Obama / FICA taxes: "how do you like me now?"

[dbucfan]

Before, I had to pay the doctor. Now I have to pay the doctor, the government, the bum down the street killing his liver, and the unemployed fat ass shoving cheeseburgers down her gullet. What would be your predicted outcome?

You've always had to pay for other people, but you just didn't realize it.

Unsurprisingly that is not accurate.  "always" is the offending term that makes it false. 

[Morgan]

Before, I had to pay the doctor. Now I have to pay the doctor, the government, the bum down the street killing his liver, and the unemployed fat ass shoving cheeseburgers down her gullet. What would be your predicted outcome?

You've always had to pay for other people, but you just didn't realize it.

Unsurprisingly that is not accurate.  "always" is the offending term that makes it false.

Unless he's over 75 yrs old and if he's ever paid a $1 for healthcare, a part of that bill was to pay for indigent care.

[dbucfan]

Before, I had to pay the doctor. Now I have to pay the doctor, the government, the bum down the street killing his liver, and the unemployed fat ass shoving cheeseburgers down her gullet. What would be your predicted outcome?

You've always had to pay for other people, but you just didn't realize it.

Unsurprisingly that is not accurate.  "always" is the offending term that makes it false.

Unless he's over 75 yrs old and if he's ever paid a $1 for healthcare, a part of that bill was to pay for indigent care.

You can find out how incorrect that is simply enough if are truly curious.  It is amazing how quickly the idea of health insurance has grown... to it current state of incomprehensible bullspit known as ObamaCare

[Chief Joseph]

The real point here is that there are consequences for decisions. If you want to maintain the freedom to make those decisions, then you need to be the one who handles their consequences. Those cheeseburgers, for instance. If you want to keep eating them, you can't expect me to foot the bill for your heart surgery.

"Freedom" can never be construed to mean freedom from the consequences of your own decisions. It's exactly the opposite; freedom to make those decisions anyway and then face the consequences. Chaining one man to the consequences of another man's decisions is a direct impingement on his freedom. Nevertheless, history has been a persistent, insidious subjugation of the rights of the individual to that of the collective. But no society, ever, will be able to maintain a system where the individual retains his right of choice but is free of that choice's consequences. To think otherwise is delusional.

[CBWx2]

Before, I had to pay the doctor. Now I have to pay the doctor, the government, the bum down the street killing his liver, and the unemployed fat ass shoving cheeseburgers down her gullet. What would be your predicted outcome?

You've always had to pay for other people, but you just didn't realize it.

Unsurprisingly that is not accurate.  "always" is the offending term that makes it false.

Unless he's over 75 yrs old and if he's ever paid a $1 for healthcare, a part of that bill was to pay for indigent care.

You can find out how incorrect that is simply enough if are truly curious.  It is amazing how quickly the idea of health insurance has grown... to it current state of incomprehensible bullspit known as ObamaCare

"ObamaCare" isn't health insurance. This is a misnomer that leads to a common misconception. It is a federal law or set of laws that regulate the overall health care system. I personally would have preferred it have included a single payer insurance plan, but the cons would never allow it.

[CBWx2]

The real point here is that there are consequences for decisions. If you want to maintain the freedom to make those decisions, then you need to be the one who handles their consequences. Those cheeseburgers, for instance. If you want to keep eating them, you can't expect me to foot the bill for your heart surgery.

"Freedom" can never be construed to mean freedom from the consequences of your own decisions. It's exactly the opposite; freedom to make those decisions anyway and then face the consequences. Chaining one man to the consequences of another man's decisions is a direct impingement on his freedom. Nevertheless, history has been a persistent, insidious subjugation of the rights of the individual to that of the collective. But no society, ever, will be able to maintain a system where the individual retains his right of choice but is free of that choice's consequences. To think otherwise is delusional.

Individualism and negative liberty. Yet you aren't a conservative...

[Chief Joseph]

Actually, I don't give a crap about the individual, my comments are guided by my knowledge of evolutionary systems. Your insistence on trying to place them in a simplistic framework are guided by your inability to grasp more than basest of dichotomies.

[Dolorous Jason]

Actually, I don't give a crap about the individual, my comments are guided by my knowledge of evolutionary systems. Your insistence on trying to place them in a simplistic framework are guided by your inability to grasp more than basest of dichotomies.

As comrade tells us ....

Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

[CBWx2]

Actually, I don't give a crap about the individual, my comments are guided by my knowledge of evolutionary systems. Your insistence on trying to place them in a simplistic framework are guided by your inability to grasp more than basest of dichotomies.

You're entire argument is presented along the framework of individual rights vs. collective rights...

"Chaining one man to the consequences of another man's decisions is a direct impingement on his freedom. Nevertheless,history has been a persistent, insidious subjugation of the rights of the individual to that of the collective."

and yet you claim it has nothing to do with individualism. It doesn't make sense because it isn't true.

Your premise is also flawed from a logistical standpoint. Whereas you contend that no society can protect freedom by "chaining one man to the consequences of another man's decisions", there is no such thing as a society in which individuals are not affected by the decisions of others. A society is nothing more than a sum of relationships among the people who live in it.

You are also falsely representing the philosophy in which you are in contention with. Not a single sole is advocating freedom from consequence. If you eat a bunch of cheeseburgers, having a bum ticker is your consequence. That is your consequence whether you have health insurance or you do not. The difference being, of course, if you have health insurance, your consequences are mitigated by having the choice to receive treatment, and if you do not, your consequences are not mitigated at all, which brings us to the crux of the actual debate.

What you are falsely representing as an argument against "freedom from consequence" is actually an argument for "freedom from association", which is a concept of individualism that does not exist within the framework of a society. As I stated, the consequence is the same, a bum ticker. How severe this consequnce affects some in a society as opposed of others lies within the structure of that society. What liberals are advocating is not freedom from consequence, but rather a structural reform that equalizes the outcome of sed, consequence.

The determining cause of a social fact must be sought among the antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness.
—Émile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method


I'd also like to point out that what you are advocating is not Sociocultural evolution, but is rather sociocultural de-evolution. According to Durkheim, as societies evolve, they transform from a state of mechanical solidarity to a state of organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity is formed around the principles of individualism and selective associations. Organic solidarity is formed around the principles of collectivism and social cohesion.

[spartan]

You are also falsely representing the philosophy in which you are in contention with. Not a single sole is advocating freedom from consequence. If you eat a bunch of cheeseburgers, having a bum ticker is your consequence. That is your consequence whether you have health insurance or you do not. The difference being, of course, if you have health insurance, your consequences are mitigated by having the choice to receive treatment, and if you do not, your consequences are not mitigated at all, which brings us to the crux of the actual debate.

What you are falsely representing as an argument against "freedom from consequence" is actually an argument for "freedom from association", which is a concept of individualism that does not exist within the framework of a society. As I stated, the consequence is the same, a bum ticker. How severe this consequnce affects some in a society as opposed of others lies within the structure of that society. What liberals are advocating is not freedom from consequence, but rather a structural reform that equalizes the outcome of sed, consequence.

Have to disagree here, especially as it pertains to Obamacare. Obamacare dictates what health insurance will be. That is, what it is, what it covers and how much it costs. Therefore, if you live off peanuts, cabbage and apples, run a marathon a day you pay exactly the same (unless you're "rich")  as some lardass who goes to McDonalds for breakfast, dinner and tea, has diabetes, a heart condition, high blood pressure, and weighs 300lbs. Subsequently the lardass doesn't give a crap about the consequences because we are going to be paying for his insulin, by-pass surgery and stomach stapling.

[CBWx2]

You are also falsely representing the philosophy in which you are in contention with. Not a single sole is advocating freedom from consequence. If you eat a bunch of cheeseburgers, having a bum ticker is your consequence. That is your consequence whether you have health insurance or you do not. The difference being, of course, if you have health insurance, your consequences are mitigated by having the choice to receive treatment, and if you do not, your consequences are not mitigated at all, which brings us to the crux of the actual debate.

What you are falsely representing as an argument against "freedom from consequence" is actually an argument for "freedom from association", which is a concept of individualism that does not exist within the framework of a society. As I stated, the consequence is the same, a bum ticker. How severe this consequnce affects some in a society as opposed of others lies within the structure of that society. What liberals are advocating is not freedom from consequence, but rather a structural reform that equalizes the outcome of sed, consequence.

Have to disagree here, especially as it pertains to Obamacare. Obamacare dictates what health insurance will be. That is, what it is, what it covers and how much it costs. Therefore, if you live off peanuts, cabbage and apples, run a marathon a day you pay exactly the same (unless you're "rich")  as some lardass who goes to McDonalds for breakfast, dinner and tea, has diabetes, a heart condition, high blood pressure, and weighs 300lbs. Subsequently the lardass doesn't give a crap about the consequences because we are going to be paying for his insulin, by-pass surgery and stomach stapling.

That actually isn't true on any level. There are a ton of incentives that lower you premium costs if you live healthy and raise them if you do not. Also, one does not eat McDonald's every day because they intend on having other people pay for their insulin and bypass surgery should that happen to them. This person does not exist.

[Chief Joseph]

Your insistence on trying to place them in a simplistic framework

You're entire argument is presented along the framework of individual rights vs. collective rights...

No, that's the framework you keep trying to place them in so that it fits your argument. Truly, it is like talking to a brick wall. Like I said, you're nothing more than jester material.

[CBWx2]

Your insistence on trying to place them in a simplistic framework

You're entire argument is presented along the framework of individual rights vs. collective rights...

No, that's the framework you keep trying to place them in so that it fits your argument.

No, that's  the framework that you placed them in when you said this...

"Chaining one man to the consequences of another man's decisions is a direct impingement on his freedom. Nevertheless, history has been a persistent, insidious subjugation of the rights of the individual to that of the collective."

Now you are asserting that you meant something other than what you said. Good luck with that. Maybe some of those "free thinkers" you roll with will buy it, but I'm not.

[spartan]

That actually isn't true on any level. There are a ton of incentives that lower you premium costs if you live healthy and raise them if you do not. Also, one does not eat McDonald's every day because they intend on having other people pay for their insulin and bypass surgery should that happen to them. This person does not exist.

yea, you're right, how stupid of me. Sorry.

[Chief Joseph]

No, CBW. It was a statement of fact, not a list of options. The rights of the individual will be sublimated to the needs of the collective. This is true of all evolutionary models. At issue is the evolutionary model to be chosen (that's what a society is, an agreed upon set of behaviors to guide the evolution of the larger superorganism). It's not about the "rights" of the individual, it's about how much of the individual's personal needs society can afford to provide and still compete with other societies, and which of those needs that, by necessity, fall to the individual.

Even a self-congratulatory pseudo intellectual such as yourself must understand that in individual evolutionary competition, one cannot afford to drag around dead weight and still out-compete for the same resources. There just ain't no fat cheetahs, son. The evolutionary model you would guide us towards is a dud, because you simply do not understand the rules.

Really, it is your model that places the rights of the individual above the needs of the collective, to the point where you would endanger the larger superorganism in order to provide for the individual. Furthermore, your folly is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of human nature. The more society provides for the individual without expected reciprocation, the individual adapts and the less they are willing to provide for themselves. Your evolutionary cheetah is not only fat, it is lazy as well. But, hey, if you stamp your foot and point to your charts, maybe evolution will change the rules for you.