Maybe he thinks religion is fine or he’s going to rant that he has no fucking opinion on religion one way or the other. But it’s good of you to assume that a rant about religion must de facto be negative in nature and that this negative rant must correspond in some way to conservatives (because only conservatives have deeply held religious beliefs).
Oh, and to get serious and actually respond substantively to the OP, the other reason this line of argument fails is because the entire fucking thing is fucking voluntary. There will be no rainbow colored jackboots with Socialistic mustaches twisting your balls and throwing you before the death panel unless you go with the government plan. It. Is. Voluntary.
Hey Obama, if it’s so good then why not sign up for the plan? Huh? huh?
Obama: because I have a better health care plan and don’t see the need to switch. Which is exactly what every single person in the US should ask themselves before using this plan.
Funny thing I recently learned- the President does have to pay for the food he and his family eat (unless it’s an official state dinner). There is always a bit of sticker shock when they get the bill, as the White House chef apparently doesn’t shop at Aldi or Walmart. Carter in particular is said to have thrown a shit fit when he got the first bill.
F- for comprehension. I didn’t say anything at all about being negative, or about them being related. All I said was that he apparently lacks topic creativity because the topics he picks to rant about are the most commonly ranted about topics in the pit.
Here: this is a creative topic. Religion? No so much.
What’s the deal with english muffins at the grocery store? Bays are in the dairy section, kept cold, and Thomas’ are room temperature in the bread aisle, at the total opposite side of the store! Why do you need hiking boots to compare the ingredients of two types of english muffins? Why does one have to be cold while the other can be room temperature? Is that a selling point? “Hey, our english muffins may be dry and tasteless, but at least they aren’t COLD!”
It all gets deducted directly from his salary, though - he signs a weekly chit thingy - so it’s not as though he has to reach into his pocket and fork out the cash right there.
Well, from what I’m slowly learning, a good portion of the people against the public option, the vocal ones who rant and rave at town hall meetings, have no health care at all. So, in theory, they’ll be sticking to their guns and - against their own self interest - choose to remain without insurance even if this passes. On the one hand, you have to admire their convictions. On the other hand…damn…
It really does help to explain how some of these arguments even gain traction. “Do you want a third party getting between you and your doctor?!? Do you want a bureaucrat sitting on some panel determining if they’re going to pay for your operation?!?” These are really stupid questions to ask until you realize that the people asking them have absolutely no clue what dealing with an insurance company is like precisely because they’ve never had to do it!
Lucky them. I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of the people who are happy with their insurance haven’t needed it very badly. Your husband gets too frisky with the staple gun, you get a couple stitches and a tetanus shot, you think you’re covered. You’re certainly covered for all the things that wouldn’t cost much money.
More and more, it appears what people are buying is the sense of security that comes from having insurance. One less thing to worry about.