[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Prof: Is your company being forced to change their health care plan or are they choosing to because there is a cheaper option?

The supposition in your question is incorrect. They are choosing to reduce my insurance because the option we had has been made too expensive by this bill. Either they reduce all of our coverage, or they ask us to pay more. Either way insurance costs have gone up, not down, and for many people their care will reduce because of the increased cost combined with the lack of options caused by the over regulation of health insurance competition.

Also, I'm not saying individualism is evil but consideration has to be made to those who aren't as well off. Your arguments lack compassion and seem to me like the thoughts of one who believes that bad things only happen because people make bad choices so forget about them.

In general, what good has been done by such progressive/compassionate ideals? Compassion destroyed the black family in this country. Compassion has created an entire class of poor that don't value education, possibly the single most important component to achieving success from nothing. The compassionate ideals only enslave people and make them dependent on others, and they improve little.

These type of compassionate laws only serve to continue the poverty cycle, and crush the spirit of those who live under them.

Leftists tend to blame the current state of the world on deregulation, pretending that these companies did whatever the hell they wanted. How so? Health care and financial institutions are the two MOST regulated industries in the country, not the LEAST. Out current situation is a RESULT of compassionate ideals, and the fact that WANTING to do good is not the same as doing good. There are such things as unintended consequences.

This is a exact reason why Milton Friedman argued against regulation in general. Why? Because he viewed keeping industry out of government as an impossibility, an observation I think we can all agree has proven true to this point. Now, if its safe to say that industry will always infiltrate government, doesn't government regulation then create an unfair marketplace? Doesn't it create regulations like the ones that prevent competition over state lines, etc.?

His view was that the only way for there to be a fair economic system was to have one completely devoid of government intervention. I don't completely agree with Uncle Miltie, I am for limited regulation to prevent monopolies (Friendman believed 100% open markets would not sustain monopolies. I disagree), but he definitely has a point.

Were your parents well off?

No. My dad was a construction worker, and my mom chose to stay at home and once we grew up she was a social worker. In fact, my did grew up with an outhouse and one communal sink for the entire 9 person family. And by the way, my Mom knows the system from the inside out and she makes me look like Keith Olberman. The system propagates poverty and subservience.

Have you ever flirted with poverty?

Yes. My dad didn't work for over a year in the early 90's. I call it the "Tuna Casserole Year". I have talked about this before.

Have you ever needed a safety net to fall back on?

I was on unemployment for a brief time, and I have no disagreements with unemployment benefits. They are necessary to keep people going until they can find another job, and reduces their income to make the situation uncomfortable enough to make sure they keep looking for work. Its necessary to keep industry moving, which is in all of our own best interests. Welfare is a different matter, as it is self-sustaining poverty.

On side note, I never felt more worthless in my life than while on unemployment. It is not good for people's psyche to be propped up by the government or anyone else for that matter.

I'm not going to make baseless accusations because frankly, I don't know you very well. But I feel like you must have been raised at least somewhat privileged from the fact that I've seldom if ever seen you put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate.

There will always be someone less fortunate than I. That's why my arguments have stemmed from analysis of the current health care situation, and not from emotions as yours seem to originate.

You have ignored the crux of my arguments in favor to attacking the "self-interest" philosophy I've shared. I'll repeat:

Question: If 80% of the country that has health care insurance will likely be asked to either a) lower their health care insurance to fall below the "Cadillac" threshold, b) pay the excise tax if their company elects to not to lower their plans, c) pay considerably more in taxes mandated by a "future congress" (its in the bill) how is this improving the quality of living in America?

Take a moment and ask yourself if this health care bill might make someone's life better. The life of someone who isn't you.

Your question assumes that I don't want to reform health care. Can you point out a single argument I've made that states this? No, you can't because I haven't. Once again, the argument is about HOW to reform, lower costs, and increase service. Here is what I've posted earlier in this thread:

But the largest conceit out of all of these arguments are that they inherently deny that there are alternative plans or ideas. No one is saying that reform should not happen. NO ONE. Its an argument about what type of reform that is needed. For an example of an alternative plan, see Paul Ryan's Roadmap: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Why do people assume that reform has to be government control?

Also, I really think your completely misunderstand self-interest, like most Rand critics do. Example: I want to reform health care, lower costs and make sure everyone has coverage. Now, I want to do this because it will lower costs for everyone, including myself in tax dollars, and can increase the risk pool and potential investment in health care allowing for greater competition to increase care and innovation.

Now, if we meet these goals out of self-interest, or out of altruism, what is the difference? The ends are the same, but I think you'll find that self-interest 1) Is a more effective motivator to most people and 2) makes for sustainable advancement, unlike this fiscal nightmare of a bill we have now which will create dependence and by its own structure eventually fail and then destroy all those dependent on it.