ObamaCare Problematic Theory

The Mikulski Argument And Alternate Context

Kevin A. Sensenig | July 16, 2014 | Updated August 7, 2014

Senators Mikulski Ayotte Hobby Lobby Decision | Video | C-SPAN.org

Posted July 15, 2014

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4503708/senators-mikulski-ayotte-hobby-lobby-decision

Here Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) states what seems to be the Democratic argument on Hobby Lobby.  At 5m35s she says,

"“Well, I always felt that health decisions should be made by a woman and her doctor....”

[Her view is that the employer should not interfere with this.  That's how she began her speech.]

Right.  That’s the point of currency.  The woman makes money, and deposits the funds in her account.  She then spends the funds from her account on the product she wants to buy.  That way the employer does not interfere, and in the case of health care, the decisions are between the woman and her doctor.

If there's an economic problem with women not making enough, then that should be considered an economic problem, as such, and the dynamics of what women can do, and it is a fact that what they can do is significant.

The quote by Plato at http://www.nxmvc.com/ODT.YD.05.html is important and material; and it also points to a fundamental flaw in the philosophical premise of the Democratic argument behind some of this and related: that things are the same, and differences indicate a discriminatory view; whereas Plato considers, "is the individual (man or woman) can that individual do the work", and answers in the affirmative, that each can — and that that is the starting point, that it is not to blanket with "the same" and to note distinctions and then to state distinctions are discrimination.  This is a subtle point, but fundamental, to Democratic thinking in many ways.

Of course, there is discrimination, as a view — and distinction does not mean that one should treat with “this or that is innately superior one to the other”.  It (distinctions) may mean that things are treated differently, or not — but with the same type of what I’ll call ‘basis-understanding’.

If the product is not precisely what you want, then maybe there are other companies that market something appropriate.  However, if there is none that is so, what to do?  Here buyers may work with awareness to raise the desire for a particular feature set, or an innovative company may come up with something with the right feature set.  In the case of the health insurance market, I suspect that there’s a 0.005 efficiency ratio somewhere — and that the market wasn’t actually so far off.  It may have been inaccessible to some, but that’s again a matter of economics.  I’ll study this some more.  I think that ObamaCare went about to solve the wrong problems in the wrong ways.

The states have been entirely responsible in structure and design template for corporations; and I feel they could have been the means toward various ideas that would have made levels of product with this or that feature set.

By the way, Mikulski also earlier in her speech made the argument that they were men making this decision.  As if men cannot reason and be sympathetic to women.  Megyn Kelly on Fox News had other items in a strong like argument against such Mikulski type "it's men" logic.  The argument on the Fox News Kelly File is here.

Oh, Mikulski mentioned this entity called the Institute on Health, a federal program, which she said is nonpartisan and is made up of scientists, researchers, and physicians — and was the source (by implication) for her objective views.

What is the spending on this entity, that we all are paying for?  It should however be taken seriously,  I guess; and for sure, in another sense.  Is it Kepler's Laws we're talking of here?  Or, what might be the difference?  And note that even with things nonpartisan there are views, premise, assumption, givens, understanding, and theory.  What is of these that applies here, in actual fact?  "Studies have shown..." <sarcasm>