Assholes like Shodan. God forbid anyone who likes red meat or struggles with addiction or makes less than $XX,000 a year or is born into a family that struggles with poverty gets to have access to quality healthcare in the richest nation in the history of mankind. You have to fucking earn mercy in his world, you fucking bleeding heart pussies, and every policy has to be profitable.
I have no idea if Shodan claims to be a religious man. But if he does, and I am not, I think it’s perfectly fair to point out that his stupid and heartless post runs counter to the beliefs he professes to live by. That doesn’t mean I’m being hypocritical for supporting abortion rights.
Maybe. But we can certainly call them out on their blatant hypocrisy.
Well, it won’t be her. You don’t think Congress will threaten their own health care or insurance, do you?
JRDelirious:
Heck, that pretty much describes ALL forms of insurance, not just health. What a moron this representative is.
This. Do we want separation of church and state, or not?
It reminds me of some people who would say, “America is *not *a Christian country, so stop opposing abortion and SSM,” but then when it came to responding to terrorism, would suddenly then turn around and say, “America should turn the other cheek and refrain from retaliating against an enemy, just like Scripture says!”
And yet, there are Christians who believe that life doesn’t end at birth.
But how would anyone really know whether someone’s disease was the result of their own recklessness versus a cruel act of God? Even conditions that are largely preventable can strike individuals whose only vice is being alive.
In the last four months, two colleagues of mine have died from cancer. To my knowledge, neither one had a risky lifestyle. They were not overweight and they did not smoke.
I’ve never been seriously sick or injured a day of my life, but I’m not arrogant enough to attribute this to me doing “everything right”. Because for one, I don’t do everything right. And two, plenty of others do everything right and are plagued with acute and chronic conditions. Why does the GOP think we just let these people die or become homeless?
I’m not sure that saying “I think you are being hypocritical to your own professed beliefs” means the speaker must also follow those beliefs. Much less want to make them law.
To add another anecdote to the pile, I was born with an inherited kidney disease and I’m a dialysis patient. I won’t say I’ve lived perfectly but I was diagnosed with the disease when I was 10. For me, this debate is far from academic.
It is perfectly consistent to believe that government policies should have secular rationales while criticizing those who believe differently of committing cafeteria religiosity. Your rebuttal misunderstands the argument it is addressing, which is either a charge of hypocrisy or a charge of insincerity.
The hypocrisy charge version of the argument goes like this: If one asserts that all public policy should follow Christian teachings, one is a hypocrite is they pick and choose which public policies should. That argument is correct regardless of the view of the one asserting it.
The insincerity charge version of the argument goes like this: If one asserts that only some public policy should follow Christian teachings but picks and choose which policies based on something other than Christian teachings, then the assertion of compulsion or motivation based on religion is insincere. That argument is correct regardless of the view of the one asserting it.
No, you’re misunderstanding the issue. Mo Brooks is claiming that people that aren’t in need of medical services don’t need it because they’re necessarily leading “good lives” and insinuating that people that do need medical services aren’t leading good lives. He wants people to pay higher prices not because they engage in bad habits, but because they need medical services regardless of what got them sick, including being born with an illness.
Better asked of your fellow conservatives who still want to restrict a woman’s right to choose, because CHRISTIAN BIBLE!
So no such thing as Christian Pacifism? Good to know.
As I pointed before, the task of agnostics, secularists and unbelievers is not to eliminate an item that has been with us virtually forever. So religion will be with us for a long time.
However, our task is however to demand that any faith does remain benevolent. That indeed included telling the religious leaders in Salem to cut that stupid nonsense of killing people that were for sure innocent of witchcraft. And so it goes to demand that the state stop stupid nonsense like this that actually kills women:
Dude, your “side” does just this. Shodan does this to a T.
Your side actually *claims *the mantle of the “Christian” side! I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy here. You can have fully secular government, and still advocate for the poor, the sick, the unborn, the refugee, the immigrant, the prisoner…you know the things Jesus told us to do.
So why does “your side” advocate for the Biblical when it comes to the unborn, but ignore everything else in the Bible when it comes to caring for the poor, immigrant, sick, etc. I don’t angrily deride them for pointing out what’s in the Bible, I angrily deride them for being hypocrites, picking and choosing what they support, and attempting to discriminate based on-- well, take your pick (wealth, nation of origin, sexual orientation, gender, religion).
I can’t speak for the Democratic platform. I speak as a Christian liberal. That’s “my side.” I go to church weekly, and I advocate for less abortion through public policies that support the mother, family, babies, children, the sick, the poor, the immigrant, the refugee, the worker, etc. I do think abortion is bad, for Biblical reasons, but I don’t choose to ignore everything else the Bible says about caring for the poor, sick, loving your neighbor, grace, mercy, Imago Dei…
Bricker accuses a liberal of hypocrisy. It must be a day ending in a “y”.
So only fellow Christians can point out Christian hypocrisy? Does that apply to all forms of hypocrisy?
Yeah, I mean automobile insurance companies are required by law to sell you insurance even if your car is known to have safety problems like broken brakes. And I don’t know about you, but my insurance covers all routine maintenance as well!
Seriously, though, both side are screwed up on this whole insurance paradigm. You generally don’t buy insurance for things that you know you have to do or for things you know are broken. Your home insurance doesn’t cover re-painting your house or mowing your lawn or refinishing your floors. Those are things every homeowner has to do at some point or another. We’re cramming all of “healthcare” into an insurance model, and so we end up with some screwy situations that don’t really fit into that model. A single pay program makes much more sense, although it’s just not feasible, politically, in the US (at least at the federal level).
I’ll never understand the uniquely American aversion to UHC. Having a well-cared, healthy, population is like having paved roads, a fire department, a functional judiciary, a system of government, an educational system, etc.
It objectively makes everyones’ lives better in quality and longer in length. And it’s cheaper.
Choosing to follow your interpretation of the Bible isn’t the same as forcing others to do so through legislation. I don’t find it hypocritical to be against forcing people to care for others and still do so yourself because your holy book teaches you to.
Those things are not alive. They are not subject to random RNA sequencing or viral infection. They don’t walk down the street and trip over a curb. They aren’t tasked to drive/walk/commute to work every day to support themselves, either.