Unfortunately, barring a Supreme Court decision ruling the bill unconstitutional (which, unfortunately, I don't think will happen as they didn't go for the Deem & Pass option), I don't see this going away even if there is a shift of control of Congress in November. Thanks to the perfect storm that put the Democrats in charge of two branches of the Federal Government, we're now stuck with this boondoggle that has everyone and their brother (if you believe what the "new media" sources are touting) cheering at a "brighter" future. Yeah, that bright light they're seeing? The economic future of our country going up in flames.
Thank you oh so much, Barack "Mr. Thompson" Obama.
How is it a bad thing to have a system that looks after people who can't look after themselves? Surely that is what civilisation/society is for. I really don't understand the US reaction to this. I mean, to me it looks like people who are agaianst the health bill are saying that poor people should just die.
The problem is the premise...will_sampleMarch 23 2010, 17:57:48 UTC
...people should look after others who can't look after themselves-- not government.
If, for example, an individual wants to make a personal choice to donate to a anti-cancer charity, I am entirely for it; what I am fundamentally against, and what I will fight with every fiber of my being is the idea that government can create compassion.
Nobody wants poor people to die; the people who oppose this Health Care package want them to live free lives, and make free choices, with their options unburdened by a government that tells it's citizens that which is desirous or good. The problems that exist in the modern health care market are a product of too much government, rather than too little.
Re: The problem is the premise...triziaMarch 23 2010, 19:39:45 UTC
I'm not talking about governments creating compassion, I'm talking about the basics of life. Whether or not someone can get the drugs or treatment should not depend on charity simply because charity will never be enough.
Choice is all very well if you can afford it, but for the poor and the disadvantaged there is no choice - they simply don't have the income to exercise the choice. Taken to the logical conclusion the same arguments should be applied to everything - so should only those with the money to 'choose' be able to have their children educated?
And governments always tell people what is desirous or good - that's what laws are ... they say 'you may not do this' or 'you must do that
( ... )
Re: The problem is the premise...will_sampleMarch 23 2010, 21:43:14 UTC
...I would have to utterly disagree on just about every count. Government should virtually never provide any basic of living; the more it stays out of the way of living, the better. It is a detestable, dangerous thing by it's very nature, and aught never be too trusted
( ... )
Justin and I are going to try and plan accordingly... we're changing our timetable of moving around just so that he can earn enough to keep us out of the poorhouse from all the taxes and insurance costs to keep us both.
Comments 19
Reply
Reply
To call these latest actions despicable is to depreciate the word despicable.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thank you oh so much, Barack "Mr. Thompson" Obama.
Reply
I really don't understand the US reaction to this. I mean, to me it looks like people who are agaianst the health bill are saying that poor people should just die.
Reply
If, for example, an individual wants to make a personal choice to donate to a anti-cancer charity, I am entirely for it; what I am fundamentally against, and what I will fight with every fiber of my being is the idea that government can create compassion.
Nobody wants poor people to die; the people who oppose this Health Care package want them to live free lives, and make free choices, with their options unburdened by a government that tells it's citizens that which is desirous or good. The problems that exist in the modern health care market are a product of too much government, rather than too little.
Reply
Choice is all very well if you can afford it, but for the poor and the disadvantaged there is no choice - they simply don't have the income to exercise the choice. Taken to the logical conclusion the same arguments should be applied to everything - so should only those with the money to 'choose' be able to have their children educated?
And governments always tell people what is desirous or good - that's what laws are ... they say 'you may not do this' or 'you must do that ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Sigh.
Reply
Leave a comment