"But I don't need health insurance"

[Jamesqf]

FamiliesUSA estimated last year that an American dies every 20 minutes for a lack of insurance.  Notice that last sentence ended with the word insurance, not care.

It is never a good idea to blindly accept the "estimates" an advocacy group comes up with to support their position.

We could also come up with equivalent statistics, as for instance X Americans die every day from the effects of overeating & underexercising, therefore we should have an excise tax on food, and mandatory daily exercise programs (a la Maoist China).

Yes, and this is the theme of all your arguments.  What is best for you, is all that is needed for the rest of the country.

Only in your lack of understanding.  My arguments boil down to this: why should I have to pay for what is good (or what you think will be good) for you, when it is not good for me?

But as a citizen of the wealthiest nation on Earth, knowing that other developed countries have tackled this problem, I have an expectation that we are capable of as much and more.

Sure.  The problem is that Obamacare is not trying to do more or better than those other countries, it's trying to do a second-rate copy of programs, even though we can see that those other countries have real problems.

[hybrid]

But as a citizen of the wealthiest nation on Earth, knowing that other developed countries have tackled this problem, I have an expectation that we are capable of as much and more.

Sure.  The problem is that Obamacare is not trying to do more or better than those other countries, it's trying to do a second-rate copy of programs, even though we can see that those other countries have real problems.

Oh, I agree, I am no fan of the ACA as it stands, I would much rather use a single payer system.  Every system has its warts.  How does the old saying go, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others?  Yes, other countries have their own issues as well but I would argue they have built better mousetraps than we have.  For now, it is on the Dems to patch all the numerous leaks in the USS Obamacare.  It is on the GOP to do more than sit back and say I told you so, because health care costs were spiraling out of control before the ACA.

[Daleth]

My arguments boil down to this: why should I have to pay for what is good (or what you think will be good) for you, when it is not good for me?

Because we live in a society--"no man is an island," as the saying goes--and most of us believe that this is not only good for us individually, but also good for American society. Since the law our representatives crafted in response to that very widespread belief has been ruled Constitutional, you just have to deal with it, much as I just have to deal with my tax dollars being spent bombing Iraq.

[grantmeaname]

Because our society believes that equal access to healthcare is a social good and has decided that we are all willing to pay for it. Based on seeing you do this four other times I'm guessing what's coming next is "well I never decided that and can I please stop paying taxes and have only the benefits of living in a democracy funded by those same taxes", and the answer is again "No, that is not how society works".

Called it.

[Jamesqf]

Because we live in a society--"no man is an island," as the saying goes--and most of us believe that this is not only good for us individually, but also good for American society.

But that's not really the issue here, is it?  You're up against the demonstrated fact that only a minority of the population thinks this is good for them as individuals, or for the country as a whole.

Then you might also consider what happens if you carry your "no man is an island" argument to its logical conclusion.  That homeless guy over there isn't making much of a contribution to society, now is he?  Wouldn't it be really good for society as a whole if we just broke him down for spare parts?  I'm sure he'd provide material for a dozen deserving, productive organ transplants.

[footenote]

Public opinion is swinging in favor of ACA. Latest WSJ / NBC poll:

"... the number that’s truly apocalyptic for Republicans is respondents’ views of the Affordable Care Act. The law is actually gaining support in the latest poll: 38% of respondents now say the law is a good idea versus 43% who say it’s a bad idea, a major bump from the 31-44 margin it polled last month and its best result in over a year."

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/gop-plummets-obamacare-soars-shutdown

So how will you argue the point if the momentum continues and substantial majorities end up in favor of the law? (Especially if the technical glitches continue to be fixed and people who were previously shut out of the healthcare system find they... like have healthcare insurance!)

[footenote]

Sorry for two consecutive posts; I stumbled on the following data and found I was wrong in my immediately previous post.

Kaiser's polls show more Americans want the Affordable Care Act expanded or kept as is than want it repealed:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/04/republicans-dont-support-replacing-obamacare/
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-october-2013/

So claims that the majority of Americans don't want the ACA is invalid per Kaiser's October 2013 poll.

[Daleth]

But that's not really the issue here, is it?  You're up against the demonstrated fact that only a minority of the population thinks this is good for them as individuals, or for the country as a whole.

A substantial chunk of the opponents of the ACA oppose it not because they don't think it's good for themselves or for society, but because they don't think it's good enough--they want single-payer universal coverage.

And a substantial chunk of the people who oppose the ACA either only oppose it when you call it "Obamacare" (I trust you saw the interviews where people said they supported the ACA but were against Obamacare?), or oppose it now, in the wake of three years of GOP/FoxNews wailing that gubmint bureaucrats will get to decide whether our grandmas live or die, but will likely cling to it fiercely once it actually comes into effect. I'm sorry but I just find it hard to take an argument seriously when you see many of its proponents doing things like opposing "Obamacare" but supporting "the ACA," or standing outside the Supreme Court with signs that say "Keep Government Out of My Medicare."

Then you might also consider what happens if you carry your "no man is an island" argument to its logical conclusion.  That homeless guy over there isn't making much of a contribution to society, now is he?  Wouldn't it be really good for society as a whole if we just broke him down for spare parts?  I'm sure he'd provide material for a dozen deserving, productive organ transplants.

Do you really take that argument seriously? Or is the web obscuring your sense of humor? BTW, if you refer back to my post, you'll see that I mentioned not only the fact that in a Democratic society we do the stuff that most people vote for us to do, BUT ALSO the fact that the majority rule in this case was also ratified by the Supreme Court's decision finding Obamacare constitutional. Do you think they'd find it constitutional to chop up homeless people for spare parts? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Then you might also consider what happens if you carry your "no man is an island" argument to its logical conclusion.  That homeless guy over there isn't making much of a contribution to society, now is he?  Wouldn't it be really good for society as a whole if we just broke him down for spare parts?  I'm sure he'd provide material for a dozen deserving, productive organ transplants.

LOL, well, he is definitely a useless eater. Killing the planet and all. I say we get 51% of the people to pass a law so we can distribute his healthy parts. We're all in this together James, and that is price of living in a society. His existence is agreement and approval of the social contract. Some people are just going to have to do with less. The needs of many outweigh his own personal need for that extra kidney he's holding.

[Daleth]

This just in:

Obamacare “victim” now says loss of previous health plan may be “a blessing in disguise”
Dianne Barrette was the media's go-to example of an Obamacare victim -- until she found out all of her options
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/obamacare_victim_now_says_loss_of_previous_health_plan_may_be_a_blessing_in_disguise/

[Jamesqf]

Public opinion is swinging in favor of ACA. Latest WSJ / NBC poll:

"... the number that’s truly apocalyptic for Republicans is respondents’ views of the Affordable Care Act. The law is actually gaining support in the latest poll: 38% of respondents now say the law is a good idea versus 43% who say it’s a bad idea, a major bump from the 31-44 margin it polled last month and its best result in over a year."

I'd say that only extreme wishful thinking could interpret just barely over a third who think it's a good idea as "swinging in favor". 

So how will you argue the point if the momentum continues and substantial majorities end up in favor of the law?

But this is not my argument, it's my response to the claim that the law is a good idea because it was approved by a majority of the voters (or their representatives).  I'm just saying that argument has problems, because (per polls) a majority does not approve, and AFAIK never has.

My objection is that it's screwing me over.  And apparently I'm not alone: seems from the news that a lot of people in my position - self-employed with income too high to qualify for subsidies - wind up paying considerably more.  See e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?wprss&google_editors_picks=true

We don't have to look all that hard to find out why we're being screwed, either.  (Aside from the the fact that we've got enough money to make screwing us worthwhile.)  In addition to the ridiculously low deductibles, we're being forced to pay for a bunch of services that many of us neither want nor could possibly make use of. 

There's a list of 10 "Essential Health Benefits" (here: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/#13836187787261&120|noscroll )  There is absolutely ZERO chance that I will ever need maternity or pediatric care, while most mental healt & substance use care is nothing but quackery, which no one should be paying for. 

[grantmeaname]

while most mental healt & substance use care is nothing but quackery, which no one should be paying for.

You've mentioned that. You're entitled to think whatever you want, but you can't expect your irrational biases to form the basis for national health policy. Sorry you don't like mental health treatment, but that doesn't change the fact that i) it's highly effective for many patients, or ii) mental illnesses are prevalent in our society.

[randymarsh]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

[CDP45]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

Yes there were 28 state constitutional amendments against it and it has never ever passed your so-called high standard of a popular vote. Democracy: acceptable if I like the results.

[matchewed]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

Yes there were 28 state constitutional amendments against it and it has never ever passed your so-called high standard of a popular vote. Democracy: acceptable if I like the results.

Different issue for different reasons. In the gay marriage case the Supreme Court determined that a federal law (DOMA) was unconstitutional. That doesn't affect any of the 28 state constitutions. Apples and oranges don't mix.

[randymarsh]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

Yes there were 28 state constitutional amendments against it and it has never ever passed your so-called high standard of a popular vote. Democracy: acceptable if I like the results.

I wasn't talking about the legal side. I was talking about the practical "this is how I'm affected on Wednesday" side.

[Mr.Macinstache]

It's the height of irony that so called progressives are in support of such a corporatist system.

[randymarsh]

Progressives only support Obamacare because the current system is so crappy. Almost all progressives support single payer or at least a public option, but it wasn't politically possible so they've accepted this bastardized less bad version of a healthcare system.

[matchewed]

It's the height of irony that so called progressives are in support of such a corporatist system.

Or not because there is something actually called Progressive Corporatism. Just slapping together terms and calling it the height of irony doesn't really add anything to the discussion or mean anything.

[Daleth]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

Yes there were 28 state constitutional amendments against it and it has never ever passed your so-called high standard of a popular vote. Democracy: acceptable if I like the results.

Different issue for different reasons. In the gay marriage case the Supreme Court determined that a federal law (DOMA) was unconstitutional. That doesn't affect any of the 28 state constitutions. Apples and oranges don't mix.

It doesn't directly affect the state constitutions, but it still sets a floor for what is or is not constitutional, period. If a law that does X is unconstitutional at the federal level, a state law that does X would also be unconstitutional. The only exception I can think of offhand would be if X was a power delegated to the states, making the law unconstitutional because only the states have the power to do X.

[matchewed]

Obamacare barely even affects those receiving group insurance from their employers AKA most of us. These surveys are asking the public at large about something that most likely doesn't effect them. This is like when straight people are asked how they feel about gay marriage.

Yes there were 28 state constitutional amendments against it and it has never ever passed your so-called high standard of a popular vote. Democracy: acceptable if I like the results.

Different issue for different reasons. In the gay marriage case the Supreme Court determined that a federal law (DOMA) was unconstitutional. That doesn't affect any of the 28 state constitutions. Apples and oranges don't mix.

It doesn't directly affect the state constitutions, but it still sets a floor for what is or is not constitutional, period. If a law that does X is unconstitutional at the federal level, a state law that does X would also be unconstitutional. The only exception I can think of offhand would be if X was a power delegated to the states, making the law unconstitutional because only the states have the power to do X.

It sets the benchmark going forward, unless changed, that gay marriages when allowed by states can be federally recognized for benefits. The state constitutions have no direct impact on this except to allow or exclude gay marriages. Also my main point was that this is in no way related to the healthcare issue. One is a strike down of a law through the Supreme Court, that is considered by CDP45 to an unpopular decision by reason of the number of states which have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (or at the very least putting in the constitution that it is up to the state specifically to choose who can marry). The other is a law which was passed and determined to be constitutional. CDP45 proceeds to use these two issues which in no way reflect each other, hence my apples and oranges comment, as proof that somehow people who support the ACA are picking and choosing when democracy works for them when in fact in both scenarios our democracy worked perfectly fine.