So it turns out health insurance will cost more for just about everyone. Seems like the plan is working just like it was designed! And now, for some deeper thoughts on Obamacare courtesy of
James Caesar at First Things:
The debate over Obamacare is about
to take an ominous turn. Critics are quite correct to point out that the
cancellation of millions of insurance policies, apart from its being a breech
of trust from what the President promised, will result in many people being
forced to pay much larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or
inferior coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these
losers is stunning. Even if it proves true that there are more winners than
losers, what kind of government, in a system based on individual rights, can
say to millions of people: too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The
sacrifice of some to a utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners
than losers is at odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no
different than a government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at
random a set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden.
The willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a mockery
of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If Obamacare has costs,
the only way a lawful society should pay for it—assuming one favors it—is
through the general revenue, not by forcing some random subgroup to foot the
bill.
Critics today point to those who are
losing something; proponents boast of the many more who will gain. They are
both ignoring the real issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way
is a gross violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be
those who gain—whether more than those who lose no one can now say. Once the
gainers get something and keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it
will be regarded as imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then
require a payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result
in which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them in an
arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social peace. The
damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this ill-advised measure.
Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the means are not.
The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf
The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf
The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf
The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf
The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf
, Blink
, and Outliers
were all tremendous best-sellers, leading some to conclude that Gladwell has invented a new genre of popular writing. In David and Goliath
, Gladwell again applies the formula that has been so successful in the past. Deploying a mixture of affecting narratives of struggle against the odds with carefully chosen academic papers, he contends that the powerless are more powerful than those who appear to wield much of the power in the world. To many, this may appear counterintuitive, he suggests; but by marshaling a variety of historical examples ranging from the American struggle for civil rights to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, leavened with homely tales of the trials and triumphs of basketball teams and fortified with forays into sociology and psychology, Gladwell thinks that he can persuade the reader to accept the difficult truth that the weak are not as weak as the reader imagines. If they play their cards right, they can prevail against the strong.
