jediuser598 wrote:Okee, you really believe that if you take away people's health insurance (those who couldn't afford it otherwise) that people aren't going to die? That's what you keep saying, "we're not talking about dead bodies here." We are, actually. I would think it would be obvious that if you take away people's health insurance that people are going to die because of it.
We are talking about killing people when you're talking about repealing Obamacare, repealing Obamacare will kill people. May not kill you or yours, certainly will kill other people.
Hit the brakes, then the clutch, down shift, and let it coast for a while. You've got it in the red.
I never said anything about taking away anyone's health insurance.
I said:
I don't think there should be a law that requires people to buy a product, and that punishes them if they don't.
I understand why a business that wants to make money would take a particular stance in regards to customers that are more likely to cost them money.
In the singular instance of my family and what they need, I am responsible for paying for that. I don't expect other people to.
Now, your stance on people dying because of a repeal of the ACA. You and I both spent most of our lives in a world before the ACA. I don't remember seeing dead bodies in the streets. Do you? Many people remember those times, and see that there were problems, but there was never an Armageddon scenario that I witnessed.
Drop the hyperbole. Speak rationally.
There are two categories of healthcare. Care for those who need it to live a full life, and care for those who wish to live longer than what would otherwise be impossible naturally. You can be in favor of both, but I think the former is more important. It is the latter than seems to consume the greater portion of resources devoted to healthcare. I am aware that there is a cult of immortality that pervades society. People want to believe that death can be defeated, and so think they are justified in expecting others to pay for such endeavors. I am not among them.
Child mortality globally is at an all time low. Treatment options for ailments in the prime of life are at an all time high. We are not living in a dark age of healthcare. We aren't even witnessing a global issue. This is a western issue. We live in the greatest era of human civilization in the history of the planet, and people are less willing than ever to let go of it, understandably.
I've watched one family member after another let go of their attachments to this mortal coil and embrace their transition into the afterlife. They aren't the ones creating this resource drain. They aren't the ones refusing to accept that naturally, genetically, and as a result of human frailty, that they cannot live forever. The human model has a lifespan. Perpetuating it beyond that point carries continuously increasing costs. None of my elders sought to push past that point at the expense of their descendants.
We aren't going to agree on this. I understand that. You have stated that you think any means of the globe to offset death should be forcibly directed towards that end. I disagree. I've born many coffins to their resting place. When you go off on your pleas to emotion to sway me to believe that I should support you in your endeavor to enslave the living toward servitude to those past their prime, I refuse.
Continue, though. That is your right. Just understand that I don't think your inability to accept mortality condemns me or anyone else to be unconditionally bound to a life predicated on the concept that it is the burden of the young to sacrifice their lives in the service of those who have already lived.
