Yes they are. Tell them to stop practicing social eugenics by pricing health care out of the reach of the poor. Tell them that not all immigrant children are disease-riddled germbags. Tell them homosexuals don’t need to be killed and to stop exporting their brand of hatred to receptive countries like Uganda. Tell them that women are not there for their amusement and rape isn’t something you tell people to just suck up. Tell them that people who disagree with them politically aren’t anti-American traitors (oh the irony of that!).
If they don’t want to be called racists, tell them to stop all talk about welfare mothers, “urban” problems, assuming kids like Trayvon Martin was a criminal by what he wore, the word “thug”. You know as well as I do that sitting elected officials from the GOP have called Obama all sorts of names including comparing him to Hitler for wanting to give health care to people.
Ply your shitty, transparent attempt at outrage somewhere else. The GOP is all of those things they accuse Democrats of being. There is no equivalency here. Democrats can call the GOP those names because they’re true. The opposite is not. Get over yourself and your support over those hateful racist Nazis
I understand that, but since the government already does “reach into” mine and everyone else’s pockets to pay for emergency medical service, why couldn’t that money be spent instead on general health insurance?
That’s the part I’m not getting: it already happens. I’ve said I’m fine with handouts, and you aren’t, but what is the distinction between “money given to people to pay hospitals for healthcare” and “money given to hospitals to pay for people to get healthcare?”
Returning to my police example: why is that not a handout? I’m not paying for the service, some other taxpayer is. Would you object to healthcare if it was paid directly to the insurance company, instead of indirectly to an insurance company?
There is no real need to call them Nazis, we can simply refer to them as “Republicans”. We did not define the meaning, they did.
There *are *honest conservatives, men who recognize the need for change but are anxious that it be done prudently and cautiously. I do not scorn such men as these, their counsel is worthy, their criticism welcome. Even a good change can come about too suddenly, when it could be more valuable and pertinent if it were implemented with care.
But those men are ashamed today. Certainly they would be insulted to be called “Nazis”. But neither are they pleased to be called “Republicans”.
Don’t get too riled up about this folks. The judges for this panel had already been revealed and this panel had already held oral argument by the time **Bricker **made his bet. There was never really any question about whether Griffith and Randolph would vote to overturn. The real question is whether the Supreme Court will take cert when the en banc court overturns the panel, and if so, which way Kennedy will vote. If you think you know the answer to that question with enough confidence to bet at even odds, more power to you. I think the rest of us take it as a coin flip.
ETA: A more interesting bet would be whether the conservatives on the Supreme Court win any of the liberals (or vice versa), or whether the liberals on D.C. Circuit win any of the conservatives. That would be a better indicator of how obvious the merit is on either side.
Cool, I’m getting closer to understanding your objection. Apologies if it seems I’m asking repetitive questions, I want to be sure I fully understand your position clearly.
So, to clarify: when the government pays for emergency medical services (for instance: a homeless person with no insurance is hit by a speeding car and seriously injured), that’s a “handout,” correct?
I’m unashamed to admit I’m struggling with the core concept, yes.
Government pays for emergency medical care: government service.
Government pays for medical care before something becomes an emergency: handout.
I’m with you so far, right? Not misstating your beliefs? It ultimately comes down to that distinction, I believe. I’m fine with pre-emergency care becoming a government service, and you’re opposed. What I (and likely others) want to know is WHY that would become a crippling dependence addiction for people taking advantage of it.
I believe people would go to take care of issues before they become emergencies. You believe they would go just to go?
As a radical lefty, I am annoyed by ThinkProgress unfortunate commitment to some mythical “centrism”. Annoys me every day, because that is how often I read them.
The distinction: government handing out money (NOT paying someone, but handing out money) is a handout. Obamacare subsidies are, explicitly and expressly, handouts.
Would you then be opposed with a single-payer system, where the government pays for all healthcare? That would clearly and unequivocally be a service under your definition, as nobody is ever handed money or subsidies.