I didn’t respond to those paragraphs because they were irrelevant to the discussion here. You were just advocating for a single-payer system, similar to other countries. But that’s not the topic being discussed. The topic here is the meaning of Ryan’s comments. He was discussing the actual ACA program, not the feasibility of alternatives such as single payer systems.
I’m getting the sense that you view any and all discussions of anything ACA-related as being broad topics encompassing the entirety of your views on public healthcare, but the particular point being made was narrower than that.
I’d be happy if religion and “pseudo-christianity” were to be purged from ALL social and political considerations. But as long as these self proclaimed “christians” (but really unchristian assholes) continue to jam their own personal heresies in our faces, ALL is fair.
OK, let’s look at the converse of that. If one accepts what appear to be certain basic Republican dogmas, such as the idea that people should only ever get what they can personally afford to pay for, even if it’s access to health care and life itself, and that society collectively has zero responsibility for the well-being of its individual members and that this is NOT the precept of a civilized society, and that therefore the traditional model of commercial insurance is an appropriate way to fund health care even if it doesn’t fucking work and millions are left to die, then viewed through that lens and with those criteria Ryan’s comments make perfect sense. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I mean, if I come across someone who has just collapsed on a street corner and obviously needs medical attention, am I not justified in saying, “fuck you, you’re not my problem”? Because after all, this person is legally NOT my problem; I didn’t cause whatever happened to him – we just happen to be members of the same community, and I have every right to ignore his pleas for help and go about my business. Any obligation I might have would be due to introducing concepts like morality, which Republicans seem to find annoying.
IOW, you can always justify the repulsive views of assholes like Ryan by isolating them from any moral context and looking at them in the sterile light of pure commerce. Trouble is, real societies are about a lot more than pure commerce. Real societies actually have to be functional in real and human ways.
If this sort of social Darwinism is the goal, let’s just go ALL the way.
We won’t need any rules, laws, or even society for that matter.
To the winner go all the spoils. The strong survive and crush the weak. Take what you want by any means necessary, and try to defend it from the other takers.
I wonder how many of these right wing “supermen” would survive even the first day in a world like that.
As previous, Ryan’s comments were about the practical feasibility of the ACA specifically. As such, whether or not they make perfect sense has zero to do with whether these supposed “basic Republican dogmas” are true or not.
Good. Because it’s just as stupid of a point the second time around.
The GOP and Ryan specifically has spent years in trying to dismantle the ACA while promising that they have a much better solution. But when it was time to put up or shut-up, they fucking choked on their own vomit. So pardon us for thinking that what Ryan is repub-splaining to the GOP choir is not worth the time it takes to listen to him torture the fucking obvious.
Yes, the ACA is not perfect and it needs fixing. I hope (but not holding my breath) the GOP will come to that realization not too long after it runs out of all other incredibly stupid options.
So you’re done with the discussion, but always have time for gratuitous insults? What a good Republican!
But I’m not merely just dumb, according to Paul Ryan’s standards, I’m also somewhat old. Old enough that some of my older relatives were instrumental in the formation of Canada’s first full-fledged universal health care system, a system where today no Canadian is deprived of top quality health care regardless of economic means. A system where last December I left hospital after almost a week-long stay and robotically assisted cardiac surgery, and my major financial responsibility on leaving was to thank everyone and wave goodbye to the nurses. This is the society I live in. That’s how stupid I am.
That post of mine adverts to both “Church teachings” and the Bible, and it did so deliberately. In the Roman Catholic view, the Bible is not the sole source of divine truth. Whether or not one may deduce the prohibition of abortion from sola scriptura, my view is that the gospel was handed down both in scripture and by the apostles who handed it on by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. . . and that the living transmission of truth is sustained inerrantly by the Holy Spirit.
So, yes – point noted. I did not intend to argue that scripture alone settles the abortion issue.