How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Fife]

You are arguing it the wrong way, and I'll have this discussion with you. If your kid's life was on the line, how robust do you believe the safety​ net should be? What's the number, what's the math? This isn't an easy discussion, we're talking human lives.

Dan Carlin's oft-repeated "Instant Hitler" fallacy in regard to torture.

?

Ever listened to CS episodes?

Dan says "mess with my kids, and I'm Mr. Instant Hitler, pulling off your fingernails." He then points out such appeals to individual emotion is a logical fallacy. It's the same dead horse you're kicking the ribs in on.'

[Fife]

You're purity spiraling, Fife. We are not talking about what sounds nice or seems all neatly consistent. This is the real world.

I don't want poor people dying for lack of health insurance in my country. Neither do most other Americans.

I guarantee you that a Medicare for all option would be favored by most Americans. If Trump took up the cause, he could probably unseat half the freedom caucus in the midterms with primary challengers who do support it.

The let's just let people due approach is about as useful and meaningful as shit in a taco shell. Get real.

You're purity spiraling. And you're doing a pretty bang-up job on the Instant Hitler fallacy as well.

[StCapps]

Focusing on the emotional issues regarding health care leads to illogical decisions. That's how the special interests divide and conquer and make sure no real reform gets passed, they play on your emotions regarding the topic. Fall for their obvious trap if you want, I won't be a useful idiot for those fuckheads, even if you are determined to be one.

[K@th]

I know what the answers are not. I know what I think is better than state ownership of our lives, and it comes as no surprise: http://www.ronpaul.com/health-care/

Which of these bullet points do you think are wrong? I think they all make for excellent discussion points; and are alternatives to the arguments centered around "federal control or dead people in the gutter."

I'll need more time to digest it. It's mostly good, but doesn't fix a basic problem.

Question - are you 100% against any and all safety nets?

[jediuser598]

That's not my angle. When people argue against, say healthcare, they generally stick to the "other". When we argue the merits of healthcare safety net, we should argue as if it were our closest family member's life on the line.

[K@th]

Focusing on the emotional issues regarding health care leads to illogical decisions. That's how the special interests divide and conquer and make sure no real reform gets passed, they play on your emotions regarding the topic. Fall for their obvious trap if you want, I won't.

How can you possibly calculate costs without looking at what costs you are willing to pay?

[Speaker to Animals]

You're purity spiraling, Fife. We are not talking about what sounds nice or seems all neatly consistent. This is the real world.

I don't want poor people dying for lack of health insurance in my country. Neither do most other Americans.

I guarantee you that a Medicare for all option would be favored by most Americans. If Trump took up the cause, he could probably unseat half the freedom caucus in the midterms with primary challengers who do support it.

The let's just let people due approach is about as useful and meaningful as shit in a taco shell. Get real.

You're purity spiraling. And you're doing a pretty bang-up job on the Instant Hitler fallacy as well.

Lol.

I am all for various creative solutions, but at the end of the day, we are a dysfunctional nation of mismatched cultures and identities who have nothing in common except borders, which don't even exist in effect any longer. We are not going to be able to make more perfect solutions to a complex problem. That much Dukenog has right. We lost the ability to make creative solutions to problems in the 1960s when we opened up immigration to all. Those days are gone.

Right here, right now, we have to settle on what works.

[StCapps]

That's not my angle. When people argue against, say healthcare, they generally stick to the other. When we argue the merits of healthcare safety net, we should argue as if it were our closest family member's life on the line.

The general public being emotional about an issue and good governance usually don't mix well together. Getting emotional about Health Care just leads to shittier Health Care. Thanks for making the problem worse.

[K@th]

That's not my angle. When people argue against, say healthcare, they generally stick to the other. When we argue the merits of healthcare safety net, we should argue as if it were our closest family member's life on the line.

Being emotional about an issue and good governance usually don't mix well together. Getting emotional about Health Care just leads to shittier Health Care. Thanks for making the problem worse.

How do you calculate costs and prepare a budget if you don't know what the costs will be because you are unwilling to look at how much things cost?

LOL.

[StCapps]

How do you calculate costs and prepare a budget if you don't know what the costs will be because you are unwilling to look at how much things cost?

LOL.

I am looking at how much things cost. Getting emotional is not going to lead to better legislation, taking a step back and looking at things without emotional baggage will result in a better system. Emotions often get in the way of clear thinking, this is yet another example of that phenomenon. If the public stopped wearing their hearts on your sleeves when it comes to health care, then you'd get a much better health care system and less partisan hackery from the duopoly.