Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

lets abolish all the executive agencies, immediately repeal LITERALLY 99% of all federal legislation passed since 1815, vote in some competent state and local officials, and get to work...

+1

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I would argue that the most important reason why American businesses are unable to compete in the world is that American businesses are paying for the cost of America's for-profit private healthcare system.

My challenge to your premise still stands.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I live in Canada. I have healthcare here as a basic human-right..... Here at Victoria General Hospital, I was admitted into surgery in TWELVE SECONDS of time. Tell that to your Mr. Bill O'Reilly at Fox News or your Mr. Glen Beck on the Fox Channel.

00:00:12 = TWELVE SECONDS..... So much for the crap being told to the American people about so-called, "waiting-lists for surgery in Canada"!

The Admissions Desk nurse had me squeeze with my left-hand and then squeeze with my right-hand. It took 12 seconds!

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I live in Canada. I have healthcare here as a basic human-right.....

If it truly is a right, then it should not be infringed in any way, otherwise it is not a right. For example, doctors should not expect compensation, for that serves as an obstruction to your right to health care. This is, of course, the fundamental absurdity of positive rights. Taken to their logical conclusions, they are self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Here at Victoria General Hospital, I was admitted into surgery in TWELVE SECONDS of time. Tell that to your Mr. Bill O'Reilly at Fox News or your Mr. Glen Beck on the Fox Channel.

00:00:12 = TWELVE SECONDS..... So much for the crap being told to the American people about so-called, "waiting-lists for surgery in Canada"!

The Admissions Desk nurse had me squeeze with my left-hand and then squeeze with my right-hand. It took 12 seconds!

Anecdotal experience is proof of... ?

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

It is hardly semantics when the realities of interacting with c1ue Inc. are clearly defined, as are interactions with c1ue the person.

As for your questions:

1) yes, c1ue Inc. can meet with investors. Much as a lawyer can represent you in a court, so too can a person represent c1ue Inc. in an investors meeting.

2) c1ue Inc. can drive a car - assuming c1ue Inc. has empowered an individual whether owner or employee to drive said car on c1ue Inc. business.

No, I'm meeting with whoever that individual is. C1ue, Inc cannot act independently, cannot have independent thoughts or have independent identity. C1ue, Inc is not a sentient being. A lawyer is a sentient being. I hope you can discern the difference.

As for control - you still refuse to recognize that a single individual can have control over multiple areas both private and government, and that there are supposed to be clear lines governing behavior in any single segment. There are also specific laws preventing certain conflicts of interest, though absolutely not comprehensive in any way.

I don't refuse to recognize that at all. I just have a problem with the government property an individual has control over, regardless of what private property he/she has, because said property was acquired through coercion. What relevance do laws have when they are written by and apply to the same entity? Governments have no problem legitimizing whatever actions they fancy to partake in.

The point remains - simply because multiple lines of control extend to an individual does not automatically confer unilateral behavior amongst all lines.

There are always exceptions to the rule but, because the behaviors I stated are consistent with human nature, they will always remain exceptions.

A simple example: A person who is both a chairman of the Sierra Club and also the majority shareowner of a strip mining company. Clearly said person cannot be automatically acting in a unilateral interest as these two different lines of control are mutually conflicting.

That is irrelevant to my argument. What motivates people to do what they do does not matter to me in this case. What matters is how they go about doing it. A simple example: A person owns a majority share in a strip mining company that keeps to itself and has no political ties whatsoever and also lobbies government for stricter EPA laws. I have a problem with the latter because it involves aggression against innocent people.

Again, while said politician can control a company such that it behaves as the government would want it to, said control does not constitute government policy.

This would assume that said politician would completely separate his private self-interest from his political self-interest. What's the rule and what's the extreme exception here?

Rather it constitutes the individual's inherent lack of ethics.

Even the most well-meaning politician is still applying what he/she believes is good for others by forcing it upon them. They are initiating aggression against people and there is nothing ethical about that. The only ethical politician is one who strives to abolish or at least diminish his/her own institution (a la Ron Paul).

You still cannot understand the difference. The government isn't controlled by any one politician or even a 10% subsect of all politicians. You automatically assume that any politician acts in the interests of government when in fact different politicians have different interests. Thus government cannot have a single interest which any single politician follows.

Politicians, like anyone else, act in their own self-interest. The key difference between them and private citizens is that they have the power of coercion at their disposal. This is the crux of my argument. I think the truism, "power corrupts" is more accurate stated as, "power attracts corrupt people". Because political power trumps economic power (people tend to value life and limb more than wealth), the political class naturally attracts the worst of humanity.

Or with yet another analogy: just because one lemming is part of a lemming horde, doesn't mean that lemming goes off the cliff with all the others. It might just decide to kick back behind a rock and chew some roots while the others proceed on ahead; said lemming doesn't represent the horde and is merely a component.

If, given a certain set of incentives, it is in the nature of said lemmings to go off the cliff, then most of them will.

So let me get this straight. You conflate a politician owning a private fire fighting company as a government behavior. Yet you do not conflate economic power with political power or the reverse.

So what exactly are you saying? Seems like you're saying nothing.

You misunderstand again. First of all, refer to my above question of the likelihood a politician will separate private and political self-interest. In the 1800's, however, it wasn't like politicians were going out and starting fire fighting companies. They were still career politicians who were bribed by some firefighting companies to favor them. You see, it was the fire fighting companies who used their own economic power to purchase political power. What the politicians had for sale (and still do to this day) was the power to coerce. Regardless of motives, the net result of this collusion led to less competition and the remaining companies acting to please their political cohorts instead of their consumers. That is the result of any private/public collusions and why fascism fails.

See above lemming example. By your definition, a policeman owning a dry cleaning shop means said dry cleaning shop is controlled by the government.

But it isn't.

It is controlled by the policeman and whatever managers handle said establishment in said policeman's absence.

You don't see the moral hazard? For example, is said policeman's dry cleaning shop at an advantage or disadvantage over his competition if he gets quicker responses from his police buddies and favorable rulings from judges that he knows? What if he gets his buddies to look the other way when he vandalizes his competition or outright threatens them?

Your statements are so vague and poorly constrained that it is impossible to interpret correctly without being you.

And your responses thus far have equally been unilluminating.

And the assumptions you choose to attach to my statements along with the strange way you choose to relate them to one another is something I've never seen before. We could go in circles blaming each other but let's chalk it up to different communication styles.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

No, I'm meeting with whoever that individual is. C1ue, Inc cannot act independently, cannot have independent thoughts or have independent identity. C1ue, Inc is not a sentient being. A lawyer is a sentient being. I hope you can discern the difference.

The lawyer may or may not be a sentient being, but that is irrelevant. The lawyer can be a monkey - assuming monkeys can pass the bar exam - and can still represent someone else.

That someone else can be sentient or not.

You clearly don't understand the concept of representation.

I don't refuse to recognize that at all. I just have a problem with the government property an individual has control over, regardless of what private property he/she has, because said property was acquired through coercion. What relevance do laws have when they are written by and apply to the same entity? Governments have no problem legitimizing whatever actions they fancy to partake in.

Fair enough. I actually agree with you that individuals should not own businesses which interact with the government because of the inherent conflict of interest.

But I would note that:

1) It is impossible to legislate a complete separation of private and public interests
2) It is likely just as bad to have a permanent political class

There are always exceptions to the rule but, because the behaviors I stated are consistent with human nature, they will always remain exceptions.

...

That is irrelevant to my argument. What motivates people to do what they do does not matter to me in this case. What matters is how they go about doing it. A simple example: A person owns a majority share in a strip mining company that keeps to itself and has no political ties whatsoever and also lobbies government for stricter EPA laws. I have a problem with the latter because it involves aggression against innocent people.

While I don't argue that many people will use whatever tools are at hand to further their own interests - at the same time I do not agree that this is inevitable.

And more importantly you've strayed from the original discussion - that a private fire fighting company is somehow an extension of government.

The prevention of lobbying is separate from the existence of a service which the government does not provide.

That some people choose to abuse this, is exactly why there are laws - equally so why some things should be a public good and administered by the government. Again, this is exactly what Dr. Michael Hudson speaks to.

This would assume that said politician would completely separate his private self-interest from his political self-interest. What's the rule and what's the extreme exception here?

...




Even the most well-meaning politician is still applying what he/she believes is good for others by forcing it upon them. They are initiating aggression against people and there is nothing ethical about that. The only ethical politician is one who strives to abolish or at least diminish his/her own institution (a la Ron Paul).

...




Politicians, like anyone else, act in their own self-interest. The key difference between them and private citizens is that they have the power of coercion at their disposal. This is the crux of my argument. I think the truism, "power corrupts" is more accurate stated as, "power attracts corrupt people". Because political power trumps economic power (people tend to value life and limb more than wealth), the political class naturally attracts the worst of humanity.

1) You assume all people, and all politicians, are motivated by pure self interest
2) You assume all politicians who are self interested, even know what their true self interest lies
3) You assume all politicians who are self interested and know where their true self interest lies, have an equal time frame (long vs. short, agonist vs. antagonist, etc etc)

The point isn't that there is no self interest. The point is that self interest at a certain level cancels out, and beyond that is where regulation applies.

The same flawed argument could be used for any good or service provider: that ultimately the good or service provider will provide poor goods/services because it is better for their bottom line. But that isn't true both depending on time frame and depending on management of that entity.

For those cases where it is - we have regulation.

You misunderstand again. First of all, refer to my above question of the likelihood a politician will separate private and political self-interest. In the 1800's, however, it wasn't like politicians were going out and starting fire fighting companies. They were still career politicians who were bribed by some firefighting companies to favor them. You see, it was the fire fighting companies who used their own economic power to purchase political power. What the politicians had for sale (and still do to this day) was the power to coerce. Regardless of motives, the net result of this collusion led to less competition and the remaining companies acting to please their political cohorts instead of their consumers. That is the result of any private/public collusions and why fascism fails.

...




You don't see the moral hazard? For example, is said policeman's dry cleaning shop at an advantage or disadvantage over his competition if he gets quicker responses from his police buddies and favorable rulings from judges that he knows? What if he gets his buddies to look the other way when he vandalizes his competition or outright threatens them?

There is no moral hazard.

Moral hazard assumes a reward for lax behavior.

What you refer to is racketeering.

And in reality, any and every person, position, institution, or whatever has the capability.

What restrains it? Human morality, long term views, regulations, the list goes on and on.

In every existence there is the temptation to be selfish - generally a short term gain. Equally so in every existence there is the ability to be altruistic - generally a long term gain.

In either extreme you have abuse.

To say that one is worse than the other is to truly fail to recognize the human condition.

Today we've swung the selfish extreme; Communism was a good example of a failed altruistic extreme - albeit being an ant is the best example of such.

[radon]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

You can own a vehicle without having insurance. You can even drive it, on private property. You just can't operate it on public roads. Even that rule has exceptions.

Some states wave the requirement entirely in rural areas. NH didn't require auto insurance at all. I spent a large portion of my adult life without any auto insurance.

I don't feel bad about paying for liability coverage. It is my responsibility to ensure that I can pay for the damage I may cause while operating a large piece of machinery. I would be equally willing to post a bond with the state.

[radon]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I live in Canada. I have healthcare here as a basic human-right

Who are the slaves you would create to service this right? In the case of an emergency you would have been admitted to my public hospital in 12 seconds as well; and treated regardless of your ability to pay. What was your point again?

[radon]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

This is foolishness. The whole point of government is to get people to pay for services en masse.

It's the raison d'etre. To say this is illegal is just blind ideology.

I wonder if you will still think that way when Disney forces you to pay for an expensive cable subscription and the telcos decide that it is your duty as a citizen to carry a cell phone at all times. All Americans must remain informed of terrorist alerts and be able to immediately report suspicious activity. When you can't pay they won't need a collection agency, the IRS will just arrest you.

[DSpencer]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Who are the slaves you would create to service this right? In the case of an emergency you would have been admitted to my public hospital in 12 seconds as well; and treated regardless of your ability to pay. What was your point again?

Your avatar combined with your use of "my public hospital" implies you might be a nurse. In that case the slaves he would create include YOU. You will be part of the slave group that provides his "basic human right" of health care at whatever price he determines. And why stop at health care? After all, aren't shelter, food, water, and gainful employment basic human rights too? Therefore his slaves will also need to include construction workers, farmers, plumbers and more.

Or maybe you're just a noble gas.

This is, of course, the fundamental absurdity of positive rights. Taken to their logical conclusions, they are self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Yes, but who has the time for these "logical conclusions"? Understanding what positive rights means sounds difficult. Isn't it better to loudly demand the things that I want and refer to them in a way that sounds like I deserve them simply by being born?

(America has the for-profit private healthcare system.)

America has a for-profit private health care system? Let me guess, that works right alongside our "free market".

Saying these things is like handing someone a glass filled with half mercury and half water and saying that it's a glass of water.

I say this not to defend the present American health care system. In many ways we have the worst of both worlds. It's simply irritating and inaccurate when people describe America as some kind of private, free-market society - especially in health care.

[flintlock]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

In many ways we have the worst of both worlds. It's simply irritating and inaccurate when people describe America as some kind of private, free-market society - especially in health care.

Yeah, no kidding. We have some sort of weird hybrid, but free market it is not when you consider Medicare/Medicaid/VA etc.

[BK]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Canada has 33 Million and USA has 300 Million. Canada has Massive reserves of Oil-Gas and Minerals and a net Exporter (makes for a stronger fiat currency and means wealth is flowing into Canada). USA has wealth flowing out and is net importer of stuff.
Steve, how can you be so active on itulip - and not understand how fundamentally different Canada and the United States are - in their ability to finance benefits for their citizens??
Britain has 66 million - the Family's I know there all have Doctors in their families. Every single family group has their surgeries done in a Private Hospital - because they aren't satisfied with the quality in the Public Hospital setting. Meanwhile most of them have one or more Doctors in their family that work in the Public Hospital in Britain or are a retired Physician who worked in a Public Hospital - strange if Public and Private are equal???

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

The lawyer may or may not be a sentient being, but that is irrelevant. The lawyer can be a monkey - assuming monkeys can pass the bar exam - and can still represent someone else.

If that monkey can pass the bar exam, then it is a self-aware, sentient being with the power to reason.

That someone else can be sentient or not.

Really? Can a figment of your imagination (like C1ue, Inc) pass the bar and represent you in court or would that require an actual human being to do so?

You clearly don't understand the concept of representation.

Given your absurd statement that a non-sentient being can somehow represent anyone tells me you're the one who doesn't understand it.

Fair enough. I actually agree with you that individuals should not own businesses which interact with the government because of the inherent conflict of interest.

But I would note that:

1) It is impossible to legislate a complete separation of private and public interests
2) It is likely just as bad to have a permanent political class

I agree on both points.

While I don't argue that many people will use whatever tools are at hand to further their own interests - at the same time I do not agree that this is inevitable.

I don't think it's inevitable that all people will, but the percentage who do will continually gain an advantage over those who don't, inevitably tipping the balance of power in favor of the former.

And more importantly you've strayed from the original discussion - that a private fire fighting company is somehow an extension of government.

I'm saying a private fire fighting company who colludes with government is, by definition, no longer private.

The prevention of lobbying is separate from the existence of a service which the government does not provide.

But many businesses lobby government to intervene in their industry, thus providing protection for some while keeping competition out. Every mixed economy is rife with mercantilism.

That some people choose to abuse this, is exactly why there are laws - equally so why some things should be a public good and administered by the government. Again, this is exactly what Dr. Michael Hudson speaks to.

My point is it's law makers who are the most willing and able to abuse it because they make the laws. The fact that the U.S. government panders to Wall Street at the expense of the "commoner" is an inevitable result of giving so much coercive power to so few.

1) You assume all people, and all politicians, are motivated by pure self interest
2) You assume all politicians who are self interested, even know what their true self interest lies
3) You assume all politicians who are self interested and know where their true self interest lies, have an equal time frame (long vs. short, agonist vs. antagonist, etc etc)

The point isn't that there is no self interest. The point is that self interest at a certain level cancels out, and beyond that is where regulation applies.

You got it backwards, there is only self-interest because each individual can only experience the world through his/her own five senses. Even when one empathizes with another person it can only be done internally, projecting what one believes the other is feeling.

This is a very key fundamental so I want to focus on it before we go any further and make sure we are copasetic. Would you agree with the assumed self-evident truth that all humans act? If so, these are subsidiary truths that are deduced from it:

1) All individual humans engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals
2) Because time and resources are scarce, individuals tend to choose what they perceive as the easiest path to achieve any given goal

Do you believe these statements to be true?

The same flawed argument could be used for any good or service provider: that ultimately the good or service provider will provide poor goods/services because it is better for their bottom line. But that isn't true both depending on time frame and depending on management of that entity.

For those cases where it is - we have regulation.

Your premise that regulation exists to protect the consumer is flawed. Most regulations are sold to the public that way but, overwhelmingly, their end results are to limit competition, which is always bad for the consumer. Competition is what keeps producers honest and in tune with consumers' needs.

There is no moral hazard.

Moral hazard assumes a reward for lax behavior.

Moral hazard suggests an encouragement of immoral behavior, usually due to a combination of higher gains to be had with lower likelihood of retribution or punishment, but also attributable to anything that people can use to offload personal responsibility. The Milgram Experiment is a great example of otherwise moral people offloading personal responsibility onto perceived authority figures and, as a result, performing heinous acts. The "Greenspan Put" is a another great example of moral hazard. Hell, the whole "corporations as people" system we have here, with their government granted limited liability and unlimited life, is a systemic moral hazard. Immoral people will be more likely to take advantage of them but even principled people often find them irresistible. I think this is based in the truth that people tend to take the easiest path to achieving their goals.

What you refer to is racketeering.

Funny how a lot of government sanctioned activities are no different than racketeering. The government and mafia both force people to pay "protection money" against their consent, yet the former would be referred to as taxation while the latter as extortion. Changing the words doesn't change the actions.

And in reality, any and every person, position, institution, or whatever has the capability.

The key is that one particular group, government, can do so with impunity.

What restrains it? Human morality, long term views, regulations, the list goes on and on.

Again, those who take advantage of moral hazard tend to gain over those who don't. Government, because of its monopoly on violence, is fundamentally one giant moral hazard and, as a result, the politicians who are willing to do or say whatever it takes are the ones who tend to win out. This is why a truly honest and principled man becoming President is a near impossibility.

In every existence there is the temptation to be selfish - generally a short term gain. Equally so in every existence there is the ability to be altruistic - generally a long term gain.

Gains are purely subjective so this statement cannot be universally true. A sociopath, for example, will rarely find any gain in altruistic behavior.

In either extreme you have abuse.

Abuse of what? Not disagreeing here, just want to clarify.

To say that one is worse than the other is to truly fail to recognize the human condition.

Not sure what your getting at here either. What principle(s) are you basing this statement on?

Today we've swung the selfish extreme; Communism was a good example of a failed altruistic extreme - albeit being an ant is the best example of such.

Even altruism is selfish. Most commonly, people are altruistic because they believe it will make them feel better about themselves. A person will not strive for a goal unless they believe said goal is more valuable to them than their current state.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

If that monkey can pass the bar exam, then it is a self-aware, sentient being with the power to reason.

Actually all the bar exam indicates is that the monkey can memorize large amounts of otherwise irrelevant data. Similar to Series 7 exams.

There are plenty of examples of individuals who have passed the bar exam and do not clearly demonstrate either self-awareness, sentience, or the power to reason.

Really? Can a figment of your imagination (like C1ue, Inc) pass the bar and represent you in court or would that require an actual human being to do so?

c1ue Inc. - unless it is a law firm - has no need to pass the bar or represent anyone in court. Your example is ridiculous - I could as easily say that if you cannot legally open a bar - i.e. don't have a liquor license, that you aren't a legal business entity.

Complete non-sequitur.

Given your absurd statement that a non-sentient being can somehow represent anyone tells me you're the one who doesn't understand it.

Oh? So by your reasoning, a nation is equally a non-sentient being and cannot represent anyone. A religion is a non-sentient being and cannot represent anyone. A law is a non-sentient being and cannot represent anyone.

Yet they all do.

I don't think it's inevitable that all people will, but the percentage who do will continually gain an advantage over those who don't, inevitably tipping the balance of power in favor of the former.

Except for one little problem - if what you say is true, then we would still be gathering roots and berries in a hunter gatherer existence. Clearly the forces of cooperation have prevailed over the forces of pure selfish behavior.

I'm saying a private fire fighting company who colludes with government is, by definition, no longer private.

Except for the little problem that you've neither shown that the collusion exists, nor what the government's interest is, nor who represents the government. Since apparently only a person can represent anything in your world view.

But many businesses lobby government to intervene in their industry, thus providing protection for some while keeping competition out. Every mixed economy is rife with mercantilism.

The existence of abuse does not in and of itself prove that it is the rule.

My point is it's law makers who are the most willing and able to abuse it because they make the laws. The fact that the U.S. government panders to Wall Street at the expense of the "commoner" is an inevitable result of giving so much coercive power to so few.

You are mixing your metaphors again. If the law makers are the ones abusing the laws, then the businesses are just pawns? Or is it the other way around?

Your example is also poor - Wall Street has existed for 100+ years. In that period, it has only been able to exert political control less than 1/3 of the time. Hardly resounding proof of your thesis.

You got it backwards, there is only self-interest because each individual can only experience the world through his/her own five senses. Even when one empathizes with another person it can only be done internally, projecting what one believes the other is feeling.

You unfortunately have a poor grasp of empathy.

The reality is that 2 individuals can have opposite goals for exactly the same reasons, but on different time scales.

And these reasons can be either selfish or altruistic, or can be combination.

To think that people act only on self interest is simplistic in the extreme.

This is a very key fundamental so I want to focus on it before we go any further and make sure we are copasetic. Would you agree with the assumed self-evident truth that all humans act? If so, these are subsidiary truths that are deduced from it:

1) All individual humans engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals
2) Because time and resources are scarce, individuals tend to choose what they perceive as the easiest path to achieve any given goal

Do you believe these statements to be true?

These are true, but the problem is the definition of the goals. Some people want to be (rich) - whereas other people want to not be (poor). These are not identical goals nor identical actions even were the perception of paths to said goals identical.

Your premise that regulation exists to protect the consumer is flawed. Most regulations are sold to the public that way but, overwhelmingly, their end results are to limit competition, which is always bad for the consumer. Competition is what keeps producers honest and in tune with consumers' needs.

Really? So whose goal is served by having a law preventing rats from being served up in devilled ham?

Whose goal is being served by having public utilities provide electricity and water?

Whose goal is being served by anti-monopoly laws?

The assumption that every action is due to selfishness is a secular version of Manichea-ism.

The Milgram Experiment is a great example of otherwise moral people offloading personal responsibility onto perceived authority figures and, as a result, performing heinous acts. The "Greenspan Put" is a another great example of moral hazard. Hell, the whole "corporations as people" system we have here, with their government granted limited liability and unlimited life, is a systemic moral hazard. Immoral people will be more likely to take advantage of them but even principled people often find them irresistible. I think this is based in the truth that people tend to take the easiest path to achieving their goals.

Except both examples are where there is an action which provides the moral hazard protection. A regulation has no such behavior - it is to prevent action.

What restrains it? Human morality, long term views, regulations, the list goes on and on.

Again, those who take advantage of moral hazard tend to gain over those who don't. Government, because of its monopoly on violence, is fundamentally one giant moral hazard and, as a result, the politicians who are willing to do or say whatever it takes are the ones who tend to win out. This is why a truly honest and principled man becoming President is a near impossibility.

There are plenty of reasons why a "truly honest and principled" man would have difficulty becoming President. You also confuse the willingness to be protected by moral hazard with other behaviors such as buying influence, being part of a political machine, being unwilling to tell the public what they want to hear, etc etc.

Abuse of what? Not disagreeing here, just want to clarify.

Abuse of going to the extreme of either selfishness or altruism.

Even altruism is selfish. Most commonly, people are altruistic because they believe it will make them feel better about themselves. A person will not strive for a goal unless they believe said goal is more valuable to them than their current state.

You ascribe behavior to all which apparently is based on your own views.

Not everyone does altruistic things just to feel good - some people do it because it is the right thing to do in the sense of an actual measurable long term benefit.

Others do it because they're trained to do it and so behave that way without thought.

Yet others do it because it is expected of them and are afraid of being left out/pointed out.

Of these 3 examples - and no doubt there are many more mixtures and archetypes - only a portion of these acts are to elicit that 'happy feeling'.

Acting altruistically can be from fear, from calculation, from pride, from inertia, from whim, from all sorts of things.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Seriously, C1ue, your responses are so full of straw men and perverted analogies that you're arguing more with a figment of your own imagination than me (hey, maybe you're representing me! Please don't send a bill...) Whether this is deliberate on your part or not, I'm through taking your bait.