How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Fife]

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?

No. I'm totally in favor of safety nets, in most areas of life. Medical attention, housing, food, job training, education, addition therapy, you name it, I'm for it.

I'm a major fan of safety nets.

I'm a major critic of the state providing safety nets. The state's safety nets always seem to cradle the super-privileged and super-crooked.

[Fife]

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.

Are you sure about that?

Because if we're talking about my child's life, then you better get ready to wear some chains for the rest of your useful life. When you are no longer useful, get ready to be thrown in the ditch to die.

Instant Hitler's gonna get you, sucka.

[jediuser598]

One rule for you and yours, another rule for the rest of us, eh?

[Speaker to Animals]

In theiry, non-governmental safety nets are a great idea.

Unfortunately, this is 21st century United States, comprende?

[StCapps]

One rule for you and yours, another rule for the rest of us, eh?

That's what happens when a bunch of people get overly emotional about a subject that hits real close to home. Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have a great health care plan, bet that.

[K@th]

One rule for you and yours, another rule for the rest of us, eh?

No, I agree with him. It's the same reason we don't put the deceased family on the jury.

You have to be impartial without being callous. Nobody thinks clearly when it's grandma on the line. They might get that the other person won't get much value from an extra half million going to get an extra month of not-so-good quality of life, but most won't see it when it's their own.

[Fife]

One rule for you and yours, another rule for the rest of us, eh?

No, I expect the sentiment will be pretty universal when you ask any parent to assume their own personal children are the ones suffering some horrible fate, unless you, personally, are compelled to pay some money. You, personally, will be enslaved if that's what it takes to save the subject's child. Every time.

That's what your friend Dan was talking about with regard to torture, his own children, and Instant Hitler. It's a fallacy, and makes your argument a load of hooey.

[K@th]

No. I'm totally in favor of safety nets, in most areas of life. Medical attention, housing, food, job training, education, addition therapy, you name it, I'm for it.

I'm a major fan of safety nets.

I'm a major critic of the state providing safety nets. The state's safety nets always seem to cradle the super-privileged and super-crooked.

Can you be more specific? If it's not a social safety net, what is it?

[Fife]

In theiry, non-governmental safety nets are a great idea.

Unfortunately, this is 21st century United States, comprende?

So what? Did the 21st century suddenly make Marxism a working theory?

You should probably tell the Venezuelans "current year," or something.

[StCapps]

Focusing on emotional issues decreases impartiality and good legislation rarely gets passed in the heat of the moment. Getting overly emotional about health care will not lead to good policy.