You’re not taking responsibility, you are gambling. You’re gambling that you don’t get sick or have an accident. You’ve been healthy, you’ve being lucky, but you haven’t been responsible.
On that basis, Congress could never pass anything ever. At least 40% of the electorate opposes just about everything.
The point is; You breath, someone pays.
I think most conservatives understand that just fine and would prefer that poor people be left to die (as long as it isn’t them of course). Or just have them shot out of hand.
It’s part of the “patriotic” Right’s weird version of American Exceptionalism that it certain ways America is uniquely incompetent and can’t manage to pull off what pretty much every other nation does.
It reminds me f Rush Limbaugh talking about how he was going to move to Costa Rica to avoid socialized health care; something that Costa Rica naturally does have. The Republicans don’t seem to grasp that the nations without socialized health care are pretty much restricted to America and various failed states.
That’s how taxes work, amigo. It’s a bit of a relief that the Court relieved him and the progressives of the political need to call it something else, for the sake of fools like you.
Etc. There’s a slightly-different brand of fool that believes the need for health care is optional. Tell us, what happens when you decide not to insure yourself, and you get hit by a bus or diagnosed with metastatic cancer or something else serious? Do you say “Well, that’s the choice I made, I’m responsible, now goodbye, cruel world”? Of course not. You depend on the rest of us to provide the care you need, via the extra costs we pay for emergency care for the uninsured. *You *are not the one taking responsibility for your life and health. Those who do pay are. While you may bleat about personal freedom, all you mean by that is the freedom not to pay your own damn share, the freedom to make the rest of us pay for your own irresponsibility. As we used to say back in the old country, “Well, fuck that and fuck you too”.
But thanks for being perhaps the first person here ever to state that point without the words “down our throats”. Meanwhile, you might want to review who gets more of their say in a democracy - the majority or the minority.
That statement bothers me. Would you say that he didn’t show admirable objectivity had he gone the other way? If so, why? Is the integrity of a Supreme Court justice subject only to his decisions?
To put it another way: had McDonald v. Chicago been decided the other way a few years back, would it have been proper for me to question the objectivity of Sotomayor or Ginsburg simply because I disagreed with them?
Duly noted.
Kisses, y’all.
Many of them say that, especially on the internet. They love to talk the big rugged individualist game. But when push actually comes to shove and someone is dying in the street, they’re quite human. Despite all the whining about healthcare I’ve seen, I’ve never seen anyone, not even the nutballs, advocate getting rid of mandatory emergency care.
That’s what creates the current Republican dysfunction; they can’t reconcile their ideology with being human. It results in horrific-to-nonexistent infrastructure for preventative care and only a basic, overworked, and expensive infrastructure for emergency care. To do anything more than a reluctant minimum would betray that rugged individualist philosophy.
Conservatives you fucking lose! Also your mothers are whores!
You fail at hurting America for your own selfish ideological gain, for once.
What a good day.
Oh, really? Perhaps then you can share what this apparently asinine statement of yours is based on. Can you point to others taxes that work the same way? Since you think “that’s how taxes work”, it should be easy. Even for someone with your limited mental abilities.
I’ll wait.
<snerk>
May I introduce you to Justice Nutball Supreme?
And on another note, forgive me if I also introduce you to Omg a Lying Asshole from the GD Thread:
This is a load of shit. I’m sure he believes it, and it may have kept him alive thus far, but [del]if[/del] when the health issue is severe enough, the bill WILL get high enough that this will be shown to be a delusion. He would then happily make you and I pay the bill for his irresponsibility, both in the form of higher rates for our health insurance (which we are adult/responsible enough to carry) and/or as the cost to society of the multitude of bankruptcies caused by our shitty [del]current[/del] old:p system.
While I’m at it… Fuck all those retards who are crying over The Obamacare Tax [sup]tm[/sup] who already have health insurance and thus not a goddamn thing has actually changed in their life (unless you count their rates eventually dropping due to the pool being larger, or the fact that they can keep their children insured longer, or the fact that their insurer can’t drop them as soon as they get sick, or the fact that they can’t get denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition, etc etc).
And fuck people who want to pretend that there are people who won’t ever use a healthcare product. I don’t immediately have a link to a Doper that stupid, so let’s just say fuck Sean Hannity in the meantime.
I look at that transcript and I see someone who doesn’t actually understand what he’s advocating. Either that or he’s talking a big game, as above. Either way, definitely a strong implication for getting rid of emergency care. Nutballer.
Actual conversation with a guy at work today:
“I can’t believe Obamacare passed! This is horrible!”
“Jim, are you a Christian?”
“Of course I am, JohnT. You know that.”
"Great. Let me ask you a question: If a poor person came to Jesus and said that he had to go to the doctor but couldn’t pay, do you think Jesus would say:
(a) ‘No, if you can’t pay, you should die’, or
(b) ‘Let tax the money-changers in my Temple so that you won’t die’?*
Because if you think that Jesus would let the man die, then your opinion is Christian. On the other hand, if you think that Jesus would tax the money-changers in the Temple to save lives, then your opinion is quite unchristian."
“Jesus wouldn’t condone theft.”
“Render unto Caesar, Jim. Jesus already covered the tax question and said taxes are neither theft nor unholy.”
“… Fuck. I’m going to have to think about this.”
“Not much to think about if the Bible states that Jesus finds nothing wrong with taxes, declares the holiness of assisting the poor at the expense of the rich, and believes in the sanctity and worthiness of every human life regardless of ones station in this world… or how much money one posesses.”
*Yes, I did sound out “A” and “B”. I’m rather irritating that way.
You had me believing your story up until that last quote. Still, B+ for a good wish fulfillment fantasy.
See? You still have a choice.
I urge you to think it over carefully before deciding.
Basic awareness of the world, that’s all. A difficult concept for you, I know.
All of them. Do please try looking up the concept of “taxation”, such as via Google or Wikipedia for a start. It might be easier to understand for you than “marriage”, although there’s certainly room for doubt about that.
You’d learn more and faster by actually using the abilities you are blessed with, instead of waiting for people to tell you something you don’t find comfortable to hear. You can’t expect the rest of us to fight your ignorance *for *you all by ourselves; you have to take the lead role yourself.
Not all of them – Tyler Cowen goes there: What kind of mandate should "the right" have supported? - Marginal REVOLUTION
Money quote:
"We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. "
Here’s a gem of a quote, from MSNBC:
I have to say, I’m glad of the ruling that came down, and I’m happy about UHC. But if Roberts ruled as he did just to demonstrate that he’s as moderate as he’s claimed, or to counter the growing skepticism that SCOTUS is just a polarized partisan rubber-stamp… well, that’s scary to me, if that’s truly what he did. They should be making rulings without regard to how they’re perceived. If Congress keeps appointing politically biased justices, it sucks, yet I don’t see that the CJ really has the authority to do anything about it.
People who otherwise might have died will live. Perhaps more importantly, people who would have otherwise suffered needlessly will be healthy. What’s the problem, again?