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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Which is why I said:
Remember?
And I notice there’s one of me and a zillion of you.
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.
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?
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.
Once again, I would support a system that limited its benefits to the employed.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
