Is this a declaration of faith, then? Or some intuitive sense of what should be? Where is it Written? What makes health care costs so special and exceptional? We are responsible for our self-defense, to a certain degree, but we are collectively dependent on police and armies, to our overall benefit. Since we are responsible for our own self-defense, should we refuse to participate?
Is it some “Founding Fathers” thing, somewhere in the Federalist Papers? I don’t recall they had much to say about health care, since leeches and mud were so freely available…
Is there something deeply and inherently special about health care that enshrines this principle above others? Something so fundamentally significant that we should turn our backs on the obvious efficiencies? Never mind that it works, its morally wrong? What morality might this be?
You define your country as more “successful” than mine, although you say “success” cannot really precisely be defined and has “endless qualifiers”. Your principle, which you claim is more important than money seems to me to be:
Healthcare is a special service in that we should pay for it ourselves, and deny it to those who cannot afford it, thus condemning them to suffering and an early death. Even if we would collectively save money by providing healthcare through taxes, healthcare for all people is not important enough for our society to share in paying for it. We must share costs for overseas wars though, because they are an important public good.
This makes America more special than any other country.
I’m sorry to say, but if Bricker is representative of your fellow citizens, (or a significant portion of them), I’d hazard a guess that in other countries, the POV is that we actually care about our fellow citizens, and don’t mind parting with tax dollars to give them healthcare.
In other words, we won’t sacrifice our neighbors lives over a "principle’ of “I’ve got mine, keep your hands off my money, Asshole”. We seem to be content with saving money overall as a society, rather than scrabbling for more wealth personally.
If this makes us less “successful”, I’m happy with that.
Ya, well fuck those lepers if they didn’t come up with some cash for Jesus I guess. They should damn well pay for their own health care! Fuckin lepers!
So you’re unable to define what makes someone a worker versus a nonworker. You say the United States is different but refuse to say how, and that those vague differences make us more successful but you can’t say how that works either.
Accepting this premise as true, the downside to this perpetual success story is that we “chosen people” are apparently incapable of recognizing and admitting that we have utterly failed at something.
This is a moot point. He should be filibustering the entire damn bill. It should have never passed the House and the Senate should have driven a stake through its heart and let it die in committee when they got it.
For 3 more years, anyway. He must know he’s gone then, and therefore has no obligation to do shit for the people of his state or his country. But he does have only those 3 years to pad his net worth statement, and contributions from the insurance industry are the most reliable way to do that. By cutting himself off as he has, he will have no influence to peddle as a lobbyist once he’s out, and he must know that too.
I’m afraid he is. There’s a strong streak of selfishness and contempt for the unlucky in America, born of a traditional glorification of “rugged independence”, that is at the heart of American exceptionalism. It doesn’t matter that the facts don’t support it well; it’s strongly felt anyway. The truly remarkable thing, to me, is how often that tradition is called Christian, but with absolutely no irony.
Take heart in the number of Americans, a substantially larger though less-well-motivated, who follow another strong national tradition, of community spirit, wanting to make our nation a better place, and generally trying to be exceptional rather than just tell ourselves about it.
Bricker is part of a shrinking, increasingly discredited minority, one that for instance can easily be told that Sen. Landrieu’s ability to get more money for the people of her state constitutes personal corruption.:rolleyes: Despite his articulateness, he’s still just as lazy a thinker as the average Hannity listener.
Not that it can’t be defined… just that I wasn’t particularly interested in spending the effort in defining it, especially since you will undoubtedly disagree. But I could certainly start with the claim that success can be defined by maximizing gross domestic product, personal freedom, and morality.
Fortunately, it’s not an argument I have to die trying to defend. It was only in response to the tangential argument being offered here – “All these other countries have more socialized health care, so why shouldn’t we?”
There are other rebuttals to this argument. None of those other countries have a First Amendment with the precise guarantees ours has – so why should we?
The point of having national borders, national sovereignty, is to develop the societal rules that best fit your population. Japan is a wonderful country, but women’s roles there are not the same as ours – should we adopt their example in that area? The UK has a national religion. Canada has an official policy of French and English on government documents. Which ones of these shall we adopt?
To me as a liberal, the asking is the sticking point. In Europe or Canada, the panhandler doesn’t have to ask that healthcare be provided, as a matter of charity. It just is, like the pavement under his or her feet.
The only way to provide paved roads – or health care – for everyone is to tax the community at large.
Because printing documents in French and English, establishing a state religion and returning to better defined gender roles are not objectively better than our current policies in these areas.
You know that’s a specious argument at best. Because these countries cannot teach us everything, they can teach us nothing? Did we do poorly in emulating Great Britain when we abolished slavery? Did Britain do poorly in emulating us when it granted women the right to vote?
That appears to be the same video I just transcribed.
In that video, Lieberman was describing his plan in 2004 and 2006.
So it would be fair to say that Lieberman supported the Medicare buy-in three years ago, not three months ago. It’s true the video was shot three months ago, but Lieberman is describing what his plan WAS three years ago.
Thanks for the confirmation as well as the ray of hope. I am sometimes quite taken aback when I see the exceptionalist point of view, and it confirms that I’m really glad to be living where I do. It seems that some would rather not pay taxes, but would give coins to beggers after making them dance. It must make them feel superior.
Brigit Burke, I was going to post that! He’s like curlcoat with more education, and a nicer typer.