View Single Post
Old 10-22-2013, 08:52 AM   #68
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,058

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBII View Post
You're wrong. Because you think the market can be set aside. But it never is. Regardless it's still tough to reconcile "You can't insure health" with support for a law that says "Insure your health, or pay the price!"
Quick quiz, what is my position about ACA?

Quote:
Yes, that's a human flaw. As demonstrated best by our federal government. "It's hard to plan, so let the Federal Government do it for me." is One... hilarious. And two... at odds with individual liberty.

The social contract should always be a matter of negotiation. Otherwise you're just electing unqualified people to tell everyone what they need all the time.
More like. "I don't realize I need to plan (or can't), and when I don't I affect others".

When you have a group of people that, though action or inaction (or inability) are harming the whole, you don't think it's indicated for that whole to do something about it?

I'm a pragmatist, not a ideologue. There are basically three choices:

1.) Let people suffer and die and have minimal up front costs.
2.) Keep people from suffering and dying at enormous cost -- what we currently do (only slightly mitigated by the ACA)
3.) Keep people from suffering and dying at a cost somewhere in between. -- what we should to be doing.

#1 is full of personal liberty, and also full of suffering (and also financial costs). I prefer to act against the suffering.
Fedaykin is online now   Reply With Quote