This Time It's Personal

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. – John F. Kennedy

Personal Responsibility – To be accountable for one’s own actions toward a society as well as being productive within the common support system upon which that society depends.

The right claims it as their battle cry. To oppose it is perceived as horribly infringing on the personal liberties of others. It should not be a goal or a pursuit to be achieved. It is something that is expected of everybody from the time they leave their momma’s care until the grave.

I used to be the same way, but to a lesser degree than appears to be the hue and cry of modern times. I had a general sense that it was the duty of the nation to take care of their own. We ask this of other countries. We should be doing this a matter of principle and example.

Those that seem to be most vocal about this never seem to be the ones that have suffered financial devastation, the destruction of an entire career, catastrophic loss and misfortune or hopelessly insurmountable odds due to a lack of resources. There are anecdotal success stories in the face of adversity; our President is one. Nobody, however, reports or highlights the pain of failures suffered despite Herculean efforts to overcome loss.

That is why I have been surprised to see there have been a couple surprising occurrences in recent times that have contradicted the principle of personal responsibility.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – commonly referred to as Obamacare™. This has been the target of the right since it was passed. Although it is perceived as government run healthcare, it is built on a solid business model that avoids adverse selection. The Medicare and Medicaid programs that are designed to protect the most vulnerable of Americans, are government run healthcare.

Oddly enough, the biggest target of the entire legislation is the portion that demands the most personal responsibility. This would be the portion tagged as the personal mandate. Although Romney’s personal mandate stood unchallenged in Massachusetts, States Attorneys and Republicans immediately went up in arms as an affront to the Constitution. The jury is still out about that, literally.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who has been heralded as master of Occam’s razor type arguments, appeared to have faltered in the defense of the individual mandate. Simplicity within an argument is a good idea in a trial before a jury, but precision is critical when addressing Constitutional experts like the Supreme Court. The oral arguments have been presented. It looks very much like the individual mandate is in Constitutional jeopardy, but the ruling is pending and time will tell.

SOPA, PIPA and other intellectual property protections – This appears to be another AstroTurf™ style rebellion initiated by internet profit-making interests to claim impairment of some God given right to pirate and steal intellectual property. The unavoidable opening line to this is invariably “I don’t support piracy, but….” and then feeble arguments that support piracy maintain why intellectual property should not be protected.

Strangely, despite its corporate underpinnings, these arguments seem to oppose personal responsibility predominately from the left. This is simple law enforcement. When a studio invests over ¼ billion dollars in a movie like Avatar with no guaranteed return on investment, principles of business command that this investment be protected from infringement by unregulated international profiteering.

Conclusion – Over all, I’ve been able to determine the overall essence of the personal responsibility argument. Personal responsibility is your job, not mine. Mine is the pursuit of freedom to dodge personal responsibility. Personal responsibility – it’s apparently just another stupid bumper sticker.

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm so lazy the government had 3300 dollars for me that I never got because I couldn't be arsed to mail in the papers. I'm so lazy, I can't be arsed to sign up for assistance because I hate paperwork. I'm all about personal responsibility, which pretty much involves stopping doing things when I have no more money in my pocket.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

hmmm...are you saying that in an ideal society the government will automatically issue you your monies due/owed without you having to ask for them? i'm puzzled....

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Look, we have to be able to have some fun, otherwise we end up beating our heads against our desks listening to some of you talk. Do you want that on your conscience? Do you?? Misspelled words it is then.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Respectfully, your analysis of the SOPA/PIPA business is a bit oversimplified, and strawmanny. The issue was never about the "right to pirate", but about the gross violations of due process and the doctrine of fair use. It was always about the unintended consequences that the bill would create in terms of Constitutionally protected liberties, and if some of the fears could be handwaved as slippery-slope fallacies, many more of them could not. And while yes, lots of corporations opposed SOPA after the internet hype reached a certain critical mass, remember that this was originally a corporate sponsored bill. The "profit-making interests" were all very much for SOPA, until they changed their minds when they realized that their consumer base wouldn't just roll over this time.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Respectfully, your analysis of the SOPA/PIPA business is a bit oversimplified, and strawmanny.

No it’s not. Your perceptions of SOPA/PIPA were spoon fed to you by the corporate internet interests that profit from the type of pirating you support.

It was always about the unintended consequences that the bill would create in terms of Constitutionally protected liberties.

I am getting weary of these armchair quarterbacking memes of the Constitution. Unless either one of us is a Supreme Court justice, I don’t think either one of us know WTF we are talking about regarding Constitutional application. Any speculation is pretty much prattle.

The issue was never about the "right to pirate", but about the gross violations of due process and the doctrine of fair use.

These concerns were addressed after a rework.

if some of the fears could be hand waved as slippery-slope fallacies, many more of them could not

Until something is actually observed in practice, any projections are pretty much slippery slope fallacies.

And while yes, lots of corporations opposed SOPA after the internet hype reached a certain critical mass, remember that this was originally a corporate sponsored bill.

There were opposing corporate interests in this bill; those that were trying to protect their intellectual property vs. the profiteers who gain from pirating.

The "profit-making interests" were all very much for SOPA, until they changed their minds when they realized that their consumer base wouldn't just roll over this time.

The ones that changed their minds were the ones that had a neutral interest in SOPA like GoDaddy. They weren’t convinced otherwise. They just followed the money, which appeared to be in this artificially fear driven movement.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, the biggest target of the entire legislation is the portion that demands the most personal responsibility. This would be the portion tagged as the personal mandate.

Being told to do something or else is not personal responsibility, it's coercion.

Conclusion – Over all, I’ve been able to determine the overall essence of the personal responsibility argument. Personal responsibility is your job, not mine. Mine is the pursuit of freedom to dodge personal responsibility. Personal responsibility – it’s apparently just another stupid bumper sticker.

You come to your conclusion by picking two pieces of legislation? How much have you actually explored the personal responsibility argument?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Being told to do something or else is not personal responsibility, it's coercion.

It’s both. You avoid driving through a school zone at 120 MPH and actually pay for stuff you get at the store out of coercion? A sense of personal responsibility has nothing to do with that? If that’s true, we have way too few laws and regulations in this country.

You come to your conclusion by picking two pieces of legislation? How much have you actually explored the personal responsibility argument?

These pieces of legislation are shining examples of my point. I notice that you target the examples and the not the definition that I presented. I can only guess that you agree with the definition.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There is no action a man may choose to take or not to take that, in the aggregate, will not have some net effect on society at large. Personal responsibility however, if it is to have any hope of consistency (and comparability with individual rights) must be considered entirely within the context of the personal, in both action and consequences, without abstraction to the social plane. We all contribute in some way shape or form to the culture we are a part of, but nobody on this board (I presume) would suggest that we should bear formal responsibility for the death of Treyvon Martin. Or I can think of an even better example, that because drug abuse has emotional and financial consequences to society at large, that this justifies the state making the choice for you not to engage in it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Well overrationalized as to why you think personal responsibility should be everyone else's problem and not yours. This just affirms the conclusion in the OP.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

"Don't ask me to pay for some other woman's hooker pills!"

Personal responsibility does not apply to people who obey the pope.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

But boner pills are okay.



The pope blesses this message.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

" Although it is perceived as government run healthcare, it is built on a solid business model that avoids adverse selection."


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah

Right a system which is distorted by government interference that virtually mandates the isolation of the consumer from the cost of the product avoids "adverse selection".

I'm sorry, but until EVERY medical procedure has a clear and distinct out of pocket cost attached to it adverse selection is the very heart of the health care system because there will never be any mechanism enforcing price stability or cost control.


That said it is true that Obamacare is essentially a Republican Health care plan that would have been supported wholeheartedly by Republicans and Opposed as unconstitutional by Democrats had President McCain passed it, however pointing out the essential hypocracy of both political parties says absolutely nothing about the qualities of the bill itself. The fact is Obamacare is the WORST of all possible worlds in health care reform taking everything which is broken about Health Care in America today and doubling down on it while taking the few items which generally work and neutering them. We would have been far better off had they simply passed nationalized health care and it wouldn't even have required breaking the Constitution to do so.


"Oddly enough, the biggest target of the entire legislation is the portion that demands the most personal responsibility. This would be the portion tagged as the personal mandate. Although Romney’s personal mandate stood unchallenged in Massachusetts,"

Um, first off as Jeff already said, Government mandating you do something is the antithesis of Personal responsibility, Second you do realize that the entire structure of the government allows the States to do things that Congress is prevented from doing right? It is proper for Massachusetts to have an individual mandate because the citizens of Massachusetts will bear the burden or reap the rewards and if they don't like it they can move to New Hampshire. Congress cannot impose this type of mandate because there is nowhere else for an American citizen to move should they dislike it.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Right a system which is distorted by government interference that virtually mandates the isolation of the consumer from the cost of the product avoids "adverse selection".

Isolation of the consumer from the health industry is exactly what insurance does. For some reason, you think unregulated profit distorted interference from a free market is a better option? A federal system increases the risk pool and therefore enhances it.

I'm sorry, but until EVERY medical procedure has a clear and distinct out of pocket cost attached to it adverse selection is the very heart of the health care system because there will never be any mechanism enforcing price stability or cost control.

Wow. Did you miss the boat on this one. Adverse selection is an insurance term that means to target a standard risk pool, but attract only the highest risk sector of that pool. It has absolutely nothing to do with the medical profession.

That said it is true that Obamacare is essentially a Republican Health care plan that would have been supported wholeheartedly by Republicans and Opposed as unconstitutional by Democrats had President McCain passed it

There is no President McCain. Your fantasy was smashed by the American people in 2008.

The fact is Obamacare is the WORST of all possible worlds in health care reform taking everything which is broken about Health Care in America today and doubling down on it while taking the few items which generally work and neutering them.

And your actual working example of a perfect health care system would be in what country? Or is this another one of your fantasy schemes?

We would have been far better off had they simply passed nationalized health care and it wouldn't even have required breaking the Constitution to do so.

We already have that. Oh, by the way, how is the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid doing?

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot.

Um, first off as Jeff already said, Government mandating you do something is the antithesis of Personal responsibility

Government mandate isn’t the antithesis of personal responsibility. It is born out of the failure of personal responsibility.

Second you do realize that the entire structure of the government allows the States to do things that Congress is prevented from doing right?

As I said in the OP, the Constitutionality of Obamacare is being assessed by people that actually know the Constitution and not amateurs taking pot shots at it.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

That said it is true that Obamacare is essentially a Republican Health care plan that would have been supported wholeheartedly by Republicans and Opposed as unconstitutional by Democrats had President McCain passed it

I don't think that's true at all. Progressives like me wouldn't like it because it's a giveaway to the insurance corporations, but we wouldn't call it unconstitutional; centrists like Obama wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That said it is true that Obamacare is essentially a Republican Health care plan that would have been supported wholeheartedly by Republicans and Opposed as unconstitutional by Democrats had President McCain passed it, however pointing out the essential hypocracy of both political parties says absolutely nothing about the qualities of the bill itself. The fact is Obamacare is the WORST of all possible worlds in health care reform taking everything which is broken about Health Care in America today and doubling down on it while taking the few items which generally work and neutering them. We would have been far better off had they simply passed nationalized health care and it wouldn't even have required breaking the Constitution to do so.

I'd almost agree with you but you have to admit that the combination of the individual mandate and no preexisting conditions means that more people are covered, and since more money is in the pools and more profit is in the premiums do not necessarily go up for all the sick people joining. Although, this is more of a handout to insurance companies because it allows them to proliferate their business model to an unwilling consumer, and they are going to break records on profits.

I would also much prefer a nationalized system. Medicare for all would work out fantastically and save so many costs. Obamacare saves some costs in the system overall, but not as much as MFA would.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Congrats on channeling Orwell moderately well. I'll make sure to come to you when I want terms redefined.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

A fiction writer? Seriously? You're not real good at reality, are you?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

the duty of the nation to take care of their own
The nation is not separate from the individuals who belong to it. If the nation has a duty, then that duty falls upon people, individuals, through a personal responsibility to do their bit. I don't see the contradiction between the duty of the collective and the responsibility of the individual to contribute toward the collective effort to fulfill that duty.

What some object to, I believe, is that some people are excused from contributing to the common effort, they are excused from their personal responsibility, and the rest of society is forced by the government to pay all of the bills.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's strange that the ones who want the poor to pay the same percentage of the rich are usually the same ones opposed to closing the income gap.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"Although Romney’s personal mandate stood unchallenged in Massachusetts"

It is a 'States Right' under the 10th Amendment. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide health care on any level except the military.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

More armchare quarterbacking of the Constitution? What do you think Medicare is?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

And pro-legalization folks are all out-of-work pot heads! TRUFAX!

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I'm not seeing solutions here. Just unsupported bashing of ACA because it works with a currently existing model in the real world.