lets look at the reality and the facts rather than object to the language.
it’s not our duty to provide a police force or fireman, or roads, or schools or a standing army. We do because we have seen that this , while still imperfect, is best for us. It’s also okay to continue to examine exactly how these things are implemented and paid for and tweak the programs accordingly.
sadly there is no way to prevent a certain portion of the population from seeing certain things as there right as a citizen. Just as another poster pointed out that people do sometimes become complacent and dependent upon welfare, people will see social programs of this type as their right.
“Keep your government paws off my medicare” is a good example.
The fear that people will come to expect it is not a good reason to reject it in the face of a mountain of other data. What we do is continue to examine and tweak the solutions as generations change. I am a huge advocate for personal responsibility and trying to create a mindset and rules where the people receiving support are motivated to do all they can to contribute. There will always be people who abuse and take advantage of the system. It occurs on both ends of the spectrum. Those on the low income end affect society as a whole a lot less than the abuse on the upper end of the economic scale.
I understand your rational on the second point: you’re pointing to ‘a greater good’ from vaccinations, even if people getting the vaccinations can’t pay for it.
I’m having trouble following your first point tho. I’m assuming you mean ‘health care beneifts for people unable to pay for it themselves, but not because of bad choices on their own part’. Let me know if I’ve parsed that correctly.
**elucidator, **that is fantastic. I’m going to shamelessly steal it.
OK, txs; I think I understand your stance: if you lose your job because your company went bankrupt, if you’re born disabled, if someone runs you over, then the government should pay for your health care. But if you’re hurt in an accident you caused, or if you’re fired from your job because of poor performance, then the government should not pay your health care.
My next question is, what is the connection between the first and the second points? Do you think there is some greater good to society if the government does pay for health care for people who (no fault of their own) can’t pay for it? Or is the government just being nice?
I think this is a legitimate concern that some liberals dismiss to quickly. I have conservative/ libertarian friends that work hard sometimes at several jobs to make ends meet and pay their own way and I completely understand them being pissed at those who milk the system and avoid adult responsibilities.
We do have to look at it realistically though. Do we let those with real needs suffer in order to prevent a few bad apples from taking advantage?
With most social programs I think there is a sliding scale. On when end you have lots of funds and very open guidelines to cover as many people as possible. This also leaves us open to being taken advantage off and spending billions unwisely.
ON the other end we limit funds and set stricter guidelines accepting the fact that some people will not get the help they need. No system will be perfect but I believe we can find a much better balance than we have now. Painting Obama and socialism as the bogyman isn’t solving any problems.
Then we’re agreed that the things you say happen do not happen. I’ll ignore your attempt at baiting and switching.
A sign of laziness if ever one there was.
One guess would be necessity. If you want a new house but can’t afford one, you (ostensibly) don’t buy one. If you need a triple bypass and can’t afford one, you get one anyway. Now I could be wrong, and necessity is not the difference, but I don’t have to guess why you’re wrong, just show that you are. All these claims about the loss of rugged individualism are not supported by the facts.
No. *This *liberal thinks that you are possessed of some curious ideas regarding the relationship of the status quo to the optimal state. I think conservatives, in general, are possessed of some good people and some bad people but that conservatism, especially as expressed in this country, consists of mostly bad ideas whose goal and effect is to enrich the wealthy and leave the poor and middle class at the mercy of the less desirous effects of globalization.
The contention that providing health insurance to a larger subset of the population (and let’s please keep in mind that not all people without health care are not unemployed since small business can and is priced out of the market for health care coverage) is somehow morally suspect because it might result in a higher tax rate to the well-heeled is an argument that does provoke disgust and outrage on the left. Certainly, this is the case. However, it is quite possible to make a dispassioned argument based simply on fiscal principles, i.e; the question I posed a bit earlier in the thread.
How does removal of the health care burden from America’s businesses (hey, we’re playing by conservative rules with this contention. I’m being generous and granting the Tea Party full slippery slope here) onto the government a disadvantage to America’s corporations, who would no longer are considered the, for lack of a better term, natural and proper provider, of health insurance? Wouldn’t wiping that cost off the books allow American companies to be more competitive worldwide, especially in an environment where cheap is king and the Chinese are eating our lunch because their labor costs aren’t troubled by concerns such as a high standard of living for employees, mmm?
Yes, many liberals are offended by egregious lack of empathy toward the less fortunate. But do not be deluded that those are the only concerns in play. Not even close, Bricker, not even close.
People are not going to start taking bigger risks with their health just because they’re covered by a policy, regardless of how extensive that policy is. Demand for healthcare is largely inelastic.
I’ll add something else that has probably already been covered.
Per the OP, it’s one thing to have honest disagreements in policy details and problem solutions. What seems to have been demonstrated fairly clearly is that most republicans aren’t interested in finding real solutions but merely blocking anything that might result in the Dems getting credit for something positive.
I’m not getting what is upsetting t to you? Do you think it’s new that someone is selling something via fear? It’s not. Every marketing effort boils down to you being able to move closer to something you want or further away from something you don’t. You want a better dating life, A) go to the gym and turn yourself into an Adonis or B) get rid of acne. You want to impress your neighbors when the come to visit, A) get new furniture at our President’s Day Sale or avoid have a smelly home by buying Glade Air Fresheners. You want a great burger, A) just look at our pictures of our juicy half-ppound bacon burger or B) avoid the place where the burgers are all bun—“a big, fluffy bun”.
I never understood why politics should be expected to be different. When Bush was running in '04, why is it not valid to tell people they can avoid four more years of a cowboy attitude? Why can’t the Dems raise money that way? Why is it wrong for the Reps try to raise money by telling people that they can donate and help avoid having Obama push his (what some could consider more socialistic) agenda through?
I really don’t see the problem. Other than one side might disagree with some of the characterizations coming from the other side.
Apparently there *are * conservatives who object to seeing everything as a marketing problem, and one solved by playing the ‘fear card’, but they appear to be scarce on the ground this year. I suppose that being conservatives, it’ll take the GOP a while to unlearn the lessons of Bush, Cheney and Rove. They seem to have taken them as much to heart as they did Reagan’s idiocies.
I guess some of us just hold out the hope that the political process that decides how our country is governed and how we live our lives might be held up to slightly higher standards of intellectual rigor and honesty than a deodorant commercial. It is your right to disagree with this outlook, but are you truly surprised that some people might feel this way?
Well, that and the fact that I don’t like terrorist organizations, which is exactly what the RNC is behaving like when they try to get people to vote for them/send them money by terrifying them.
It’s a dishonorable tactic. The GOP should renounce terrorism. It doesn’t look like they’re going to.
Well, then, OK, but then we gotta say that likening this to terrorism is akin to likening acne with smallpox. Yes, its obnoxious, cynical, no doubt. Terrorism it is not. We got all the truth we need, we don’t have to stretch it to fit.
Sure it is, it’s coercing people to help you out by playing on their fears.
You’re just too nice a guy to call em on it when it’s of a lesser scale than that of planes crashing into skyscrapers.