The party of smaller government?

[Dancing David]

Apparently 'abortion foes' are using the new health care exchanges to restrict the right of access to insured abortion coverage. So they are using the new law to impose 'government regulations' on 'the decisions between a doctor and their patient'. Irony.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_abortion

An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.

...

Since Obama signed the legislation law March 23, Arizona and Tennessee have enacted laws restricting abortion coverage by health plans in new insurance markets, called exchanges. About 30 million people will get their coverage through exchanges, which open in 2014 to serve individuals and small businesses.

In Florida, Mississippi and Missouri, lawmakers have passed bans and sent them to their governors. Most of the states allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Insurers still could offer separate policies to specifically cover abortion.

[theprestige]

Having established a system by which the will of the people is carried out, it would silly indeed for people not to work within that system to carry out their will.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Having established a system by which the will of the people is carried out, it would silly indeed for people not to work within that system to carry out their will.


You really think there's no hypocrisy in people arguing against government inserting itself between the doctor and patient out of one side of their mouths and arguing in favor of government restrictions on abortion out of the other?

[theprestige]

You really think there's no hypocrisy in people arguing against government inserting itself between the doctor and patient out of one side of their mouths and arguing in favor of government restrictions on abortion out of the other?
I really think there's no hypocrisy at all in such a thing.

Even leaving aside such nuances as the distinction between "less government vs. more government" and "local government vs. national government", there's still the fact that the government has inserted itself between the doctor and the patient. As much as a person might wish it weren't so, there's no benefit at all to having the government in that position without trying to influence its behavior.

I'd prefer the government weren't always in such a position, where its behavior had to be influenced in order to produce the outcomes I desire. But it is, so I do.

In fact, I think the real hypocrisy is insisting that the government insert itself in a situation, and then complaining when people who would rather not have to deal with the government in that situation are forced to do so anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

No, it's rather stupid to say " we don't want government between the doctor and patient " and then turn around and put.. the government between the doctor and patient. Republicans really only care about fiscal freedoms, they are all happy to let the government regulate people's personal decisions when it comes to health issues, lifestyle, marriage and religions.

[thaiboxerken]

Having established a system by which the will of the people is carried out, it would silly indeed for people not to work within that system to carry out their will.

By will of the people, you mean... the will of people you agree with. Most people do not want abortion to be illegal.

[theprestige]

By will of the people, you mean... the will of people you agree with.
Actually, I mean... the will of anybody. Some people want one thing. Some people want another. Government provides a system for resolving such conflicts. Are you seriously complaining that people are using the system to resolve conflicts in their favor? Isn't that exactly what you do?

Most people do not want abortion to be illegal.
And yet your system of government includes the principle that popular opinion, by itself, does not always automatically resolve policy disputes. It provides peaceful methods for minority voices to be heard, and minority opinions to be taken into account, when imposing the will of some people on everybody else. What would you suggest, for people who disagree with you, if not participation in your system of government? War? Crime?

[The Painter]

By will of the people, you mean... the will of people you agree with. Most people do not want abortion to be illegal.

Most people don't want government run health care


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

[JoeTheJuggler]

I really think there's no hypocrisy at all in such a thing.

How strange. Do you think there is such a thing as hypocrisy in any circumstances at all? If so, how is it distinguishable from this (where a person claims it's wrong for government to get involved in the doctor-patient relationship except wrt to abortion)?

[Bob Blaylock]

You really think there's no hypocrisy in people arguing against government inserting itself between the doctor and patient out of one side of their mouths and arguing in favor of government restrictions on abortion out of the other?


Putting government between doctor and patient is not the same thing as putting government between a murderer and an intended murder victim. I see no hypocrisy at all in opposing the former, while supporting the latter.

Preventing us from murdering one another is, I think, rather universally accepted as a legitimate function of government.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Most people don't want government run health care


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

The link you provided does not support that assertion at all. At most it shows that in some of these polls a slight majority were opposed to the specific health insurance reform bill supported by Obama and the Democrats. It said nothing at all about government run health care.

It's irrelevant to this thread, but there were many polls (http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html) showing that, depending on how you worded it, a slim to large majority of Americans were in favor of some sort of a single payer system (either extending Medicare to everyone or a new system).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Putting government between doctor and patient is not the same thing as putting government between a murderer and an intended murder victim. I see no hypocrisy at all in opposing the former, while supporting the latter.

Preventing us from murdering one another is, I think, rather universally accepted as a legitimate function of government.

Ah so you live in a fantasy world where abortion is murder and doctors who perform abortions are murders. Do you realize that in the real world these things aren't true?

I'm curious, in your alternate reality, are you at least consistent in how you'd punish women who ask for abortions and cause the people performing the abortions to be paid? After all, a person hiring a hit man is also guilty of murder.

[The Painter]

a slim to large majority of Americans were in favor of some sort of a single payer system

Slim to large???? WTF does that mean??? Oh a single payer system? Is that what the congress passed and the president signed.?????? I don't think so!

[The Painter]

The link you provided does not support that assertion at all. At most it shows that in some of these polls a slight majority were opposed to the specific health insurance reform bill supported by Obama and the Democrats. It said nothing at all about government run health care.
It's irrelevant to this thread, but there were many polls (http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html) showing that, depending on how you worded it, a slim to large majority of Americans were in favor of some sort of a single payer system (either extending Medicare to everyone or a new system).

What do you think was passed???? Where is your brain????

[theprestige]

How strange. Do you think there is such a thing as hypocrisy in any circumstances at all? If so, how is it distinguishable from this (where a person claims it's wrong for government to get involved in the doctor-patient relationship except wrt to abortion)?
I think there is such a thing as hypocrisy. I also think that in most--if not all--cases, it's vastly overrated as a rhetorical achilles heel.

I also don't think there's anything hypocritical about preferring that the government not be involved in the doctor-patient relationship, but given that the government is involved in spite of that preference, opting to influence the government's involvement in favor of your own policy positions.

The government is involved. What would satisfy your prudishness regarding hypocrisy? That people refrain from influencing the government's involvement, simply because they think the government shouldn't have gotten involved to begin with?

I don't agree with the death penalty. Should I refrain from influencing the government to make the death penalty as humane and efficient as possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

I don't agree with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Should I refrain from influencing the government to carry out that invasion in the most effective and ethical manner possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

I don't agree with the government's involvement in the doctor-patient relationship. Should I refrain from influencing the government's involvement in that relationship, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

Better for the government not to be involved at all, so that I can carry out my will free from tyranny. But since government is involved, better that I influence it by any and every means, to carry out my will, then wait complacently while someone else influences government against what I will. How is that hypocritical?

[ponderingturtle]

Most people don't want government run health care


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Unless you count the more than 50% of people who wanted a public option.

[theprestige]

Unless you count the more than 50% of people who wanted a public option.
People want a fix.

We have a fix.

Therefore, we have the fix that people want.

[Dorian Gray]

Putting government between doctor and patient is not the same thing as putting government between a murderer and an intended murder victim. I see no hypocrisy at all in opposing the former, while supporting the latter.

Preventing us from murdering one another is, I think, rather universally accepted as a legitimate function of government. So, um... are you against the death penalty? Or is it just a matter of timing with you?

[tyr_13]

What do you think was passed???? Where is your brain????

Some increased government regulation and rules for insurance providers and a mandate that everyone buy health insurance. You were talking about government run health care, which wasn't passed, even though it may well be that most Americans want just that.

So not only is your point irrelevant, it's wrong.

[MattusMaximus]

Putting government between doctor and patient is not the same thing as putting government between a murderer and an intended murder victim. I see no hypocrisy at all in opposing the former, while supporting the latter.

Preventing us from murdering one another is, I think, rather universally accepted as a legitimate function of government.

Interesting to see the loaded language implying that an embryo/fetus is somehow, magically, a full-fledged human being with all the rights thereof.

Should we give embryos/fetuses the right to vote because they are potential adults? Should we tax them (or the parents) because they are potential taxpayers? How about we award them law degrees because they are potential lawyers? Or doctors? Or engineers?

Never mind that the entire, pesky birth thing hasn't actually happened yet... they have the potential, damn it!!! :jaw-dropp

[johnny karate]

I don't agree with the death penalty. Should I refrain from influencing the government to make the death penalty as humane and efficient as possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

I don't agree with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Should I refrain from influencing the government to carry out that invasion in the most effective and ethical manner possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

Neither of those examples represent reversals of a position, and thus are not necessarily hypocritical. You're merely referring to compromises, not hypocrisies. Had you proclaimed yourself anti-death penalty, but then advocated for the death penalty in certain situations, that would make you a hypocrite.

For someone to say "I oppose government involvement in the doctor-patient relationship" and then advocate for legislation that would require government involvement in the doctor-patient relationship, is a flat-out hypocrisy.

[quixotecoyote]

Neither of those examples represent reversals of a position, and thus are not necessarily hypocritical. You're merely referring to compromises, not hypocrisies. Had you proclaimed yourself anti-death penalty, but then advocated for the death penalty in certain situations, that would make you a hypocrite.

For someone to say "I oppose government involvement in the doctor-patient relationship" and then advocate for legislation that would require government involvement in the doctor-patient relationship, is a flat-out hypocrisy.

saying "more involvement" may address the objection better, as might tweaking the death penalty analogy to being against the death penalty but wanting it to apply to more crimes.

[Tailgater]

So, um... are you against the death penalty? Or is it just a matter of timing with you?

That would be awesome. I'm imagining a miniature electric chair to round off the comparison.

[Lallante]

I think there is such a thing as hypocrisy. I also think that in most--if not all--cases, it's vastly overrated as a rhetorical achilles heel.

I also don't think there's anything hypocritical about preferring that the government not be involved in the doctor-patient relationship, but given that the government is involved in spite of that preference, opting to influence the government's involvement in favor of your own policy positions.

The government is involved. What would satisfy your prudishness regarding hypocrisy? That people refrain from influencing the government's involvement, simply because they think the government shouldn't have gotten involved to begin with?

I don't agree with the death penalty. Should I refrain from influencing the government to make the death penalty as humane and efficient as possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

I don't agree with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Should I refrain from influencing the government to carry out that invasion in the most effective and ethical manner possible, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

I don't agree with the government's involvement in the doctor-patient relationship. Should I refrain from influencing the government's involvement in that relationship, so as to avoid being labeled a hypocrite?

Better for the government not to be involved at all, so that I can carry out my will free from tyranny. But since government is involved, better that I influence it by any and every means, to carry out my will, then wait complacently while someone else influences government against what I will. How is that hypocritical?


As elegant as this arguement may seem on a first reading, it collapses like a deck of cards when you notice that in all the examples cited, the same 'agenda' is supported both by disagreeing with a gov policy outright and (though to a lesser extent) by influencing the gov policy once it is enacted. In each case it is a compromise, or harm minimisation, not a reversal of positions.

HOWEVER in the case of the OPs situation you have TWO competing 'agendas':
1) Small government not providing/running healthcare; and
2) Religious views on abortion enforced in law.

You are NOT acting consistantly with 1) when you legislate 2), and this is the hypocracy that is not evident in any of the supposed rhetorical analogies you cite.

[Lallante]

Interesting to see the loaded language implying that an embryo/fetus is somehow, magically, a full-fledged human being with all the rights thereof.

Should we give embryos/fetuses the right to vote because they are potential adults? Should we tax them (or the parents) because they are potential taxpayers? How about we award them law degrees because they are potential lawyers? Or doctors? Or engineers?

Never mind that the entire, pesky birth thing hasn't actually happened yet... they have the potential, damn it!!! :jaw-dropp

Lets not get into this in this thread. Seriously.

[Dancing David]

Well, I just found it ironic that some people who complained about the health care bill somehow coming between a doctor and the patients are now coming between the doctor and the patient.

[Dancing David]

Putting government between doctor and patient is not the same thing as putting government between a murderer and an intended murder victim. I see no hypocrisy at all in opposing the former, while supporting the latter.

Preventing us from murdering one another is, I think, rather universally accepted as a legitimate function of government.

Thanks for derailing teh thread, carry on.

What about the irony of people saying that teh health care bill was interfering with the patient doctor relationship and now doing the same thing?

Any comments on that?

What about murder of fetuses that have no brains?

[MikeMangum]

So, um... are you against the death penalty? Or is it just a matter of timing with you?

I'm against kidnapping, but I'm not against the government taking people from their homes and locking them up against their will, assuming due process and conviction in a court of law. I'm also not against fining someone for theft, even if it requires siezure of assets.

I'm actually not a supporter of the death penalty, simply on the grounds of it being irreversible, but the "we can't stoop to their level" argument strikes me as infantile.

[ponderingturtle]

As elegant as this arguement may seem on a first reading, it collapses like a deck of cards when you notice that in all the examples cited, the same 'agenda' is supported both by disagreeing with a gov policy outright and (though to a lesser extent) by influencing the gov policy once it is enacted. In each case it is a compromise, or harm minimisation, not a reversal of positions.

HOWEVER in the case of the OPs situation you have TWO competing 'agendas':
1) Small government not providing/running healthcare;

No one was actualy for that though, see all their fights at cutting medicare spending.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I just found it ironic that some people who complained about the health care bill somehow coming between a doctor and the patients are now coming between the doctor and the patient.

They never had a problem with bureaucrats between people and their doctors, as long as the bureaucrats were motivated by a proper profit motivation.

[Ziggurat]

Apparently 'abortion foes' are using the new health care exchanges to restrict the right of access to insured abortion coverage.

Did you seriously expect them to pass up an opportunity like this? Why would they?

So they are using the new law to impose 'government regulations' on 'the decisions between a doctor and their patient'. Irony.

Um... you are aware that small government positions and anti-abortion positions are in fact distinct positions, and that a person can hold either one without holding the other, right?

But yes, it's ironic that democrats enabled them to do this.

[theprestige]

Well, I just found it ironic that some people who complained about the health care bill somehow coming between a doctor and the patients are now coming between the doctor and the patient.
Ironic, certainly. There is indeed a bitter irony to the situation. The health care bill puts the government between the doctor and the patient. So it's ironic that people who would rather not have the government in that position are now forced to influence the government's activities in that position. Ironic, yes. Hypocritical, no.

Also ironic: People who would rather not see religious extremists come between doctor and patient insisted on health care reforms that would permit exactly that.

I wonder... would it be hypocritical of the people who supported these reforms to oppose their being used by religious extremists?

[tyr_13]

Ironic, certainly. There is indeed a bitter irony to the situation. The health care bill puts the government between the doctor and the patient. So it's ironic that people who would rather not have the government in that position are now forced to influence the government's activities in that position. Ironic, yes. Hypocritical, no.

Also ironic: People who would rather not see religious extremists come between doctor and patient insisted on health care reforms that would permit exactly that.

I wonder... would it be hypocritical of the people who supported these reforms to oppose their being used by religious extremists?

They are not forced to do so by any means.

Also, insisting on health care reform does not mean you insist that religious extremists could come between you and your doctor. Hell, it doesn't even mean insisting that the government come between you and your doctor. So no, in no way is it hypocritical to support health care reform and oppose religious extremists setting the terms of the system any more than it would be to support gun rights and oppose giving guns to Hamas.

[theprestige]

They are not forced to do so by any means.
Of course they are.

Expand the role of government into any sphere. Let one faction denounce the expansion and proclaim they will have no part of it--government may do whatever it pleases in that sphere, without interference or influence from that faction. Let another faction, in opposition to the first, announce that they will commit a great part of their wealth to influencing government action in that sphere by any means possible.

In what way is it in the first faction's interest to refrain from influencing government in that sphere, except to avoid the oh-so-dreadful label of "hypocrite!", zealously applied by the opposition faction?

Also, insisting on health care reform does not mean you insist that religious extremists could come between you and your doctor. Hell, it doesn't even mean insisting that the government come between you and your doctor.
Since this health care reform does put the government between you and your doctor, and since that must necessarily mean that religious extremists could come between you and your doctor (by influencing the government in that position, I'm not sure what your point is?

Maybe you were advocating for a different health care reform? So were a lot of people. Too bad the "insert the government between you and your doctor" faction won out.

So no, in no way is it hypocritical to support health care reform and oppose religious extremists setting the terms of the system any more than it would be to support gun rights and oppose giving guns to Hamas.
Are you sure? Say the sphere is gun regulation. Say you don't think the government should be involved in this sphere. Say that the government gets involved anyway. Are you sure it's not hypocritical to take advantage of the government's involvement, to regulate guns such that Hamas doesn't get any?

[Whiplash]

You really think there's no hypocrisy in people arguing against government inserting itself between the doctor and patient out of one side of their mouths and arguing in favor of government restrictions on abortion out of the other?


I guess we can't understand them having a serious moral issue with one of the two, that makes them feel it is more important to abandon that ideal, and hopefully save some lives?

I'm not saying I agree with them.. I'm pro-choice (but I hate abortion). But this is obviously something that is extremely important for some people, where they feel that they are actually trying to save the lives of children. Something they feel strongly about based on belief systems and morality issues passed along for generations.

What I see it as is people who are pragmatic, and don't blindly succumb to their ideals 100% of the time, because there are bigger things at stake. Something I rarely (if ever) see most on the left do. They always will stick by their ideals, even when it's patently obvious that it's dangerous and even crazy to do so.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Slim to large???? WTF does that mean???
It means in some polls the majority was just over 50%, but in others it was much higher (like 70%). You could follow the link and read the polls yourself; that's why I put it there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What do you think was passed???? Where is your brain????

My brain is working fine. The bill that passed was not "government run healthcare". Not by a long stretch of the imagination.

Now quit trying to change the topic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I guess we can't understand them having a serious moral issue with one of the two, that makes them feel it is more important to abandon that ideal, and hopefully save some lives?
I could understand that if they said that they were abandoning their ideal that government should not be involved in the doctor/patient relationship.

But they don't.

They still speak against "big gummint" being involved in healthcare (I just heard a piece on NPR where NRA supporters were submitting the health insurance reform bill as a sign of big government that was likely to take away their guns), and simultaneously do all they can at every level of government to erode reproductive rights. [ETA: Here's a recent example (http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=196062) from my state.]


What I see it as is people who are pragmatic, and don't blindly succumb to their ideals 100% of the time, because there are bigger things at stake.
I see people who are making ideological arguments when it's convenient, even though it's demonstrable that they don't really espouse those selfsame ideals. I see nothing noble about it. I think it's hypocrisy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also don't think there's anything hypocritical about preferring that the government not be involved in the doctor-patient relationship, but given that the government is involved in spite of that preference, opting to influence the government's involvement in favor of your own policy positions.

The government is involved. What would satisfy your prudishness regarding hypocrisy?

How is it "prudish" to point out an inconsistent position?

Attempts by "pro-lifers" to chip away at Roe v. Wade didn't start at some point after they gave up on the whole government involvement in healthcare.

The "given" is not at all a given. If it were, and they totally abandoned arguments against big bad government being involved in healthcare, I would not criticize them for this inconsistency. But that's not the case.

They continue to argue both positions, and the positions are incompatible.

[MattusMaximus]

These "pro-life" nuts are actually pro-choice... they just want to have the freedom to choose for everybody else. Funny that.

[ponderingturtle]

Since this health care reform does put the government between you and your doctor, and since that must necessarily mean that religious extremists could come between you and your doctor (by influencing the government in that position, I'm not sure what your point is?

Maybe you were advocating for a different health care reform? So were a lot of people. Too bad the "insert the government between you and your doctor" faction won out.

How was government inserted more than it already was between people and their doctors? If anything this limited the role of bureaucrats between people and their doctors by getting rid of maximum coverage caps and excluding preexisting conditions.

[Dancing David]

Did you seriously expect them to pass up an opportunity like this? Why would they?



Um... you are aware that small government positions and anti-abortion positions are in fact distinct positions, and that a person can hold either one without holding the other, right?

But yes, it's ironic that democrats enabled them to do this.

I'll admit is was a sound byte title, meant to convey an impression and perhaps not very well, however I disagree, the small government people, who used to be teh dominant force in the GOP have become subsumed by Rove's strategy. They now have to share space with 'family values' and it seems to me that the 'family values' have dominated. Now I do nknow that they seperate positions but it seems lost in the current GOP. I could be wrong.

Now it may be that teh two really are seperate factiosn within the GOP but I can not tell from teh outside.

[Dancing David]

Ironic, certainly. There is indeed a bitter irony to the situation. The health care bill puts the government between the doctor and the patient. So it's ironic that people who would rather not have the government in that position are now forced to influence the government's activities in that position. Ironic, yes. Hypocritical, no.

Also ironic: People who would rather not see religious extremists come between doctor and patient insisted on health care reforms that would permit exactly that.

I wonder... would it be hypocritical of the people who supported these reforms to oppose their being used by religious extremists?

I believe that you are the one using the terms 'hypocritical', not me.

Perhaps you could show how the giovernment implementing the insurance plan is intervening between the doctor and patients? Any more than the insurance industry? That would probably be a great discussion.

[Dancing David]

Since this health care reform does put the government between you and your doctor, and since that must necessarily mean that religious extremists could come between you and your doctor (by influencing the government in that position, I'm not sure what your point is?



This seems to be aserting your conclusion, I am not following could you parse this out somewhat for me?

I am asking how does this put teh government between teh patient and teh doctors? Do you mean in tehs ame way that insurance does?

[JoeTheJuggler]

How was government inserted more than it already was between people and their doctors? If anything this limited the role of bureaucrats between people and their doctors by getting rid of maximum coverage caps and excluding preexisting conditions.

You know. . . death panels (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) and government run healthcare (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-health-plan-does-not-include-government-run-/).

[ponderingturtle]

You know. . . death panels (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) and government run healthcare (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-health-plan-does-not-include-government-run-/).

And you have to remember that any cutting of medicare spending is right out, so it must not be government run health care or something.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And you have to remember that any cutting of medicare spending is right out, so it must not be government run health care or something.

Apparently it's not really government run healthcare that bothers them (such as VA hospitals--even Medicare isn't government run healthcare, just government funded healthcare), but insurance reform that is not actually government run healthcare that they like to refer to that way (see ThePainter's post above).

If it's not outright hypocrisy, then it's at least extremely muddled thinking.

[thaiboxerken]

They don't like tax paid health-care for some certain types of people, but if it's for themselves, it's good.