It is rather presumptuous to assume that one's fellow-travelers are as committed to expert consensus as you claim you are - I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country and associate with many folks from Berkeley. Unless they represent an unusually ignorant and rare form of liberal, I have yet to run into a single one with a strong and righteous opinion that was also informed by experts. In fact, I find them to be no more informed or rational than the local bar pounders.
Almost to a person they depend on their self-referential myths of the peer group, and various empty platitudes, as their "expertise". In fact, for those that are friends I just let them rant about the poor, the corporations, and various hobgoblins - heaven forbid that we discuss an issue through deductive reasoning or developed moral philosophy. Cliches are the deepest thought they are willing to entertain (I can't even get them to read a critical article in The Atlantic, let alone from a conservative publication).
So it did so without ACA? How can that be?
Will you ever think with your brain instead of your heart?
It is rather presumptuous to assume that one's fellow-travelers are as committed to expert consensus as you claim you are - I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country and associate with many folks from Berkeley. Unless they represent an unusually ignorant and rare form of liberal, I have yet to run into a single one with a strong and righteous opinion that was also informed by experts. In fact, I find them to be no more informed or rational than the local bar pounders.
Almost to a person they depend on their self-referential myths of the peer group, and various empty platitudes, as their "expertise". In fact, for those that are friends I just let them rant about the poor, the corporations, and various hobgoblins - heaven forbid that we discuss an issue through deductive reasoning or developed moral philosophy. Cliches are the deepest thought they are willing to entertain (I can't even get them to read a critical article in The Atlantic, let alone from a conservative publication).
No, what I have is bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury data and they don't support your claim about either quality or cost, oh, wait, cost doesn't matter to you
I mean, yeah, certainly the individual members of any group are wrong. Even liberals as an entire group can be wrong. But, the liberal position I'm talking about isn't the mix of all the views liberals hold, I mean the established positions that liberals as a whole generally hold. When the general liberal position and the general conservative position differ on a point, the liberal position is almost always more closely aligned with the facts. That isn't because liberals are smarter, more rational or better informed necessarily, it is because liberals as a whole tend to be deciding which side of an issue to take by looking at facts where conservatives tend to pick a side based on ideology. For example, the liberal position on a given tax might be that they support it because it will reduce inequality and inequality is bad because it has effects A, B and C, and because they believe the impact of that tax on growth will be minimal, as found in studies X, Y and Z, and so on, while the conservative position might oppose the same tax for purely ideological reasons that don't depend on factual claims at all. For example, they might think "people should keep what they earn" or that "taxes are theft" or some such ideological stance.
Pragmatism isn't necessarily inherently superior to ideology. But pragmatists are definitely more aligned with the facts, since that is the material pragmatists work with, where ideologues work with ideological principles.
Yeah, well, I debate far right wing Fox News watchers all the time. Merely ignorant would be a step up for them. They know stuff that happens to be false, all the time! Personal anecdotes aren't all that informative.....
I'm referring to the myriad payment and delivery system reforms (public and private) the ACA has spurred.
I don't think I've ever made an argument based on "heart." To what are you referring?
Hmm. You Never cited those. Plus, I don't know why any of those three sources would be useful for quality measures in healthcare.
I guess you not only don't know the ACA, but you have absolutely no capacity to research it on your own.
If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were just some guy making fun of Conservatives by posting like a cartoonish one.
I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.
For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".
Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.
You tell me about your personal experience with Fox news watchers, but then tell me that personal anecdotes aren't that informative? And what, pray tell, does your "your too" experience have to do with my criticism of tuheybays characterization of fellow liberals?
I have never been impressed by so-called "pragmatists", mainly because their is not such thing as true pragmatism shorn of normative values - even if those values are unstated and unconscious. Any policy adopted is motivated by normative values; be it the income tax or tax subsidies, and the criteria these policies is one of defining what effects are "good" or "bad" and if those effects are, on net, "better" than another set of results.
For example, if a policy causes a benefit for group A, at the expense of group B, there is no measure of its "rightness" other than that of a sense of what is morally correct...the only difference is that many ideological conservatives have a principled ideology that provides a moral schema while many liberals 'just know' from the gut that benefiting group a at the expense of group b is "correct".
Pragmatism is, more often than not, a charade to hide the fact that the so-called pragmatist does not wish to defend the moral underpinnings of his choices.
It's obviously true that any choice has trade-offs and there are winners and losers. But I don't frankly agree that using a "moral schema" to make public policy choices is the correct way to go about it. The only reason to use a principle to make a decision is because the principle has proved over time to "work" in some way, ...
Pollution is a good example. Libertarians rely on the checks and balances in the "free market" and don't believe much in regulation and would eliminate the EPA and leave regulation to the states or allow individuals to sue for damages. But we know that fails, ...
So "markets" fail with pollution, we know why, they're a negative externality, and so I favor regulating polluters because that works best to burden the polluter with the costs of the pollution, which is the actual "free market" result.
And to bring that back to your statement about there not being a "rightness" other than a sense of what is morally correct, that is still true. We can decide to subsidize polluting activities, and at what level, for more jobs, higher pay, whatever. But what we can't do is pretend that "free markets" are working and that we're not deliberately subsidizing polluters and offloading costs onto the public. But that is exactly what conservatives do, in my view. They hide behind ideology - free markets in this example - to obscure the actual choice we are making if we were to disband the EPA.
I just see almost no "moral underpinnings" in public policy choices. There are trade-offs and we evaluate them. I think that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd never worry about defending the "moral underpinnings" of a choice, I'd just defend the trade-off.
The correct way to 'go about it' is to recognize that all choices of public policy involve positive (what is) understandings as well as normative (what should be) moral views. The basis of most taxation, welfare, entitlements, etc. are all about knowing concepts what is (the economics of taxation) and knowing what should be - what is "fair" or a matter of "social justice". The progressive nature of the income tax exists because of a belief that it is "fair" to tax the better off at increasing percentages because it is assumed to be 'fairer' than a flat percentage or single flat amount.
The only difference is that for some of us we have used positive theory (e.g. economics) to understand the processes behind the empirical data on "what is", and then moral theories to arrive at a concept of effective and fair policy. In contrast, others reject anything beyond the level of their case by case random talking point data (unmoored to any theoretical understanding) and pull it from the ass moralisms (unmoored to anything but their gut).
Actually your view of libertarians is a good example the superficial empiricism and 'gut' moralism that cripples 'pragmatic' liberalism. Informed libertarians don't rely on arbitrary 'checks and balances', they recognize the nature of pollution in terms of both economic and moral theory. From economic theory they recognize that pollution is externality, a cost in the use of a common property (e.g. the air) that damages other users, without compensation for the damage imposed. And contrary to your assumption behind the 'free market result', they also understand that, as shown in the Coase theorem there are multiple ways in a free market to mitigate pollution and pay for damages in an economically efficient manner (including having those affected by pollution pay the polluters to not pollute - which in theory is just as free market efficient as having polluters pay those affected).
So economic theory provides a model and understanding of what is, but moral theory tells libertarians what should be. If, under common law, air is the property of all then those who use it at the expense of other 'owners' they should either a) cease or b) compensate those affected. Libertarians generally prefer a market system of bartering and trade or tax compensation because it is economically more efficient than 'case by case' regulatory limits. And all other things being equal, what is more efficient creates greater surplus for the well being of the commons.
And no, we don't know that it always fails. It has worked when it is implemented with integrity, and failed when it has not. Like all regulatory schemes in the management of the commons, it depends on the power, rationality and integrity of the governments imposing them.
What do you think ACA addresses if not the heart?
As I have always stated, that isn't the role of the Federal Govt. Healthcare does need reformed but it doesn't start with the federal govt. but rather the state and local governments.
Nor can we pretend that free markets are 'not working' - no more than we can assume that every government program that is less than ideal (which is most of them) is 'not working'. To the degree that the free market is 'unfree' due to flawed government policy then most libertarians are more than happy to push for correction. There is no love of crony and subsidized corporate capitalism, or subsidized farming, among libertarians.
Finally, those who wish to disband the EPA wish to do it because a) the necessary pollution laws are better handled through other agencies and b) the EPA has shown itself to relentlessly harmful to the well being and rights of many innocent Americans. You should not confuse hostility to a particular government entity to hostility to some or many of its supposed goals. I have no use for the Intelligence czar or the department of Homeland security, but it does not mean I am against intelligence and security.
You can't 'defend the trade-off' unless you have a normative view of what ought to be, and that, my friend, is a moral underpinning.
I'm a liberal. We pretty much always side with the consensus of the experts in any given area. Conservatives are driven by ideology. Ideology sometimes matches up with the facts and sometimes not. So, sometimes conservatives are on the same side of an issue as the experts and sometimes not. Liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists decide which side of an issue to be on by looking at the facts, the practical effects on the real world, the evidence, etc. So, we pretty much side with the facts and experts. Issues where conservatives align with the experts are not politically controversial. The politically controversial issues are where conservative ideology and practical reality diverge, so on politically controversial issues, liberals always are aligned with the experts and conservatives never are. You haven't noticed that yet?
\You don't buy it because your ignorant gut tells you something else. But your gut is wrong. If you don't like my links, find your own that demonstrate a different reality. I won't wait up for that.
If you go here you can find enrollment data. Men age 21-65 are only 10% of the Tenncare population. Kids are 55%, women (these are the pregnant and mostly single mothers) are 27%. The rest are seniors.
And that 145,000 men are either getting SSI, aka disabled and receiving Federal benefits for their disability, or they are single dads or in a low income family with children. There just isn't a category for "poor" - if you're just "poor" you're SOL.
I get it - when I learned this it surprised me too, but what I KNOW is almost none of the guys in our rehab center (they spend $0.00 on alcohol or rec. drugs btw) qualify for Tenncare. They work, earn low wages, get no health benefits from their jobs for the most part, and when they need medical care they go to the ER or the incredibly overburdened two free clinics in the area. I've seen it for years.
And the state covers almost half of all children which you saw in the link, because we're a poor state. And we cover lots of poor women because we are a poor state. Wages are low, and lots of employers don't offer benefits. An employer's dream.
No, what I have is bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury data and they don't support your claim about either quality or cost, oh, wait, cost doesn't matter to you
1.3 million on medicaid in a state with a population of 6.5 million is not enough? :lamo
Quality, costs, coverage, dysfunctional markets, inefficient care delivery systems, health care workforce development, prevention and chronic disease management, public health infrastructure, approval for new biologics, etc.
It's a systematic approach to systemic problems. Your problem is that you don't read what people actually say, you read what you think your cartoonization of them should say.
Indeed, that's a philosophy reflected in the ACA.
Your opinion noted. You think it really matters what people say? Results matter, not rhetoric. You support another entitlement program that once created will perform like all others giving the govt. another slush fund to waste. Cannot believe you cannot see actual results of SS and Medicare, the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal tascollars. Oh, well. liberal insanity again.
Says the ACA has nothing to do with quality.
Doesn't understand quality is one of the linchpins for the ACA payment reform.
Says results matter, not rhetoric.
Doesn't understand the results, replies with rhetoric.
OK, so you were burned on the your proved ignorance of basic facts and so shift the goal posts... Why am I not surprised?
And if you want to take over the Tenncare program great. You can kick out the 55% who are kids in poor families. Now how are they going to get healthcare? You don't have a clue, but know it's easier to throw random bricks at the solution in place than come up with a better one.
That never was the intent as it was all about coverage. Whether or not quality was written into ACA is irrelevant for results matter. What you don't want to admit is that Federal Bureaucracies always cost more than intended and do less than intended. Results do matter but to you it is about feelings and belief in a govt that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?