"All data, regardless of origin, must be treated equally." - How does that not mirror the ideals of Obamacare?
That quote is from the Oatmeal explanation of net neutrality.
The ACA clearly falls short of this goal ('All patients, regardless of X, must be treated equally"), but this is obviously an ideal of the left. Meanwhile the right wing (congressional politicians to be clear*) hate the idea of poor people getting the same quality of care or access that they can pay for.
A splintered, free-market internet would be a crappy, limping, ad-infested mess for the poors, while the wealthy folks at the top have access to the best of anything and everything that exists. That's what they offer in healthcare alternatives, so why should the internet be any different? In a sense, net neutrality to him is far worse than Obamacare.
Concept: Ted Cruz's statement was a reasonable way of expressing an abhorrent political position.
*Edited for clarity.
Posted Nov 12, 2014, 3:44 AM UTC · edited
First of all...
...this isn't true. I've talked at length about healthcare reforms of many kinds with all sorts of right wingers over the years, and none of them have ever held this position. Your post is pretty demagogic and isn't likely to promote much productive discussion with an opening like that. That idea is an idea that was expressed by the left, not the right, over frustration with trying to understand the right wing's opposition to a single-payer system. Now, I'm sure you could find nutty people to say anything, just like someone from the right could list any number of nutty things some leftist may have said, but doing so isn't helpful. We all know the bulk of the people in our nation aren't insane.
Secondly, NN isn't really the same thing as the ACA given the fact that NN would be affecting already implemented infrastructure whereas the ACA was trying to completely transform an existing system into something it never was and wasn't prepared to be. On scale, the two thing aren't comparable.
I don't think he's wrong. Every conservative I've spoken with about healthcare brings the argument back to personal responsibility in terms of saving for healthcare expenses, and has never fundamentally disagreed with the notion that more money should be able to buy better care.
I've never heard it as "more money should be able to be 'better' care." I've heard of more money being able to by "more types" of care such as elective surgeries. But, I've never heard any of them make the case that someone with an illness should actually get "worse" care because they don't have more money. Have you heard a Republican say that you should have your arm amputated because you can't afford a more modern procedure that would save your arm? I feel that is a faulty extrapolation people have made from the arguments.
How do you not realize this is basically the same thing?
Because they aren't the same thing.
If Kim Kardashian wants a new boob, she should have to pay out of pocket for it, and so should anyone else unless the surgery is medically necessary to treat a disease or disfigurement.
If Kim Kardashian needs an appendectomy, she should receive high quality care as should any other human being in the same condition, period.
One of these procedures is medically necessary. One is not. People should take "personal responsibility" for buying medical amenities. They should always receive quality care for medical needs. How you could consider these two things the same thing is beyond me.
By the way, just to clarify, "personal responsibility" isn't a code word for "screw you and die." When people treat it like that, they really undermine their own arguments and look immature.
"Should be available"? That is completely unclear. I can say more margaritas "should be available" as well, while saying nothing about how they will be procured or who will pay for them.
Obviously I am talking about wealthy vs. non wealthy
So tax the 50% of americans who currently pay all the federal income taxes more to pay for freebies for people who are currently net tax receivers. Standard Democrat policy stuff. I guess it should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't.
Sorry, I specifically meant congressional Republican politicians, as evidenced by their actions and opposition with zero alternative presented.
The transition isn't really relevant - that's an argument against the ACA, but the point here is that the ideology between NN & full coverage for all actually parallel each other.
You're right in that idealistically speaking they kind of mirror each other. I'm just saying that a key difference is that one (NN) is an easy regulatory change while the other (ACA) is an entirely new government program. Logistically, they are different, but as you said, idealistically they are similar. I mean, NN is basically saying businesses can't do something in the future, something they aren't even doing right now. So, it's not really hard to implement. It's basically just preventing something that isn't happening from ever happening.
with the exception of a handful of major ISP's using throttling to bully other companies into more profitable contracts or slowing unlimited data users mobile connection speeds to because they were using to much bandwidth other then those examples, no ones doing it :)
That is complete bullshit. The republicans obviously have a platform and policy goals. You just don't know what they are, because MSNBC and the NYT have never covered it, and r/politics has never had a post on it. That does not mean republicans do not have policy goals.
This is your chance to enlighten him!
Of course they have policy "goals". See the document below and it's entirely filled with statements like "our goal is...", "we support...", "we believe that...", but what is entirely missing is any reference to any bills that will reform the US healthcare system in the absence of the ACA.
https://www.gop.com/platform/
There's the source (which is where I prefer to get my information from). I challenge you to find in that official policy document something that specifically details what the Republicans would replace Obamacare with on the day after they get to repeal it.
Oh wait, I found their plan:
"Obamacare—was never really about healthcare, though its impact upon the nation’s health is disastrous."
...
"Congressional Republicans are commit- ted to its repeal; and a Republican President, on the first day in office, will use his legitimate waiver authority under that law to halt its progress and then will sign its repeal. Then the American people, through the free market, can advance affordable and responsible healthcare reform that meets the needs and concerns of patients and providers."
...
"We believe that taking care of one’s health is an individual responsibility."
Speaks for itself.
You're expecting to see a giant government program to replace it, complete with a cabinet level secretary and 25,000 federal bureaucrats to run it. You'll never find that, because most republicans think the federal government does not have the power within the constitution to do that.
Its right in your quote. Free market means purchasing insurance across state lines. Consumers get to choose what they buy and how much they spend. Bureaucrats and politicians cannot ever control costs because that's not what bureaucrats and politicians do. And they cannot mandate quality, because its not in their nature.
Only consumers can actually get better healthcare for cheaper. People pay attention when they are spending their own money. They don't give a shit when its either the government's money or an insurance company's money.
Yes it does. Individual responsibility goes hand in hand with liberty.
We understand this, and I don't find fault in the Republican's not having it spelled out for you. You don't understand this, and even me typing it out is lost on you.