FreedomWorks is right about Obamacare *sigh*

[Bricker]

@Leaper

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you (and Bricker) were arguing that that statement was a reasonable thought to have, and that everybody does, or should, think it. So why does it sound like you’re saying it’s objectionable and “needs context” (which I said it did, and to which I provided links)?

It needs context because without the context, the statement sounds like a wholesale abandonment of ALL people to their fate regardless of the financial issue – if a person can’t pay, period, then too bad for them. But the actual statement merely seeks to recognize the practical reality that SOME people, for whom the cost of treatment is high and/or the prognosis very poor to begin with, will suffer because of a lack of ability to pay – a constraint imposed by any system of rationing.

You deliberately failed to include that context by snipping off a portion of the quote:

@Bricker

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

The total content of the post was:

@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?

That’s a dramatic change in meaning, isn’t it?