Previous Entry Share Next Entry
happy
yesthattom

Americans say: Pass healthcare reform!



Even 45 percent of Republicans!!

(thanks to barking_iguana)

  • 1
where did this data come from?

Technically only 42% of Republicans said to pass healthcare reform. There appears to also be a 3% MOE (so it could be as much as 58% of Republicans saying no).

I'm a little concerned, though, about the Tyranny Of The Majority forcing the rest of America to engage in commerce it doesn't want to (via forced purchase of insurance policies). If 2/3 of America believed that abortion was wrong, would you want them to be able to restrict your liberty?

It's an alternative to paying taxes. Instead of the government taking the money and providing the service, the government requires that you arrange for the service from private insurance providers. If 2/3 of Americans say tax rates should go up (or down) then tax rates should go up (or down). Is it ideal for the government to franchise out part of its function? No. But it doesn't violate any fundamental principle of freedom.

Why is it either "pay taxes" or "buy insurance"? There's plenty of options that don't include either. One option might be "self-responsibility", where people make decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions (such as whether or not to have insurance).

"Providing healthcare" is not a function of government, and I hate to break that to you. I'm pretty familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America, the document that defines what our government is and is not, and what its functions are and are not, and "provide healthcare to everyone" is not mentioned at all.

But also, so I'm clear, if 2/3 of Americans say "Gays shouldn't have the right to marry", or "Women shouldn't have the right to have an abortion", you're fine with it, because 2/3 of America says so? Because that *seems* like the textbook definition of "Tyranny of the Majority" our system of government is supposed to prevent.

Adjusting the incentives and results of capitalism is, as virtually all countries came to realize in the middle third of the last century, a necessary function of government. Otherwise the imbalance in power that comes from disparate wealth leads us back to feudalism, violent revolution, and/or violent anarchy. In this country, many people are more reluctant to acknowledge that's what we do and it's necessary, but we do and it is. Over the decades, those of us who are motivated by the core values now claimed by 'libertarians' have been among the most forthright and supportive a such amelioration of the often arbitrary effects of capitalism. That so-called libertarians now work as unwitting cat's paws for those with inherited wealth, advocating policies that would test the limits of social cohesion by maintaining as much power- and standard-of-living-disparity as possible, speaks to the low priority we give to social science and humanities education.

In any case, the right to and the need for abortions are not matters of economic structure and are therefore not germane to that discussion. Unlike most civil liberties, abortion does require a minute's thought before coming to the right conclusion. One must first ask is the fetus a person. Once one gets past the shouting and realizes that depending on the stage of development, "sort of" is a much more true answer than "Yes!" or "No!," it makes sense to say that when a woman's natural protectiveness of the potential baby is overcome by other factors, the state should not interfere.

For other non-economic matters of liberties, I suspect we would generally agree both on the result and the reasoning.

Edited at 2010-02-10 07:04 pm (UTC)

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account