Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#527 Jan 19 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not at all what "the right" wants to do. It is, however, what "the left" tells people in order to scare them away. You're confusing "making something illegal" with "not getting the government involved". There's a full range of things between banning and funding. Most of what you identify as banning (making illegal) is really about not supporting, funding, etc

GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007 wrote:
Q: If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?

Mitt Romney: Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.

You did the same exact thing with McCain. It's sort of cute how self-deluded you are about what the Right -- and your candidates specifically -- want to do.


I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#528 Jan 19 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.

Was that your way of agreeing that Romney supports (and in fact desires) a federal law stripping away the ability to have an abortion on the federal level?

Ok, cool. Thanks! Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#529 Jan 19 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. Could you explain to me how that has anything to do with the claim that the rights wants to make everything that violates the bible a crime and turn the nation into a theocracy? Cause that's what I was responding to with that paragraph you quoted.

Was that your way of agreeing that Romney supports (and in fact desires) a federal law stripping away the ability to have an abortion on the federal level?


No. That was my way of saying that any law on abortion doesn't really have anything to do with the claimed plan of the creation of a theocracy.

It's interesting that you assumed it did though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#530 Jan 19 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really. I've little interest in debating motive in this case since it can't be proven. But I have little trouble believing that Romney's stance is born from a desire to appease the Religious Right conservatives who preach about this fine "Christian Nation" with its "Biblically founded laws". You're welcome to tell yourself otherwise and I won't even argue with you on it. See how nice I am?

As I said though, I'm happy enough that you admitted to Romney's desire to federally ban abortion. It's a real step forward for you after you argued so hard, against the wealth of contrary evidence, that McCain didn't desire the same thing Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#531 Jan 19 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not really. I've little interest in debating motive in this case since it can't be proven.


I think your motive was quite transparent though. You were attempting to make an incredibly tenuous associative argument.

Quote:
But I have little trouble believing that Romney's stance is born from a desire to appease the Religious Right conservatives who preach about this fine "Christian Nation" with its "Biblically founded laws".


What other things they also happen to preach about isn't really relevant though, is it? There a a lot of things I agree with you on Joph, but it would be silly for a third party to say "OMG! How can you agree with a guy who also says...", right? And let's be honest, that was a pretty tepid and middle of the road appeasement (if that's what you want to call it). Um... Yeah. I'm not going to champion this, or work hard for it, and it's certainly not a priority for me, but if by some chance a majority in Congress manages to pass such a law through both houses I'll sign it?

That equates somehow to support for transforming the country into a theocracy? You're kidding, right? Even absent the gap between opposing abortion and imposing theocracy that's pretty darn weak.

Quote:
As I said though, I'm happy enough that you admitted to Romney's desire to federally ban abortion.


If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#532 Jan 19 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill.


No, sorry, he didn't just say "I wouldn't veto it". He'd be "delighted". Did you need me to link to dictionary.com or something because you seem to be lost and confused about what "delighted" means.

You're such a sad little tool. I bet the GOP loves puppets like you Smiley: laugh

Quote:
What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?

Was this a serious question or are you just flailing this wildly? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Jan 19 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If by desire you mean willingness to sign something if everyone else has already said they wanted it. What he said was that he wouldn't veto it. That's not really even remotely close to the same thing.

Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill.


No, sorry, he didn't just say "I wouldn't veto it". He'd be "delighted".


If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you think Obama's answer would have been if he'd been asked the same question? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Any major Dem contender for president for the last 30 years?

Was this a serious question or are you just flailing this wildly? Smiley: laugh


Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill? I don't think that Romney (or McCain's) answers are that far out of the mainstream, yet you're presenting this like it's some kind of appeasement to a radical element. And some kind of uniquely conservative thing.


It's not uniquely conservative, and at the risk of pulling this back on topic, it's certainly not definitively conservative. The hypothetical itself is the result of liberal assumptions about what conservative want or believe. Conservatives realize that this would never happen unless liberals pushed the bill (and/or there was said massive opinion shift in the country demanding it). Why? Because the overriding factor here is that conservatives don't believe in doing such things at the federal level in the first place. We would not push for such a ban. Liberals who decided to oppose abortion instead of support it would (and the very small percentage of conservatives who do place their opposition of abortion ahead of their small government principles).


Any president finding himself in that position would sign that bill. Because it would mean that the abortion question was over. It would mean that abortion, just like slavery, was now considered by the population to be a gross violation of human rights. And at that point, the question of whether you're violating someone's choice becomes somewhat moot.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 6:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#534 Jan 19 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Not "happy". Delighted. He thinks it would be terrific.

You can't even be fooling yourself with your attempts here. Why are you so terrified to admit that Romney wants to federally ban abortion?

Quote:
Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill?

Absolutely. But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level? Secretary Clinton said the government shouldn't be involved at all in a woman's right to choose. President Obama, in his legislative career, voted against several bills that would have restricted abortion. Fortunately, I don't have to work against direct quotes reflecting their enthusiasm for the idea and make pathetic attempts at saying "No, uh, he just meant that, you know, he wouldn't stop it."

Quote:
the risk of pulling this back on topic

The actual topic is the GOP nomination race. And one (well, probably all) of the current contenders would love to strip away any right to abortion on a federal level and throw down a blanket ban. Why you need to pretend this isn't true is a real mystery since this isn't even a fringe view of your party.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 8:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#535 Jan 19 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
He can't honestly believe what he's writing, right? Good lord. Smiley: facepalm
#536 Jan 19 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
He can't honestly believe what he's writing, right? Good lord. Smiley: facepalm

"Don't retreat, reload!"

There's no limits to the depths of his self-delusion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#537 Jan 19 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If congress had already passed the bill and if we had that kind of consensus in the country. He's basically saying that if there was some kind of huge opinion shift in the country and suddenly magically most people wanted a ban and congress passed a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.

Not "happy". Delighted.


You're kidding, right?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. Serious question. Do you honestly believe that if any of those candidates had been proposed the same exact hypothetical that they'd have said they'd oppose the will of the majority and veto the bill?

Absolutely.


You're fooling yourself Joph. They'd give the same answer. They might not use the word "delighted", but they'd say that they'd sign the bill. Which, I suspect, is why no one ever asks them that question.


Quote:
But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level?


Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.


Quote:
Secretary Clinton said the government shouldn't be involved at all in a woman's right to choose.


Uh huh. And Romney (and pretty much every GOP candidate during our lifetimes) have argued that the issue of abortion should not be dealt with at the federal level. Funny how this doesn't dissuade you from assuming they would work for a federal ban on abortion anyway.

I'll also point out this is a non-answer anyway. What does that mean? The (federal) government is already involved in a womans "right to choose". So she opposes Roe v. Wade? And state governments all have laws limiting abortion on the books right now. That's "involvement", right?

Quote:
President Obama, in his legislative career, voted against several bills that would have restricted abortion.


Yup. Well aware of this. But when asked the question about he personally feel about abortion when running for president, he tip toed around it pretty carefully. Who do you suppose he was "appeasing"?

Quote:
The actual topic is the GOP nomination race. And one (well, probably all) of the current contenders would love to strip away any right to abortion on a federal level and throw down a blanket ban. Why you need to pretend this isn't true is a real mystery since this isn't even a fringe view of your party.


None of them do Joph. You're getting caught up in a leading question. He's saying that if there was a consensus switch in the country on the issue of abortion, and if congress came to him with a bill banning abortion (with all the prerequisites that would require), he would be delighted to sign it. Not because he'd be able to impose his draconian views on abortion on an unwilling public (as you seem to want to suggest), because it would mean that the public had overwhelmingly rejected the notion of abortion as a practice.


That's the only case in which conservatives would ever pass such a thing Joph. Don't you get that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#538 Jan 19 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right?

No. Of course not. That was the exact word he used. Why would I be "kidding" to use his actual language while you sit there and beg me to accept the language you wish he used?

Quote:
You're fooling yourself Joph.

Coming from the guy who refuses to admit that Romney would be delighted and think it would be terrific to sign a bill banning all abortion on the federal level, I'm going to not worry too much about your opinion there Smiley: laugh

I see you couldn't find anything remotely close to Romney's remarks for any Democratic candidate. That's no surprise to me. I guess it might have been for you since you've convinced yourself that anyone would answer with Romney's answer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#539 Jan 19 2012 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.
Just for clarification, are you looking for proof of Romney saying this?
Mitt Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
Because, you know ... he did. I'd say word for word, but there was a "Let me say it" thrown in there as well.

I'll admit I didn't read the zam quote. I was busy watching the 2007 FL GOP Debate. My mistake. Guilliani said he wouldn't sign it, just for comparison's sake.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:37pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#540 Jan 19 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Tell ya what Joph. Get back to me when the GOP actually does attempt to pass a federal abortion ban. Then we can talk. Pointing to a hypothetical question asked by a reporter of a GOP candidate which assumed that congress *did* pass such a ban does not constitute evidence that the GOP *wants* to pass such a ban.


And that's still a whole step or two away from the claim that the GOP is somehow working toward creating a theocracy where the law of the bible becomes the law of the land (whatever the **** that means).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#541 Jan 19 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.
Just for clarification, are you looking for proof of Romney saying this?


Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".


Quote:
Mitt Romney wrote:
Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
Because, you know ... he did. I'd say word for word, but there was a "Let me say it" thrown in there as well.


Sigh... That's not fighting for a federal ban on abortion. The piece you are missing is that conservatives have no intention to pass such a law. The reporter asked him what he'd do if it was passed already, not whether he'd work to get congress to pass such a thing in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#542 Jan 19 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".
I guess I should have used a colon instead of question mark. It wouldn't be entirely grammatically correct, but knowing your inability to follow points makes it entirely my fault you got confused. No, sweety, I was asking if you were looking for actual proof of the quote that followed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#543 Jan 19 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Tell ya what Joph. Get back to me when the GOP actually does attempt to pass a federal abortion ban.

Why? When they've made it crystal clear that this is their end game, why not discuss it now? Especially if you're against such a ban why would you wait for it to come to pass before talking about it?

I mean, aside from you being terrified to admit the obvious truth. But I suppose this means you've run out of ways to deny that Romney would be delighted and think it terrific to sign a bill banning all abortion on the federal level.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#544 Jan 19 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Romney saying "I will fight to get a federal ban on abortion passed into law".
I guess I should have used a colon instead of question mark. It wouldn't be entirely grammatically correct, but knowing your inability to follow points makes it entirely my fault you got confused. No, sweety, I was asking if you were looking for actual proof of the quote that followed.


Then why did you quote my request? I was asking for a quote of Romney saying he would fight to pass a federal ban on abortion. You quoted that and asked if I was actually asking for proof he'd said that. Then you followed with the same quote Joph tossed in earlier.


That sure looked to me like you thought that the quote from Romney fulfilled the request I was making. If not, then what the **** were you saying?

Er: To be more clear. Why the **** would I be asking for a quote of Romney saying what Joph had already quoted? I was asking for a quote of Romney saying what *I* was responding to when I made the request.


Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#545 Jan 19 2012 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
It's times like this I wish I had premium so I could post facepalm.jpg

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#546 Jan 19 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Then why did you quote my request?
Because apparently I'm more tired than I thought and gave more credit in your ability to follow points. I already apologized for making that mistake. We have to lead you from 1 to 2 and so on before you can finish a puzzle.
gbaji wrote:
If not, then what the **** were you saying?
Holy crap, man. It's simple: Were you looking for evidence of the quote Joph posted? Or are you waiting until someone tells you the answer? I can only lead you to the points. I'm not a politician, I can't tell you what to parrot.
gbaji wrote:
Why the **** would I be asking for a quote of Romney saying what Joph had already quoted?
I barely understand why you do anything. Seems like on par with any other ridiculous request you've made.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:59pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#547 Jan 19 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
For more clarification, he's the whole bit you responded to:

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
But rather than you say I'm wrong or whatever, why don't you just show me examples of them saying they'd work to ban abortion on whatever level?


Give me an example of Romney saying this first, but replace "whatever" with "federal" please. Stick to the case at hand.


I'm asking for someone showing that Romney did this. Seems fair, right? If that's the criteria for determining where someone stands of a federal ban for abortion, then we should apply it to both sides.

Can you find such a quote? Can anyone? If not, then how can one even argue that the GOP is trying to pass such a thing? And even past that, how does one argue that the GOP is trying to pass laws to "make this country into a theocracy"? I was told that there were numerous examples of this. A bait question about what a presidential candidate would do if such a law were already passed isn't the same thing (and also has nothing to do with creating a theocracy either).


I'm still waiting. Isn't it odd that so many liberals just assume that primary among the GOPs goals is "creating a theocratic state", yet they can't actually find examples of the GOP doing this anywhere. Hence why I called that a scare tactic. Because it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#548 Jan 19 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If not, then what the **** were you saying?
Holy crap, man. It's simple: Were you looking for evidence of the quote Joph posted?


No. I wasn't. What part of that confuses you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#549 Jan 19 2012 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
What part of that confuses you?
It took you three posts to figure out what would be a simple question for a dog to answer, but I'm the one that was confused. Smiley: laugh Yeah, okay. And for the record, I asked my dog the same question, and he shook his head. Now, I'm not saying he understood what I said, or that you're dumber than a dog or anything. Just posting the chain of events.

So anyway, and I know there's no quote or lines or anything but this isn't directed at you gbaji (I remembered you can't follow unless led by the hand, don't worry!) so you can go back to waiting on someone to tell you what your opinion is. The 2007 GOP debate was a lot more interesting than the current ones. Probably more to do with my obvious bias in that I always like Guiliani, but still. This batch of debates is as flat and boring as the 2004 ones were.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 11:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#550 Jan 19 2012 at 11:04 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Because failing to give something to a group isn't the same as taking it away. You get that a marriage license grants you special government benefits, right? This is exactly what I meant by talking about how conservative believe that rights are only violated when something is taken away from someone, while liberals extend that to include things that we fail to give them but we believe they should have.

You do not normally get to live on someone else's social security benefits. You do not normally get to receive their pension. You do not normally get to receive someone else's medical benefits pre-tax. Thus, not having them is the normal state. There is no violation of your rights if you are not granted these benefits. See how by our definition of rights changes our view of this sort of issue?


Boy you sure love to be patronizing don't you? Do you really think the gays would care if they could get married if there wasn't certain benefits that marriage gave? If there weren't benefits to getting married over getting a civil union, they wouldn't really care about the difference. And yes, I do know that marriage gives special government benefits.

So following your logic, there was no need to give people of different colors of skin the right to marry, because that was giving them rights they wouldn't have had otherwise? But yet, when straight people get married, they get all these benefits that they wouldn't have had before. Any person who married another person of the opposite *** would get those benefits. By telling people they can't have those benefits if they marry someone of the same ***, you ARE taking those benefits away from them. Not only is that wrong (even by your book) it's discrimination.

Something I suspect we might agree on, I think the state sponsored marriage should be done away with completely. The government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in who can get married and who can't. If people want to get married via religious institution, fine. If people want to be legally tied to one another, so they can share health insurance, pensions, etc. they should get a civil union. Do away with the tax credits for being married, that's stupid. Getting tax credits for having kids I can understand since that actually costs money. Getting married doesn't cost anymore than the cost of the marriage license, which in most states is under $100 isn't it? There certainly aren't any sustained expense of being married, so I don't get why married people get a tax credit. To encourage people to get married I'm guessing, but why does the government care if people get married? So that they have kids so that the cycle of life continues? People already get a tax credit for having kids, and one doesn't need to get married to procreate.

Quote:
Quote:
You can claim that the right isn't interested in turning our country into a theocracy, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it does.


When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.


Okay, that probably is a bit of a hyperbole on my part. But can you at least understand why those of us who aren't Christian might feel that way? Perhaps for you the reason to oppose *** marriage is because it would cost the tax payers more money, but that isn't ever the argument we hear against it. It's always "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman!" or some variant of that.

Conservatives in several different states have tried to get person-hood amendments passed, so that legally, an embryo is a person. Why do they want to do this? Because they believe that life begins at conception because that's what it says in the bible. That is a great example of how some conservatives are trying to pass laws that are based on theology.

Quote:
Quote:
Taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. We're trying to fix what is broken. Most people who don't have health insurance can't afford it, and yet still make too much money to get Medicaid. There is something seriously wrong with that. I'm lucky that my mother is willing to pay for me to have health insurance while I'm in college. Even with my health insurance, I have to pay out of pocket for eye exams and my contacts, and all my prescriptions because my plan doesn't cover mental health. If it did, it would cost more than the prescriptions do.


Again, this has nothing to do with the differences in how left and right define rights.


Yes it does. You say that the right only views taking away people's rights as a problem, where as the left views not giving people rights in the first place as a problem. I specifically said that taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. Besides complaining that they don't want to pay for other people's health problems, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the right against having a universal health care system, is that it would take away their choice. I don't see how that's any different than what health insurance companies do. They have a list of preferred providers, and if you want to have your medical bills paid for, you have to go to those doctors. How is that a choice? I suppose you could switch to a different health insurance company, but what if you have diabetes? What if you're pregnant? What if you have a history of ear infections? Those are all pre-existing conditions, and any new health insurance company you go to will not pay for any care related to those conditions. So once people pick a health insurance company, they're pretty much stuck with it unless they are healthy. Well, at least until 2014 when they're no longer allowed to do that, thanks to the health care reform that was passed.

Quote:
Quote:
I understand the different concepts between natural liberty and society given liberty. I just don't understand how you can call it liberty for people to die of illnesses that could have been treated, had their insurance company been willing to pay for it like they should have done. That doesn't even include the issue of people who can't afford health care.


Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.


So what you are saying, is that it's okay for a health insurance company to deny paying for treatment for a life-threatening condition, even though they have paid their premiums every month, because if they hadn't had the insurance in the first place they wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways, and they still would have died? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. If that's not what you were trying to say, please elaborate.

When you pay your premiums for health insurance, you are doing so under the belief that if you get sick, your insurance company will pay for you to get better. If you get sick, and the insurance company decides not to pay for you to get better, because it would cost them too much money, that IS stepping in and changing the outcome against your will. The insurance company paying for you to get better is not a "nice thing to do," it is what they owe their customers for them paying their premium. To not pay for their clients to get better, is essentially theft. They paid for a service they did not get.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:05pm by PigtailsOfDoom
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#551 Jan 20 2012 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Olorinus wrote:
It's times like this I wish I had premium so I could post facepalm.jpg

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:55pm by Olorinus

Smiley: facepalm

You don't need premium anymore.

Try to keep up.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 116 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (116)