- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:34:29 +0000
We don't create and use policies because they are for the greater good, we use them because the majority wants them, with a few notable exceptions. We just try and appeal to the good in the majority of people to institute policies we think work towards the greater collective good.
No, because politics are about power, and virtually every political philosopher agrees that the use of power is only justified when it defends or advances the public good.
I don't think you get the very concept of politics.
It's not about rejecting policies because you don't personally like them or that they'll make your tax bill larger. Politics is about the common good, not your individual good. All political questions must be framed it that light, otherwise you're doing it wrong.
For two reasons:
1. The vast majority of people vote in their own self interest. That's human nature. Maybe YOU vote against your own self-interest (which I highly doubt, but let's imagine you do), but you are in a tiny, TINY minority. And to pretend otherwise is delusion. For example, welfare states do well not because the people PAYING for them vote for more welfare programs, but because the people BENEFITING from them vote themselves more free stuff.
Where did I say anything about people voting against their self-interest? All I said was that politics is not about the interests of any given individual - including the voter - but is about the common interest.
Not to mention that part of my argument here was that I will be forced to subsidize stuff like Viagra - a purely recreational drug - whether I want to or not due to how Obamacare is set up, going back to how insurance works. You know, that half of my post you didn't see fit to comment on. Hardly a public good.
Proof that subsidizing Viagra is part of Obamacare?
2. Maybe my idea of what's best for society as a whole is different from yours. It does also line up with my own self-interest as outlined above. But I also think it would be better for society as a whole. OMG PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO YOU. SHOCK. AWE.
Well, you've given no evidence that you've even been considering this as public interest.
You know that the US, under its current system, forks out more for health care in percentage terms than any other industrialized country out there, and still doesn't have 30 to 40 million covered, whereas all the other countries do have all theirs covered, don't you? You are aware of this, right?
Yes. I'm also aware that most of those countries have shitty healthcare, and do little to no R&D in the medical field. The vast majority of medical advances come out of America, that's just facts. With Obamacare, well, hope you like stagnant medical sciences. Places like Canada or (God help you) Cuba? Name medical advances that have come out of those countries since they went the nationalized route. Please. R&D for new medicines is HUGELY expensive, and guess what? It's the first thing that gets cut when the government gets involved, because governments are a)inefficient by their nature, and b)greedy. You really think every cent you put into a nationalized program is going to go towards healthcare? You haven't been paying attention then. The government WILL NOT put in the same amount of money to healthcare that Americans currently do. They couldn't possibly do so. Not while adding millions to the bill and trying to keep the price they charge their consumers level. So... the quality of healthcare will go down, R&D will get cut, etc. So what's better - really good healthcare that only a majority of people have, or crummy healthcare that everyone has?
And how much of this R&D is exclusively paid for out of the private sector dime?
Sure it can. It's called taxation. That's how the public good is paid for. And if the government can take your a** and conscript it, and that's constitutional, a fortiori levying a fine if a person doesn't buy health insurance is also constitutional.
Ignoring the fact that I'm not a supporter of reinstating the draft and consider that nearly as bad as this, the draft is a public service. By the actual definition of a public service, meaning that it is actually within the purview of the government, and all benefit goes to the U.S. Government and the people of the United States equally. The Obamacare money would be going to private institutions to pay for a specific service. That's not a tax, and it can't be considered a public service because the actual service is being provided by private companies and individuals. So... the government has no business DEMANDING money for it.
If you think that all classes benefit equally from US use of the military, then nothing I can say can change your mind.