Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 8 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   701. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4173731)
To be fair, Sam has been acting as my bratty younger brother for about fifteen years now, since he was about 7 or 8 years old, long before BBTF.

It must suck to be you. No wonder you're such an uncompassionate racist.
   702. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4173733)
4) That said, I don't think charitable contributions prove much one way or the other in terms of compassion. So you support your pet causes, big deal - so does everyone else.
But they don't. Some people pat themselves on the back because they voted to take money from Mitt Romney and give it to their pet causes, while others give their own money to those pet causes.

EDIT: To pick one example without singling out anyone here: Joe Biden released his tax returns when he was named Obama's running mate. He gave approximately zero to charity.
   703. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4173734)
To be fair, Sam has been acting as my bratty younger brother for about fifteen years now, since he was about 7 or 8 years old, long before BBTF.


Aw, Davey. I'd give you a big hug if I could see you down there. (Note: I'm you're older brother, #######.)
   704. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4173735)
It must suck to be you.


This is unquestionably true.
   705. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4173736)
You're the compassionate ones. Or so you like to tell yourselves, and anyone who will listen.

I sincerely don't recall ever saying this about either myself or any other liberal.


It makes sense to me. Ray didn't say that he likes paying for baseball tickets, he said he likes going to ballgames.

This is fair to note.
   706. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4173740)
But they don't. Some people pat themselves on the back because they voted to take money from Mitt Romney and give it to their pet causes, while others give their own money to those pet causes.


And some people get breaks by being in privileged categories of taxpayers (non-taxpayers), like churches and businesses who don't pay property tax and little income tax, and get writeoffs individuals don't. Others get to establish legal scams with foundation law. And of course they get to hide their money in Swiss and Cayman Island accounts.
   707. Shredder Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4173741)
But you didn't actually get together and pool your money to solve the problem
Sure we did. We pooled our money by collectively donating to campaigns of people who would vote for a law to (hopefully) force Ray to pay for everyone's health care, thereby solving the problem. It's a lot easier to let an organization with built in infrastructure handle this sort of thing than actually organizing another outside organization. If that pisses you off, then so be it.
   708. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4173744)
But they don't. Some people pat themselves on the back because they voted to take money from Mitt Romney and give it to their pet causes, while others give their own money to those pet causes.

EDIT: To pick one example without singling out anyone here: Joe Biden released his tax returns when he was named Obama's running mate. He gave approximately zero to charity.

I didn't mean "support the charity that represents their pet causes". I understand that libertarians are really hung up on the idea of charity, but it's just one means to an end, and usually not a very efficient one. And Biden especially, as a sitting Senator, was in a position to "support his pet causes" more than just about anyone.
   709. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4173747)
Perhaps a better way of saying it is that he is full of it.

It is like dealing with children. "But I want it, daddy."

Christ on a bicycle, you guys both need to re-take Kaplan or Princeton or something.


Exasperation.... is giving me fits.... (sung to the tune of "anticipation")

Key word: his resources. Obama isn't betting anything at all; he's got none of his own skin in the game.

also known as the pre-20th century rationale for only allowing males with property to have the vote.

   710. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4173754)
Sure we did. We pooled our money by collectively donating to campaigns of people who would vote for a law to (hopefully) force Ray to pay for everyone's health care, thereby solving the problem.


but what if* Ray doesn't have for enough money, what if was more efficient for those you include in that "we" to pool your money collectively and pay for everyone's healthcare?


   711. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4173755)
Geez, grow up already. Part of the reason you get trolled so much is that you can be counted on for these kinds of snit fits ... I take it you didn't grow up with younger siblings.


I did. I have 7 younger siblings, in fact.

And 3 older ones.

Many, many times I and some of the others have given substantial sums of money to those of us who have needed it or could use it - not even as a loan, just as a gift. And I wasn't even counting that when I spoke about my charitable contributions on the previous page.

Liberals act as if government is the only solution. Families can solve problems also, and often do. Friends. Etc.
   712. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4173756)
Sure we did. We pooled our money by collectively donating to campaigns of people who would vote for a law to (hopefully) force Ray to pay for everyone's health care, thereby solving the problem. It's a lot easier to let an organization with built in infrastructure handle this sort of thing than actually organizing another outside organization. If that pisses you off, then so be it.


You gotta love the mindset that leads to this sort of thinking. Hey, X needs healthcare! I guess I could buy it for him, but I'd rather pay Y to force Z to buy it instead.

I've seen this narrative several times now from liberals in this thread... makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians? Well if that pisses them off, so be it.

   713. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4173762)
Liberals act as if government is the only solution. Families can solve problems also, and often do. Friends. Etc.

This is a weird one, to me. You really think everyone has a family of 12? Of 5? Of even 3? That's just an odd fallback position.
   714. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4173764)
I've seen this narrative several times now from liberals in this thread... makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians? Well if that pisses them off, so be it.

A fair point.
   715. Shredder Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4173766)
but what if* Ray doesn't have for enough money, what if was more efficient for those you include in that "we" to pool your money collectively and pay for everyone's healthcare?
We're already doing it, and it's incredibly inefficient, which is why we worked to get a different system passed. Ray's concerned that he's now going to have to pay for other people's health care, completely oblivious to the fact that he (and everyone else who has insurance and/or pays taxes) is already paying for everyone's health care, only in an incredibly inefficient and expensive manner. Hopefully this law will change that to make it less expensive and inefficient.
You gotta love the mindset that leads to this sort of thinking. Hey, X needs healthcare! I guess I could buy it for him, but I'd rather pay Y to force Z to buy it instead.
Again, I'm already buying it for him. So are you, and presumably most of the people posting here if they have insurance and/or pay taxes. I'd much rather force X to buy it for himself, since that will make life better for all of us who are already buying it for X, especially if X can afford it and is simply choosing to freeload off of everyone else.
I've seen this narrative several times now from liberals in this thread... makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians? Well if that pisses them off, so be it.
Who's whining? I think it's inevitably leading to a unlevel playing field in a 21st century democracy, but it's the law of the land, and if I don't like it, then it behooves me to work to get it changed. Kind of the way it behooves you and Ray to work to change the healthcare law so you can go back to being lazy freeloaders.
   716. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4173769)
Liberals act as if government is the only solution. Families can solve problems also, and often do. Friends. Etc.

I'm sure liberals help out family and friends from time to time, also. My younger brother to date has gotten along fine without me, but if he was in a position where I could help him out, I'd hardly say, "Sorry, I voted for Democrats, I did my part."
   717. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4173770)
I've seen this narrative several times now from liberals in this thread... makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians? Well if that pisses them off, so be it.
Wait, are we sure about this? I mean, the fact that just five people dressed like they just came from the spa at Couples Retreat thought one way about it one way doesn't make it true!
   718. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4173773)
makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians?


oops, if you are really a rightwinger you missed the Citizens United talking points- that decision was about free speech not about enabling corporations to buy politicians/influence...


We're already doing it, and it's incredibly inefficient, which is why we worked to get a different system passed.


I agree.
   719. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4173776)
Who's whining?


well maybe people should be whining?

seriously, perhaps the problem isn't too much whining- it's not enough whining over what people should be whining about?

Warrant-less wiretaps- shouldn't be be whining/complaining/screaming?
use of torture?
several other things
   720. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4173777)
I'm sure liberals help out family and friends from time to time, also.

Jesus, when a dear friend and colleague of mine was diagnosed with cancer in 1994, I gave him $20,000 out of pocket when that represented close to 40% of my total income. But the only reason that act of personal charity was even necessary was because he'd mailed in his insurance premium too late to get credit for it, and was uninsured as a result. Acts of personal charity may be fine and dandy, but there aren't enough to them to cover all of the cases like that, especially when so many of them involve people that nobody with access to disposable money even knows.

And of course when that $20,000 and the rest of the money he got from other friends ran out, Sibley and George Washington hospitals got stuck with the bill. It was nice and charitable on the part of those two hospitals, but in the long run all of us, including Ray, got stuck with the unpaid portion of their invoices.
   721. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4173779)
You gotta love the mindset that leads to this sort of thinking. Hey, X needs healthcare! I guess I could buy it for him, but I'd rather pay Y to force Z to buy it instead.

I've seen this narrative several times now from liberals in this thread... makes me wonder how they espouse this position with such smug satisfaction while simultaneously whining about Citizens United. I guess it's because they're unhappy that other people have more money than them to buy more politicians? Well if that pisses them off, so be it.


I've never donated to a political candidate. Others do, and I of course have no problem with people spending their money as they see fit. I just think it's kind of odd that liberals see donating to their pet candidates as being on the same plane as donating to charity.

"Hey, I'm doing my part! I give some of my money to Chuck Shumer!"
   722. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4173783)
Jesus, when a dear friend and colleague of mine was diagnosed with cancer in 1994, I gave him $20,000 out of pocket when that represented close to 40% of my total income.


Very admirable of you, and duly noted.
   723. Shredder Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4173784)
I've never donated to a political candidate. Others do, and I of course have no problem with people spending their money as they see fit. I just think it's kind of odd that liberals see donating to their pet candidates as being on the same plane as donating to charity.
Yes, it would be much better to completely avoid the political process and give money directly to say, Planned Parenthood (which many of us already do) only to have wingnut politicians legislate them out of existence. People like Ray fail to see the efficiency in working to elect politicians who will do things like fund infrastructure improvements. I'm sure in the world that exists inside his head, it would be more efficient to walk down to my Alderman's office and give a donation to be used toward replacing the 120 year old water main that runs underneath my street. As one committed to the cause of freeloaders, he would REALLY love that if he also lived on my street.
   724. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4173793)
Jesus, when a dear friend and colleague of mine was diagnosed with cancer in 1994, I gave him $20,000 out of pocket when that represented close to 40% of my total income.

Very admirable of you, and duly noted.


But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary? Not everyone in my friend's position has friends and colleagues** with that much disposable income at their disposal. In an ideal world this would be the case, but it isn't.

**I was hardly the only one contributing. This guy was the Nora Ephron of DC booksellers in terms of everybody loving him.
   725. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4173794)
But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?


We could just as easily ask why government should need to be so involved.
   726. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4173796)
"Hey, I'm doing my part! I give some of my money to Chuck Shumer!"


Reminds me of that (probably apocryphal) story of Hillary Clinton giving a homeless beggar who approached her a voter registration form and an exhortation to vote for Bill.

   727. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4173798)
We could just as easily ask why government should need to be so involved.

And we could just as easily understand that Andy already answered that question:
Not everyone in my friend's position has friends and colleagues with that much disposable income at their disposal. In an ideal world this would be the case, but it isn't.
   728. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4173802)
But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?
Because nobody has managed to figure out how to prevent cancer yet. You might as well ask why seatbelts should be necessary. Or antibiotics. Or food.
Not everyone in my friend's position has friends and colleagues** with that much disposable income at their disposal. In an ideal world this would be the case, but it isn't.
Which is why there are also plenty of institutional charities that help people out based on a mission rather than based on personal friendship.
   729. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4173803)
Which is why there are also plenty of institutional charities that help people out based on a mission rather than based on personal friendship.

And yet we find ourselves here.
   730. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4173807)
Most libertarians are smart enough not to go on about private charity, as if there aren't centuries of evidence for what can and cannot be expected from charity.

You can make yourself feel special inside by going on about how private charity fails at social insurance because liberals are hypocritical meanies and so's your face, but that's entirely beside the point. We know that private charity doesn't produce social insurance, and so leftish reformers have for over a century focused on state-based reforms to provide social insurance.
   731. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4173808)
You're the compassionate ones. Or so you like to tell yourselves, and anyone who will listen.

I sincerely don't recall ever saying this about either myself or any other liberal.


Speaking for my own liberal self, I'd have to say most of my views don't have much to do with "compassion;" to be frank, I'm kind of a curmudgeonly prick when it comes to questions of "compassion," and I'll cop to being kind of a selfish b@stard (as others have observed in, say, my lack of interest in having children for reasons of my own self-centered choosing). However, I (and, I reckon, others of my ideological persuasion) think it's generally a better thing for the collective good (including the rich!) for, say, purchasers of health insurance not to have to subsidize those who consume medical care without paying for it.** That such a policy may please those motivated by touchy-feely "compassion" is incidental. (More broadly: I think my policy preferences are more likely to produce a society in which I, personally, am less likely to be plagued by the social ills that result from widespread poverty [crime, etc.], whether or not I am personally monetarily richer as a result.)

**I ask, for the third time, without actually expecting an answer: why are so many conservatives OK with this?
   732. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4173814)
You can whine about how private charity fails at social insurance because liberals are hypocritical meanies and so's your face, but we know that private charity doesn't produce social insurance, and so leftish reformers have for over a century focused on state-based reforms to provide social insurance.

Which, incidentally, is a good reason for why I think "compassion" is a weak argument for the ACA and related policy goals; appeals to charity just don't work all that well as a practical matter.
   733. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4173815)
But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?
I responded, but I feel the need to re-respond. The mindset behind this question is just unfathomable. You have a friend who has suffered a unavoidable tragedy. And your question is, "Why should it be necessary to help my friend?" Implying, "Why shouldn't someone else do it, someone who neither likes nor even knows this person?"

If, instead of being sick, your friend was moving across town, would you help him pack and move his stuff? After doing so, would you ask, "Why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?" He's your freaking friend. If you want to help him, help him. If you don't think he's worthy of your help, then why should anybody else? The idea behind the welfare state is as a safety net -- that is, if you fall through the cracks in private assistance for whatever reason (perhaps you're a jerk like Sam and have no friends or colleagues), then there's still the government there to catch you before you splatter on the pavement. The safety net isn't the first line of defense.
   734. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4173817)
We know that private charity doesn't produce social insurance, and so leftish reformers have for over a century focused on state-based reforms to provide social insurance.

Yeah, but only because you and your leftist brethren aren't as generous as Ray DiPerna. So nyah.
   735. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4173818)
Most libertarians are smart enough not to go on about private charity, as if there aren't centuries of evidence for what can and cannot be expected from charity.
If, as the failure of relying on charity has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about helping underprivileged people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?
   736. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4173821)
If, as the failure of relying on charity has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about helping underprivileged people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?
It's funny you think this is a good argument. Should our laws reflect the fact that private protection of property rights looks more like organized crime than a defense of universal rights? And so on. There are lots of things that private action has proved itself to suck at. One of the debates that defines modern liberal and libertarian political philosophy is the fight over which jobs, which for whatever reason have not been carried out effectively by non-state actors, should be handed over to the state, and which should not.
   737. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4173823)
If, as the failure of relying on charity has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about helping underprivileged people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?

Interesting viewpoint, in that the obvious takeaway is that the status quo is always right, by definition.
   738. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4173824)
And yet we find ourselves here.


We "find ourselves here" because government is so heavily involved in the situation. Had we started down another path -- more towards friends/family/charity rather than government -- it wouldn't be so difficult to imagine a world where government wasn't so heavily involved. Most people simply say, "Well, government has X% of my income, and they're handling it."

   739. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4173826)
Interesting viewpoint, in that the obvious takeaway is that the status quo is always right, by definition.

Social justice defines itself!
   740. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4173827)
Had we started down another path -- more towards friends/family/charity rather than government -- it wouldn't be so difficult to imagine a world where government wasn't so heavily involved.
We did start down that path. It was known as the "long 19th century". It was a total failure at providing for the general welfare.
   741. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4173830)
Had we started down another path -- more towards friends/family/charity rather than government -- it wouldn't be so difficult to imagine a world where government wasn't so heavily involved.

That was the original path, dude.
   742. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4173831)
We did start down that path. It was known as the "long 19th century". It was a total failure at providing for the general welfare.

Yeah, but that's only because Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. Otherwise, the poor could've just set up accounts on ChipIn.com.
   743. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4173833)
If, as the failure of relying on charity has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about helping underprivileged people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?

Interesting viewpoint, in that the obvious takeaway is that the status quo is always right, by definition.


No, I think he's getting at the point that, if it's so obvious that "we" as a society want to make sure people have health insurance, why haven't "we" as a society already gotten to that point, without the need to pass the ACA?

If it's only a fraction of the "we" who really want that, why hasn't this fraction gotten together and solved the problem? Why does the problem still exist?
   744. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4173836)
No, I think he's getting at the point that, if it's so obvious that "we" as a society want to make sure people have health insurance, why haven't "we" as a society already gotten to that point, without the need to pass the ACA?
Same question, topic of property rights. This is a really dumb argument. You don't actually believe in the premise of the question.
   745. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4173838)
No, I think he's getting at the point that, if it's so obvious that "we" as a society want to make sure people have health insurance, why haven't "we" as a society already gotten to that point, without the need to pass the ACA?

Am I missing something, or is this the mobius strip of internet posts?
   746. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4173840)
If, as the failure of relying on charity has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about helping underprivileged people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?


If, as the failure of relying on good will toward others has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about not killing other people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?
   747. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4173841)
No, I think he's getting at the point that, if it's so obvious that "we" as a society want to make sure people have health insurance, why haven't "we" as a society already gotten to that point, without the need to pass the ACA?

Yeah, this is exactly what I said - that because it's not part of the status quo, obviously it's no good.
   748. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4173842)
Interesting viewpoint, in that the obvious takeaway is that the status quo is always right, by definition.
It has nothing to do with "right." It's that our laws should reflect our values (unless those values involve things like actively harming people). If we're a bunch of dicks, the law should reflect who we truly are. Why should it be otherwise?
   749. BDC Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4173843)
private charity doesn't produce social insurance

Exactly. In fact, the Shriners Hospitals for Children, which are an absolutely outstanding example of private charity at its utmost best, are specifically exempt from EMTALA (the federal law that requires hospitals to treat all emergency patients). Private charities can do wonders, but at the end of the day, they can't print money or offer blanket guarantees of universal access. Now, as always, if one disapproves of universal access, that's fine, but as several people have noted, that puts us right back in the Victorian world.
   750. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4173845)
It has nothing to do with "right." It's that our laws should reflect our values (unless those values involve things like actively harming people). If we're a bunch of dicks, the law should reflect who we truly are. Why should it be otherwise?

Well ... now that the ACA has been passed as law, why do you assume that it's not a reflection of our values?

(Besides which, countries that actually have functional health care systems probably would say that, even with the ACA, our laws in fact do reflect that we're a bunch of dicks.)
   751. Greg K Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4173847)
To echo 740 to 742, when was this this current path we're on chosen? I wouldn't want to speak for you, but as above the most obvious suggestion would be the 19th century. As the issue is being framed historically it might be worthwhile to look into how our current idea of charity (both public and private) came into being during that period. As always I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to American history, but I know the mid-19th century is a virtual gold mine when it comes to researching questions of how best to provide for the poor.
   752. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4173851)
Well ... now that the ACA has been passed as law, why do you assume that it's not a reflection of our values?
Because if we really valued helping underprivileged people, we would've accomplished it without needing a law.
   753. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4173854)
Because if we really valued helping underprivileged people, we would've accomplished it without needing a law.

So as a society, we don't really think slaughter of other people is a bad thing (else there'd be no need for murder statutes)? Sorry to pick the most obvious riposte imaginable, but c'mon--this argument is really weak sauce.

EDIT: Or, what Matt said in 755, which seems more likely...
   754. Greg K Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4173855)
(Besides which, countries that actually have functional health care systems probably would say that, even with the ACA, our laws in fact do reflect that we're a bunch of dicks.)

I wouldn't say dicks...just people who like incredibly complicated systems rather than just going with "single-payer".
   755. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4173857)
Because if we really valued helping underprivileged people, we would've accomplished it without needing a law.
Are you just trolling the thread? If you just repeat the same dumb idea in new words again without engaging with the responses in 736, 744, and 746, I'm calling troll.
   756. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4173860)
Are you this dense, or just trolling the thread? If you just repeat the same sentence in new words without engaging with the responses in 736, 744, and 746, I'm calling troll.
Those posts make analogies to actively harming people and their property. I've already noted the difference. Same with 753.
   757. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4173863)
But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?
I responded, but I feel the need to re-respond. The mindset behind this question is just unfathomable


quite frankly I find your response and/or your [feigned?] inability to understand the question to be unfathomable...

and thus this is example #196,325 of why ### for tat arguing is thoroughly un-illuminating
   758. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4173864)
I'll cop to being kind of a selfish b@stard (as others have observed in, say, my lack of interest in having children for reasons of my own self-centered choosing). However, I (and, I reckon, others of my ideological persuasion) think it's generally a better thing for the collective good (including the rich!) for, say, purchasers of health insurance not to have to subsidize those who consume medical care without paying for it.**

**I ask, for the third time, without actually expecting an answer: why are so many conservatives OK with this?


I'm not a conservative, but I'm not OK with it. I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without. I recognize that the majority disagrees with me, but the majority is wrong about a lot of things. This is one of them.

So if we determine that the collective good requires you to have and raise children, and enact laws to that effect, you'd be OK with it?
   759. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4173866)
Same question, topic of property rights. This is a really dumb argument. You don't actually believe in the premise of the question.


The second half of my comment addressed that. A fraction of "we" told us they really, really cared about providing people with health insurance. They cared so much, in fact, that they didn't get together and pay for it themselves.
   760. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4173867)
Those posts make analogies to actively harming people and their property. I've already noted the difference. Same with 753.

Yes, it's easier to make an assertion if you hand-wave away the exception that disproves it. By the same token, if you could divide by 0, 1=2.

   761. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4173869)
Yes, it's easier to make an assertion if you hand-wave away the exception that disproves it. By the same token, if you could divide by 0, 1=2.
No, the exception is that people have an unalienable right not to be murdered or have their homes burglarized.
   762. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4173871)
Am I missing something, or is this the mobius strip of internet posts?


yes, yes it is
   763. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4173872)
No, the exception is that people have an unalienable right not to be murdered or have their homes burglarized.

Exactly. But we have laws against these things. So either you're claiming that our society doesn't really value protection against murder and burglary, or you're claiming that your proposed logic magically doesn't count in cases where you say so.
   764. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4173875)
I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without. I recognize that the majority disagrees with me


I appreciate your honesty in saying this.

   765. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4173876)
So if we determine that the collective good requires you to have and raise children, and enact laws to that effect, you'd be OK with it?

No. If the per-capita cost of subsidizing universal health coverage ever gets close to the cost (in terms of both money and time) of raising a child to maturity, get back to me.


   766. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4173877)
It's funny you think this is a good argument. Should our laws reflect the fact that private protection of property rights looks more like organized crime than a defense of universal rights? And so on. There are lots of things that private action has proved itself to suck at. One of the debates that defines modern liberal and libertarian political philosophy is the fight over which jobs, which for whatever reason have not been carried out effectively by non-state actors, should be handed over to the state, and which should not.
But you say it right there: "handed over to the state." Which implies we had that job in the first place. Now, self-defense, sure. I can delegate my right to self-defense to the state because it's more efficient at exercising that right than I am individually. But I never had the right to take money from you to give to sick people, so I can't delegate that job to the state.

I don't get the part about organized crime.

If, as the failure of relying on good will toward others has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about not killing other people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?
But history demonstrates that we do care about not killing other people, which is why -- except when it occurs in war -- we've pretty much always punished that, either privately or publicly.
   767. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4173878)
I appreciate your honesty in saying this.

Ditto; I disagree with the position, but at least it's intellectually consistent vis. his position on the ACA.
   768. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4173881)
But you say it right there: "handed over to the state." Which implies we had that job in the first place. Now, self-defense, sure. I can delegate my right to self-defense to the state because it's more efficient at exercising that right than I am individually. But I never had the right to take money from you to give to sick people, so I can't delegate that job to the state.
Unless you think that property rights were granted by Xenu on the 30,000,000th anniversary of their conquest of Earth, this argument fails on the most basic level to account for libertarian theories of the state.
   769. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4173883)
You can make yourself feel special inside by going on about how private charity fails at social insurance because liberals are hypocritical meanies and so's your face, but that's entirely beside the point. We know that private charity doesn't produce social insurance, and so leftish reformers have for over a century focused on state-based reforms to provide social insurance.
Wait: the fact that 150 years ago, private charity was insufficient to completely satisfy everyone, and this proves that we need government, even though government has never been sufficient to completely satisfy everyone? Why don't we "know" that government "doesn't produce social insurance" in the same way we "know" that private charity supposedly doesn't?
   770. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4173885)
If, as the failure of relying on good will toward others has demonstrated throughout history, we don't really care about not killing other people, why shouldn't our laws reflect this fact?

Well, most of us really do care about not killing other people. It's not like we just go around stabbing people in the neck all the time.

But one reason for murder laws is that even if 99% of the people believe in not killing others, that 1% can still do a #### ton of killing without a mechanism to prevent them.

However, if 99% of people want to get together and voluntarily pay for everyone's health care, the 1% who don't want to participate can do just that without preventing the 99% from acting.
   771. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4173887)
So if we determine that the collective good requires you to have and raise children, and enact laws to that effect, you'd be OK with it?

No. If the per-capita cost of subsidizing universal health coverage ever gets close to the cost (in terms of both money and time) of raising a child to maturity, get back to me.


So we're just haggling over the price?
   772. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4173888)
Exactly. But we have laws against these things. So either you're claiming that our society doesn't really value protection against murder and burglary, or you're claiming that your proposed logic magically doesn't count in cases where you say so.
If people commit murder and burglary, I don't think it's accurate to say our society doesn't value protection against them. I mean, no amount of us banding together can ensure that it doesn't happen, as a physical matter. Laws are necessary.

Giving to charity to help those less fortunate is something we're physically capable of achieving.
   773. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4173890)
Wait, 768 isn't a necessary rabbit hole to travel down. David's argument fails internally.
But I never had the right to take money from you to give to sick people, so I can't delegate that job to the state.
Let's take your (entirely speculative) vision of pre-social and pre-governed humanity on a more basic level. You were a pure individual with rights over your self and your property.

You say that you gave over to the state your right to self-defense. So likewise, you didn't have the right to give Jim's money to the state to provide for health insurance, but you had and the right to give your own money to the state to provide for health insurance. So everyone sacrifices some of their right to property in exchange for state social insurance, protection of rights, provision of services, whatever.

Some people, before the state was created, might have preferred not to give over to the state their right of self-defense. Those people are free to leave the state, to take their ball and go home, as it were. This is the same argument.
   774. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4173893)
So we're just haggling over the price?

Why yes. You say that as if it were an inconsequential concern. But really, how badly do you want to force lefties to reproduce? ;-)
   775. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4173895)
Despite Ray's refusal to acknowledge it, a big part of ACA was about bringing down insurance costs across the board, for everyone. Dealing with it on those terms, it's not just a policy about 'compassion' (a sentiment that only Ray has invoked, but chastised liberals for claiming to exclusively possess) but about enlightened self interest. This is why the bill, once it fully kicks in, will end up being really popular. It's going to stabilize and likely reduce premiums, while not reducing the quality of health care people receive.

So I'll pose the question again, though I'm sure it will be ignored:If you oppose ACA, could you rank its provisions, from least to most acceptable? Or, if you could only strike half, which ones would you keep?
   776. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4173897)
Wait: the fact that 150 years ago, private charity was insufficient to completely satisfy everyone, and this proves that we need government, even though government has never been sufficient to completely satisfy everyone? Why don't we "know" that government "doesn't produce social insurance" in the same way we "know" that private charity supposedly doesn't?

Well, we know that lots of governments on Earth right now do a better job of providing for health care than the US, and better than private charity ever managed. I'll settle for that, even if it doesn't "completely satisfy everyone".
   777. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4173900)
Giving to charity to help those less fortunate is something we're physically capable of achieving.

We're not physically capable of not killing each other?

Really, try harder. At least try not to apply your fatalism so selectively.
   778. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4173901)
If people commit murder and burglary, I don't think it's accurate to say our society doesn't value protection against them. I mean, no amount of us banding together can ensure that it doesn't happen, as a physical matter. Laws are necessary.
If we can't ensure it doesn't happen without state intervention, then how do you know we do value that protection? You have a real skill for near-immediate self-contradiction.
   779. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4173904)
I appreciate your honesty in saying this.

Ditto; I disagree with the position, but at least it's intellectually consistent vis. his position on the ACA.


But you guys are not morally superior to him on this issue. You felt really, really -- really -- bad about the plight of people without health insurance. But you didn't pool your money together to help them.
   780. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4173908)
So if we determine that the collective good requires you to have and raise children, and enact laws to that effect, you'd be OK with it?


Depending on the payout, I'll knock up your wife, sure.
   781. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4173909)
You felt really, really -- really -- bad about the plight of people without health insurance. But you didn't pool your money together to help them.


Ray, you're going a little Rain Main on us with this routine. It doesn't work. I'm not spending a lot of time trying to explain to you why it doesn't work, because you're not listening to anyone but the voices inside of your head apparently. But trust me. This argument doesn't work. Leave it.
   782. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4173911)
But you guys are not morally superior to him on this issue. You felt really, really -- really -- bad about the plight of people without health insurance. But you didn't pool your money together to help them.

You're apparently responding to somebody else. See my 731.
   783. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4173912)
If we can't ensure it doesn't happen without state intervention, then how do you know we do value that protection? You have a real skill for near-immediate self-contradiction.
I didn't say we value protection against murder. I said you can't infer that we don't simply because we've decided we need laws against it. We need laws against murder because no amount of cooperation by those of us who oppose murder could ensure that it doesn't occur. That's not the case with providing health care to people.
   784. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4173915)
Wait: the fact that 150 years ago, private charity was insufficient to completely satisfy everyone, and this proves that we need government, even though government has never been sufficient to completely satisfy everyone?
I'm not sure why you think that absolute statements are relevant in any way. The declines in poverty and disease and the improvements in education and workplace conditions and income from the gilded age into the period of the mixed economy aren't something you deny on an empirical level, are they?
   785. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4173917)
That's not the case with providing health care to people.

Or else it's the case that people have decided that they do care, and have simply decided that the government was the institution best equipped to oversee carrying it out.
   786. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4173918)
So we're just haggling over the price?

Why yes. You say that as if it were an inconsequential concern.


It's just an alien perspective to me... somebody utterly unconcerned with the limits of state power except to the extent it's REALLY personally expensive. I feel like a xenobiologist or something. Pretend I'm raising an eyebrow and saying "Fascinating!" if that helps.

But really, how badly do you want to force lefties to reproduce? ;-)


Good point. An entire generation of queer theorists, playwrights, and makers of giant puppets probably wouldn't be much use in supporting us in our old age.
   787. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4173919)
I said you can't infer that we don't simply because we've decided we need laws against it. We need laws against murder because no amount of cooperation by those of us who oppose murder could ensure that it doesn't occur. That's not the case with providing health care to people.
-An individual can choose not to commit a murder. And yet universal protections against murder are still needed.
-An individual can choose to provide health care for another. And yet universal provisions for health care are still needed.
   788. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4173920)
As always I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to American history, but I know the mid-19th century is a virtual gold mine when it comes to researching questions of how best to provide for the poor.


Where'd ya learn that, some egghead professor in a fancy college? What a snob.
   789. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4173921)
If we can't ensure it doesn't happen without state intervention, then how do you know we do value that protection? You have a real skill for near-immediate self-contradiction.
You can't ensure it doesn't happen WITH state intervention, either.
   790. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4173922)
Good point. An entire generation of queer theorists, playwrights, and makers of giant puppets probably wouldn't be much use in supporting us in our old age.


As soon as I get my death panel paperwork filed I can promise you, you won't be making it to "old age."

   791. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4173923)
I didn't say we value protection against murder.

We don't? Really?
   792. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4173924)
Depending on the payout, I'll knock up your wife, sure.


Pfft. You couldn't impregnate a pause.
   793. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4173925)
I'm not sure why you think that absolute statements are relevant in any way. The declines in poverty and disease and the improvements in education and workplace conditions and income from the gilded age into the period of the mixed economy aren't something you deny on an empirical level, are they?
No -- just denying the post hoc propter hoc logic.

There were declines in poverty because the industrial revolution, capitalism, and trade made the world richer. You can't redistribute what you don't have.
   794. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4173926)
Good point. An entire generation of queer theorists, playwrights, and makers of giant puppets probably wouldn't be much use in supporting us in our old age.

Ha! Don't forget the peace studies majors.
   795. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4173927)
But really, how badly do you want to force lefties to reproduce? ;-)

Good point. An entire generation of queer theorists, playwrights, and makers of giant puppets probably wouldn't be much use in supporting us in our old age.


On the plus side you'd get all the scientists, but the lack of suitably fervent religious zealots would consign your lot to Hell regardless.
   796. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4173928)
There were declines in poverty because the industrial revolution, capitalism, and trade made the world richer.

Also because unions forced the robber-barons' hands. But I can see why you omitted that part.
   797. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4173931)
Ha! Don't forget the peace studies majors.


Don't forget the high-five after the circle jerk, boys. It's the best way to smear all of your jizz together but still make sure no one thinks you're gay, bros.
   798. villageidiom Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4173932)
If he truly liked paying taxes, he would pay more of them. It's that simple. Otherwise, he's just bullsh!tting, as all of you are.
Mr. Furtado, I think you can use Ray's logic here to induce him to make an infinite financial contribution to this site. He makes one already, which is evidence that he likes to give a financial contribution to this site. And if he truly liked it, he would pay more.
   799. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4173933)
No -- just denying the post hoc propter hoc logic.
You're the one who made the comparison between the gilded age and the mixed economy era in the first place!

You said:
the fact that 150 years ago, private charity was insufficient to completely satisfy everyone, and this proves that we need government, even though government has never been sufficient to completely satisfy everyone?
To that argument, which is a direct comparison between the 19th and 20th century experiments in private charity and state provision of welfare, my argument was directly on point.
   800. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4173934)
Pfft. You couldn't impregnate a pause


Ask your mom.
Page 8 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(870 - 2:17am, Oct 26)
Last: Hey - you and Tommy Lasorda...I hate Tommy Lasorda

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(16 - 2:12am, Oct 26)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(482 - 1:31am, Oct 26)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(90 - 1:16am, Oct 26)
Last: DFA

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3811 - 12:24am, Oct 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(521 - 10:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(396 - 8:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(14 - 7:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(16 - 7:30pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(5 - 6:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(8 - 6:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

Page rendered in 0.9385 seconds
52 querie(s) executed