It’s telling that you think all those that oppose UHC are incoherent screamers. By doing so, you are picking out the slow kid to race and are then excited about your victory. Well, congratulations, I guess.
Out here in reality, lots of people oppose UHC, and you choose to only pay attention to the incoherent screamers.
Well, I believe that the government should protect its citizens from enemies (and, no, the term"enemies" does not include the dreaded gum disease gingivitis or other ailments).
However, given that I live here and now, a rigorous definition isn’t really necessary. We have a strong military and police etc etc, so any new program is almost by definition going to be something I don’t want the government to do.
Does it include the dreaded disease cancer? You’re being flippant, but I’m looking for real answers.
Does a government of the dead do anyone any good?
Then why aren’t there a bunch of people at town hall meetings intelligently debating with their congresspeople? Why must the avenue of opposition involve such lowbrow tactics? If you are right, why not prove it by actually winning a debate instead of just shouting people down and interrupting them?
Sure it wasn’t Rush?
Nope
And I’m the one being flippant? This is again emblematic of the mentality that no one will have something if it is not provided by the government.
Because quite often, they won’t.
There is a large group of Americans who have health care provided by the government. If you were to do away with the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, what would happen to those people? Do you think they would all still be able to get health care?
I’m not saying “no one” will have health care if not provided by the government. My claim is that “some” will not have it. More than “a few.” Less than “everyone.”
If, say, 10% of people have no health care, is that a problem for the government? 20%? 30%? 50%? 80%? When does it become a problem, if ever? I want real numbers, not handwaving and not idealist rhetoric that is completely foolhardy. At what point does a dead or dying populace become the problem of the government that ostensibly serves it?
About the same point that a lack of Porsches becomes the government’s problem.
So, never, right? No amount of dead citizenry is ever the government’s problem? Health care is an absolute luxury, like a Porsche?
Whether the government should provide something does not depend on whether it is a need or a luxury.
Let’s say you have a serious medical condition, and your private insurance company denies you a claim for something you need. What do you do? You can’t take your money to another insurer, because they will refuse you for having a “pre-existing condition”. How are you more “free” under the current system than having the OPTION of a publicly funded plan?
From what I’ve heard about you, you’re old enough to be complaining about the hippies and how they ruined everything, so I’m venturing a wild guess that you’re either old enough to receive Medicare or are getting close to that age. What do you think about Medicare? Would you prefer it to be abolished?
Do you know that we live in a Democratic Republic, and that if people are dissatisfied with the government they can hold the government accountable by throwing the bastards out in the next election? Yep, that’s right! Amazing, isn’t it? We’re not living in a dictatorship. We also have free speech. If “life and death” decisions are being made that are completely unacceptable to you, you can put the fear of God into our elected leaders who tremble at the idea of losing their jobs. Nobody is going to pull the plug on Grandma… old people are the largest block of voters out there. No politician will kill the sacred cow that laid the golden egg.
Why not? What is a government for if not to serve and protect its citizens? If needs are going unfilled, why shouldn’t the government step in if it has the ability?
My ideals are cute and fuzzy and beloved to me and all that, but I don’t want you to die for them. Do you say the same for me?
Maybe that’s because it’s nearly impossible to pay attention to anyone else. Maybe if the reasonable coherent opponents would shut the screamers the hell up then we could hear their arguments and have some intelligent discussion. As it is, that doesn’t seem possible.
If opponents really want discussion then they need to reign these people in. They don’t seem to be trying to do that. If anything, they seem to be egging them on.
Surely there are some reasonable coherent leaders in the opposition who can quiet them down. Surely there are some leaders who will explain to people that helping people to create living wills is not the same thing as the government making the decision whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Let’s see… How about Chuck Grassley, he’s a U.S. Senator! Surely he’s interested in reasonable intelligent discussion rather than misrepresentation.
http://iowaindependent.com/18456/grassley-government-shouldnt-decide-when-to-pull-the-plug-on-grandma
Hmm… Okay, maybe not. How about… a former Governor? Yes, that’s it. A responsible person to talk some reason. I know, how about the former Governor of Alaska, the 49th state of our grand union!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/palin-paints-picture-of-obama-death-panel-giving-thumbs-down-to-trig.html
Hmmm… I know! The Chairman of the RNC. Surely, he’ll represent the intelligent reasonable wing of the Republican party. Surely he’ll give us an outright repudiation of this “death panel” nonsense.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539287,00.html
I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a little disappointing as a rebuttal.
Well, I’m sure the real leaders are out there somewhere and they’ll reign in the screamers soon enough.
Because I think that all the government should do is protect us from other countries and terrorists.
What the government is “for” is to protect us from other countries and terrorists.
Because all government should do is protect us from other countries and terrorists.
I don’t think that I should be forced to pay for your health care. If you die because you cannot afford health care, well, tough shit. You rolled the dice and came up snake eyes. Not my problem, lady. If you were my mom or wife or kid or whatever, I’d pay for your health care, but you’re just some lady on the internet, so tough shit. Looking at this as you dying for my ideals is a really strange way of looking at it.
I think it’s the only way of looking at it. I sure wouldn’t be dying for MY ideals.
At least you’re honest about where your ideals take us. It amazes me when you act like people are big meanies for thinking you’re rather freaky, though. You are aware that the part I quoted up there points is not average, right? That most people aren’t coming from there and are, in fact, hardwired toward compassion?
I’ll be honest, too. If your taxes go up, I’ll laugh. “Tough shit,” right?
She rolled the dice and came up snake eyes? 
Do you really truly believe that everyone who is sick and destitute got there because they took some unwise risk? Because it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.
No, he’s saying that it doesn’t matter how they got there because he doesn’t give a fuck.
Well obviously, but the rolling the dice statement stuck out as a total non sequitur and I couldn’t resist prodding it like a sore tooth. 
Ah, well I took it just for “Bad luck. Sucks to be you.”