Because it fails so spectacularly in every other country that has it? 'Cause you’re heavily invested in health care companies and it would fuck with your retirement plans? Bricker Jr is in medical school and needs our current system in place to be able to pay back all the student loans? Help a brother out here…
Because if it worked it would upset the house of cards fantasy that conservatives have so carefully constructed in their minds.
I regret being a part of the “hold Brickler’s feet to the fire” brigade, as you seem to usually have sound reasons for the positions you take. But knowing you to be an active Catholic, I am genuinely curious how you square the Gospel call for social justice (not necessarily insurance) with this Republican stance. (And there’s also the issue of state vs. federal constitutionality to bring to bear as well.) Would you mind expounding on that at a bit more length?
Sure, the Gospels tell us to take care of our fellow man, but what part tells us to use the government to force people to pay for something like UHC?
Why, yes! Look at it the right way, and the whole Sermon on the Mount thing is totally a libertarian view!
Isn’t “Blessed are the cheese makers” an indication of God’s love of small business owners?
Well, there is the whole “Blessed is Milton Friedman” part, so yeah!
Yeah, and that’s why April 3rd celebrates the merging of religion and government.
Wait, Friedman was libertarian? Funny, he doesn’t look libertarian…
Palestinian Libertarian Front.
Splitter!
Isn’t it funny how some people will complain that “retarded” is insensitive, but don’t even blink when you call someone “libertarian”?
But don’t you dare call them libertarded!
I quite take your point, there must be limits, like not shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire…
Having the government enforce a gospel call for social justice via UHC would be as inappropriate as the government enforcing the religious ban on same-sex marriage, so no way the Republicans are going to be for that!
Of course, the other thing that Bricker always brings up, and I think correctly, is that he’ll sign on to gospel-based UHC as soon as you turn the legislature over to the vatican so that all laws can be re-written in order to comply with scripture. Your UHC would exist in a land where abortion was illegal, homosexual acts a crime, divorce not allowed, and the Catholic religion taught in every school.
Because a secular government’s proper role is not to give out health care.
Says who?
That’s not quite the way I put it. But I do point out that you cannot approach the Gospel a la carte, using it as justification for one policy and then rejecting it as authority for the next.
Says me. That is, the question was to me, asking why I personally didn’t favor UHC, and my answer reflects my personal opinion about the proper role of secular government.