You went there. You fucking went there. After all the threads on this messageboard outlining why this is a completely bogus argument, and you still fucking went there.
In that video, he says he favored the Medicare option in 2004 and 2006. Not three months ago. The video may have come form three months ago, but he’s answering a question about what his position was during his 2004 presidential bid and 2006 senate campaign. He’s not (in this segement, anyway) expressing current supprt for the Medicare option; he consistently uses the past tense.
Transcribed from the video:
It’s not a bogus argument. You’re focusing on how much will cost. I’m focusing on the simple proposition that it’s wrong to make me pay for your medical care, no matter what that does to our respective costs.
C’mon, man, don’t be a lamestain.
I wonder: why is this POV so prevalent here, and not in other countries? Are they (in the libertarian POV) just brainwashed by the all-consuming power of the government teat? Are they just stupid? How are they being harmed by not accepting/embracing this POV more?
(Yes, yes, I know I had a GD thread asking that last question, but it didn’t seem to go extremely far.)
Why should I pay for your defense? Why should I and my state allow your Virginian ass to drive on the highways we Tarheels paid for? For all of that, why should I support with my tax moneys an institution that permits you to make money off the legal difficulties of other people, as you have assuredly done and even posted about doing it on a regular basis. Presuming your mother entitled to Social Security benefits, why should we pay in FICA taxes that will be used for her support?
The obvious answer is, because we as a society deem it appropriate to provide for each other. And you have chosen to draw a bright line – a different one than the Four Horsemen, or Robert Taft, or Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan would have drawn – as to what is morally acceptable (“right”) and what is not (“wrong”).
Oh, and by the way, since we’re both Christians, how do you justify your “this is wrong” stance against the explicit commandments of Jesus Christ? You can transport that over to GD if you so choose, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer, since you’re a Catholic Christian and a thinking non-doctrinaire conservative who probably has a good reason besides “it’s what my Party sez” for your thinking.
But this doesn’t really follow the working/nonworking statement of your earlier post. If you want to take this argument, so be it. If you want to rope this statement into your earlier one, you need to put a definition forward that defines worker (you) vs. nonworker (not you?).
You pay for their medical care now though higher premiums. You are adverse to paying less?
Never mind that the subsidies are a small part of the overall bill.
Your argument isn’t very compelling.
I am adverse to paying for others.
I’ve lost track of where it was, but in one of these threads, I offered the analogy of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
I don’t know.
But in my limited travels in Europe and the Caribbean, I can tell you that Americans are different. This is not an argument made with precision, and there are endless qualifiers to attach to it, but at its heart: Americans are different. Those differences have made this country a success where other countries have not seen success.
You’re right: we as a society have made the determination that certain things are appropriate for public regulation and subsidy.
We’re now engaged in a battle, where one side wishes to add yet another item to the list, and others wish to resist that addition. I favor public roads. I don’t favor public healthcare.
You can hardly say we should have public healthcare because we as a society deem it appropriate… since we haven’t deemed it so just yet.
Short answer: I don’t believe there’s much value in applying Christ’s teachings piecemeal. If you are truly arguing we should form public policy based on Christ’s teachings, that’s fine… but I don’t accept the concept that we may choose this item and apply his teachings, but disregard others.
This is a secualr society, and our public policy should be drawn from secular principles.
So why do you want to maintain the status quo? You are paying for others now. Your premiums are higher and your taxes are higher, because many default on medical debts and use the ER as their primary care provider. You are paying for them now. Why don’t you support some plan, any plan, that will reduce that?
Light a fucking candle, Bricker.
What are those differences? How have they made us more successful?
Well, I can certainly appreciate why you’d want to prevent America from becoming the desperate, third world hell-hole that is western Europe.
Please define “success.”
It’s not about the money so much as it’s about the principle.
Under the current system, people owe their own expenses, Some default, and the system must compensate for that by raising prices, yes. But the basic recognition that people are responsible for their own costs remains.
I believe it’s important for this model to remain. People should be responsible for their own health care.
This is not an argument made with precision, and there are endless qualifiers to attach to it…
emphasis mine – kd99
You appear to have misspelled simplistic. :dubious:
No matter how unrealistic your fervent hope is, nor how much it damages your own self interest. Doing the same thing again and again, but expecting a different outcome; there is word for that.