Shaming Congress into voting against the industries who bribed them to stop public healthcare

Adam sez,

Lawrence Lessig's new anti-corruption organization Change Congress recently used online ads to shame Sen. Ben Nelson in his home state for opposing President Obama's public health insurance option while taking $2 million from the health and insurance interests that are leading the fight against it. And it worked. After an 11-day public fight, Nelson switched from calling the public option "a deal breaker" to saying he is open to it and promising not to join Republicans in a filibuster against it.
Now, Lessig has set his sights on Sen. Mary Landrieu, who also opposes the public option and took $1.6 million from the same special interests. Today, Change Congress announced a new TV ad targeting Landrieu and they are asking the public to chip in to help air it in Louisiana. Democracy for America and MoveOn.org are also partnering on this ad. It features Karen Gadbois, a local hero who helped root out corruption after Hurricane Katrina -- who shares her compelling personal health care story:

Help us get this ad on the air in Louisiana! (Thanks, Adam!)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: politics

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Felix Mitchell

@Nubastard:

The idea of a social contract is not exactly the same as other contracts, like business for instance.

From wiki:

“The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order.”

Noen is completely right about how you enter into the social contract by being born, and can exit by leaving the country. This is mainly because of the difficulty of exlcuding people who live in a country from using its public services.
RevEng

Isn’t taking money to sway a vote considered bribing? It would be if I were choosing bids for a contract, or deciding whether a a defendant is innocent or guilty, or if I were judging a contest. So how is it that elected officials, whose duty it is to follow the will of the majority that voted for them, can freely take money from self-interested parties to influence their decisions?

It’s about high time the law was applied to politicians just as it is to the rest of us citizens. I say we lobby our representatives to create laws to make this happen. Oh, wait…

What’s Plan B? Take arms and overthrow them? Geez, this is quite a mess we got ourselves into. Who’s idea was this, anyway?
TheCrawNotTheCraw

@#86, Antinous

Very funny!

“Do we want some government bureaucrat choosing the police for us?”

Didn’t the “honorable” Rep. mean to say, “Under our system, if we have to wait for the police, doesn’t that give us the right to shoot the criminal with our *own* guns?”

Sarcasm alert:
I suspect this guy is a carpetbagger. No self-respecting Southerner would *ever* wait for the police before shooting someone.
nutbastard

@#49 Felix Mitchell

“the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order”

Rights can only be given up voluntarily. The other option is that rights are taken against ones will, which is commonly known as ‘violating’ them.

So, you’ve proven that the idea of social contract is a blatant violation of human rights. And here i thought I wasn’t going to convince anyone. Hmph.
Felix Mitchell

Nutbastard:

“I’d rather lead a harder life of my own making than a comfortable one forced on me.”

Just because you think you might be better off and happier without help doesn’t mean that everyone should be abandonned to such a fate.

For some people, if their life was any harder they’d be dead. Or they’re children would be dead, or they might be illiterate or just unable to travel to a job.

“Who better to decide what’s best for an individual than that individual?”

In some instances a group of individuals can come to a better solution than peole acting alone. Come on, this is game theory 101!
Timothy Hutton

While I may not be in favor of Universal Healthcare (I skew against it, but I don’t have a bill in hand to to speak to, so I can’t argue against “nothing”), I aplaud Lawrence Lessig for pointing out the motives behind positions…

Any chance he could do the same for the recently-enacted “Climate Bill”? Those folks in Ohio got $3.5B reasons to jump off the fence and save the planet…

Probably not – but good job on the Healthcare issue.
Robert

@JoshuaTerrel: It would force people like you, who do not see the value of living in a healthy society, pay for people like me, who has a condition that is not my fault and who contributes to the vibrancy and the functioning of your society, but has to pay disproportionately for it.

That’s about it in a nutshell.
Moriarty

There are both pragmatic and idealistic arguments for universal healthcare. On the pragmatic side, there’s the empirical observation that America’s healthcare is about twice as expensive as comparable care in countries with universal systems, and that when medical care costs nothing extra, people are more likely to seek preventative care, which is itself cheaper and also keeps people productive, which is good for the economy. On the idealistic side, there’s the moral argument that if people need help and we’re able to do so without disproportionate cost, we should.

On the opposed, there’s the argument that a hypothetical free market solution (which currently doesn’t exist anywhere) would ultimately provide better and cheaper healthcare, for the same reasons that free markets tend to provide better and cheaper products generally. Aside from that, there’s the emotional reaction many Americans have to the idea of “socializing” anything, and whatever bullshit the health insurance industry comes up with.
Avram / Moderator

Svallie @19: Need I recall to you that famous phrase: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

I recall that famous phrase. It’s from Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, and is said by Ebenezer Scrooge, before being visited by the ghosts. You might want to re-read the book, because I think you missed what it was about.

You’re backing up your arguments by quoting, approvingly, the character who is the archetype of tight-fisted petty greed and miserliness, whose desire for money made both everyone around him and he himself miserable. Is that truly who you seek to emulate?
SVallie

@Robert: I have to assume that if you are willing to take money from one person and force them to pay for another you are entirely for losing the police force as well.

Universal Health coverage sounds good. It’s always nice to know you can get something for free. But this isn’t about what people/society “owes” you. Society doesn’t owe you squat. Period.

Personal liberty is more than just doing what you want. It requires personal responsibility, another sad fact noone really wants to think about.

The government who is now in hock to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars is not going to just “pay” for those who can’t afford health care. That government is going to take from those who are already suffering and give to those who it thinks actually “deserve the wealth”.

How is that better for society? Who are you to say that you “deserve” the money my family makes? My family needs that money too.

No. Having a pre-existing sucks. I have several and have been denied health care myself. That does not mean it is my “right” to force some other poor sucker to pay for me or my family. It’s tough. Life’s tough. Welcome to reality.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  That does not mean it is my “right” to force some other poor sucker to pay for me or my family.
  
  I assume that you also wish to disband the military. And cease all road building and repairs. Because I’m not worried about being invaded, and I can walk wherever I need to go. Or do you pick and choose your priorities for what the government does and everyone else can go to hell?
Brainspore

@ nutbastard #22:

The problem is, YOU would trade MY PPO in for system as efficient as the post office or the DMV against my will, and at my expense. And that, sir, is apathy and disrespect for your fellow man, and selfishness writ large.

Indeed, what could be more selfish than a guarantee of basic health care for every American?

At any rate I think you should still be allowed to pay for whatever private services you want, no matter what public infrastructure is in place for everybody else.
Felix Mitchell

@nutbastard

My understanding of the social contract is that it is one entered into willingly by the whole of society before I was even born. I’m born into that society and so it looks after me as part of the contract. As a child I don’t pay taxes anyway so it’s a pretty good deal.

No I didn’t enter into it willingly myself, because when I was born I wouldn’t have understood the terms. So it’s assumed that children consent to the contract until they’re older – then they can vote or leave.

An alternative would be that children live somehow outside of society and then have to gain citizenship. I think that’s the only alternative other than rule by force.
chris

So… the guy took bribes from special interest groups and wasn’t going to vote the way they wanted until they publicly shamed him.
Takuan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html
Dan Paddock

Libertarian philosophy aside, I guess I just don’t get how we can expect “public” healthcare in the US to be any different than Amtrak, the IRS and Walter Reed Hospital.
Antinous / Moderator

I’ve got your free market healthcare right here.

“In the country that reveres the free market, competition is supposed to drive quality up and costs down. But not in healthcare – and not in McAllen, Texas. In the past 15 years, this sleepy town has reinvented itself as a boom place for modern medicine. Wherever you look there are hospitals, clinics, and laboratories…McAllen, on average, now spends $14,946 (Â£9,263) on healthcare for every patient enrolled in the government’s Medicare scheme, almost double the national average of $8,304 per Medicare enrollee…But the extra dollars and extra tests do not appear to translate into better care. Hospitals in El Paso – which has a similar population, but spends just $7,504 per Medicare patient – recently performed better than McAllen hospitals on 23 out of 25 health indicators.”
bolamig

Thanks Cory for turning me on to Lessig’s crusade. It’s becoming clear that nearly all the ills of our government are due to corruption: our representatives serving those who bribe them rather than their constituents.

The problem with the current healthcare system is also a conflict of interest: The corporations that provide insurance answer to their shareholders whose interest is to deny as many claims as possible, rather than to their paying customers whose interest is to get the care they need.

At least by having the government running the show the interests could theoretically be aligned: The customers (insureds) would be the voters who have an interest in making the system work for them, and the power to elect people who would make that happen.

We’ve got to get corruption under control, and then we will have a chance at having the government serve our needs.
chris

Yes We Can
Sac Weeny
Way Scene
Ace Newsy
Anonymous

@Avram #52
I think SVAllie was pointing out that goodwill is the pervue of charity, and not government. That quote was from Scrooge “opting out” from the public good. What he was doing was legal and ethical, if not moral. But he was exercising a choice. I think SVAllie was saying that choice is better than slavery, even when that choice is given to a right bastard.
JoshuaTerrell

@MORIARTY: So do you think that healthcare would be cheaper is we switched to a universal system?
nutbastard

“No I didn’t enter into it willingly myself”

Then it isn’t a contract. How many times do i need to say this?

Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.”

Agreement: “The consent of two or more persons concurring, respecting the transmission of some property, right or benefit, with a view of contracting an obligation.”

The way you’re using these phrases is very close to doublespeak.
quantax

@SVallie, everything you said would be true if they actually delivered what they promised, but there’s far too much arbitrary coverage denial for insurance holders as well as the pre-condition BS. So in the end you and I, as people paying into the same system, are getting screwed even though we’re ‘legit’. Its a pretty garbage that I pay top premiums that a) don’t cover my genital birth defects and b) allow the insurance company to arbitrarily deny coverage if they can somehow link a present ailment to a pre-existing condition.

I don’t know if universal health care is the answer, but one thing that is undeniable is that the current insurance system benefits no one except the people making money within the system. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in America is healthcare, and the majority of those cases had health insurance. Pragmatically, that suggests there’s big problems in this equation and this needs serious reform. Theres room to make money here, but the current situation is literally unsustainable with medical costs growing by 15% each year,
Anonymous

@Xenu, #89

The collapse is not due to excessive freedom, but to market-distorting incentives that separated the real value of certain securities from their price. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed, or spreading misinformation.

Cory,

I continue to be surprised that someone as suspicious of government as yourself would advocate giving it total control of such a vital part of our lives as health care.
Anonymous

How It Works in Canada

1) Need a doctor?
2) Make an appointment to see a doctor. (Any doctor. Your pick.)
3) See the doctor.
4) Get treated.
5) No bill.
6) Repeat as necessary.
nutbastard

@#53 Brain Spore

“At any rate I think you should still be allowed to pay for whatever private services you want, no matter what public infrastructure is in place for everybody else.”

You mean:

“At any rate I think you should still be allowed to pay for whatever private services you want, as long as you also pay into a system that you object to morally, will never participate in, and which will benefit less people than the same amount of money donated to a private charity would, no matter what public infrastructure is in place for everybody else.”
demidan

With out help/or my life just a little “harder” I WOULD have died. (and I thank everyone who helped knowingly and unknowingly) T-cell counts of 60 SUCK!
Anonymous

Universal healthcare can mean one or more several things, with a few notables:

1) complete federal government control, operation, and funding of all healthcare facilities (pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, specialist centers), as well as complete control over the pay and training of all doctors, nurses, aides, and technicians. Think the VA for everyone in the country, with no competitive practices, for-profit or non-profit. This is not likely in the short run.

2) Government mandated insurance: the federal government requires every person to have health insurance. Those that cannot (or refuse to) pay for private insurance are put on the government-supplied program, one that probably looks like Medicare. Think military retiree healthcare for all, competing with private insurers. This would not immediately impact the ownership and control of medical facilities — until the government requires facilities to take its insurance, and then lowers reimbursement rates considerably.

3) Government requires private insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions / genetic information / known health risks. This, essentially, increases the rates for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy — regardless of cause.

“Public healthcare” requires further government legislation of medical care provision, or of medical care financing. Whether the government provides the care directly, or has its own insurance program, or sets mandates on private insurers, the goal of reformers is increase the amount and quality of care provided. Reformers who tout cost savings in addition to increased coverage, I think are tilting at windmills.
nutbastard

Demidan

and was it the government that helped you, or charity and friends? if it indeed was government, was that the route you took simply because it was most convenient?
noen

@ SVallie

“I would point you to someone who was far more eloquent than I.”

I would prefer to talk to you and not someone else. If you are unable to refute what I said I consider my position to have been vindicated. Skimming your link I see the same Libertarian propaganda. “A Christmas Carol” is a moral criticism of libertarian policies.

“As to legislating morality… are the laws stopping the acts?”

Yes, they are. Laws against violence do prevent it and the violent crime rate has been going down for… decades if not centuries. If you wish to argue the contrary you need to demonstrate it.

“I will not assume the Government is my source or protection. I rely on the 2nd Amendment.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! Nonsequitur!

“But this is yet again, a State’s rights issue. And we all know where that got the South”

I see, so you are a racist in favor of slavery too? The Civil War was over slavery. “State Rights” was the gloss the slaveholders gave it but in a way it’s correct. It was over the “right” to hold slaves. We said no and we backed it up by kicking your stupid confederate ass. Deal.

@ nutbastard

“The Constitution is not a contract.”

Wrong!. The US government owns rights to govern its territory. These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property. Let’s not confuse them with rights of individuals. Thus, the social contract can be required by the territorial property holder: the USA.

“Rights can only be given up voluntarily.”

If you have reached the age of majority you are free to leave. No one is forcing you to remain. However, by choosing to remain within the US you are giving your consent to the defacto laws and regulations we all agree to live under.

“I’d rather lead a harder life of my own making than a comfortable one forced on me.”

It is not forced on you as you always have the option to leave, to speak out, to vote and to lobby the government. But if that is not good enough for you then by all means build your Libertarian utopia elsewhere.
millions

@Dan Paddock: It’s not as if there aren’t at least as many recent examples bad business operations in the private sector. Ever hear of AIG, GM, or Citibank? At least with public services, consumers can demand and influence change through elected representatives, unlike private industry, where usually the best option you have for influencing change is trying to find another private alternative, which may be as bad or worse as often as better.
noen

“this isn’t about what people/society “owes” you. Society doesn’t owe you squat. Period.”

This is one of the big lies of Libertarianism, that a social contract does not exist and therefore “taxation is theft” and so forth. This is of course a lie, we all belong to our community and would perish quickly on our own. As members of a community we have duties and obligations. Over the years one such duty we created is to put a little into the communal pot, taxes, so that we can do together those things we cannot do singly.

So it makes sense and is perfectly morally justified for us to all chip in on projects that benefit us all. Like our collective defense by the military, policing our streets, fighting our fires, and providing adequate healthcare for all.

We all benefit and are stronger together than alone.
nutbastard

@Noen

“”The Constitution is not a contract.”

Wrong!. The US government owns rights to govern its territory.”

Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.”

Agreement: “The consent of two or more persons concurring, respecting the transmission of some property, right or benefit, with a view of contracting an obligation.”

Shall i throw up a definition for the word ‘consent’ as well? It’s nigh fucking impossible to have a rational discussion with people who apparently do not speak or understand english. The fact that you have to twist the very definitions of words in order to make an argument negates your argument. Your unwillingness to call a spade a spade makes me wonder what other meaningful things you are conveniently ignoring or perverting in order to justify your position.
Anonymous

I think regardless of where you stand on the issue of healthcare, we should all be outraged that politicians are making major policy decisions based on cash from special interest groups. As a former resident of New Orleans who voted for Mary Landrieu, I have to say that I like the idea of airing this commercial so that our politicians think about their constituents when voting on major policy issues, rather than who is giving them the biggest wad of cash.
SVallie

@Nutbastard: For what it may be worth, cogent arguments based in the founding Documents of the Land are always welcome with me.

Unfortunately, we live in a land that now values debased systems of education that are more interested in sex-ed than history and meaningful civics.

It is amazing to me how few people accept the Constitution as the final authority. I am forced to ask why they are so willing to give away freedoms and liberties guaranteed by said document, and then call dissidents “anarchists” for attempting to hold them to account.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Unfortunately, we live in a land that now values debased systems of education that are more interested in sex-ed than history and meaningful civics.
  
  Well, you’re fully out of the closet now.
davidasposted

If Americans experienced for a year the public healthcare systems of the truly first-world countries who provide them, most would overwhelmingly support a similar system in the U.S. If Americans experienced for a year the publicly-funded healthcare system for elected officials, many would initiate an electoral purge.

Stop using publicly-funded services such as Amtrak as a caution against public health initiatives. Most politicians neither believe in those services or use them, which is why they do not function well (usually for lack of funding). Use instead the Congressional health plan–they all use it and consequently it provides quality services. Say, “We want that, not the garbage you leave for the rest of us.”
midsentence

Wow, Nutbastard.

Speaking as someone undecided who just stumbled onto this back and forth, NOTHING here is detracting from your points anywhere near as much as your own unbridled smarminess.

Give it a rest.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  I really, really want to slash the military budget by 99% and use that money for universal health care, universal education and other social programs. Why is it that my priorities are ridiculous , whereas someone who wants to keep the military and have no social welfare programs is defending ‘individual freedom’. My point is not that your priorities are wrong, it’s that your defense of ‘individual freedom’ of only those people who agree with you is hypocritical.
Anonymous

I just want to say thank you to NOEN and DAVIDASPOSTED for putting into words what I could not.
markjlyon

@ROBERT: RE: Joshua

Thank you for submitting your response for grading Robert.

You did not provide an intelligible or cohesive answer to his question. Unfortunately, I am forced to give you an F on your response.

Joshua did not state his position. Your entire response was based on non-existent information, supposition, and fabrication. In other words it lacked the power of facts to support your position.

If you are claiming that you can infer the details of his position merely from his question, which contains no such information, you are either fabricating his position or you possess a form of remote digital psychometry not graded in this class. Electronic telepathy is the purvey of Mr. Wm. Gibson’s class, Quantum Metaphysics 451, held on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the Harrison Bergeron annex.

Your unsupported claims include knowledge of what kind of person he is, knowledge that he desires an unhealthy society, and knowledge that he possesses proportionate income for health care, for which you claim you do not.

My greatest critique is the amount of hubris, and by association hypocrisy, of your writing style and content. You automatically presume to know not only all of your unsupported claims as if they were fact, but you presume that regardless of his personal health, his personal finances, and his personal contributions to the vibrancy and functioning of society (of which you actually know nothing) he must be forced to pay for your health care without reciprocation on your part, as if your health condition, financial condition, and contributions to society are morally superior.

Finally, you were unable to maintain consistent logic in your response and created an unsupportable argument. Your statement that he must be forced to pay for your health care (presumption of financial ability) instead of you (statement of financial inability) fails completely when you state as your reason that he must do it because it is not your fault.

Logically, it is not his fault either.

You are definitely passionate in your writing but need to focus on quantifiable and provable facts before you can see your grades begin to improve.

You did end it well, though.

“That’s about it in a nutshell.”
-ROBERT
Felix Mitchell

@Nutbastard:

I don’t think you read my post. I outlined why I thought my personal consent was not necessary for a social contract to be consentual.

I don’t think I’m twisting the meaning of words. Words just happen to be ambiguous and have to be used in lots of different ways to explain what I mean.

Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.”

If I say that the two parties in a social contract are the public and the government, does that help? I’m part of the British public, and so I’m happy for the contract it has entered into to apply to me too. I can leave any time by emmigrating, so even though I was governed under the social contract when I was born involuntarily, the fact I am still governed IS voluntary. It’s been many years since I had control of my own destiny. I haven’t been under any duress to continue to be governed by the UK government for ages.
Xenu

I think it’s funny that there are still BoingBoingers who are arguing for “objectivist” or “libertarian” philosophies, when the entire economy collapsed because of these types of beliefs.

Some people never learn.
SVallie

@quantax: I agree that there are issues with the present system. Anyone who has heard of the Nixon HMO tapes understands the flaws. The method of rectifying the situation is what I have severe disagreements about.

The idea of shared risk is a good idea, but you are right in the point you made that the insurers are out for money alone. While I fully agree that businesses are just that, insurers are more than just businesses and I have a hard time with not saying they should be kept well in hand.

I do not believe that the Government being in control of any private sector industry is the answer. We’ve seen that happen all over the world, not to mention here in the U.S. No sooner did the government step in but business started going under. This is almost a Law of Physics anymore.

@noen: There is a social contract. The social contract is that Government is there to Serve and protect in as small a form as possible. What you refer to is Anarchy which dictates every man for himself.

Libertarianism comes in many forms and placing Libertarianism in a single pile is a common misconception by those who are after a straw man argument.

Duties and obligations do not equate to servitude to my fellow man. Serving my fellow man makes me a good person. It gives me a sense of community. It cannot and should not, by its very nature, be regulated by the government.

Telling one man to be charitable to another is the prerogative of religion and moral codes. Anything else is bordering on communism.

Need I recall to you that famous phrase: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

It wasn’t until charities that pursued bettering mankind got involved that social change actually occurred.

Legislating morality has never accomplished the proposed aim. It simply gives society a feeling of ‘well doing’. And that is just a mirage.
nutbastard

@midsentence

i’ve been more than patient. at some point one has to say, “hey, i’m not going to argue with someone if we cannot agree on what words f’ing mean.”

so forgive me if my intolerance for dishonest debate tactics eventually erupts. also, i find it surprisingly superficial that my smarminess has somehow outweighed felix’s blatant disregard for what words actually mean.

@felix

“I outlined why I thought my personal consent was not necessary for a social contract to be consentual.”

consent was not required for it to be consensual? huh?

there you go again, using the word contract all willy-nilly. there is no such thing as a non consensual contract – it’s a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. it’s as absurd as saying “mandatory volunteer”.
Brainspore

@Dan Paddock #7:

Libertarian philosophy aside, I guess I just don’t get how we can expect “public” healthcare in the US to be any different than Amtrak, the IRS and Walter Reed Hospital.

I would trade my HMO for a system as efficient as the post office or the DMV in a heartbeat.
nutbastard

@#64 Antinous

“I really, really want to slash the military budget by 99% and use that money for universal health care, universal education and other social programs.”

I would reluctantly support that if only because it’s the lesser of two evils. I don’t want government involved in education or health care, but i want them in the business of playing policemen of the world even less.

I really, really want to slash the military budget by 99% and give the money back to the people so that they may purchase private healthcare, private education, and prepare for their retirement through other private means.
Anonymous

This is 100% right about Landrieu, has been for years. But why is MoveOn targeting the sole Democratic senator in a state that overwhelmingly votes Republican?

If this convinces people to get Landrieu out of office, another Vitter will replace her, and that’s even worse. There’s no way this improves anything, regardless of how truthful or correct it is.

Also, does the woman in this video know that Louisiana already has a government-funded public insurance plan for her daughter?
coldspell

As a “liberal-tarian”, I appreciate the social contract to provide universal health care, but fear an American system would combine the efficiency of the DMV with the sabotaging partisanship and corporatism of Dick Cheney’s GOP. <:(

Canadian conservatives seem to support their universal health care system. How do Canadian conservatives differ from American [Republican] conservatives?
Timothy Hutton

JoshuaTerrell retorted with:

@MORIARTY: So do you think that healthcare would be cheaper is we switched to a universal system?

An unequivocal “Yes” – the nice man on TV from the Government told me so, and he also said that the President sat around with all the Healthcare Company Executives and found about $2T in savings (over the next 10 years) that they can realize right away.

Something about paying doctors less, paying pharmaceutical companies less, and paying hospitals less – I don’t know, I couldn’t really follow it – they were about to announce the lottery numbers so I had to change the channel.

PS – I didn’t win the lottery, again. This is really unfair, I’ve been playing for the last ten years, when is it my turn to win?
Stickarm

@Nutbastard: In this thread people suggest that the “social contract” is a type of “contract” that is considered “consensual.” You argue that this use of these words doesn’t seem to be supported by definitions found in dictionaries.

This says more about the difficulty of writing a dictionary than it does about the validity of the idea.
nutbastard

@#14 Noen

“This is one of the big lies of Libertarianism, that a social contract does not exist”

That’s a perversion of the word “Contract” – a contract is something that is entered into consensually. What you’re talking about is “Coercive social obligation maintained by the constant threat of the initiation of force” which no Libertarian would ever deny currently exists.
nutbastard

@#18 Brainspore

“I would trade my HMO for a system as efficient as the post office or the DMV in a heartbeat.”

The problem is, YOU would trade MY PPO in for system as efficient as the post office or the DMV against my will, and at my expense. And that, sir, is apathy and disrespect for your fellow man, and selfishness writ large.
Anonymous

“The problem is, YOU would trade MY PPO in for system as efficient as the post office or the DMV against my will, and at my expense.”

Welcome to democracy!
SVallie

@Antinous: Far from it. I myself served with honor and distinction in the military.

My priorities are simple. I follow the exact wording of the Constitution as should every other politically minded and informed citizen. In that vein, I fully support the 9th and 10th Amendments which have been left dead and bleeding by the wayside in the modern society’s efforts for social ‘equality’.

There are alternatives that the States are more than capable of handling. The Federal government is here for border protection [which it fails at], international trade [which it is failing at], currency [which it is failing at], and justice for those who cannot find satisfaction at state level [need I repeat, which it is failing at].

With the Fed failing at all these tasks actually mandated by the Constitution, why would any sane person seek to hand over personal liberties and basic town works?
nutbastard

@stickarm

maybe so, but regarding dictionaries, it’s not as if we are forced to use these terms – there are many other words available for accurately describing the concept at hand. I find it baffling that people don’t want to call things what they are – though i suspect that’s because in order to do so, they would have to admit that that’s what they actually are, and when their argument is that they aren’t – well, you see where i’m going with this.
Boba Fett Diop

Look, questions of ideology aside, I moved back to Canada two years ago after living in the US for close to a decade. During that time I had good insurance, bad insurance and no insurance, but the one constant was that my health care was always on my mind (and I’m saying this as a generally healthy person).

Even with good insurance, you never know exactly what is covered, or what you will be reimbursed for, or what counts against your deductible. With bad or no insurance, going to a doctor when you are sick or injured involves serious deliberation.

In Canada, you simply do not think about these things. As it was pointed out above, if you have a medical concern, you go to a doctor. End of story.

I do not pay significantly higher taxes here, and our health insurance systems are not bankrupting the country (and no doctors are starving in the streets). There are some things I prefer about the US, and certainly I there are things I have problems with here. Health care is not one of them.

Happy Canada Day, everyone!
nutbastard

@#74

it helps that Canada isn’t blowing even an appreciable percentage of its tax revenue on its military compared to the US. and i love that people who want social programs have a country they can go to that also respects individual freedom, in some ways more than the US does. vote with your feet, i always say.

Unfortunately, as is typical for a Libertarian, as far as I can tell there’s no one on the ballot for us in that regard. I’d vote with my feet too, if only there were a suitable candidate.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  vote with your feet, i always say.
  
  Yeah, it would have been much better if the Founding Fathers had just moved to Britain where they would have had representation along with taxation. Because ‘my way or the highway’ is pretty much the Libertarian motto, isn’t it?
nutbastard

Last comment and then I swear I’ll shut up.

“A bad choice I make is better than a good choice made for me” – nutbastard
Certhas

Svallie, you mean the police force paid for by public money? Because society deems you shouldn’t have to pay to be safe from physical harm?

The empirical evidence is absolutely clear, universal health care works and is more effective than a free market solution by about every metric ever conceived. There are better (the German centralized obligatory insurance but multi supplier system) and worse (the NHS single supplier system) implementations of it but the fundamental idea is clear.

The only reasons to not support it are ignorance or malice. Possibly wrapped in some ideology to make you feel better about your malice.

Also Americans should demand better public service. The fact that it sucks is no accident or not the result of beaurocratic incompetence. We battle the latter everywhere. It is the result of a dedicated effort of a certain ideology to MAKE them suck (with the exception of the military).

BTW, how come that these libertarians can go around shouting taxation is theft, and therefore clearly imply the state should be abolished, and without police and armies we return to tribal forms of organization are courted by the conservatives? For all intents and purposes their ideas about how to organize society are identical to anarchists and hippies!
nutbastard

@#22 Antinous

The maintenance of the military is something clearly authorized in the constitution, and an obvious necessity. As for roads, that’s something i personally believe is a viable role for government to be involved in. In fact, I believe in that so much that if taxes were not obligatory, I would still pay into that system. Same with the police force and fire fighters.

What I would not participate in are social programs like welfare, universal healthcare, and social security. Notice i say ‘participate’ – that means i would neither pay in nor receive anything out. I would, however, support charities left and right, who tend to be a bit more discerning about how much they give to whom, and a hell of a lot more efficient at doing so than the governmental alternative.

Unfortunately, my government doesn’t allow me to choose how much I’m willing to contribute or to what causes that money goes. Instead of being able to invest my money as i see fit, I am forced to participate in a government retirement system called Social Security. Based on my other investments, I seem to know what I’m doing in the stock market, and would have gladly risked that money as well, which not only would have generated more wealth for me, but would have enabled some company to accomplish their goals as well. Or i could have lost it all – that’s a risk I’m willing to take, the consequences of which I am prepared to deal with. After all, as it stands it’s as if i’ve lost all that money – I never expect to see it again.
SVallie

@certhas: I don’t know about you, but my local police force is just that. Local. We are still referring to the federal government aren’t we?

I also have to point out that I’m not saying taxation is theft. Why are you generalizing?

After trying to not laugh throughout your post, I have to admit defeat. One more time. Libertarians are not anarchists. We simply love small government. Oddly, so did the Founding Fathers or they would not have added the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I am curious. Why is it that you think anyone who disagrees with your ideology are ignorant and malicious? I doubt you’ll find that sort of language from any of the Libertarians posting in this thread.

Did calling names help your argument?
Francesco Orsenigo

Health care or not, this is frightening.

How is democracy supposed to work if the elected representatives don’t do the interests of the citizens?
They are messing with people’s health to get money!
Seriously, I thought you Americans had an higher idea of ‘democracy’.
nutbastard

@#25 Certhas

“The only reasons to not support it are ignorance or malice.”

You forgot to mention ‘individual freedom’.

“BTW, how come that these libertarians can go around shouting taxation is theft, and therefore clearly imply the state should be abolished, and without police and armies we return to tribal forms of organization are courted by the conservatives? For all intents and purposes their ideas about how to organize society are identical to anarchists and hippies!”

How typically ignorant – Libertarians are not for abolishing the state. They are not for abolishing police and the military. Please, do at least some superficial research before making wild outlandish statements about the values and goals of the Libertarians.
Antinous / Moderator

Libertarians are not anarchists. We simply love small government.

You want to pick and choose what you as an individual consider to be priorities and scream bloody murder about what anyone else considers a priority. It’s a lot of high-flying rhetoric to cover a basic selfishness.

What I would not participate in are social programs like welfare, universal healthcare, and social security.

I assure you that roads and bridges are in fact social welfare programs, as are every other government function. Everyone pays in for a collective benefit. This ‘I’m taking my ball and going home if somebody else gets to pick the game’ philosophy is juvenile and disingenuous.
nutbastard

@#30

“Why is it that you think anyone who disagrees with your ideology are ignorant and malicious? I doubt you’ll find that sort of language from any of the Libertarians posting in this thread.”

Crap. I *just* used the i-word. Oh well.
buddy66

#10 Quantax said:

“I pay top premiums that … don’t cover my genital birth defects…”

Yeah, I had the same problem with my insurer. They told me surgery was out, and that I had to swing with the original equipment I was issued at birth.
nutbastard

@#77

i know i promised but um…

There’s a distinct parallel between your suggestion that the Fathers should have just gone back to Britain in order to have representation, and what Noen suggested to me:

“It is not forced on you as you always have the option to leave, to speak out, to vote and to lobby the government. But if that is not good enough for you then by all means build your Libertarian utopia elsewhere.”

The parallel is that they’re both absurd notions. Right, I can ‘speak out’ and ‘vote’ and ‘lobby the government’ and ‘petition for the redress of grievances’. Just like the Fathers could.

Anyone ever tried any of those? Yeah, not very effective. Pretty much on par with how much regard the King gave the colonies. So after a while, the people got tired of not being represented in any meaningful way, and resented being ruled by a Government that was both impersonal and self serving, that levied huge taxes and imposed unfair laws from 3,500 miles away.

Hey, you know what? I live in California, and i can really dig that position. Big overtaxing government, 3,500 miles away, no real representation… Deja Vu.
nutbastard

@#32

“I assure you that roads and bridges are in fact social welfare programs, as are every other government function.”

I never contended that they weren’t, so I’m not sure what your point is.

So be it – they’re social programs that I would willingly participate in – others I would not. Why must I subscribe to ALL social programs if I support one? Do you really have so little faith in the human race that you think we need to be coerced into doing things that are for our own good? Last time i checked, you didn’t need the threat of force to convince people to do things that are good for them; such threats are generally reserved for those things which are patently not good for people.
SVallie

@ #32 Antinous: I beg you to tell me, with specifics, any of the things I expect as an individual that are not already enumerated in the Constitution. If I have said anything not in the Constitution, I will take it back. It is just that simple.

The things you list [i.e. roads and bridges] are the issues of the states. I pay state and city taxes just like everyone else.

What you are taking issue with is the fact that I do not want the Federal Government taking over every aspect of my life and finances. Calling me juvenile and disingenuous for not wanting to pay for every Tom, Joe, and Sally that wants a handout does not make me so.

And, to play the devil’s advocate, even if I was juvenile and disingenuous for wanting Constitutional Government, that welfare system would still be the State’s prerogative. I would point you yet again to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
mdh

svallie – stop playing the refs.
TheCrawNotTheCraw

@76,

I understand your remark, but looking at it a different way, would you argue with your surgeon about *exactly* which portions of some diseased organ have to be removed?

So, a bad choice you make is *not* always better than a good choice made for you.
nutbastard

@#77

and the point of ‘vote with your feet’ obviously went waaaaay over your head.

After the Revolutionary war, the way had been paved for many people to ‘vote with their feet’ from all over the world. They could pick up and head for America. They could say to themselves, “I’m tired of my government. I’m tired of trying to change my government – they never listen, they never change. The taxes always go up and inflation is making me poor. So I’m heading to America, because this place I live in now, it’s broken, and it can’t be fixed.”

Where’s MY ‘America’? Where can I go to escape rampant, unrepresented taxation? (I don’t recall voting on income tax, property tax etc – being forced to live with the consequences of the mistakes of ones ancestors is no different than having such burdens levied within ones own lifetime. Either way I am wholly unrepresented.)

the Fathers got their hands on the last piece of land on the planet. There is no more land. There is nowhere to start a new country without usurping an existing one. (one could argue that the formation of America usurped many Native American ‘nations’ though – i dont mean to sound as if i think that the land was empty when we all got here)

It’s a shite state of affairs. It’s no wonder Heinlien looked at the Moon and said “There – there is the only place where we can start this all over and try it again”
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  nutbastard,
  
  You too can vote with your feet. I understand that Somalia is a paradise for ‘individual freedom’.
Anonymous

Some of these comments reminds me of the selfish, adversarial crap on television. Like that stupid Reeses Peanutbutter Cup commercial that says “sharing is nice.. stupid, buy nice”. Is that what the marketers, with all their focus groups and research, though would appeal to Americans? Do Americans think that sharing is stupid? Do we want a society were only the able-bodied and lucky can live and prosper because they will not share their good fortune with others?

Please wake up and see that the corporations, politicians, and media are hell bent on taking as much freedom and money from us as fast as they can. If we’re too busy fighting each other, we are going to be fighting more for less and less over time.

Come on people, let’s start sharing for the greater good.
Felix Mitchell

We all benefit hugely from having a healthy population. It seems so obviously wrong that the only option sick people have is this horrible insurance system that costs them so much, will drop them without a refund for the flimsiest of excuses, and provides the wrong incentives to the healthcare industry.

The US system shocks me so much. I don’t understand the extreme selfishness that would allow people to vote and argue against universal healthcare.

I love my British NHS so much, even though I hardly use it. Knowing I can always rely on recieving healthcare, no matter my own circumstances, is an amazing thing.

Insurance that might refuse to cover you when you need it is no insurance at all.
Anonymous

haha the government fixing things…again, thanks for the laugh!
nutbastard

@#79

Only if i was convinced I knew more about it than he did, which i would never presume. However in the case of the surgeon, that’s a consensual delegation of decision making – the key element here being consent.
mdh

that was for svallie at 30, not svallie at 36.

svallie at 36, I could swear the Secretary of Transporation was a Cabinet level position. Does that not make roads and bridges a shared responsibility? Does the federal funding provided to the states not make it a shared burden? Are you actually about to argue that those dollars are sourced from the states and that your state gives more than it gets WHILE expecting us to keep a straight face?
noen

@ SVallie

“Libertarianism comes in many forms” — Yes, that is true, but I cannot debate the multitude. I have to assume a basic, general or overarching philosophy. This is a blog and I have to be concise (heh). To that end I have to address the assumptions underlying Libertarianism in general.

“Duties and obligations do not equate to servitude to my fellow man. Serving my fellow man makes me a good person. It gives me a sense of community. It cannot and should not, by its very nature, be regulated by the government.”

This is the wrong way to look at it. We have collectively decided that it’s a good idea for everyone to put a little into the pot. But Libertarians are greedy and selfish and want all the benefits of living here but they don’t want to pay their fair share. Therefore, “We the People” have decided to enforce compliance. You are free to leave any time you like.

“Need I recall to you that famous phrase: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”"

Scrooge was a Libertarian. Dickens’ character was a reaction to the excessive laissez faire practices of his time. You can read “A Christmas Carol” as his moral repudiation of Libertarianism.

“Legislating morality has never accomplished the proposed aim.”

Seems to work just fine legislating against such immoral behavior as murder, rape, theft and other crimes. If you don’t believe me I suggest you commit murder and see what happens.

@ nutbastard

“That’s a perversion of the word “Contract” – a contract is something that is entered into consensually.”

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government. When your parents chose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth, your parents are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

“What you’re talking about is “Coercive social obligation maintained by the constant threat of the initiation of force” which no Libertarian would ever deny currently exists.”

All contracts are maintained by threat of force. Expecting that everyone who enters into a contract will be honorable and always live up to the terms without that threat is naive in the extreme. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between several parties: the three branches of the government, the states, and citizens. It’s a multilateral contract where every party is subject to enforcement by one or more of the other parties, and every party is involved in enforcement for at least one other. This pattern of checks and balances was specifically designed to deal with precisely this fairness issue.

If you sign a lease for a property your are obligated to live up to the terms of your contract. You do not own the property, here such property being the United States of America, it’s land, it’s government and institutions. You are permitted to own some property within the US but you are not allowed absolute rule. You cannot own slaves for instance. If you don’t like it you are free to try to change the laws we live under, or you can leave, or you can violate the rules, or finally you can revolt. Good luck with those.

Should the US choose some form of universal healthcare such a choice would be fair and morally defensible because we all have free speech, the right to vote and the right to petition our government for redress. I believe that some form of collective heathcare would benefit us all. It would be cheaper, buying en-mass always is, it would benefit small business as they would no longer need to bear an unfair burden and it would benefit the nation as a whole by allowing it’s citizens to be more productive and live healthier, happier lives. The combination of these moral and economic advantages clearly favor socialized healthcare.
buddy66

#7 Dan Paddock says

” … I just don’t get how we can expect “public” healthcare in the US to be any different than … Walter Reed Hospital.”

Walter Reed isn’t public. It’s a U.S. ARMY hospital for active duty soldiers. If you’re thinking of the VA hospitals, think again; they’re more efficient, more accountable than most private hospitals. I’ve got no complaints, except there are too many cranky old men like me on the patient rolls and they don’t let us smoke. Go figure. We fight their fucking wars and they won’t even let us fire up a Marlboro.
EH

TL;DR. I stopped after someone posited the issue as a choice between public health care and a police force. Hilarious!
SVallie

@ #40 Noen: I understand that you deal in generalities. But you referred to me and your references were incorrect.

If you want a treatise on Scrooge being Libertarian, I would point you to someone who was far more eloquent than I. http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l1.html

As to legislating morality… are the laws stopping the acts? No. Rape continues. Murder continues. More legislation does not solve the issue. But as you so ably proved, it makes society feel good.

Is that to say I do not want Murder and Rape to be lawful? No. But I will not assume the Government is my source or protection. I rely on the 2nd Amendment. It is MY responsibility to uphold my safety and the safety of my family. I pay for my LOCAL police force to uphold the safety of the public in general as best they can.

But this is yet again, a State’s rights issue. And we all know where that got the South :)
SVallie

Error in #42: I meant to say….

“Is that to say I do not want Murder and Rape to be UN-lawful? No.”
noen

@ nutbastard

Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.”

There is a real written contract complete with signatures and you may inspect it at any time. It’s called the constitution. Immigrants and other visitors become citizens by searing an oath to uphold the law and the constitution. Natural citizens do not have to perform such an oath but it is implied. When a citizen joins the military or assumes political office they reaffirm their oath, that is they reaffirm the social contract under which we all live. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

When you enter a restaurant with say a minimum charge you cannot claim you never signed a contract or that the contract is not enforceable because you chose not to consume anything. Your presence implies consent and creates a debt.

Agreement: “The consent of two or more persons concurring, respecting the transmission of some property, right or benefit, with a view of contracting an obligation.”

Your continued presence is your consent. If you lease property or say… an apartment your continued residence implies your agreement with the contract you signed. You can try to renegotiate the deal if you like or if not you may leave.

“It’s nigh fucking impossible to have a rational discussion with people who apparently do not speak or understand english. The fact that you have to twist the very definitions of words in order to make an argument negates your argument. Your unwillingness to call a spade a spade makes me wonder what other meaningful things you are conveniently ignoring or perverting in order to justify your position.”

I understand just fine. It is you who has a childish and naive understanding of the world around you. You think you can just “prove” things by looking up words in a dictionary. Sorry but life is more complicated than that. You have yet to truly respond to any points I’ve made thus far.

“i’ve been more than patient. at some point one has to say, “hey, i’m not going to argue with someone if we cannot agree on what words f’ing mean.”"

I think I have laid out a consistent and logical explanation of why social contracts exist, why your continued membership as a US citizen implies your consent, and why it is morally justified and fair.

“The parallel is that they’re both absurd notions. Right, I can ‘speak out’ and ‘vote’ and ‘lobby the government’ and ‘petition for the redress of grievances’. Just like the Fathers could.”

You misquote me. I also added that you have the right to revolt just as our founding fathers did. They won their freedom with their blood. They have passed on those freedoms to all who choose to live within the borders of the United States of America. If you do not agree then leave. By staying you give your consent to be governed by the laws of the land.

“Anyone ever tried any of those? Yeah, not very effective.”

Political participation worked for me. I went door to door for Obama and I’m very happy with the results so far. That are things I’d like addressed, like DADT and DOMA, but I’m hoping they’ll get taken care of soon. If you feel you are unrepresented then run for political office, or vote, or donate to the candidate of your choice.

If, on the other hand, you find yourself in an increasingly despised minority, as right wing extremist today find themselves, then that may indicate something is wrong with you. Your ideas may be defective, or irrational, or you simply failed to convince others to join you. Too bad. Grow up an be a man. If the United States is that intolerable to you then please leave. Or you could try becoming an adult and question your own beliefs and assumptions and change them accordingly. Or you could just admit that the majority has the right to set the rules (within the terms of the constitution) and maybe you just have to tough it out like I did. Our system has winners and losers, you are a loser right now, maybe that’ll change, maybe not. So far, I think you’re always going to be a loser.
nutbastard

@#40 Noen

The Constitution is not a contract. It’s a restrictive framework for our Government and an enumeration of our self-evident, God-given rights. It does not grant me rights – my existence grants me rights – it merely lists them for posterity.

Furthermore, custody does not include committing someone to a contractual obligation that extends into adulthood – once their custody ends, whatever obligations they signed me up for are no longer valid, and it becomes my choice to enter into which contracts I choose – your parents don’t have the right to sign you up for contracts that endure for your entire adult life – that’s completely absurd and yet another semantic perversion. You wanna go for three today?
Felix Mitchell

@ nutbastard

“Last time i checked, you didn’t need the threat of force to convince people to do things that are good for them”

Yeah it’s so nice how everyone always pays their taxes without coercion. I love how we all appreciate the benefit we get from pooling our resources, and no-one ever tries to withold their contribution.

Another point:

Why is freedom always mentioned in this debate? Using the NHS I’ve never come across any service I wasn’t free to use if I needed it.
demidan

Grrr, Bastards!

I met Mary Landrieu years ago when I worked for the Bar Molly’s on the Market on Decatur st in New Orleans. Every Thursday night was press night and someone in the news tended bar,,,One night while Mary Landrieu was running for Governor of L.A. she took her turn tending bar,,,what an F-ING Bitch!, (sorry you would say the same thing if you met her). Don’t trust her to do anything good unless there is something in it for her!
Felix Mitchell

Svallie:

“It is MY responsibility to uphold my safety and the safety of my family. I pay for my LOCAL police force to uphold the safety of the public in general as best they can.”

This is what we call a contradiction.

Also, are you implying you don’t benefit from or see the need for police who opperate above a local level?
Anonymous

Um, maybe I mistaken, but what is being pushed for is a public option, not the elimination of private insurance. How is that going to steal #24′s PPO. People are busy debating universal health care here. That seems like a straw man for either side of the debate.

I’ve worked for big businesses and the govt. and had the mediocre insurance that comes with it. It was ok at best. I’ve also watched self-employed friends dish out huge chunks of their income to health insurance. Those companies always seem to decide to cover nothing once the bill comes. Why should they? It isn’t like they care about losing a single customer that just gave them thousands like a sucker. Why should only those who work for big business get any real insurance for their money?

So why is everyone twisting this into a debate about universal health care? This is just about trying to get another option. An option that the users would be paying for. If it sucks like the DMV, it is far better than the pay for bait-and-switch service that many get (and others refuse to get) now. Besides, DMV’s have come a long way in the states that I have checked out recently.

It seems to me like some folks are really set on painting any change as the bogeyman.
nutbastard

@#45

“Yeah it’s so nice how everyone always pays their taxes without coercion.”

then i would argue that The People don’t consider paying exorbitant taxes as being good for them. Who better to decide what’s best for an individual than that individual?

I’d rather lead a harder life of my own making than a comfortable one forced on me.

“Cold comfort for change? And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?”
JoshuaTerrell

Can someone please explain to me the benefits of this universal healthcare thing? I don’t understand it.
Antinous / Moderator

“Do we want long wait times when we call for the police, like people in countries with socialized police forces?” Sen. Russell Flack, R-Ga., asked during a floor debate yesterday. “Under our system, we can choose our own police officers, as long as we pay for protection out of our own pockets. Do we want some government bureaucrat choosing the police for us?”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/30/police/index.html