Mikau wrote:

Curious, if you saw someone get hit by a car on the street, would you help them, or stand around watching them bleed?

It's always weird to me that people jump to these sort of conclusions. If I said that no one has a right to a free body guard, would the reasonable conclusion then be that I would stand by and watch if an innocent person was getting attacked?

If I said that no one has a right to a free meal at a fancy restaurant, would you conclude that I'd never treat someone to dinner?

Or how about if I said that no one has the right to a free Xbox. Would you then believe that I don't want people playing video games?

Zaole, how can you even argue against the fact that my parents would know more about how the healthcare system works than you? You're just trying to argue with everything the conservatives here can possibly even say.

I don't even know how you can say that the Canadian and British systems are good. I know many people that were forced to come down to the states for their healthcare from Canada because the wait was so long and the care so poor. You can also look here to see the consequences that the British healthcare system has had on their economy and the people in general. Just look at all of those sources.

Fugsnarf wrote:

Zaole, how can you even argue against the fact that my parents would know more about how the healthcare system works than you? You're just trying to argue with everything the conservatives here can possibly even say.

i never said anything about me knowing more than them-- because I DON'T KNOW THEM. the point i was making is that WE DON'T KNOW THEM, so how can we know they don't have other motives at hand?

you're quick to say that politicians are greedy, corrupt, devils whose only thoughts center around themselves, but you apparently think this is a trait that is impossible amongst doctors?

I don't even know how you can say that the Canadian and British systems are good.

i was mostly just mocking Lummox's statement because it was just a bunch of unsourced opinion. like this:

I know many people that were forced to go up to Canada from America for their healthcare because there was no way they could afford to pay to treat a life-threatening illness that they were unlucky enough to get

You can also look here to see the consequences that the British healthcare system has had on their economy and the people in general. Just look at all of those sources.

i'm looking at the Great Britain section, but i don't see what it's saying that makes it look bad. kids sent to fat camp? ...so? some guy says he likes his football team more than the healthcare system? ...so? someone couldn't have surgery because their translator failed to show up? how does that bear relevance?

could you point me to areas of that site that actually talk about the "consequences of the healthcare system"?

Mikau, the free market has always been successful. If someone wants to spend money on video games, let them spend their money. Regulating something like that is something they'd do in a communist country. If you want that, don't live in America.

SilkWizard wrote:

If, on the other hand, the government required everyone (or their employers) to purchase a videogame console, the Wii would probably cost $600 and the PS3 would be in the thousands. When you take fair competition off the table, prices are not based upon value, but what companies can 'legally' squeeze out of people.

I suppose the argument against that is that everybody needs health care, regardless of whether they have insurance or not. But if everybody had insurance, it would be better off. Of course, I was very much in favor of a public option, which would be in direct competition to private insurance companies, thus keeping the prices down. I am not in favor of just forcing everybody to buy private insurance. You are certainly right that forcing everybody to buy private insurance is pretty much a gigantic win for private insurance.

SilkWizard wrote:

'Need' is not a standard of value. Needing something does not give you a right to it at the expense of others.

But it's already coming at the expense of others. If you don't have health insurance and you're dying or you break your leg or whatever, you will still go to a hospital and be treated, even though you can't afford it. I'm not saying it's "right" or "fair", rather that it is the reality of the situation already.

Meanwhile, the idea is that if we could get these people to have health insurance, perhaps they would partake in more preventative care and avoid the very costly procedures they would have normally ended up with. Yes, it still comes at a cost to others that shouldn't have to pay for it, but the idea is that it comes at less of a cost. I'm sure we could debate on and on about whether such a system would actually work, but I figured that I'd point out that you and I don't necessarily believe quite so opposite about what rights we have as Americans. We just view the current situation differently and on how much or little the government should be allowed to get involved.

I don't think that the government needs to provide health care/insurance. I don't believe it's an unalienable right. But I do think that if the government can impose a better health care system for the good of its citizens, that there is nothing wrong with it doing so.

I think your side of the debate is hypocritical.

Silk, if you were sick and dying and had bones broken in your body, I'm sure the last thing you'd want to do is pay to get help.

Silk, have you ever donated to a charity? Even if you haven't, many Americans do. Haiti has already made over 10 million dollars from donations in a matter of days. And some of these same people hypocritically oppose this health care plan because "OMG ITS NOT A RITE!!11"

Americans are sooo generous and caring and quickly send money to this country and that country to help this group of people and that group of people. But then when a plan arises to help the unfortunate people in their own country, its suddenly the worst idea in the history of mankind.

Why didn't people go "OMFG HAITI DOESN'T HAVE THE RITE TO GET MONEY FROM US!" when the earthquakes happend? Why can they have enough conscience to feel sorry for them, but not enough conscience to help Americans? Because its hypocrisy.

Another part of this is racism and prejudice. Idiot republicans and conservatives along with racist people want to prevent it from happening just because they don't want Obama getting another 4 years. They have to make Obama look as useless and crappy as possible all the way until the next election date.

Kind of like your childish 3rd grade "Super Saiyan Bush" remark. Your jokes get you to the same place where it gets little kids in 3rd grade - absolutely nowhere. He can be Super Saiyan Bush, but guess what? Hes still sitting in office running this country while you spew nonsense about him. Make a wish using the 7 Dragon Balls if you have a problem with that.

@ Proteen:
There's a really big difference between philanthropy and donations than government run programs paid for by taxpayers.

Fail hypocrisy argument is fail.

Proteen wrote:

You're correct, but my argument is the motive behind it all. If you're such a wonderful and caring person to send money to charities and poor countries, you should be willing to support this plan.

That doesn't follow. Charity is by definition voluntary. Being charitable doesn't mean you're willing to have the government forcibly take away more of your money in perpetuity. Charity is also far more efficient in how it allocates resources than the government. Besides, even the philanthropic aspect of all this doesn't necessarily override any bad parts of the plan. If it will do more harm than good, the charitable thing is not to do it at all.

"You'd do it for charity" is a ridiculous argument anyway because if the point is to address problems in the current system, how would you address problems in the new system? (Surely you don't think it would be perfect.) If more charity is the answer, is yet another government intervention the answer? Where does it end? It's like saying if you're willing to give $5 to a charity, you're willing to give $10; if you're willing to give $10, you're willing to give $20.

Point is, there is no sequence of actual logic that validates the statement: "A person who supports charity must support all state-mandated redistribution of wealth."

No matter what Obama proposes, some group, somewhere at some point is going to find some way to and oppose it and tear it down.

Heck, you could have said the same of Bush. It's true inasmuch as nobody can ever agree 100% on everything, but some ideas are worse than others and deserve to be opposed. Reflexively supporting an idea regardless of its merits is just as dumb as reflexively opposing one.

Thats how it works in this twisted country full of idiocy and greed. You give people the freedom of speech and they use it to spread hatred.

And facts, and truths, and love, and gossip. Are you seriously complaining that free speech is a bad idea? Are you seriously equating opposing a piece of legislation (for logically supportable reasons, mind you) with hate-mongering? I know there are people stupid enough to believe that if you disagree with the President you must be a racist or something, but I sure hope you aren't one of them.