I personally don’t care about what Jesus wants, and never have, even when I believed in God. I don’t know if Jesus ever said anything explicit about abortion, but I’ll take your word that he would be against it. (He didn’t say anything explicit about health insurance either.) I’m not an expert on the gospels, but I’m having a hard time visualizing Jesus think it was okay to screw the sick and poor, when our country can easily afford to do the right thing.
As for me, I have plenty of secular reasons to support health care reform and abortion rights. I’m not the believer, you are.
BTW, back on track, maybe the party should be honest and say that they are against HCR because it would help the “unproductive” and also say they are coming out against socialized Medicare - far closer to socialized medicine than anything in the current proposal.
We do. But since national defense applies pretty equally to everyone inside the borders, and since that ship has sailed, policy-wise, I can’t concern myself with it.
And? What of it? If I am exhorted to apply my view of Jesus’ teachings to establish our policy on health care, why isn’t my view of His teachings on abortion equally compelling?
We have that already, in Medicaid. What we need is a system which would make it possible for the working poor to get decent health insurance coverage. Or are you the type of right winger who thinks that anyone who can’t get a professional type job is unworthy? From what I’ve read, a lot of these people work harder than either of us, and get a lot less.
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.
No. Because that ship has sailed. People already view Medicare are as a right. I have lost that battle. Why would I try to keep a capsized ship afloat?
The ship might have sailed policy-wise but that doesn’t change the fact that people generally agree that defense is something that everyone is entitled to. Once provided, it is not a good that anyone can be practically excluded from. But it is an entitlement funded by redistribution just like healthcare. It is a mystery to me why people are comfortable with one and not the other.
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.
Because health care is delivered to an individual. It’s easy to say that each individual must pay for his own. Defense is delivered wholesale, to an area of land.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You’d be in favor of a public program of insurance for working people. But it would have to be a different program than the program for people who aren’t working, because it would be wrong for unproductive people to get insurance.
Except people who don’t work already get insurance from the government.
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.
Great system there, Bricker.
And I notice that you have absolutely no comment on my earlier post. j
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.
Besides that though the fact is most of the people going bankrupt due to health related costs are employed people.
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 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.