Basically, our short life spans and self interest will result in the ultimate extinction of our species once the planet can no longer support human life.
Well maybe. I personally believe we will eventually get into such a nasty war that our population and therefore impact on the planet is minimal for centuries.
Health care is against human nature? Other nations seem to be doing a pretty good job with evul sochulust health care (while getting more health care and spending less).
Again, people in those nations have different expectations than Americans.
It could also be argued that rightist or libertarian or free market policy is directed at how people and businesses "would" ideally behave rather than focused on how people actually behave. Many free market morons have faith that all business people will behave responsibly like fictitious Ayn Randian heroes and won't engage in inflicting economic externalities on other people (such as dumping toxic waste into rivers) and also have faith that meritocracy will prevail over cronyism.
Those people are important too, they are the rank and file foot soldiers of evil geniuses that know what they are doing. Not everyone can be completely rational in the 21st century, because by definition that makes you cynical.
Sometimes I think free market morons can't deal with the fact that humans are shitty creatures that will collectively damage themselves without having their externalities regulated.
I agree with that in theory. I disagree with the degree to which you can regulate in practice. The best written laws always have loopholes, whether in the words or implementation.
The exchanges lack value for them in a very short-sighted and irrational way. They'll feel differently years later when they have grown from "young invincibles" to "old vulnerables" (growing old and developing health problems is that human nature thing).
Perhaps the policy should be changed. If you are a "young invincible" you don't have to participate, but if you want to benefit from the system later you will have to pay a huge entrance fee. If you don't want to pay that fee then go buy your care on the free market and be subject to insurance company death panels and 1000 page contracts designed to rescind your insurance when you need it.
This right here is basically what I have been going for in this thread. The leftist RAGE when some certain segment doesn't want to play ball with the grand plan designed to screw them to benefit someone else is a symptom of why leftists can't rule. The first day this was sold as deficit neutral on the backs of the young was the day it failed.
You almost sound as though you believe in majority-rules democracy.
Actually I personally believe in meritocracy-based oligarchies but that is not what Americans want nor what I am conditioned to accept so I don't advocate it.
What happens if the majority ends up wanting evul people's state sociulusm?
That is fine in many cases and how we get public schools, libraries, police departments, etc.
The problem is that the Republitards are trying to change that at a state level and we need additional laws at the federal level to prevent that.
The Supreme Court is basically what determines how far red states can go. What you are really complaining about is that that body has shifted right in my lifetime so now a Texas can get away with more.
Throwing the Feds in the mix won't fix anything, it will just waste a lot of money and time. I mean hell, the Feds still say pot is illegal and that doesn't stop Colorado. The Feds saying some abortion restrictions are illegal won't stop Texas. You have to take the good with the bad.
That is what the left doesn't get. They set some arbitrary floor, and if anywhere falls below that floor its unacceptable even if that is what those people wanted. And then on the Good Ship Outrage they try to intervene.
Unless it happens on the other side of some arbitrary border.
The Republicans' failure to change the laws to prevent Big State Government in the Bedroom is the same as supporting Big State Government in the Bedroom.
No, supporting practical reasonable policy even when it doesn't always result in what you want is called rational politics.
The "Tort Reform" as a solution to our health care problems is red herring. It's a distraction that sounds good to no-think free market morons, but lacks substance. They can never answer questions like:
(1.) Without the fear of legal liability (being made to pay for the costs of your mistakes), what is the motivation to exercise due care and to avoid negligence?
Moral responsibility, which many doctors have (med schools do that right I think).
But let me say I personally don't think ALL doctors should not have legal liability. Only the really crappy ones that barely made it through med school working for the state in some capacity (even if its just they only take Medicare/Medicaid/VA patients) should have legal immunity because their services are free.
Private physicians with talent should still be liable to be sued, but damages should be capped so they don't lose their life earnings in one case. It is the risk they take for putting their talents on the free market for high income patients.
(2.) If injured people could no longer obtain compensation from lawsuits, does their injuries and economic damages magically disappear? Or do those costs just reassert themselves in a non-medical area on the national ledger?
I think for those who aren't productive enough to have private insurance, yes it should.