A Philosopher’s Take On The Obamacare Decision
This is by far the best analysis I’ve heard of the Obamacare decision, from my colleague Onkar Ghate. Not to be missed.
The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism
This is by far the best analysis I’ve heard of the Obamacare decision, from my colleague Onkar Ghate. Not to be missed.
20 Comments to “A Philosopher’s Take On The Obamacare Decision”
If only Romney would stumble across this video. It might give him some talking points. He would probably miss the point and write Mr. Ghate off as an extremist. I guess he is an extremist; extremely correct, extremely articulate, and an extreme example of what Americans lack in character.
The man is right about a lot of things, but I do not agree with his conclusion that ObamaCare will not be repealed. I personally believe it will be. Should a Republican majority take over the House and Senate, ObamaCare in its current state will be repealed. Should Republicans not have a Super Majority in the Senate, I still believe it will be repealed now that it is considered a “tax” - and politicians do fear for their political lives. What it will be replaced with - who knows, but the days of ObamaCare are short lived.
I agree with the Objectivists’ position. A question I frequently ask is, “if you have the value that people are to have medical care when sick/ill, who pays for it, if you can not?” Does the sick/ill person, who can not pay, just die on the street corner? I have not heard of a “Plan B”. I do hear about charity provided by churches and other organizations, but I do not think EVERY town and city, in America, will be able to provide that “free” service. Again, how is it paid for if we have the value? And, if you only can obtain healthcare if you pay for it, what happens to the person who can not pay for it?
One of the problems with today’s education is that you end up with no idea of what freedom and capitalism was like. Nor do you have any idea of what it was like before Medicare. Medicare wasn’t enacted because old people were dying on the street corners. Instead, if they couldn’t afford medical care, they were getting sufficient help from people voluntarily, yes, charity. Further, medical care was not especially expensive. Insurance was only for extreme situations, not everyday illness or injury. People could easily afford to pay for that themselves. Medicare and the complete regulation of the medical industry has changed that to make it look as if we would all be without medical care without complete insurance or government payments. The economy would be also producing wealth, too, making it easier to pay for medical care. It was even easier the further back in American history. Knowing the past is often very helpful.
“they were getting sufficient help from people voluntarily” — that is an outright lie.
That is an interesting argument. I couldn’t put my support in a comment on someone’s article, but a modest search of the situation of the period will provide sufficient evidence that the 60s were not a time when the elderly were dying in droves from poverty or lack of help. You might not want it to be that way, but it was.
If you want to help that sick/ill person or decide to formulate/sell a “Plan B” you will not be stopped. To say that they will just die in the street is to engage in hyperbole
I disagree that my statement is an exaggeration. That is what happened in Atlas Shrugged, but AR did not “dwell” on it. No one has written a sequel to AS. Be nice to have a model of what to do. . .
@44 million without health insurance. I do not believe the towns and cities across the USA will voluntarily pay the medical bills of all those folks, if the MD and ER say services ONLY if you pay money for it! I agree that folks will go for a Plan B, it is the interim I wonder about.
Take care all.
I glanced briefly through the details of the decision, and I found the following sentence in Roberts’ opinion regarding the commerce clause argument for the individual mandate: “[T]he distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were ‘practical statesmen,’ not metaphysical philosophers.” The people whose job revolves around their understanding of the constitution do not understand that it has philosophical implications.
Michael, The premise you need to question is the collective view of value. Would your argument still ring true if we replaced health care with some other value? ‘A question I frequently ask is, “if you have the value that people are to have shirts when shirtless, who pays for it, if you cannot?” Does the shirtless person, who cannot pay, just become shirtless on the street corner? I have not heard of a “Plan B”. I do hear about charity provided by churches and other organizations, but I do not think EVERY town and city, in America, will be able to provide that “free” service. Again, how is it paid for if we have the value? And, if you only can obtain shirts if you pay for it, what happens to the person who cannot pay for it?’ The fact that some values are more expensive than others does not change the principle involved. By what right can person A force person B to give up a value in favor of person C?
Bill, I agree and have asked that “same question” and receive no reasoned answer or anything at all. (see new post by me). Galt’s Gulch: growing veggies, hand made log cabins or such, hand mining the shale. It’s starting over and you better adapt VERY quickly. Now that happened in the “beginning”. Curious, if I have store and a road to it, do I charge you a toll to drive to my front door to shop?
Recent documenary “AR’s Prophecy”. Forgot businessman’s name, but he hopes it would be a gradual shift to an Objectivist society, but he gives no Plan B. Anyone read anything that rings of a sequel?
It is clearly written: The Individual can do “Anything” except that which is forbidden, government can do “Nothing” except that which is permitted by the governed. This gave maximum freedom of the individual while binding the hands of government. We gave up, surrendered, quit, retreated on the concepts of Freedom long ago and now only a small percentage is vocal enough to make noise.
You were right to say that we were free to associate and do business as we please; however, many violated the rights of others just because they were different and society forced government to do its job of protecting the rights of the individual from individuals and from most States. People Allowed government to take these actions to fix societies problems due to the society inability to police itself. How far are people willing to let government fix social problems? Obama Care is another government solution to a social Problem just like: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drugs, Food Stamps, Farm Insurance, Farm Subsidies, and the multitude of Corporate Welfare. You have already have accepted that government has the right to fix social problems and now this is just a continuation of what you have already agreed. Why do you cry now? This is just another step toward where you are headed and you still have many steps to total slavery to accomplish. Any Rand warned you but you did not listen, now you have to finish what you started or change course. You can’t get a little bit pregnant.
Dr, Ghate’s discussion is excellent. It is very clear and well presented. The only idea that popped into my mind concerns his thought that the members of the Court do not understand what freedom means. That is clearly true from their writings and rulings. But my question is whether they want to know what freedom is or would want freedom if they knew. The movement away from teaching the ideal of freedom in schools and in society was led by people who rejected freedom philosophically. The Court is made up of people who are the intellectual descendents of that movement. Kant’s children, you might say. I think that they have rejected freedom. Many other Americans have not, however. Many other Americans would like to know what freedom means and do desire it. Fortunately, we are here to tell them.
Wonderful analysis! Sorry that it is so needed.
I was especially pleased to hear Dr. Ghate’s bring this back to the Declaration rather than just focusing on the Constitution. I’ve been saying for a long time in online debates within the ‘Liberty’ movement that the exclusive focus on the Constitution was flawed. The Constitution has only ever been the legal implementation of the philosophical ideas in the Declaration. Remove the Declaration from the equation and you remove any hope of properly understanding the Constitution and you have the merely legalistic interpretations we see today.
I wonder if, psychologically, the Supreme Court justices and Obamacare politicians are lawmaking to control us as compensation for their lack of self control, if they are attempting to rationalize through powermongering their inadequacy in keeping their irrational ideas in check, if they are lifelong carriers of the Napoleon syndrome.
The commerce clause wasn’t limited by the decision, since section III-A (the commerce clause and necessary and proper section) was where Roberts wrote “his own personal opinion”, rather than “the opinion of the court” (as he did for the other sections). Personal opinions do NOT set precedent, only opinions of the court do.
I heard this from Mark Levin on his show. So everyone on the right who is claiming some kind of victory, and those on the left who claim the commerce clause was limited, are wrong.
Also, Justice Thomas, by reading his brief individual opinion, seems like the only justice who properly understands the commerce clause.
I wish there were a printable transcription of this.
lailnart & computer is a trusted brand Transcription Company when it comes to Business and General Transcription Services. Online Transcription Quality, Transcription Services Rate and Quick Turnaround Time are the key factors which make the lalinart & cpmputer as a preferred Online Transcription Service Provider in the United States. Our Transcription Services Ranging from Audio Transcription, Video Transcription, Interview Transcription, Legal Transcription and Media Transcription Services.