FreedomWorks is right about Obamacare *sigh*

[Bricker]

@BigT

No, he didn’t. That was his entire post, and there’s a link back to the thread. And everyone responded to what he said the same way we are, meaning they took it to mean the same thing.\

Only after the fact did Bricker come back and claim it meant something completely different from what he said. Someone else made the comment for him, and then he claimed that was his meaning, after he got heat for it.

If his meaning had been that, he would have felt the need to clarify beforehand, knowing full well that he would be misinterpreted. Unless you want to argue he was wanting that reaction, which would mean he was trolling us. I don’t think that’s the case.

Not that it means the same thing, anyways. Saying that there may be some regrettable cases where people die due to lack of funds is not the same thing as saying that you find it acceptable that this happens. We don’t say something is “regrettable but acceptable.” Acceptance requires a lack of regret.

So what Bricker originally said was that he doesn’t regret when people die from lack of funds. And later, his argument is that none of us regret it as we don’t pay for it. He completely leaves out the idea that there are other things we have to pay for. He completely leaves out the idea that we’d rather not be in this system where our funds are limited.

It’s oddly Objectivist-style thinking–the idea that what we value and what we pay money to are the exact same thing. It’s really odd coming from a Christian, who, by definition, also believes in spiritual value.

But it looked like a valid way out, if you don’t stop to think about it, so Bricker claimed that was his meaning.

So, yeah, we have all the context we need to evaluate his statements.

That’s absolutely amazing.

Nowhere did I use the term “regret.” Yet you confidently assert that this is precisely synonymous with “acceptable.” It’s not, except in your mind, a mind dedicated to twisting this narrative.

And while I appreciate your attempts to define my thinking, I mean I appreciate the reasons that you would do so in such a completely self-serving and dishonest way is very telling.

Protip, Dear Readers: when someone responds to the claim that there is context to define a quote by offering up the quote with carefully snipped-out words… that person is not a Friend of Truth.

And when a commentator announces dismissively that you have all the context you need, that might be a good clue that the commentator doesn’t want you to see the rest of the quote. Here it is:

@Bricker

I would direct your attention to this post, further down the thread:

So, I reiterate: it is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford health care.

And if you don’t agree with that statement, you haven’t thought it through.

The only question is: where is the line drawn? Is it acceptable for any single person to die because he can’t afford whatever health care measures are necessary to save his life? Yes, it is. Is it acceptable for everyone who can’t afford any type of health care to die, even if the cost of that health care is relatively low? No.

Now, where in between those two extremes do we draw our policy line?

Tell me. Do we spend ten million public health care dollars to keep a sick ninety-year-old alive for a month? No? You heartless, unfeeling monster!

Yes? You … You administrator of a broke-ass health care system!