I think the point is he’s just as wrong as you are.
I, for one, don’t care that you think you are justified. The fact is you’re completely and self-destructively wrong. Your opinions are based on your wishful thinking, not facts.
The facts are that UHC provides better results than our system. We pay much, much more for 85% population coverage than countries with UHC (who have 100% population coverage) and we get worse results.
The only rationale you have for this is a bizarre notion that it is somehow *wrong *to have a better system. Not in any way that can be intelligently communicated, mind you. But somehow, ineffably wrong.
You still fail to understand. Your country should adopt a proper health insurance scheme because of its effectiveness. It should do so regardless of what some church says. As it happens your church agrees with such a policy, but no one is adopting their doctrine as policy, so your claim that the government would be cherry-picking from doctrine is false. You, however, do claim to adhere to the rules of your church, and you also claim that for such people it’s all or nothing. It’s you doing the cherry-picking here, because religious doctrine is the body of work from which you pick. The church’s view is unimportant in deciding whether to adopt policy, but since you claim to be Christian and have declared that for Christians it’s all or nothing, you are obliged - by your own moral code, not mine - to support UHC.
You don’t have to, of course. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to explain why this insistence on adhering to Christian doctrine applies only to you; you’re the one here dipping into it for guidance.
So much for the consistent framework for policy you espoused a while back.
No, this is the fallacy of equivoation, where “all or nothing” is used in one sense by me and in another sense by you.
When I say “All or nothing,” I mean the following: “The Church’s teachings cannot be applied piecemeal in society; the Church must either be considered authoritive in all secular matters or none.” As an analogy, the Atkins diet permits a person on it to eat essentially unlimited amounts of protein and fat, but requires them to severely restrict carbohydrates. Your insistence here is like a person gobbling pounds of cheese and bacon and claiming to be on Atkins, but then eating a chocolate cake and a pound of apple pie as well. It’s true that Atkins calls for the cheese and bacon, but it ALSO calls for no pie.
What the hell?? Having a consistent framework doesn’t magically require that every single area of endeavor be treated with the same evidentiary standards. Hey, news flash: I also don’t agree that Monopoly and Risk should be played using the same rules: Oooih, zing! Hypocriscy alert!!
On a more specific level, I might say, “I have a consistent view about legal process, and I apply it consistently!” Someone with your limited comprehension might come along and proclaim, “Yet you let civil cases be decided by preponderence of the evidence, and criminal cases by ‘beyond a reasonable doubt!’”
Yes. And those two standards are BOTH part of the legal system, and BOTH apply, in different circumstances, and the embrace of BOTH doesn’t vitiate my claim of a consistent standard. Does it?
That’s an absolutely incorrect re-statement of my position. I don’t say it’s “somehow” wrong. I explained exactly why I thought it would produce worse results:
Now, you may certainly disagree that my conclusion is correct. You can certainly argue that such results won’t flow from the adoption of UHC.
But you cannot simply claim I advanced no reason. There is the reason, in black and white, in front of you. Are you afraid to read it? Does your mind simply shy away from the words? I can think of no other explanation for your summary.
Try it: “You have a conclusion which you obviously believe in, but it’s quite simply a wrong one.” See? It’s not hard. You concede no rhetorical ground.
Since apparently we’re not going to chat about actual evidence of the effects of health coverage on productivity (e.g. Germany and other countries, as well as longstanding US programs),I guess we aren’t going to get anywhere on whether the principle you’re defending is true. So,I’ll leave my parting thought as an aside to whether the principle you’re defending is true:**
Bricker**, if your position is that calling health reform “socialism” is a good faith shorthand for the argument you’re making about an individual’s responsibility to make enough money to afford private insurance without subsidies, I think you’re fooling yourself.
One possible and very unlikely reading of “socialism” is the one you think is reasonable. But, if I may be so bold, most voters wouldn’t be persuaded by the argument that tax subsidies for the purchase of health insurance destroys personal responsibility, which is why no one is publicly making that argument. It is wrong to come up with an understanding of the term that isn’t the common understanding, and argue that the efforts to brand the reform as socialism are therefore reasonable, based on your idiosyncratic definition.
OK, then perhaps we need to reach a common definition of socialism. Sure seems like public tax subsidies for the purchase of health insurance is a move in a socialistic direction. I grant you it’s not squarely “socialism,” a point I acknowledged in my very first post in this thread.
It is a move in a “socialistic direction” every bit as much as is any government subsidy or regulation. The way I know that your definition of socialism is not the meaning the GOP is hoping people will assign to the word is that the GOP’s use of socialism isn’t applied to any of the other subsidies and regulations that equally fit the definition. Moreover, they place the word in a context of discussing government takeovers, politicians making health decisions instead of doctors, which are all part of the kind of socialism they are using to scare people, but not correct as applied to the policy in question.
If the GOP’s argument were that we’re getting closer to German economic policy, it wouldn’t be a powerful argument. They use the word “socialism” because in America it has a particular connotation that is wholly apart from the one you’re trying to wring from it.
Well, darn, it looks as though friend **Bricker **has decided to drop his “American spirit” line and try to pretend as though he never said anything so foolish. Which is perfectly understandable, as it is a laughable argument, but some definite entertainment value has been lost.
Bricker, what would happen under the conservative health care plan if someone was put into a persistent vegetative state and his family was unable to pay for his care? Should the taxpayers pay to keep this person alive, or should the state mandate his plug be pulled if his family can’t pay the electric bill? I’m pretty sure Catholicism doesn’t like euthanasia any more than abortion, correct?
You have not shown that the sense of personal responsibility will go down by having more access to health care. 2. You have not shown why this would be the case, how this would happen, and where it has happened in the past.
Perhaps in the same manner that you believe the police should investigate your daughter’s murder. That the firemen should come and put out the house that threatens to burn your wife to death. In the same manner that you have come to expect that your hamburger isn’t cut with sawdust, your water isn’t filled with pesticides, your air isn’t too thick and sooty to breathe, your roads aren’t dirt tracks that you have to creep slowly along, that the legal system you make a living off of will continue to function.
Your argument is nonsense. It is designed to sound ominous but it is a simmering pot of ignorance.
No it doesn’t. 1. You have not demonstrated that this attitude would happen as a result of UHC. 2. You have not shown evidence of where this has happened in other places with UHC. 3. You have not shown, that the attitude, if it were to happen, destroys individual gumption.
You have not shown that liberals secretly favor a society where no one can excel. You appear to be making that up.
I will grant that many liberals would like a society where no one can have too little. I fail to see where the typical liberal is against someone having too much. Having too much due to cheating or hurting others however…
You have not shown that individual self-reliance and achievement will be disrupted by UHC. 2. You have not shown that society will create more innovation and be better than a society without UHC.
Who doesn’t work? Are you aware that many who can’t get insurance do in fact work. And for that matter, many work considerably harder than you do. Does that mean that you don’t deserve the health insurance you have?
You haven’t made a conclusion. You’ve stated a bunch of unfounded rhetoric and then stated what you decided was the answer to begin with. You are not arguing. You are attempting to distract people with bullshit.
I don’t need to argue that. You’ve provided no evidence for it. And you also have not shown that the countries with UHC have suffered these effects.
Sure I can.
No, there is nonsense in front of me. In black and gray.
Not at all. You have advanced nothing but your fantasies.
Just because you can’t think of it, doesn’t mean it isn’t here.
They aren’t being applied piecemeal. Society isn’t applying the Church’s teaching, they’re (hypothetically) instituting a more effective insurance system. That this squares with your Church’s views is incidental. It’s incidental to the reason the system’s being instituted, and it’s incidental to my views on the matter. Your views and whether they square with your church’s teachings are the issue, and despite your insistence that one must embrace all your church’s teachings or none, it is you that pick and choose. I don’t pick and choose from those teachings because I don’t adhere to them in the first place. Your government doesn’t because it’s not a Christian theocracy.
Since I don’t see my opinion changing much in the near future, that’s all I’m going to say about that.
Since the reasoning behind your claims generally strikes me as pretty fluid, I would not hazard to guess. I would submit, however, that since any framework aside from the US Constitution is free for anyone to arbitrarily define, arguing about it would be a mug’s game. So that’s all I’m going to say about that as well.
True. I have not. Which makes my argument weaker. It doesn’t erase it.
But really… “Why this would be the case?” You can’t look at the claim and imagine a “why” to it? Nothing crosses your mind at all?
Each of those may be meaningfully distinguished fromUHC.
Then refute its claims. Don’t call it names.
Yes, you’re right. I have not shown that. But I would note in passing that even though you’re the one arguing for change, it sure seems like a lot of the burden of proof is shifted to me somehow. How did that happen?
No, I infer this desire based on the countlessliberal initiatives that seek to punish the successful and reward the unsuccessful. Perhaps there’s a better, more plausible explanation for the intense leftist desire to add “ability” to the list of characteristics that should be used for discrimination. I’d love to hear it.
I want a decent floor for the least of us, a respectable set of amenities. There really isn’t much else to have, if you’re sane. Now, if someone wants to beat their brains out in order to afford loud, shiny crap, hell, that’s his problem. I’ll shrug my shoulders and tend my garden. I’m pretty sure he’d have a better life if he didn’t squandor it trying to feed the greed monkey, and I’d tell him so, but outside of that…
