved that free speech reduced the GDP of the country by 1% of the year, I would be in favor of free speech. If someone proved that free speech increased the rate of heart attacks by 15%, I'd be in favor of free speech. If someone proved that free speech increased crime by 25%, I'd be in favor of free speech. If someone proved that free speech doubled the rate of depression, I'd be in favor of free speech. If someone proved that free speech doubled the odds that humanity will destroy itself in the year 3000, I'd be in favor of free speech.

So, if my belief in free speech as an inherent right is not predicated on the notion that it has a positive effect on GDP or heart attacks or crime or depression or oblivion or anything one can measure, why would it be necessary for me to justify that it does? If a right is truly inalienable, it means we allow it whether or not the overall effect on some slice of society is positive or negative, so the data is truly irrelevant, unless we're conflating "good idea" with "right."

I think helping others is a great idea - I've never made 100K in a year and never donated less than 5K in a year. I think organizations that provide medical care are great (my fees for ZiPS in last year's ESPN Magazine preview went to Doctors Without Borders). I think donating your time to your community is a great idea. But I do not think that good ideas become rights and bad ideas nullify rights. I abhor someone who uses their wealth to, say, fill up a swimming pool with dollar bills and lounge on them. I would think the person in question is a horrible, stain on mankind. But I do not believe that I have any inherent right to prevent that person from doing otherwise.

All of your examples center around government action/expediture. Do you believe that humans have any rights that do not stem from the government?

So where does that leave us? Seems like, in a nation like ours, it's just a matter of going to the ballot box and the chips falling where they may.

I'm a pragmatist, so it's the most practical solution we have.

But if someone's going to argue that their personal views are superior to mine because Period, I'm going to get pretty hostile.

Healthcare is no more a human right than yacht ownership or dating a supermodel.

No, I didn't want to do it. I got soaking wet and I ruined my cell phone. I did it because my inner moral sense told me it was the right thing to do, in spite of the fact that I didn't want to do it.

The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit?

Yes.

At least until your house is burning down, and you run outside to beg the fire department to save it.

Since I'm responsible and I can afford it, I pay for things like fire protection. So of course they should save it.

Complete non-sequitur. Everyone has beliefs that aren't derived from data proving their specific effect on an arbitrary measure of society. If you spend an hour talking about politics on a baseball site rather than, say, working at a soup kitchen, by definition, you've chosen to believe something (that arguing politics on a baseball site is a better use of your time than spending the same time helping the less fortunate) that also shows a lack of care about real-world outcomes.

Any homeowner, or anyone with enough possessions to be worrying about fire protection in the first place, can afford that.

Most of the laws we're talking about don't involve right vs. non-right, but watered-down right vs. slightly different version of watered-down right.

I agree with almost everything in 221, but I thought this comment was funny. Wouldn't a "Hobbesian fantasyland" be a place with a powerful central authority that enables us to live in peace with our neighbors and promotes the collective good?