IIRC, Liebermann himself recently employed the very same hedge as Bricker brings up. It’s not believable from either party, and contrary to the beliefs of some, endless repitition will not make it any more believable.
Let’s see if I understand this.
Despite the fact that EVERY SINGLE TIME Lieberman uses the past tense in his video, and despite the fact that he is clearly responding to a question that says, “When you first ran for President in 2004 and Senate in 2006, you supported a public option choice for healthcare by extending Medichoice,” you contend he is voicing a current support for Medicare expansion?
And that his denial is a “hedge?”
Seriously?
Why?
I mean… seriously. Why? Where do you get the sense that he’s saying “I now support…” when every single time he uses a tense, it’s the past tense. What should he have said differently to convey his answer to the question?
I mean, admittedly, maybe he should have said, “What I supported then was…” Perhaps if he had said that, it would have been clearer.
Good Lord. Even the *transcript *has me fighting to stay awake…
Objectively, we have the highest per capita health care costs in the world
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
Objectively, we have the highest GDP spent on Health care
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Objectively, the percentage of people without health insurance in this country is higher than any country with UHC
Objectively, countries with UHC can cover more people for less money out of pocket and with less federal supplementation than we can. Across the board.
Objectively we’re the worst.
Objectively, about the only good news is that, in terms of percentage increase, our astronomical costs are not rising as fast as other countries (But if you were to take that percentage and convert it to real world dollars, we’d probably be right back up on top again).
This system simply does not work. And none of this analysis has anything to do with the subjective value one places on helping one’s fellow citizen.
He’s an awful off-the-cuff speaker. And I made him worse by including the “um” and “uh” stumblers that most transcripts leave out.
What is the dollar value associated with taking yet another step down the slope of legitimizing the idea that the wealthy must subsidize the lives of the not-so-wealthy?
When the not-so-wealthy stop being forced to protect and maintain the wealthy, then I will give this viewpoint credence.
Oh, dear, he really did go to the slippery-slope fallacy now, didn’t he?
See, but it’s been shown to you time and time again that the system ALREADY has the insured subsidizing the uninsured. It comes directly out of your tax dollars.
What about the people who can easily afford insurance, wish to contribute meaningfully to a plan that would grant them access, but simply cannot get any insurance because insurance companies refuse to provide their services at any price?
What about the people who currently have insurance, pay into the program every month, and then get dropped the moment they need coverage the most?
These aren’t charity cases. This has nothing to do with the rich or the poor. It has nothing to do with subsidization (save for the fact that the entire Insurance industry is a model built upon the notion that non-users will subsidize the users). It has to do with a fundementally messed up, broken down, bloated out of control system that costs every single person in this country, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, citizen and immigrant, insured and uninsured too much money.
You want to talk about subsidization? I’m fucking sick of subsidizing the status quo.
I just love the fact that there is evidently only one Democrat in congress with any balls, and he uses them to stand up against the Democrats. =)
It’s all he’s got. He’s smart enough to know that he can’t win this argument with logic since logically examining the evidence shows he’s wrong. So all he can do is pathetically throw out irrational chaff.
Say it ain’t so Bricktop, say it ain’t so.
PROTIP: When you realize that your opinion on something is based in irrational thinking that goes against all evidence, change your opinion.
I love that fact that you’re so stupid you think this is courage. =)
There’s only one Republican in the Senate with balls, by that standard. And hers are only figurative.
But slippery-slope reasoning isn’t, in itself, a fallacy. It’s a perfectly good argument until and unless the other side can explain why the proposal will stop three steps later – or ten steps later, or one step later, or whatever.
Imagine I want to tax everyone in the country to make my car payments for me. It won’t cost anybody all that much; each person will hardly notice, as they still won’t need to kick in a penny a decade to likewise cover my brother and my mom and half-a-dozen other relatives besides. So what response can one make, other than to ask why we should draw the line at my immediate family?
Why would that make a difference? Until he disavows his 2006 position in unambiguous terms, if he repeats his position, it is fair to conclude that he still holds that position. Past tense does not automatically imply that he no longer holds that position.
Yes, it has that effect, but as an unintended secondary consequence, not a sa design feature.
If I were only convinced that any scheme would handle them and go no further, I’d change my mind. But I believe this effort is simply the camel’s nose under the tent. Start small, and then bit by bit increase the benefits and remain confident that the rich pricks will pay for it.
So…
POSTER: Hey, Bricker, I heard that several years ago you particpated in some very long threads opposing civil unions. What’s up with that?
BRICKER: Actually, no. My position at that time was that I favored civil unions, and in fact favored completely legal equality for same-sex unions. What I objected to at the time was the proposition that these unions could or should be called “marriage.” I absolutely opposed same-sex marriage, but not civil unions.
Obvious conclusion: I am against same-sex marriage today!
Nonsense. He was asked a question about what his position was in 2004 and 2006. He answered it, saying nothing at all about his current position. You can’t point to that as evidence that he still holds the position.
You’ll see “camel’s nose” mentioned a couple of posts above, btw.
Since it’s real, as even you acknowledge, why should we not try to fix it?
You would first have to be susceptible to being convinced, though.
Well I guess that’s cutting off the camel’s nose to spite its hump. Or something like that.
Here’s what I don’t get. If going to a unified health care plan where everyone was covered ends up costing everyone less money why would it matter who ends up receiving benefits or who you cut your check to?
I mean, let’s say (to throw out random numbers just for the hell of it) you’re paying $8,000 a year in insurance for your family and $2,000 a year in taxes for the uninsured. And under a UHC you’d pay $6,000 a year but $3,000 of that goes to people who aren’t covered under the current system…why do you care? You’re paying less money. Hell you’re making money! Does it matter where you write a check to? Seriously if your concern is with your bottom line and your bottom line is that you pay less money even though you’re subsidizing more people…what’s the problem?
And if your concern is really about the powers of the Federal Government and their Constitutional ability to do things like this…that ship sailed before all the states could even get around to signing the damn document.