On equality:destroying one of the favorite arguments by the liberals

By "same law" I mean stuff like drug testing requirements, certification for providers requiring many years of training before any real income, regulations on hospitals, liability law, etc.

In Texas, abortions aren't available in many areas because of regulations requiring that there be a hospital of a certain capability within a specified distance and that the hospital must have a specific relationship with the provider. This isn't unique to abortions - that is, it isn't a totally new kind of regulation, even if it was just created to deny abortions.

I agree that people will use what they have in order to survive, but that's not my point. My point is just that our system was not designed for those with low resources. It was designed for and by those who are wealthy.

That point is interesting, because there are a whole lot of people in the USA for whom our system is grossly over expensive and decidedly not designed with their needs in mind. That is, it is not a level playing field. As you say, people will strive using what they've got (brains, money, brawn, wealth, etc.). I'm just saying that the playing field isn't level.

And, as pointed out earlier, health care is only one example. Our military approach to the world is another. Transportation is another. Labor law is another. Education is another. I'm not arguing that all these things are "bad" - I'm just saying that we depend on competition and the playing field is not level. It never will be level, of course, but we should be aware of where it isn't level and we should make it more level when we can. Equal opportunity is better for America.

 

... I still don't know what you mean by designed for the wealthy. It seems to me you're objecting to laws that are designed for people who want a minimum level of safety. Yea, that safety is more expensive ... but the goal here isn't to make things expensive, it's make things safe. If you have a less expensive way to do it... offer it.



​

 

Yes, it includes safety - gas tanks, windshield wipers, the knobs on radios, the strength of the roof - pretty much every piece of a car has regulations, and a lot of it is about safety. I can ride a motorcycle, but NOT a car that is just as safe as a motorcycle. Why? And, that costs more. Do you think those who can barely afford a car are glad they can't buy one of the many cars that may not be sold in America due to our safety regulations?


The goal was to make things safe. But, the degree of safety and the requirement of safety was not chosen by those who can barely afford a car.

But, it's not just safety. The wars in Iraq, Libya, etc. didn't make us any safer. It didn't make us safer to prop up the government of Egypt - that was done to benefit trade.


There are different ways to handle the problems of unequal opportunity - unlevel playing field. I'm not suggesting that the only way is to make things less safe, to ignore genocide in foreign lands, etc. In the case of health care, every other developed country in the world levels the playing field by having a single payer system, for example. That levels the playing field quite a bit - not totally, as these governments don't offer everything there is to offer, so the wealthy have additional choices. (And, it turns out that ALL these nations spend less per capita on health care - a benefit for everyone.)

Some of this is just a matter of considering the impact of the decisions we make, looking at the stats that show the size of the opportunity gap, etc.

 

I'd probably agree with you on that issue. I think we started down a rabbit hole with requiring people to buy a motorcycle helmet. Then it was a safety seat, then a Bluetooth headset, then Obamacare... You want to unwind most of that regulation, you'll likely get my support. I'd like to see you start with Obamacare.

But you're right, no one person get's to decide that minimum degree of safety. It took a lot of Democrats.





​

 

Stop. Go back and read what I actually typed again.

Also, an answer to my question would be great. Why would you spend resources on maintaining inequality?

 

And, it took a lot of Republicans to decide we needed to conquer the ME, to fight multiple wars at once, to create a gigantic nuclear arsenal (which isn't even part of the DoD budget!), build planes and ships the military doesn't even want, etc.

There is plenty of blame to go around. At least stuff like health care is focused on helping some folks.

I don't like Obamacare, either. Our old system was broken. Obamacare IS an improvement, as it is a collection of important features. But, we needed to move to a system like those that have proven to work the world over - single payer.

 

I think we had guys on both side of the aisle voting for engagement in Iraq. No republican voted for Obamacare and I don't agree it's an improvement.

But your point that there's plenty of blame to go around... yea, there we agree. It's an imperfect system, it allows mistakes, stupidity and some abuses. Democracy doesn't only give us good results, it just means we all share the blame for the bad ones.

The folks who voted for something, the folks who failed to vote on it, and those who failed to convince the rest of us there was a better way all get to share the blame. Which means all of us.




​