The New Yorker: Unpopular Mandate (or "Why I stopped...and learned to love the mandate))

[Aristophan3s]

The New Yorker put out another excellent and unbiased article regarding politics (health care). This time it is a collection of legal opinions that say things like, "the dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, told the Times, “There is no case law, post 1937, that would support an individual’s right not to buy health care if the government wants to mandate it.”

hahahaha

Everything needs to be a “right.” And now we are naming POSITIVE rights, not general negatives (the right to liberty is vague and makes no prescriptions) as has been done historically. Do I have a right to NOT drink Fanta imported from Mexico? Or a right to NOT go swimming if the pool is packed? Does it need to be a law?

How can you people possibly support pointing a gun at me if I do not buy health insurance from one of the corporations that you all seems to hate so much?

NEITHER of the parties make sense. They are both bought and paid for by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Keeping this along party lines, which I am sure it is and will be, is only dividing the population on nonsense.

I have yet to see a Romney bumper sticker or yard sign…
None of the Republicans I know want Romney…if you catch my drift.

The fact is, if the government can force people to buy anything it can force them to buy everything. What is to stop the government from mandating gym memberships? Or specific diets? After all, these both contribute to people’s health.

Also, consider for a moment, that if everyone is forced to pay (or subsidize) your health care, there is no self-risk for healthy behavior. People are more likely to smoke and eat unhealthy diets because they are not on the hook for their increased medical bills. This will make it more likely that the government will have mandated diets and exercise habits…

How can you not recognize this kind of flagrant tyranny?

“In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.”

Driving an automobile is AN OPTION. I can ride a bike and I do not NEED insurance…or even a helmet.

FOR GOD’S SAKE PEOPLE!?!?!?!

[Phi_est_aureum]

“Do I have a right to NOT drink Fanta imported from Mexico? Or a right to NOT go swimming if the pool is packed? Does it need to be a law?”

Obviously, you’re spot on. Love the examples above. The only thing that has these “rights to not” would be the state, right? As in, the federal government has the right to not mandate everyone buy health insurance. The government has the right not to collect taxes on income. The government shouldn’t be doing these things, and not doin them would be what’s “right.” obviously, the right not to mandate healthcare doesn’t mean they can mandate healthcare, just that they cannot. Funny, everyone asks for government to do these things, which necessarily restricts our liberty, and this situation is completely backwards and upside down and inside out. Even if the argument can be made that the state should exist, which would be to protect liberty and property, these acts necessarily go against the purpose of government. The problem all lies in the misunderstanding of the proper role of government.

[Aristophan3s]

“Phi est aurem” = Phi is gold? The phi ratio? The golden section?!?!

[Phi_est_aureum]

““Phi est aurem” = Phi is gold? The phi ratio? The golden section?!?!”

You’ve unlocked the secret. Yes. I love the golden ratio and it’s abundance in nature. I believe it is the structure of everything. And I had to have a name with at least 4 characters, so “Phi” wouldn’t work. but thank you for noticing!