The point is that these decisions should stand or fall on their own merits. It’s not relevant that Japan has UHC, unless it’s also relevant that Japan still treats women like second-class citizens. What you’re saying is correct: we should look at whether the policy is objectively better FOR US.
And so what other countries are doing is not dispositive.
Nice. I translate that to mean More Money, Me First and I’m Better Than You.
Go ahead and live by that code. I’ll pass.
Oh, well I guess Lieberman isn’t a duplicitous shitstain afterall, thanks to his cunning hedge that Bricker has kindly pointed out to us. I guess we can close up this thread and we can all send him flowers.
If you’re going to find some cockamamie way to dismiss anybody else’s experience as even relevant as evidence, which you do, then you can answer the problem any way you like. But you can hardly call such a deliberately-blinkered approach “objective”. Yet you do nonetheless. Amazing. Sad, but amazing.
Your privilege. But you surely must concede that yours is a subjective decision, not an objective one.
No, it is not fair to say that. If he reiterated his 2006 position three months ago, then it is fair to say he still holds that position, and the cite is entirely valid.
You mean his cunning hedge of actually answering the exact question he was asked? Yes, the man is as devious as he is crafty.
Or did you mean all the people who reported it as “3 months” without ever listening to the video, wherein it was crystal clear he was talking about his 2004 and 2006 campaigns? Because the “Duplicitious Shitstain” T-shirts may still get deserving wearers after all.
Oh, I forgot. They agree with you, so their inaccuracies are cutely forgiveable. Right?
sigh
He is asked a question about his position three years ago. He answers it completely using the past tense:
That’s what he says in the video, word for word. Where in it does he say “I am” instead of “I was?”
Where does it say he no longer holds that view? He still appears to be promoting it.
Possibly it does. And – were I a beggar – possibly I’d feel superior if I could simply grab someone else’s money instead of dancing for it.
If that were true, then you’d think he would have used the present tense once or twice. He’s asked about his position in the past, and he clarifies what his position was in the past. How is that promoting it?
Where in the video does he say that’s his present position?
So, this principle of people being responsible for their own health care? This is worth people dying over? Dispositive? No, dis negative. Dis really bad.
Well, I certainly had no idea that the universal health care measure would actually eliminate death. I withdraw my opposition immediately.
None of this crap matters anyway. You wanna blame someone for this watered down legislation, blame Barack Obama.
Oh, I do.
I will do you the honor of assuming that you’re already embarassed about saying such a thing. Let pretend you didn’t, and you take another shot at it.
It would lower the amount of death you moron. By your standards no one would ever do anything because nothing is 100% successful.
You’re really pathetic you know. I’m amazed that you seem to think you’re clever by positing reaching bullshit as perfectly reasonable.
Your Supermanian resistance to fact-bullets is impressive in its scope but it isn’t a power, it’s a weakness.
So why is it that you can post sarcastic, hyperbolic crap but I have to stick to reasoned and factual arguments?
You pay one way or another. If the poor don’t get health care they will be dropped into the system when they are very sick and care is expensive. Do you suggest pulling the plug to save your money. Just refuse everybody who comes in an emergency room that may cost more than their insurance will cover?
Billions for defense , not millions. And oddly we pacifists have to pay foe every damn war that America starts. I resent paying for a bloated military budget. But they are powerful politically connected and will eat our tax money forever. That money is wasted. Health care would be a far better use of our money.
Look, I know what he meant – and what you mean, even though I’m sorely tempted to point out that the death rate remains the same: one person, one death.
What you mean to suggest is that lives will be extended by adoption of this plan.
But that’s an argument with more subtle stupidity associated with it. My plan to ban all automobiles will also extend lives by virtue of almost completely eliminating highway deaths. But no one seems to want to adopt it.
Why? Because there are costs associated with the sacrifice. You cannot, in other words, simply bandy about a claim that lives will be extended without addressing the costs of doing so.
So. yes, I’m going to argue that the benefits of living in a society in which individuals are responsible for their own healthcare outweighs the extensions in lifespans we may realize by going to a system where it’s viewed as a societal burden instead of an individual one.