I know–I just love asking him why he hates America. IN ALL CAPS SO YOU KNOW IT’S OMG SERIOUS.
You know, I wonder if part of the problem is just overwhelming ignorance of how much medical coverage actually costs. When you have health insurance through your job, your company actually covers the majority of the cost. People who don’t have medical coverage can’t just go out and get it for the same price as what gets deducted from your paycheck.
I guess I should clarify my position a little. It’s not that I’m against UHC it’s more the arguments that say “Society wants x, so we’re going to take what we need from you.”
A better statement is, “The society you belong to wants X, so you need to pay your dues if you want to keep being part of this society.” Yeah, the coercion element is still there, but your implication is that you’re some innocent outsider to this awful society that’s forcing you to hand your money over.
See the thing is I don’t really have a problem with the things taxes provide or even paying for them. My problem is with the arguments used to justify them.
My employer pays 100% of the cost of the Rolls-Royce of BCBS plans (such as it is) and I still want universal health care… because I’m not a selfish little fuckwit.
You could have gone to a private university, and not sponged off the people. You could have gone to a public university in another state and paid the full load. But instead you chose to accept the subsidy the government gave to the school for you. Tsk, tsk.
BTW, neither of my kids went to California state schools, and my wife and I did not get subsidies either when we went to college. So my hands are cleaner than yours.
In that case, you shouldn’t misrepresent the arguments. It’s not just “society wants X”; if society wanted free movie tickets, there’d be many valid and rational reasons for denying it, the least of which is that it’s a luxury people can do without. Healthcare can legitimately be considered a basic need and something that benefits all people, primarily by ensuring that the work force stays healthy and able to work.
point taken.
Are they taking what they need all from you and only you? No, they’re taking it from all of us. That’s part of living in a society: we pay for services for ourselves and our fellow citizens. I, personally, would much rather pay for UHC than the stupid fucking war in Iraq, but part of being a member of society is paying for shit other people value that you may not agree with.
Rand Rover’s proven time and again that he’s retarded (hell, just having “Rand” in his name was evidence enough before he even posted anything), but I really love the idea that “productive” people are going to benefit from his proposed policies. I’ve been employed full-time for over 20 years, live a basically middle-class existence, and yet, if I had some medical emergency that required multiple surgeries or prolonged treatment, I’d basically have to die, even with insurance, unless I wanted to become homeless or bankrupt my loved ones, because medical costs are so prohibitively expensive. But I’m sure that’s my fault for not being stinking rich.
The crazy part is, if I were to don a whack-job Randian type of hat, there is a better argument for public health programs than for public education ones. Uneducated people can be of use. Sick ones really not so much.
But given that dipshit was willing to gorge at the trough for public education, that must be OK, while public health care is eeeevil!
Right, so because I have used a public road and went to public schools I can never argue that the government shouldn’t give anythimng to anybody for free ever. I have to accept everything the government wants to do because I benefited from some things the government already did. That’s ridiculous. It’s just a stupid way for people wthout a good argument to try to silence the opposition.
No, dipshit. But it is encumbent on you to explain why the things are different. Why the things you have benefited from are acceptable reasons to extract money at gun point, but health care isn’t.
Hell, you can even sit there and say that public roads and public schools are wrong too. But then you will just come across as even more of a dipshit.
You’ve received thousands of dollars in government aid. Let’s repeat that: thousands of dollars in government aid. Most of which was not enjoyed by everyone else. You have received more government aid than many, many people in the US will ever imagine receiving. Hell, your entire job is dependent on the continued existence of the US government’s ludricrously difficult tax code. If it weren’t for the government, you have no job.
I’d like to see your justification that your continued affluence deserves to be supported by the government, while other people who only want to remain alive should not be supported by the government.
He’s not arguing that his distinction is rational. I don’t know what you all expect to get out of him if he’s not even making an effort to be rational.
That said, this point about his job requiring the government’s bad tax code seem a little off to me. The NAACP requires societal racism, that doesn’t mean they can’t consistently assert that there should be less racism. One would expect those opposed to government power to work to reduce its effects on those they believe are harmed by it.
You have proven that there is absolutely no way to “silence” rich people from bitching about taxes.
You Randians claim to be so concerned about Objectivism and Utilitarianism and other nonsense capitalized terms, but the bottom line is health care costs less when it’s socialized. The end.
The difference is, of course, that the NAACP does not lobby society (or anyone else) for increased societal racism so that they can continue to justify their continued existence. What happens when tax reform gets discussed by the government?
I don’t know, what? Are you suggesting that Rand’s law firm lobbies against tax reform?
Well I sure don’t see the ABA leading the fight for simplification of tax law. Most of their “tax reform” lobbying over the past 40 years has done little but make tax law even more complicated. Am I right, Rand?
So often, it seems to boil down to an exaggerated regard for property rights, as though it trumps all else. “What gives you right to take what is mine? Mine, mine, mine!”
This land is your land, this land is my land. (Hey, that might make a pretty good song…but I digress…) A nation is, to some degree, a collective enterprise. (I know, I said “collective”. I’ll wait around if you want to run take a quick shower…)
Our people are ours, along with the purple mountains and amber waves. Investing in the well-being of our people is both good policy and good government. But rest assured, RR, should I require advice on how to shelter my vast holdings from government predation, you’ll be first on my list.