So yours is a higher level, academic view? It’s all about the principles eh?
OK, as long as your principles are kept intact, the rest of us are just liberal douches for trying to think of more practical matters, like how to get better outcomes for population health.
The second post proves that you lied in the first one - if you did “care enough about poor people that I want them to be treated as humans and not as pets”, then you would not say “If they want to treat the poor like pets, then that’s fine by me”. We have now established beyond any doubt that you’re a liar and that you do not care about poor people.
As surprises nobody, the only difference between the situation you prefer and the one you hate is that in the one you like, “[you’re] not paying for it”. All you care about is your wallet - poor people are nothing to you. Unless you actually do hate them - that possibility hasn’t been disproven yet.
What RR is actually to stupid to understand is that if the country had more of its people insured it would be a positive boon to the economy. It would save us trillions in debt, increase productivity, improve American business’ ability to compete and save 45 thousand lives. Lives mean consumption, it means dollars changing hands, it means increased opportunity.
He’s so stupid he’s willing to shoot himself in the foot because he thinks it will hurt less fortunate people.
Honestly RR, is a completely worthless human being, and his opinions are based on childish hate instead of logic.
Buddy, you can think about how to get better outcomes for population health all you want, iwont chap my ass none. What does bother me is your insistence that the government be involved. And what really chaps it is your insistence that I don’t care about the problem just because I don’t think that the government is the solution.
QFT.
I’ll add some substance on Edit:
The government’s job is to regulate things. If we don’t regulate things people get cheated. The market requires regulation. It’s part of the equation. So I assume you’re okay with insurance regulations, right?
I dunno, I think I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he realizes that society as a whole would improve, but if the cost is that some of his money is diverted to helping a poor person, it’s worth it if society is damaged as a result. After all, he’s wealthy enough to get through basically unscathed, and if he’s fine, then it’s better to damage all of society than to divert some of his money to helping a poor person.
Or alternatively you might be right and he might just be a childish unthinking hate-filled moron. The fact that this remains a possibility is why it hasn’t yet been proven that he actively hates poor people (as opposed to just not giving a shit about them).
Christ. I was using shorthand in that second post. I just meant that I don’t care in the context of a discussion about the legitimate activities of government. I meant that I don’t care what private actors do with their money. Charities are free to do all sorts of shit I find stupid if they want to (eg, Whale Wars).
I believe you’ve already made it clear why you don’t want the government involved - they’re the only one you can’t refuse to give money to.
begbert2 - great post*.
I recall arguing with Rand Rover in that awesome thread last summer. Fun up to a point, then once he’s backed into a logical corner, very disappointing.
*ETA: post #242
Yes. I think that is fully within the legitimate state activity of protecting people from intentional wrongdoers (ie, like having police).
The “legitimate activities of government” are whatever we want them to be. You can stomp your little feet all you want, but you’re not the one who gets to make the rules.
Agreed (of course)–the voters decide, within the bounds of the constitution. And polls show that voters aren’t buying the stink that Obama’s selling with HRC. So, the current bill is an example of a minority trying to impose its will on the majority.
So you agreed that Medicare and Social Security are already “legitimate activities of government”?
And that UHC will also be a “legitimate activity of government” if approved through democratic means?
You’re just mad because RR owned your ass in that thread.
Well, I can only say that Rand Rover has thoroughly convinced me that nothing less than extending Medicare, or something like it, to the entire population is definitely the way to go. So thanks for that.
Also, I’ve got a couple of pet poor people, and don’t knock it. They’re very affectionate and playful.
Well, yes, that is absolutely correct, just not for the reason you think it is.
Not even close. Many of the people who don’t like the current bill are liberals who think it does not go far enough, and is just a giveaway to the insurance companies.
Man, I just read through some of that thread–fun trip down memory lane.
Rubystreak? You still around?
I didn’t say that the low poll numbers for Obama’s HCR meant that fiscal conservatives are a majority–I just said that it means that proponents of Obaman’s HCR are a minority. I of course agree with you that some opponents don’t agree with me and in fact disagree with me more than people in this thread.
You did imply that if health care reform passed, it represented the minority imposing their will on the majority, when the truth is the majority favor health care reform with a public option.