Page 109 of 154 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1534

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

  1. #1081
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    576

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Yeah, well, I debate far right wing Fox News watchers all the time. Merely ignorant would be a step up for them. They know stuff that happens to be false, all the time! Personal anecdotes aren't all that informative.....
    You tell me about your personal experience with Fox news watchers, but then tell me that personal anecdotes aren't that informative? And what, pray tell, does your "your too" experience have to do with my criticism of tuheybays characterization of fellow liberals?

  2. #1082
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,807

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    I'm referring to the myriad payment and delivery system reforms (public and private) the ACA has spurred.



    I don't think I've ever made an argument based on "heart." To what are you referring?
    What do you think ACA addresses if not the heart? You believe that people want what you want and that isn't reality. You ignore personal responsibility and seem to believe it is someone else's responsibility to take care of those issues. As I have always stated, that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. Healthcare does need reformed but it doesn't start with the federal govt. but rather the state and local governments. The massive central govt. today is more interested in keeping their jobs rather than doing their job and that reality is missing from your desire for that govt. to be a parent

  3. #1083
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    59,807

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Hmm. You Never cited those. Plus, I don't know why any of those three sources would be useful for quality measures in healthcare.

    I guess you not only don't know the ACA, but you have absolutely no capacity to research it on your own.

    If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were just some guy making fun of Conservatives by posting like a cartoonish one.
    I have over 51, 000 posts and bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury are sites that capture data. You base your comments on your own beliefs and opinions. That isn't reality. I don't give a damn about ACA as I have always been smart enough to take care of myself. I learned personal responsibility a long time ago. You apparently never have or believe others haven't so you expect the Federal Taxpayer to pick up the slack. Let me remind you, healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal one. Local and state citizens pay for the uninsured, not the federal taxpayer. You mean well but quite frankly you appear to be very nave, gullible, and very poorly informed as to data and facts.

  4. #1084
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.

    For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".

    Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.
    Yeah, for sure. Pragmatism requires some underlying goals and ideology relies on factual reality as well because that's the medium in which ideologues try to implement their ideology. But the emphasis and focuses are different. Pragmatists generally think the goals are pretty easy and obvious- the most material well being for the most people for example, and that the hard part is figuring out how to make that actually happen. Ideologues generally think the practical details are trivial to figure out and the principles are the hard part.

  5. #1085
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    You tell me about your personal experience with Fox news watchers, but then tell me that personal anecdotes aren't that informative? And what, pray tell, does your "your too" experience have to do with my criticism of tuheybays characterization of fellow liberals?
    I don't think either of our stories mean a whole lot as far as whether liberals or conservatives rely more on evidence rather than emotion.

    Speaking only for me, I used to be a reliable Republican voter and considered myself a conservative, and I kept having to deal with too much cognitive dissonance - facts weren't lining up with my ideology, so I changed my ideology. I'm much less often having to reconcile the two as a moderate/liberal.

  6. #1086
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.

    For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".
    It's obviously true that any choice has trade-offs and there are winners and losers. But I don't frankly agree that using a "moral schema" to make public policy choices is the correct way to go about it. The only reason to use a principle to make a decision is because the principle has proved over time to "work" in some way, and therefore can be assumed to "work" in the future. And in my experience, principles or 'moral schema' sometimes work and sometimes don't and we have to evaluate each case, using data and evidence and studies, etc.

    Pollution is a good example. Libertarians rely on the checks and balances in the "free market" and don't believe much in regulation and would eliminate the EPA and leave regulation to the states or allow individuals to sue for damages. But we know that fails, we have evidence here and all over the world that proves it and so eliminating pollution regs is a decision to privatize profits and socialize costs - polluters will pollute, individuals cannot effectively enforce their rights and collect damages against behemoth entities, and so polluters will pollute and privatize the profits and the public bears those costs.

    So "markets" fail with pollution, we know why, they're a negative externality, and so I favor regulating polluters because that works best to burden the polluter with the costs of the pollution, which is the actual "free market" result.

    And to bring that back to your statement about there not being a "rightness" other than a sense of what is morally correct, that is still true. We can decide to subsidize polluting activities, and at what level, for more jobs, higher pay, whatever. But what we can't do is pretend that "free markets" are working and that we're not deliberately subsidizing polluters and offloading costs onto the public. But that is exactly what conservatives do, in my view. They hide behind ideology - free markets in this example - to obscure the actual choice we are making if we were to disband the EPA.

    Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.
    I just see almost no "moral underpinnings" in public policy choices. There are trade-offs and we evaluate them. I think that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd never worry about defending the "moral underpinnings" of a choice, I'd just defend the trade-off.
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-03-15 at 12:46 AM.

  7. #1087
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    576

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's obviously true that any choice has trade-offs and there are winners and losers. But I don't frankly agree that using a "moral schema" to make public policy choices is the correct way to go about it. The only reason to use a principle to make a decision is because the principle has proved over time to "work" in some way, ...
    The correct way to 'go about it' is to recognize that all choices of public policy involve positive (what is) understandings as well as normative (what should be) moral views. The basis of most taxation, welfare, entitlements, etc. are all about conceptually knowing what is (the economics of taxation) and knowing what should be - what is "fair" or a matter of "social justice". The progressive nature of the income tax exists because of a moral belief that it is "fair" to tax the better off at increasing percentages, while a flat percentage or single flat amount is unfair.

    Libertarians tend to use positive theory (e.g. economics) to understand the processes behind the empirical data on "what is" in policy, and then moral theories to arrive at a concept of both effective and fair policy. In contrast, liberals tend to reject anything beyond the level of their case by case random talking point data (unmoored to any theoretical understanding of the issue) and pull it from the ass moralisms (unmoored to anything but their gut).

    Pollution is a good example. Libertarians rely on the checks and balances in the "free market" and don't believe much in regulation and would eliminate the EPA and leave regulation to the states or allow individuals to sue for damages. But we know that fails, ...

    So "markets" fail with pollution, we know why, they're a negative externality, and so I favor regulating polluters because that works best to burden the polluter with the costs of the pollution, which is the actual "free market" result.
    Actually your view of libertarians is a good example the superficial empiricism and 'gut' moralism that cripples 'pragmatic' liberalism. Informed libertarians don't rely on arbitrary 'checks and balances', they recognize the nature of pollution in terms of both economic and moral theory. From economic theory they recognize that pollution is externality, a cost in the use of a common property (e.g. the air) that damages other users, without compensation for the damage imposed. And contrary to your assumption behind the 'free market result', they also understand that, as shown in the Coase theorem there are multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution and pay for damages in an economically efficient manner (including having those affected by pollution pay the polluters to not pollute - which in theory is just as free market efficient as having polluters pay those affected).

    So economic theory provides a model and understanding of what is, but moral theory tells libertarians what should be. If, under common law, air is the property of all then those who use it at the expense of other 'owners' they should either a) cease or b) compensate those affected. Libertarians generally prefer a market system of bartering and trade or tax compensation because it is economically more efficient than 'case by case' regulatory limits. And all other things being equal, what is more efficient creates greater surplus for the well being of the commons.

    And no, we don't know that it always fails. It has worked when it is implemented with integrity, and failed when it has not. Like all regulatory schemes in the management of the commons, it depends on the power, rationality and integrity of the governments imposing them.
    Last edited by maxparrish; 07-03-15 at 06:30 AM.

  8. #1088
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    576

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Continued:



    And to bring that back to your statement about there not being a "rightness" other than a sense of what is morally correct, that is still true. We can decide to subsidize polluting activities, and at what level, for more jobs, higher pay, whatever. But what we can't do is pretend that "free markets" are working and that we're not deliberately subsidizing polluters and offloading costs onto the public. But that is exactly what conservatives do, in my view. They hide behind ideology - free markets in this example - to obscure the actual choice we are making if we were to disband the EPA.
    Nor can we pretend that free markets are 'not working' - no more than we can assume that every government program that is less than ideal (which is most of them) is 'not working'. To the degree that the free market is 'unfree' due to flawed government policy then most libertarians are more than happy to push for correction. There is no love of crony and subsidized corporate capitalism, or subsidized farming, among libertarians.

    Finally, those who wish to disband the EPA wish to do it because a) the necessary pollution laws are better handled through other agencies and b) the EPA has shown itself to relentlessly harmful to the well being and rights of many innocent Americans. You should not confuse hostility to a particular government entity to hostility to some or many of its supposed goals. I have no use for the Intelligence czar or the department of Homeland security, but it does not mean I am against intelligence and security.

    I just see almost no "moral underpinnings" in public policy choices. There are trade-offs and we evaluate them. I think that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd never worry about defending the "moral underpinnings" of a choice, I'd just defend the trade-off.
    You can't 'defend the trade-off' unless you have a normative view of what ought to be, and that, my friend, is a moral underpinning.

  9. #1089
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    The correct way to 'go about it' is to recognize that all choices of public policy involve positive (what is) understandings as well as normative (what should be) moral views. The basis of most taxation, welfare, entitlements, etc. are all about knowing concepts what is (the economics of taxation) and knowing what should be - what is "fair" or a matter of "social justice". The progressive nature of the income tax exists because of a belief that it is "fair" to tax the better off at increasing percentages because it is assumed to be 'fairer' than a flat percentage or single flat amount.

    The only difference is that for some of us we have used positive theory (e.g. economics) to understand the processes behind the empirical data on "what is", and then moral theories to arrive at a concept of effective and fair policy. In contrast, others reject anything beyond the level of their case by case random talking point data (unmoored to any theoretical understanding) and pull it from the ass moralisms (unmoored to anything but their gut).
    And you don't think conservatives use "pull it from the ass moralisms?"

    Actually your view of libertarians is a good example the superficial empiricism and 'gut' moralism that cripples 'pragmatic' liberalism. Informed libertarians don't rely on arbitrary 'checks and balances', they recognize the nature of pollution in terms of both economic and moral theory. From economic theory they recognize that pollution is externality, a cost in the use of a common property (e.g. the air) that damages other users, without compensation for the damage imposed. And contrary to your assumption behind the 'free market result', they also understand that, as shown in the Coase theorem there are multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution and pay for damages in an economically efficient manner (including having those affected by pollution pay the polluters to not pollute - which in theory is just as free market efficient as having polluters pay those affected).
    I'll just say that libertarians may understand all that in theory, and there may exist multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution, but "market" solutions have in actual reality mostly failed.

    And you mention the Coase theorem, but like a lot of economic theories, it fails in practice (Coase acknowledges this) because of significant transaction costs in the real world, and a lack of information about the actual damages and costs and the difficulties of estimating them. Breathing lead is a bad thing, but what is the harm, e.g., per gallon of leaded gas? If it's 5 cents are users going to pay that into a fund per gallon and distribute it to the 315 million people in the U.S. pro rata? Some live in rural areas with little exposure, some in cities with dense exposure... etc. Lead was removed by regulations, and we're learning more and more every year why that was a good thing.

    And, sure, it's "free market efficient" to pay polluters not to pollute - i.e. we will reach some economically optimal level of pollution - but it's also a shift of wealth from the public to polluters, which can be restated as a system of privatizing profits and socializing costs. The Koch brothers would love that result!

    So economic theory provides a model and understanding of what is, but moral theory tells libertarians what should be. If, under common law, air is the property of all then those who use it at the expense of other 'owners' they should either a) cease or b) compensate those affected. Libertarians generally prefer a market system of bartering and trade or tax compensation because it is economically more efficient than 'case by case' regulatory limits. And all other things being equal, what is more efficient creates greater surplus for the well being of the commons.
    And us liberals would say that market systems that have the real world effect of reducing pollution or paying damages to those harmed, great. But what we'd point out are the immense reality-based barriers to those schemes actually working, and point to the many times they've failed.

    And no, we don't know that it always fails. It has worked when it is implemented with integrity, and failed when it has not. Like all regulatory schemes in the management of the commons, it depends on the power, rationality and integrity of the governments imposing them.
    Again, liberals would simply look at the evidence of it working versus not working. I'm fairly certain that 'market' based pollution schemes routinely fail, which is why pretty much all first world economies with clean air and water rely on regulations to achieve that, not Coase theorem schemes. And when 'market' based approaches work, I know no liberal who is opposed.

  10. #1090
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,163

    Re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What do you think ACA addresses if not the heart?
    Quality, costs, coverage, dysfunctional markets, inefficient care delivery systems, health care workforce development, prevention and chronic disease management, public health infrastructure, approval for new biologics, etc.

    It's a systematic approach to systemic problems. Your problem is that you don't read what people actually say, you read what you think your cartoonization of them should say.

    As I have always stated, that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. Healthcare does need reformed but it doesn't start with the federal govt. but rather the state and local governments.
    Indeed, that's a philosophy reflected in the ACA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •