Yeah, that's a great plan... Don't point out any of the very predicable problems with the proposed legislation until AFTER it gets passed.
An even better plan is to obfuscate and make outrageous claims about a proposal. That is exactly what has been done in this case.
I am not advocating for HR 3200 specifically. What I am advocating for is an intelligent discussion of the real issues. If it is that bill that is under discussion, then let's talk about what is actually in the proposed legislation, not about nonsense that isn't there.
Did you hold back on stating your fears about the Pat Act until after it got passed?
No, I didn't. It passed, and now we're just a little bit less free than we were before.
The problem with Godwins law is that sometimes the comparison is valid. The only way to determine that is by looking at the comparison based on the merit of the comparison and not a knee-jerk reaction that anyone who mentions Fascism/Nazi's has no valid arguments.
In this case, it is totally valid. Ranting and name calling has taken the place of rational debate.
Why then do you not see the same thing happening here with the Healthcare debate? The proponents swear that nothing bad could possibly come of it, that it will result in an America filled with sunshine, lollipops and unicorns frolicking across magical rainbows. Their inability to acknowledge any potential downsides to the legislation is more than suspect, it stinks like a dead fish.
Right, and the other side is saying that we'll all perish if it does pass. Neither side is right.
Pragmatism is the complete rejection of ideological principles in favor of political expediency. Pragmatism is "The ends justify the means" mentality.
No, pragmatism is finding that ideology doesn't always solve real world problems.
You claim to be a libertarian conservative but you toss those principles out the window to accommodate your pragmatism on certain issues. Where "torture" (enhanced interrogation) is concerned, you stand on principle rather than discarding them in favor of the Pragmatic approach of "whatever works" but its the opposite for Healthcare where you freely admit to discarding your Libertarian/Conservative principles in favor of an "ends justify the means" expansion of the welfare state.
Not entirely. In the case of torture, it is not only ideologically unsound, but it is not pragmatic either. What it has accomplished is to destroy any credibility the US once had in the advocacy for human rights, and has given the terrorists a recruiting tool that they wouldn't otherwise have had.
Since this post is getting rather long, I'll stick to the health care debate from this point on, just in the interest of brevity.
Nobody has suggested doing that... We can enact reforms to mitigate nearly all of our problems but those reforms must be guided by the same classically liberal and capitalist principles that founded our nation, principles that free men from one another rather than enslave them to each other.
When those principals were formed, there was no modern health care.
When a private insurance company denies your claim, you can sue. You cannot sue when its the Gov. who denies your claim.
Yes, you or your heirs can sue, that is true. Of course, nuisance suits also raise the cost for everyone.
Once again... Must we really wait until its been voted on to begin opposing it or even bring up the foreseeable consequences?
Concerns about gov. killing of the old by denials of coverage and taxpayer funding for the HC of illegal aliens are legitimate... Oregon's state run HC plan already kills granny and its illegal to deny an illegal alien (or anyone else) HC, which, as you know, only shifts the cost of their care onto the rest of us.
Hmm.. I remember that one being voted down. So Oregon already has a universal health care plan in place? I'll look it up and see.
If Douglas Elmendorf says so, then we need to take a good look at what is actually in HR 3200, and then perhaps reject it in favor of the Senate bill, or something else.
I know, I know... In your America there is no such thing as a slippery slope and nothing we could ever do would qualify as socialism.
Now who's twisting whose words around?
No I don't think its OK, but complaining about it is just as counterproductive as engaging in it.
OK, if you'll quit engaging in it, I'll quit complaining about it. How's that?
You needn't look farther than the unelected, unaccountable Czars that reside in the Obama White House:
Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar, self avowed communist.
Then it's OK to call Ivan Jones a communist, Carol Browner a socialist, and Cass Sunstien a nutcase. Wups, I forgot. That has nothing to do with health care.
Expanding the welfare state to create a public option would eliminate personal choice, only reforms based on Capitalist principles would create real personal choices for insurance and HC.
That's the flawed system of government force you want to expand by growing the welfare state, I'm the one who wants to see it dismantled and replaced with a voluntary system of coverage.
You might think that there should be no public option at all, no Medicare or Medicaid, for example. When you yourself get to the medicare age, you will change your mind, I guarantee it. There is no other option for seniors, none, zippo. No private insurance is going to take on the most expensive demographic.
Absolutely.
Pay your own way, I'll pay mine. I don't want to hear any garbage about compassion or moral obligations... There is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from digging deep into your own wallet and making voluntary contributions to charities, or individuals, to feel compassionate and fulfill your moral obligations. My morality does not impose obligations on others. Any compassion on my part will be done voluntarily and attempts to force your morality onto me, or force me to foot the bills accumulated by your compassion, are immoral and tyrannical.
Wow!
Here, I thought the argument against allowing people who can't pay to simply die was a straw man. I guess it isn't after all.
