How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Fife]

False dichotomy.

[Zlaxer]

False dichotomy.

You're a false dichotomy

[Fife]

[pineapplemike]

This is why they won't go near this issue with a ten foot pole. It's just an endless refrain of specifics to this one case, when it's been clear from the start that the objection to this is in its founding premise that the state suborns the parents in the matters of the child. They already accept that, and only want to talk about the merits of its outcome. They have no intent of addressing the moral, social, and practical pitfalls of the premise that is being challenged.

You tell them it isn't right for Big Brother to get between parents and children, and they deflect with a story about how the children discovered their parents were traitors.

but, Napoleon MUST control the loyalty of the pups. How else could he turn them against Snowball once they're grown?

Maybe I'm wrong on this but while I generally agree with your premise, I think there can be a place for government interference in some instances. Child services, or whatever they're called, will seize a child from their parents in cases of abuse or whatever, atleast in California where I live. Tons of parents are shitty and abusive so there is a place in the argument somewhere for a government to act in the interests of the child over the natural rights of the parents, even if I think those cases should be extremely rare. I can think of one local story where the kid ended up dying because the government didn't act (pretty sure it was due to their incompetence rather than their unwillingness to get inbetween the parent and the child, but still). I haven't paid enough attention to know if this Charlie kid is one of those cases, but those cases certainly do exist I would think.

Not trying to get involved in this crazy debate, just offering a little pushback.

Anyway, Obamacare repeal incoming? Read something about the Senate having enough votes to begin debate on repeal? Whatever that means, should look into it more.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You'll find out about the law when it's law.

[Okeefenokee]

Nobody wants to hand the state control over their kids dude. But since we have to compromise somewhat in order to fix healthcare, these extreme cases are on the table. It still beats subsidizing insurance companies to shit all over us.

How does ceding parental authority to the state fix healthcare?

Ceding some authority over extreme cases appears to be a byproduct of single-payer.

Your healthcare is already at the mercy of the insurance companies. This would just shift that overlordship to the government.

You're contradicting yourself. They had the money. You already excused the block as being not about the money. Don't try to go back to it now.

[Okeefenokee]

This is why they won't go near this issue with a ten foot pole. It's just an endless refrain of specifics to this one case, when it's been clear from the start that the objection to this is in its founding premise that the state suborns the parents in the matters of the child. They already accept that, and only want to talk about the merits of its outcome. They have no intent of addressing the moral, social, and practical pitfalls of the premise that is being challenged.

You tell them it isn't right for Big Brother to get between parents and children, and they deflect with a story about how the children discovered their parents were traitors.

but, Napoleon MUST control the loyalty of the pups. How else could he turn them against Snowball once they're grown?

Maybe I'm wrong on this but while I generally agree with your premise, I think there can be a place for government interference in some instances. Child services, or whatever they're called, will seize a child from their parents in cases of abuse or whatever, atleast in California where I live. Tons of parents are shitty and abusive so there is a place in the argument somewhere for a government to act in the interests of the child over the natural rights of the parents, even if I think those cases should be extremely rare. I can think of one local story where the kid ended up dying because the government didn't act (pretty sure it was due to their incompetence rather than their unwillingness to get inbetween the parent and the child, but still). I haven't paid enough attention to know if this Charlie kid is one of those cases, but those cases certainly do exist I would think.

Not trying to get involved in this crazy debate, just offering a little pushback.

Anyway, Obamacare repeal incoming? Read something about the Senate having enough votes to begin debate on repeal? Whatever that means, should look into it more.

Even when there's a case where the state has to get involved to stop abuse, we should all view that as a negative, not a positive. If shit's so bad the state has to step in, it's nothing to be happy about.

If the state is stepping into the role as parent, something is wrong. Doesn't matter if it's a case of abuse, or nanny staters blocking parents from seeking treatment with their own cash.

[C-Mag]

GOP is stupid for taking responsibility of Obamacare, it's awful, it's failing, it's unsustainable........... the smart move was to get the hell out of the way and keep jabbing at the Dems to offer fixes to their shitty plan.

[SuburbanFarmer]

How does ceding parental authority to the state fix healthcare?

Ceding some authority over extreme cases appears to be a byproduct of single-payer.

Your healthcare is already at the mercy of the insurance companies. This would just shift that overlordship to the government.

You're contradicting yourself. They had the money. You already excused the block as being not about the money. Don't try to go back to it now.

We weren't talking about this case, but about healthcare systems. Do try to keep up.

[SuburbanFarmer]

This is why they won't go near this issue with a ten foot pole. It's just an endless refrain of specifics to this one case, when it's been clear from the start that the objection to this is in its founding premise that the state suborns the parents in the matters of the child. They already accept that, and only want to talk about the merits of its outcome. They have no intent of addressing the moral, social, and practical pitfalls of the premise that is being challenged.

You tell them it isn't right for Big Brother to get between parents and children, and they deflect with a story about how the children discovered their parents were traitors.

but, Napoleon MUST control the loyalty of the pups. How else could he turn them against Snowball once they're grown?

Maybe I'm wrong on this but while I generally agree with your premise, I think there can be a place for government interference in some instances. Child services, or whatever they're called, will seize a child from their parents in cases of abuse or whatever, atleast in California where I live. Tons of parents are shitty and abusive so there is a place in the argument somewhere for a government to act in the interests of the child over the natural rights of the parents, even if I think those cases should be extremely rare. I can think of one local story where the kid ended up dying because the government didn't act (pretty sure it was due to their incompetence rather than their unwillingness to get inbetween the parent and the child, but still). I haven't paid enough attention to know if this Charlie kid is one of those cases, but those cases certainly do exist I would think.

Not trying to get involved in this crazy debate, just offering a little pushback.

Anyway, Obamacare repeal incoming? Read something about the Senate having enough votes to begin debate on repeal? Whatever that means, should look into it more.

Even when there's a case where the state has to get involved to stop abuse, we should all view that as a negative, not a positive. If shit's so bad the state has to step in, it's nothing to be happy about.

If the state is stepping into the role as parent, something is wrong. Doesn't matter if it's a case of abuse, or nanny staters blocking parents from seeking treatment with their own cash.

Question for the board: who here sees child abuse as a positive?