I Think My Views May Have Changed Some (at least in some emotional way)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:44:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  I Think My Views May Have Changed Some (at least in some emotional way)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: I Think My Views May Have Changed Some (at least in some emotional way)  (Read 1253 times)
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 09, 2012, 09:15:54 PM »

as a result of the Obama-Catholic Church-birth control fight.

I've never been intrinsically opposed to the government. I've never cared much about "big" government vs. "small" government or "censorship" or most of the rally cries of the libertarian movement. If anything I've always been the quintisential "big-government" conservative. I've always supported the government doing something if I thought it made sense for the government to do it.

But something has happened here that bothers me a lot. The Obama administration is requiring Catholic universities and hospitals to provide birth control to employees as part of their healthcare because now the government must control all healthcare benefits or else. This is a side-effect of ObamaCare, merely an afterthought. This bill was supposed to prevent employers from sticking their employees with cut-rate insurance that won't help them if they get sick. It was supposed to be about helping people like the random kid with Type 1 Diabetes that couldn't get coverage for his pre-existing condition. But instead it ends up requiring something stupid: the Catholic Church paying for birth control. Something totally superfluous. Something that has nothing to do with illness.

This is the side-effect to the government providing a good or service; it must be done only according to the moral sensibilities of whoever is in power. There could be a conscientious objector clause, but there isn't. My initial gut reaction would always have been that the main problem is that most people think using birth control is morally okay. But this wouldn't have been an issue at all if we did't have the government mandating what should and shouldn't be in a plan in the first place. The reality is that the more of our lives that is provided in part or in whole by the government, the more issues like this will come up. And once the government deems something is a fundamental human right, like not having quantering of soldiers in a private residence or having access to "free" birth control, you're not allowed to disagree. You're simply not allowed.

I don't know how deep of a change this will be for me in general, but I will say Ron Paul is starting to sound a whole lot better than he did a month ago. I've noticed what side he's on in this fight while Mitt Romney was enacting the same rule as governor of Massachusetts. I still don't want to audit the Fed, but I must say I'm starting to warm up to that type of perspective.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2012, 09:27:02 PM »

I agree... even as a Republican the word "totalitarian" seemed far more right-wing then left-wing- not that has changed for me because of this
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2012, 09:27:14 PM »

TJ, I completely agree with you that the Obama administration's decision was terrible and a misuse of government power. That said, I don't think it's an indictment on government itself. Government is just a tool just as a hammer is a tool; a hammer can build or maim depending on how you use it. It is an indictment on liberal social policy that they don't allow for dissent (not of certain "consensus" views that they think they are automatically right on, at least). The problem is the people and the policy, not government action as a construct.

Don't join the Paulites just yet. Please?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2012, 09:32:30 PM »

I agree with realisticidealist almost verbatim. As to what Clarence said, I've always felt that totalitarianism can fall pretty much anywhere on a policy spectrum, and this hasn't changed my view on that (I wouldn't call it 'totalitarian' but I would call it bad and less-than-transparent public policy).
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2012, 05:30:47 AM »

I think you've hit upon something crucial here.  State expansion of power requires that those in power believe they have a high level of authority as experts and definers of value. That results in the state opposing institutions with conflicting values. In the modern, liberal state, that often means the state in direct opposition to tradition.  Liberalism, when wedded to big government, means not just the removal of barriers to a liberal society, but the imposition of a liberal society. This is why social conservatives and social libertarians are often on the same side against social liberals.  Big government conservatism doesn't work because it is based on this same assertion of knowledge and power, denying the state's fallibility, and leaving little room for the richness and variety of tradition.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2012, 05:39:17 AM »

How can your opinion of a notion as abstract and complex as "government" shift so radically because of one single anecdote ? This makes no sense.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2012, 02:34:25 PM »

...just wait until more socons get into power. When they go after abortion providers  there will be all kinds of crap coming up about people's private sexual lives and the cops wiretapping and busting into people houses. Just look at the entire Schaivo thing.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2012, 11:29:22 PM »

"A government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it away" -paraphrasing Gerald R. Ford

Not sure if tge quote exactly fits, but it does touch on the power & role of government.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2012, 07:00:28 PM »

"A government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it away" -paraphrasing Gerald R. Ford

The State is always powerful enough to give everything, its just a matter of to whom it gives.  It currently gives everything to the rich, and you have absolutely no freedom to oppose this arrangement.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2012, 07:28:40 PM »

Yeah, the ugly truth is, by nature of what a state structure is, any limits on its power are basically the honor system. The only reason to have statist leanings of any kind is if you happen to think that the alternative is worse.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2012, 06:46:03 PM »

I don't think this says too much about the role of the government, but a HELL OF A LOT about the intrinsic problem with having your employer have anything to do with the private health matters of their employees.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2012, 10:14:24 PM »

In hindsight and four days later, I think my only opinion that has changed is that I now oppose the individual insurance mandate, which I used to support as the only way to fix the pre-existing condition problem. I could not understand why so many were opposed to the government forcing people to buy insurance or why that was such a big deal. But now I get it. Now I see the US government is not capable of carrying this out in such a way that it will effectively just help people with expensive diseases to maintain coverage. But pregnancy is not a disease. I could understand if the administration was making a push to provide birth control for the poor. I'm growing tired about hearing that the government needs to provide more and more stuff to people who can afford to buy it themselves. (Or heaven forbid pay a rider or co-pay.) Plus the government is requiring everyone to buy insurance to cover something I am morally opposed to. The government does not seem able to keep to the supposed point of this: helping sick people get coverage.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2012, 10:19:15 PM »

In hindsight and four days later, I think my only opinion that has changed is that I now oppose the individual insurance mandate, which I used to support as the only way to fix the pre-existing condition problem. I could not understand why so many were opposed to the government forcing people to buy insurance or why that was such a big deal. But now I get it. Now I see the US government is not capable of carrying this out in such a way that it will effectively just help people with expensive diseases to maintain coverage. But pregnancy is not a disease. I could understand if the administration was making a push to provide birth control for the poor. I'm growing tired about hearing that the government needs to provide more and more stuff to people who can afford to buy it themselves. (Or heaven forbid pay a rider or co-pay.) Plus the government is requiring everyone to buy insurance to cover something I am morally opposed to. The government does not seem able to keep to the supposed point of this: helping sick people get coverage.

It's not the "government"; it's the Obama administration doing these things.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2012, 10:27:27 PM »

I'm a big defender of the insurance mandate but I don't necessarily think birth control being covered in it should be mandatory or that there shouldn't be riders or co-pays. I agree that any time the government does something, if your tax money contributed to it, then you contributed to it, and it's unfair if you are against it morally. That's certainly a reason to be wary of government. The *only* reason why I support the mandate is that without some kind of mandate, you aren't going to get universal coverage, and I think health care (up to a point) should be a basic human right in our society. If there's any conservatives who can find common ground with that and propose an alternate way to get universal coverage, I'm all ears.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2012, 02:32:30 AM »

I find the freaking out over this issue preposterous, but I want to at least applaud Realistic's defense of the government as a set of tools, rather than people who seem to view it as some sort of independent, living, breathing, organism of its own.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2012, 06:23:15 AM »

I agree Marokai. I just don't see the big deal. Yes, the government (or Obama administration, whatever) is mandating that people do something. No doubt about that. But it's just some birth control. It's just some birth control. When they forcefully quarantine some soldiers in your house, get back to me.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2012, 11:20:19 AM »

I'll also add that the government already forces us to pay for things like the Iraq war or exorbitant spending on the military which many people oppose morally. Do they get to pay less taxes? And those things lead to many lives being lost (in the millions due to the Iraq war), yet do pro-life care about that? Or do they only care about making sure people don't have sex unless they want to have a child. Pro life people should be in favor of contraception since it will stop later abortions from occurring. But it's not about the life is it, it's about religion......
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2012, 01:25:16 PM »

I'll also add that the government already forces us to pay for things like the Iraq war or exorbitant spending on the military which many people oppose morally. Do they get to pay less taxes?

Having a military and law enforcement is the entire point of having a government. It's exrtraordinarily difficult to enact what you have just specified because a war has a similar result on all citizens. It's not something an individual can opt of of having. I cannot live in a US that did not invade Iraq while my brother lives in a US that did. It's not something that can be individualized. Birth control is. You can decide to acquire contraceptives and I can choose not to. They are made for individual consumption.

And those things lead to many lives being lost (in the millions due to the Iraq war), yet do pro-life care about that?

Most do (Or are you asking me in particular?), but that's sort of unrelated to having free birth control, isn't it? The government mandating contraception coverage isn't going to undo the Iraq War.

Or do they only care about making sure people don't have sex unless they want to have a child. Pro life people should be in favor of contraception since it will stop later abortions from occurring.

Not at all. I'd gladly accept this stupid mandate in return for outlawing abortion but that's not on the table and will never be on the table. That's like asking if I'd rather have someone commit murder or masturbate. I'd rather they do neither. I want the murder to be illegal and I want the government to make it difficult to do. It doesn't make any sense for the government to outlaw masturbation for obvious reasons, but I still don't want it subsidized.

Now of course, you'll argue that subsidized access to contraceptives reduce the number of abortions, which my previous analogy doesn't follow very well, and while I'm not sure we have statistics to back that up (Most people would ask for them if I attempted to argue that parental notification laws reduced the number of abortions) but we'll assume that they do since that would make logical sense. That's essentially saying the government needs to pay people not to commit murder. That's backwards. We shouldn't reward people just for not murdering someone, but rather punish those who do.

But it's not about the life is it, it's about religion......

This discussion mostly is about religion. We can have another about abortion sometime if you would like, but that's a little different than birth control (unless we're getting into the fight about when life begins vs. when pregnancy begins aka fertilization vs. implantation).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2012, 01:44:58 PM »

My basic point with bringing up the wars is that government many times forces you to pay for things you don't want to pay for. I do see your point about birth control being a choice that can easily be made at the personal level whereas going to war cannot. That is the problem with obamacare, leaving us with less choices on what we want for our healthcare needs, but them forcing everyone to purchase plans with birth control is not what I would use as an example if we want to have that discussion.

In any case many plans out there on the market already cover birth control and if you get that plan through your employer you basically have no choice to opt out of it. It's not the government forcing it, but in the end you are being forced to purchase something you are morally opposed to. I think obamacare not allowing us to have high deductible plans is something much more worthy to get pissed about, in addition to many other beuaracratic edicts in that bill.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2012, 01:51:51 PM »

I'll also add that the government already forces us to pay for things like the Iraq war or exorbitant spending on the military which many people oppose morally. Do they get to pay less taxes? And those things lead to many lives being lost (in the millions due to the Iraq war), yet do pro-life care about that? Or do they only care about making sure people don't have sex unless they want to have a child. Pro life people should be in favor of contraception since it will stop later abortions from occurring. But it's not about the life is it, it's about religion......

Well I do care a lot, but then my reasons for doing so have nothing to do with some 2,000+ year old book.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.244 seconds with 12 queries.