So if I’m hearing you right, you think that the state has an interest in people to having roads to drive on, but it has no interest in them being alive enough to do so.
Shockingly, you’re not hearing me right.
I know you were totally confident that you were, so this news must come as a shock to you. Do you need to lie down?
You need to notice though that **Bricker **decided to make that the issue instead of dealing with the cites that should be the ones used for the policy.
It is easy to see why he did choose that.
It’s somewhat of a threshold item. The basics need to be addressed before more complex matters so there can be an understood frame of reference. You seemed to think that the anecdotes had some argumentative value so as a threshold matter we’d first need to agree that the anecdotes while on topic, aren’t dispositive when talking about public policy. Because if you think that they are, then that’s an early hurdle to overcome.
I think you are also missing that I already did say that regarding my experience: “But that was not the point anyhow (my experience), the reality is that you [Bricker] can not deal with the cites I made.”
Strawman much? :rolleyes:
The only way your position makes sense is if health care has no impact on human health. (Or, I suppose, if human health has no impact on how they use the roads.)
Look, I get it. You get some benefit from the roads, so you’re willing to chip in a bit to pay for them. You benefit not at all from other people not suffering and dying, so you don’t want to pay to keep them alive and healthy. This is pretty simple to understand.
However, we’re not talking about your interests, not really. We’re talking about the government’s interests. Whether it’s in the government’s interests for there to be roads, and NASA, and a military, and support for the poor, and support for the unhealthy. So the real question here is, how good is it for the country if we don’t go around shooting people whose legs break like we do horses? How much is it worth it to us, both to avoid tripping on corpses everywhere, and to avoid lost income/GDP, and to avoid seeming less civilized than the average third-world country?
The country’s interests may differ from your personal interests.
Never.
My comment was intended to illustrate the fact that neither you nor I get to unilaterally impose definitions or values on the discussion.
That’s what a threshold item is. It must be dealt with first, before anything else.
But regarding the cites, I addressed those first:
The way you choose to evaluate the benefit of a particular program is up to you. Not everyone shares the same methodology. You describe freedom from fear of bankruptcy for health reasons - but I don’t think that’s within the proper scope of government. You describe freedom to seek a different job wrt job lock - but I don’t care about job lock. You talk about freedom to start a business, yet businesses started plenty before the ACA. These things you hold out as freedoms I don’t agree these are freedoms are within the proper role of government to secure.
It’s not a matter of dealing with your cites or not. There’s nothing to deal with because they are not germane to the objections being raised. The main point I’ve been trying to make in this thread is that a given position is not such a slam dunk, not a virtual mathematical proof because we don’t agree on the relative value of the elements of the equation.
Actually yours are an opinion, and one that does not deal with the points or the cites made.
Of course. That’s the point. The cites you offer are not compelling because they frame the question in a way that we don’t agree upon. It would be like me bringing up the Gouda vs. mozzarella cheese, exalting the superiority of Gouda as it relates to the downsides of the ACA. You may say that cheese has nothing to do with the ACA, and I would say job lock has nothing to do with opposition to the ACA either. Should I complain that you didn’t address my cheese argument?
The point is that you don’t get to unilaterally impose definitions or values on the discussion.
Who is we, kemosabe?
In reality what you are doing here is to complain that someone has found a different way to approach this issue and I can say that just because it is making some conservatives queasy is not a good reason to kill the messenger.
I can see why that is better than dealing with the cites.
This should be engraved in granite at the entrance to the SDMB. It is such an alien concept to many of the posters here that it may as well have been uttered in Proto-Indo-European.
Why must I accept the assumptions inherent in your “different way?” When does it become my turn to define assumptions that you must accept?
You and me? Unless of course you agree with me. I take it that you think job lock is important. I don’t. See, we disagree.
Dude, you’re the one in favor of dumping poor people in the gutter to bleed to death.
Good Heavens, man, can’t you see? He is being denied power over his personal property! Perhaps you have some delusion that property rights are but one of many, but be advised: private property rights are the very core, the axle upon which civilization turns! Its it the crown jewel of Rights, the glittering gem surrounded by other semi-precious stones that serve as grace notes to emphasize the primacy of property. I own, therefore, I am. You don’t, therefore, you aren’t.
Wisely dumping poor people in the gutter to bleed to death, don’t forget.
Based on the last 3 posts and several others before, it is clear that it is not just you and me, and there is more disagreement with the sorry opinion of the ones trying to make the republicans in congress sound reasonable.
It is a really silly reason to dismiss evidence just because you disagree, particularly when others (and even experts in the cites) clearly do not agree with your dismissal. As usual, I only have to notice that your tactic does avoid dealing with the cites I made.
Anyhow, sorry if I had to go all medieval 
on the arguments of another poster and yours, but as others noted: the Republican plan was not what was promised and the failure of turning back the clock is IMHO still something that reasonable and even a good chuck of the Republicans voting for the latest miscarriage of legislation know that the current system is unsustainable, less free and wasteful; but they have to mega pander to the ones demanding the blood of poor people. Ignoring that sending them and also many other Americans into bankruptcy is very likely to lead us into another economic meltdown.
Maybe after another disaster we will have to depend on real fiefdoms.
When a Republican health plan give all Americans less death, more liberty and more happiness.