# Document exposes what the RNC really thinks of its donors, admits to using "fear." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303 "2010-03-04T17:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/141 "2010-03-05T22:52:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In a sense, I suppose it’s selfish. In the same sense that it’s selfish that you won’t let me come over and fuck you up the ass. After all, you have an ass, and I sure need a fuck. So why be selfish about it? > > What time should I swing by? Fucking me up the ass would not save your life, or make any significant improvement to your health. Fucking me up the ass is quite a bit more intrusive than a possible change in disposable income level, which itself is neither here nor there for most people, given that UHC can provide longer life, better health for more years, lower per capita health expenses paid individually, and lower per capita health expenses paid by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/142 "2010-03-05T23:14:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Imagine Bricker as a new attorney opening up his own law firm. Bricker, the hard working but not yet rich attorney, has a heart attack and needs bypass surgery. Bricker’s health insurer refuses to pay because Bricker was treated for [acne](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html) years ago. > > Bricker now goes bankrupt because he cannot pay the medical bills. The courts liquidate Bricker’s house and other stuff. Since Bricker is laid up recovering he cannot work. > > Yep, I say screw the lazy bastard. Clearly he is a sponge on society. > > ETA: And now Bricker has had a heart attack no one will insure him at all. Perhaps he will simply go to the Sisters of Mercy Charity Hospital, which is funded entirely by voluntary **non** -tax deductible donations. I’m sure the care he receives there will be absolutely top-rate. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/143 "2010-03-05T23:32:55Z")
Bricker: Would you agree with the proposition that it’s would be good if society provided healthcare for everyone, but that people should not expect it? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/144 "2010-03-06T00:31:02Z")
> [@CJJ\*](#): > > I guess I’m not surprised that the very first response to the question of embarassing Republican tactics is yet another variant of “Obama is a socialist”–a tactic that quickly reduced this thread to a semantic argument–but it should be called out for the Ann Coulter-style bomb throwing it is. > [@Bricker](#): > > Surely you don’t mean my response, which explicitly acknowledged, as a numbered point, that Obama was not a socialist. Nice try…I’ll grant you got the fig leaf in when you said “So no, Obama is not a socialist. But, yes, UHC is a socialist concept.” But who are we kidding here? Any reasonable person would take this as way to associate the loaded word “socialism” with Obama. It’s no different than when, say, critics of the president go out of their way to remind us that his middle name is “Hussein”; it’s technically correct, but they’re not exactly doing it to educate the public. I wish those wonderful “journalists” who rule our increasingly stupid political discourse would call out this kind of rhetorical BS, but I guess unaccountable bomb-throwers is what the free market wants (and who, pray tell, would dare question the wisdom of the marketplace?). This entire thread, IMO, is absolute proof of the effectiveness of the RNC strategy outlined in post #1: It not only enflames the right-wing base, it also gets Democrats to acknowledge and engage the pointless distractions propagated by the right-wing noise machine. Mission accomplished, **Bricker** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/145 "2010-03-06T00:54:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe people _are entitled, as a matter of right_ only to what they deserve and what they work for. Out of interest, why do you believe this? I’m not asking this question sarcastically or anything like that, but as a person who does not believe that people are entitled, as a matter of right, what they deserve or what they work for, I’d be interested in knowing what your argument for that is. Also, what additional argument(s) would you use to refute the idea that we should take away from someone what they have not deserved or worked for, yet possess? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/146 "2010-03-06T01:21:32Z")
You, sir, are dangerously close to questioning the right of property. Yes, of course, there are other rights, but they function primarily as setting, a structure to enhance and enshrine that most sacred of rights, private property. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/147 "2010-03-06T01:23:56Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Out of interest, why do you believe this? I’m not asking this question sarcastically or anything like that, but as a person who does not believe that people are entitled, as a matter of right, what they deserve or what they work for, I’d be interested in knowing what your argument for that is. > > Also, what additional argument(s) would you use to refute the idea that we should take away from someone what they have not deserved or worked for, yet possess? And therefore, only those who have served in the military deserve protection from the US military. Only those who have arrested criminals deserve police protection. Only those who have personally put out a fire at someone else’s house deserve to have someone help them out out the fire at their house. I think we can all just assume that big **Bricker** ’s version of Jesus has a healthy dose of “fuck 'em” in most of his teachings. Here’s a fun thought puzzle. “Productive” people pay taxes. But GOPers believe in lowering taxes. Does this mean that GOPers want to make everyone less productive? Can we then get people onto the Soylent Green conveyor belts just a little bit quicker? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/148 "2010-03-06T01:35:49Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > The land would not need to be defended it people did not need to be defended. Like I said above, defense just happens to be a good that no one can be practically excluded from. It could never actually be provided at an optimal level privately because everyone in his right mind would free ride. Nevertheless, it is an entitlement funded by redistribution. It is an entitlement that nearly everyone feels comfortable with, despite the fact that it is just one public good among many. The entitlement logic for providing it is exactly the same, and plenty of unproductive people benefit from it. Hell, people outside the United States benefit from it. > > Yet this does not seem to pose a problem for anyone. I must be very easy to mystify. There is a key difference. The cost to defend the borders of the country does not change based on how many people are inside the country. But the cost to provide one kidney transplant is less than the cost to provide two kidney transplants. I can treat defense differently than health care for that reason. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/149 "2010-03-06T01:39:52Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > What “us”? My opinion is based on what would produce desired results. If your club rules happen to coincide with my pragmatic view, that’s nice, but what religions have to say is incidental; I gather that the Catholic Church agrees with me, but that’s not important to me and it isn’t a deciding factor. > > You, on the other hand, appear to oppose abortion because it’s in your club rules. You should support adequate health insurance too because that’s also in your club rules. Unless you’ve elected to pick and choose despite your insisting that such a thing cannot be done. It seems you have. My club rules also say that the club rules are not severable – that is, they are either all applied at once, or not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/150 "2010-03-06T01:41:40Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Bricker, is it your contention that if healthcare was not provided by society “as a right”, that it would be provided nevertheless? If Medicare were eliminated, every old person would have their medical needs taken care of regardless? > > If taxes (or “theft by force”, as others so eloquently put it) were not used for healthcare whatsoever would it then be given to all, equally, from the goodness of people’s hearts? > > Be honest. What would be the end result of your wishes that “productive people not be forced to pay the freight for non-productive people.” Be realistic - give a real-world answer to this that looks at historical reality and human nature, not a theoretical answer. > > Would you then live in a wonderful land where everyone gave to the needy with a light heart and happy demeanor? > or would you live in a world where life is nasty, brutish and short for a large proportion of your fellow citizens? We’d live in this current world, basically. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/151 "2010-03-06T01:44:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So…you’re not in favor of revoking Medicare and Medicaid, which provide health care for people who don’t work. Despite the fact that these people are unproductive. Who says I’m not in favor of it? I simply said the ship has sailed; the decision has already been made, and there is therefore no particular reason to discuss it. It’s not a proposal on the table. > [@](#): > > The people who really get screwed are, in fact, the people who work at crap jobs that don’t provide health insurance. The people who work at good jobs have insurance. The lazy bums have insurance. The only people who don’t have insurance in America are the working class. Which is why I said: > [@](#): > > I would be cautiously in favor of a system limited in its benefits to people that are working. Remember? > [@](#): > > And I notice that you have absolutely no comment on my earlier post. j And I notice there’s one of me and a zillion of you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/152 "2010-03-06T01:46:53Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I fully accept that there are _some_ people out there who are nothing more than lazy, and i support a system that would monitor such people, and require some sort of contribution from them. But, right now, i believe that allowing a few bums too mooch off the system is a far lesser evil than leaving a broken system to continue limping along, and i don’t want to penalize all the honest, hardworking people who are struggling just so i can feel good about sticking it to a few lazy bums. I’d be in favor of such a system (one that monitors such people). So far as I can tell, it’s not being proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/153 "2010-03-06T01:50:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is a key difference. The cost to defend the borders of the country does not change based on how many people are inside the country. But the cost to provide one kidney transplant is less than the cost to provide two kidney transplants. > > I can treat defense differently than health care for that reason. So what? Road maintenance does vary directly with the number of who live inside a country: the more people live there and drive on the roads, the costlier they are to maintain. The more people are inside the country, the more expensive law enforcement becomes. This still has nothing to do with the underlying logic of entitlement that drives defense, roads, healthcare, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/154 "2010-03-06T01:51:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And my belief includes the element that my belief cannot be applied piecemeal. So if you wish to appeal to my belief, that’s where it takes you. I don’t expect you to apply your beliefs piecemeal. My problem is that you seem to be doing just that now. If you support the use of state power to protect human life in the womb, why not support it to protect human life beyond the womb? If you object to some guy you think is unproductive getting subsidized insurance, how about his children? How about UHC for them at least? How about UHC for pregnant women, to make sure their babies come out as healthy as possible? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/155 "2010-03-06T01:54:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As I already noted and you ignored is that you already pay for the healthcare of those lazy people and as someone else noted it costs you more than if they were in a proper healthcare system. Yes. but I am willing to pay that extra cost as a benefit of sending the signal that the “payment” is not an entitlement. When a person is treated for an emergency and cannot pay, he still is given a bill; the message is that he SHOULD pay. We thus preserve the correct view: that his health care is not a right, not somethign he’s due merely by virtue of his existence. > [@](#): > > Besides that though the fact is most of the people going bankrupt due to health related costs are employed people. Once again, I would support a system that limited its benefits to the employed. > [@](#): > > Imagine Bricker as a new attorney opening up his own law firm. Bricker, the hard working but not yet rich attorney, has a heart attack and needs bypass surgery. Bricker’s health insurer refuses to pay because Bricker was treated for [acne](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html) years ago. > > Bricker now goes bankrupt because he cannot pay the medical bills. The courts liquidate Bricker’s house and other stuff. Since Bricker is laid up recovering he cannot work. Bricker’s debate partner uncritically cites anecdotes from an advocacy group, and ignores the fact that federal law already prohibits the denial of coverage for any pre-existing condition for which no treatment has been sought for six months prior to the application. So the “Ohh, scary!” acne story is pure bunk. Bricker still has a heart attack from the stress of dealing with dishonest debate tactics from others, but fortunately his high-schol acne plays no part in his coverage. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/156 "2010-03-06T01:56:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I don’t think a professional job is a necessity, or a blue-collar worker is somehow unworthy. I would be cautiously in favor of a system limited in its benefits to people that are working. But that’s not my understanding of what the main set of proposals is. I’d probably be in favor of that also, as long as we had some way of allowing all those who want to work to do so. (And give support to children, whether or not their parents work.) Those who refuse jobs are either bums or actually working in the underground economy, and can buy insurance from their earnings there, if it is enough. If it isn’t, they might decide that crime doesn’t pay after all. Well, it seems we are both socialists. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/157 "2010-03-06T01:57:33Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > So what? Road maintenance does vary directly with the number of who live inside a country: the more people live there and drive on the roads, the costlier they are to maintain. The more people are inside the country, the more expensive law enforcement becomes. > > This still has nothing to do with the underlying logic of entitlement that drives defense, roads, healthcare, whatever. Yes, road maintenance does very more directly with population. But it still doesn’t scale nearly as well as the health care expense, which is extremely individually focused. Moreover, let’s say I agree that roads should be purely a private venture. What of it? That ship has sailed. The public has decided the issue against me. I have lost that battle. I have not lost the healthcare battle. Suppose I contend that public roads are a mistake – why should I support a second mistake? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/158 "2010-03-06T01:59:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Bricker: Would you agree with the proposition that it’s would be good if society provided healthcare for everyone, but that people should not expect it? Yes. That would be my argument in a nutshell. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/159 "2010-03-06T02:00:02Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Fucking me up the ass would not save your life, or make any significant improvement to your health. > > Fucking me up the ass is quite a bit more intrusive than a possible change in disposable income level, which itself is neither here nor there for most people, given that UHC can provide longer life, better health for more years, lower per capita health expenses paid individually, and lower per capita health expenses paid by the government. Unfortunately I must decline to defend this analogy further, based on **tomndebb** ’s guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/160 "2010-03-06T02:03:15Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > Nice try…I’ll grant you got the fig leaf in when you said “So no, Obama is not a socialist. But, yes, UHC is a socialist concept.” But who are we kidding here? Any reasonable person would take this as way to associate the loaded word “socialism” with Obama. > > It’s no different than when, say, critics of the president go out of their way to remind us that his middle name is “Hussein”; it’s technically correct, but they’re not exactly doing it to educate the public. I wish those wonderful “journalists” who rule our increasingly stupid political discourse would call out this kind of rhetorical BS, but I guess unaccountable bomb-throwers is what the free market wants (and who, pray tell, would dare question the wisdom of the marketplace?). > > This entire thread, IMO, is absolute proof of the effectiveness of the RNC strategy outlined in post #1: It not only enflames the right-wing base, it also gets Democrats to acknowledge and engage the pointless distractions propagated by the right-wing noise machine. Mission accomplished, **Bricker** 🙂 You know, I’m sick of the double standard. There’s another thread in which someone is arguing piously that merely because Reuters reported that bloggers were pushing the Sarah Palin’s faking her pregnancy, that doesn’t mean that Reuters said it. No, no - they were just reporting that the _bloggers_ said it. And now, in this thread, you say to me, “But who are we kidding here? Any reasonable person would take this as way to associate the loaded word “socialism” with Obama.” Which rules apply? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303.md?page=9)