… then pay for the dentist to fix them. This is how socialism works. 
I linked to one of these sorts of cases earlier in the thread, a young child in Northern Ireland requiring a rare treatment available only in the US. Usually one or more of the national newspapers or television stations picks up these cases as a charity appeal, rather than a flyers-in-the-local-grocery-store approach.
I’m going to assume that by saying you’d put aside any ethical consideration for the life of your child, that means you would accept government assistance. Good for you. That’s the rational answer.
Can’t you see that this is the standard by which you’d should be examining the UHC debate? If you yourself would use government-subsidized care if the alternatives meant going without or begging for charity, why would you talk up the virtures of the healthcare-by-spaghetti-dinner plan when the subject is someone else’s kid?
But your hypothetical addressed neither of those options. It was about accepting the government’s money or not. You can’t simultaneously berate me for not picking on of your options, and then berate me for picking one of your options.
I think I’ll go find someone who at least attempts to debate honestly.
These are the conditions of the hypothetical:
- Your child needs a transplant to live.
- The cost of the operation is very expensive. Like hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- You qualify for government-supported assistance that waives these costs.
- You don’t have the means to pay for this from your own pocket. This means you’ll have to solicit donations (AKA begging), sell your furniture and jewlery, bake a whole lot of cookies and pies, and use other means to raise money.
The questions are:
- Do you accept the government support.
- Or do you not.
This is all very simple. A two year old knows the right answer. You’re stalling and balking and complaining because the truth is uncomfortable to you. It’s okay, we know why. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.
**you with the face, **I am mostly in favor of a public healthcare option but the way you’re going about your rabid dog, word-lawyering weird scenario comments, it makes me want to reconsider my opinion. Damn.
Word-lawyering really? I’m laughing because I’m not asking any trick questions here. None whatsoever.
ETA: I think I’ll start a GD thread about this to see what those against the public option have to say. Hopefully, they’ll answer it fairly and not scramble out of it.
Well, when you do please continue to set up those fantastic “what if!” scenarios that seem to be your go-to. Please do more to make them tug at heartstrings though. Maybe you could paint the child a bit more like Tiny Tim (oh God Bless us, everyone!) These discussion can always use a little more WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!? outrage.
Come on, I have faith in you!
What is fantastical about what I’m describing? It happens to people everyday!
If you think this is just make believe, it’s no wonder you’re still on the fence on this issue.
Right, thanks to SWB, I am now in favor of mandatory universal health insurance for puppies. I mean, puppies! Awwww!
Ah yes, if WE all knew what YOU know it would just all be so easy, right? Thank goodness we have someone with all the answers right here on the Dope.
I work in healthcare and I see different scenarios all the time. I wish I could live in your world where the answer is so easy and clear, but I live in the real world where things aren’t so black and white. I’m on the fence because I’m not so blindingly ignorant to believe that your answer is the correct one and that a public option will solve our healthcare issues.
Go run along and make your other thread now. Be sure to make it nice and juicy, too.
Is there some logic behind your comment or is this just another of your Pit attempts at humor? How fortunate for me that I always seem to be on the receiving end of this from you. Gosh, I’m a lucky gal.
You still haven’t explained what is so fantastical about I’m describing.
People lose their healthcare all the time.
People get sick all the time.
There are tax-funded assistance programs to cover those in need of services.
These things exists.
We have one poster who objects to using taxes to pay for healthcare because it’s “forcing people to help” or some such.
I asked him if it was his/her kid whose life was on the line and he/her had no other funds of support, would he turn down tax-funded assistance.
And in response, I get accused of making up outlandish, fantastical scenarios. You know what? Unicorns and Big Foot are fantasy. Things that happen every day are not.
If you choose to participate, bring substance, not whatever it is you think you’re contributing now. Thanks.
It doesn’t seem all that fantastic or outlandish to me. You don’t like the argument because it makes you uncomfortable, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad argument. It’s facing up the consequences of one’s own belief system.
I can understand anti-UHC arguments when it comes to covering adults. You can always argue that adults who don’t earn enough money to buy health insurance are “lazy” and deserve their fate. Covering everyone, the argument goes, will just encourage people to be complacent and stay in low paying McJobs. We need to make people afraid of going without health insurance so they’ll be more productive and contribute more to society. I strongly disagree with that sentiment, but I can at least see their point of view.
It’s much, much harder in my view to justify denying UHC to children. They haven’t done anything to deserve their fate, other than being born to the “wrong” parents.
Oh, it’s not just you. I’m an equal opportunity… whatever it is I do-er. Anyway, what have you got against puppies, lady?
What on earth are you talking about? It doesn’t make me uncomfortable, nor does it make me face up to the consequences of blah blah blah. Like I said, this isn’t a perfect world. In a perfect world people wouldn’t bring children into the world they can’t afford to care for and healthcare costs wouldn’t be so high. Unlike a lot of people, I’m just as concerned for adults who don’t have coverage as I am for children. It’s the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!? nonsense that makes me laugh every.single.time.
There’s already coverage in place for children to have medical insurance if their parents can’t or won’t cover them. Did you think there wasn’t?
Uh… no there isn’t. There’s Medicaid, which provides low-cost care if their parents are broke enough. There’s no mechanism by which they’re magically insured otherwise.
Yeah, and it’s paid for by that outlandishly mythical beast called the Government.
Right. Is there a point to that, or do you think you’re imparting some knowledge that I was not already aware of?
I’m still trying to figure out your basis for accusing me of talking fantasy. Until I figure that out, it would be wrong of me to assume you know anything about the healthcare system as I know it.