How many people agree with this?
I’m just curious how prevalent this attitude is here.
Profoundly Disagree.
Because of age, poverty and disability, more than half of my family (this includes grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins) gets government-sponsored health care. Paying for other people’s health care via taxes has always been the norm for me.
And, as a small business owner, I see actual dollars going to real people’s health insurance. If we didn’t pay for insurance, I could funnel that money to payroll. So technically, I’m paying for my employees health care out of my pocket too.
So, I already pay for everyone’s health care. I heartily disagree with that statement.
Disagree.
First, deeply disagree.
Second, if RR participates in any sort of insurance program, he (and/or his employer) is already paying for other people’s healthcare, separate from any Medicare taxes, etc.
Absolutely disagree. (Not to mention I’m totally disgusted)
Disagree.
I find RR’s attitude simultaneously laughable and depressing.
I disagree. I’m not happy with the current proposals floating around but I do think we need to figure out a way to provide healthcare or make healthcare affordable for everyone.
Disagree.
The idea that “what I want or don’t want to pay for” is a valid complaint is bullshit in a democracy. I didn’t want to pay for the Iraq war, and that was vastly more expensive than health care reform would be.
Amazing that some people are willing to spend trillions of dollars to set people on fire, but call you a Nazi if you want them to spend 10 cents a year to give a few poor kids decent health care.
I probably wouldn’t phrase it the same way but I’m basically in agreement. IMO, the attempt at UHC is just another component of liberal efforts to use government to make everything “fair.” I don’t believe it is anymore incumbent upon the government to make sure I have health care than it is to make sure I get enough nutrition, have a car to drive (and insurance), a place to live or sufficient entertainment.
Life is not fair. Some people get good looks, some people get money, some people find love, and others get only some or none of the above. If my health goes south and I don’t have insurance or money to take care of it, I honestly regard that as tough noogies for me. That’s life.
Prior to the advent of the New Deal and then Medicare nearly 200 years into this country’s existence, few people thought it was the responsibility of government to be everyone’s nanny. Now, some forty to eighty years on, the notion is taking hold as an offshoot of those programs. This is the kind of thing I’m referring to when I talk about the current plan being foot-in-the-door to even more extensive government health care in the future, plus nanny-statism in other ways as well.
RR is right, IMO, in that the role of government ideally should be little more than to defend the country and collect the taxes necessary to do so. We truly are not our bother’s keeper – and especially not by force of law.
We cannot enjoy the freedoms that Americans have always enjoyed nor live the lives of plenty we’ve always lived if we have to look to the government to provide for our needs.
Disagree. As I’ve already stated in another thread, public health care bought my mother a few extra months and a quality of life that simply would not have been possible otherwise. I would think most others would be equally appreciative of the benefit.
Heartily disagree.
The role of the government is to do whatever the voters tell it to do. It’s called democracy. Deal with it.
You don’t even believe your own words if you supported the Iraq invaison, since that had nothing to do with defending the country.
I used to believe that (one reason why I’m a recovering Objectivist).
The obvious retort is: "Why should I pay to educate your kids, or provide you with police or fire protection? Why should I pay to protect your ass from an invading army or nuclear warhead? Why should I pay to provide you with roads to drive on or cheap mail delivery? Why should I provide you with judges and, if necessary, jails?
Do other people have a right to my money for these things, but not for health care? Short of a totally Libertarian economy, where do we draw the line?
I disagree with Rand Rover.
Like panache45 said, we all pay into the pot to contribute to the common good. Isn’t health care fundamental to the common good? Of course it is!
Well, pardon my saying so, but duh!
Right now voters are engaged in a battle over what to tell government to do. Traditionally the role of government was not to be the citizens’ nanny. This country was founded on the notion of freedom from government control and a good many aspects of the Constitution are devoted to that end. But since the New Deal and Medicare/Medicaid, like I said, some people are beginning to view the government and its taxpayers as the goose that laid (or should lay) the golden egg that keeps them warm and safe and healthy and well and provides for all their needs during their stay on this globe spinning around in space. They are perfectly happy to sacrifice their freedom and the lives of plenty that we’ve always enjoyed in this country in return for the government’s taking care of them with other peoples’ money and making everything "fair.’
I am obviously on the side that doesn’t believe this is the proper role of government. Your side has been agitating for what it wants and now my side is finally beginning to agitate for the opposite, and the voters will eventually decide(hopefully, but then there’s no accounting for what our current runaway congress will do anyway).
So what’s your problem?
I did and do support the invasion, and I do believe it had to do with defending the country. There are types of defense (known as prescient) that do not require foreign troops to be massed at our borders. IMO, this country, its allies and the Middle East itself are all much safer without the presense of the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.
Neither our allies nor the Middle East are part of this country, Bush’s efforts notwithstanding.
No kidding?
Oh, wait…maybe their safety is a side benefit. Yeah, that’s it. Why didn’t I think to spell that out while grouping their safety with ours? What was I thinking?
:smack: Oh, I know…I thought it was obvious!
Silly me!
Invading Iraq didn’t do a whole lot for anybody’s safety.