|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This just in, republicans have no problem with socialized medicine... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Pointing out hyprocrisy in Republican presidential candidates. That's pathetic. Do we really want people starting threads because a Republican acted hypocritically? This is no place for that. This is just a troll-thread, isn't it?
I don't know the details... but as I said, being against subsidized healthcare for everyone is not he same as being against any kind of subsidized healthcare at all. And that is why it is hypocrital. "I can get cheap, taxpayer paid healthcare, but if YOU get access to it: it's socialism." Well no. What should be referred to as 'socialism' is when subsidized health care is for everyone. Referring to the fact that we have subsidized healthcare for some people as socialism only confuses the issue. And its not hypocritical to support subsidized healthcare for some people, say the Vets, but not be for subsidized healthcare for the entire population.
I meant that he is rich enough to pay for healthcare outright. Nowhere did I say he should not get access to health insurance. I meant that he is rich enough to afford even the most expensive premium available to his constituents. Constituents who pay for his health insurance while not even being able to afford the premiums they have access to. So what are we gonna do... Base the benefits that state officials get on how much money they have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You seem to have mastered a sort of exculpation by vagueness. Exculpation!?
Anything can sound OK with a sufficiently vague description. Sound OK!? Gawsh, if I was trying any of that then why would I have these things about this guy:
quote: quote: quote: I'm not defending him in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why not? If Taz requested it be placed in, say, the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, you might be on to something. However, this is the coffee house section. I meant this site as a whole. Filling up the All Threads page with examples of Republican hypocricy would be a turn for the worse. Why no just go to a political discussion forum?
Conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, not me. Check the thread title... You should be berating Taz for feeding the fires.
It IS, however, hypocritical to call it socialism if someone else gets access to the benefits YOU have.... It IS, however, hypocritical to scream "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" while using the perks of the government to get cheap healthcare. And those same people who clamor on about veteran healthcare, all the while screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, are hypocritical. They apparently don't realize they are already paying for what is effectively socialized medicine. They just don't have access to it. No doubt. But that's all beside the point.
Is that what you would like to do? Not me. I want equal coverage for all. I'd rather my tax money go to people who need it and can't afford it, rather than people who don't need it but can. However, if my tax money happens, by proxy, to go to someone who can afford it, so be it. So long as everyone has access to equal care. Do you think that standing idly by while people on your side confuse the issue by slinging incorrect buzz-phrases in troll-threads is helping much? How about arguing with the people who are arguing with them about doing that, you think that might be hurting your goal some?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The thread says "socialized medicine". I don't see where it says "socialism". Again, conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" in relation to socialized medicine......but only when the general populace gets access to it. "When the general populace gets access to it" is when it becomes what conservatives refer to as "socialism", no? Where socialized simply means 'subsidized', do we see conservatives screaming socialism at all those things too? Are they trying to shut down VA hospitals and end Medicare? I suppose some might be, but is that generally a conservative position? I don't think it is. I don't think that simply being subsidized is what conservatives are against when they argue against socialized medicine. They're generally against it being 'for everyone'.
"Socialized medicine" is not a "buzz-phrase", nor is it wholly incorrect in describing the sort of medical care the OP mentioned. So when people say that the left is for socialized medicine, they're saying that they are for the sort of medical care the OP mentioned? But that's conflating seperate issues and I don't think you can be correct here. If you were, then the left should be championing this as an example of socialized medicine and something that we are aiming for. The fact that it is being used against the right means that they don't like the medical care the OP mentioned. So then why call it socialized medicine? I think its a result of a dishonest approach by the OP, and the fact that they're just not that good at trolling. "Here's a guy who is against universal healthcare but for subsidized healthcare, so if we call them both 'socialized medicine' then we can make him into a hypocritical positon where he is both for and against 'socialized medicine' at the same time" I expect better than that.
IMO, you sling that word around too much. Just because it disagrees with your worldview doesn't make it "trolling". quote: Taz had no interest in an honest discussion when he posted the OP. He was just trying to get a rise out of people. That's trolling.
How about arguing with the people who are arguing with them about doing that, you think that might be hurting your goal some? Disagreeing and having a conversation is not an argument. My bad. How about disagreeing and having a conversation with the people who are arguing with them about doing that, you think that might be hurting your goal some?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Care to explain? What should be referred to as 'socialism' is when subsidized health care is for everyone. Referring to the fact that we have subsidized healthcare for some people as socialism only confuses the issue.
Conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, not me. Like I said: conservatives conflate the two. So does the OP... but nobody has a problem with that.
So YOU think socialized medicine=socialism? I don't know what "socialism" is. I see the phrase "socialized medicine" thrown around, but I thought it was referring more to the universal aspect rather than just the subsidized aspect.
Tell me: do you think it is OK to use taxes to pay for a small sect of people's healthcare, but not OK to use it for the whole of society? If so, why? I don't want the government to subsidize healthcare for the entire population because I don't think they'd do a very good job and I think the taxes would have to be ridiculously high. The VA hospital here in St. Louis is fucking pathetic, so with that as my example of government subsidized healthcare, it gets a big fat NO THANK YOU from me. I'd definately prefer my private health insurance and personal doctor to that.
So when people say that the left is for socialized medicine, they're saying that they are for the sort of medical care the OP mentioned? In a sense: yes. Except they want those sort of services for EVERYONE, not just a select few. RIght, so its not just about being subsidized! And since the example in the OP is for just a select few, shouldn't you be explaining to Taz how this is not a good example of "socialized medicine"? Especially instead of arguing with me for trying to understand what the hell he is actually talking about?
It is being used against the right because it is hypocritical. I'm not sure where the confusion about that lies.... Because, technically, it isn't. You have to conflate things first.
When it is subsidized with taxpayer money, it is, essentially, socialized medicine. But that's not really what the left is trying to acheive with "socialized medicine", is it? Isn't having the services for everyone the larger goal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Except that it doesn't..... Except that it does....
I've already explained this a number of times. It is socialized medicine because society is paying for it....Let's change the phrase to "taxpayer funded healthcare". It is exactly the same. Yes, let's:
quote: Not quite the same, is it?
Yes, it is. They are taking advantage of a system that could be implemented on a larger scale. But, if it were on a larger scale, it's socialism. So long as only the select few get it, it's a-ok. And that makes sense to me... I'm for having subsidized healthcare for the Vets but not for having subsidized healthcare for the entire population. That's not hypocritical.
The system, when implemented on a larger, societal scale, would be exactly the same. Except they would call it socialism and fight against it. But it wouldn't be exactly the same, it'd be way huge-er. And that is what they're referring to as "Socialism", when its on a societal scale. So I'm not seeing the hypocricy.
Isn't having the services for everyone the larger goal? Yes.... And don't you think that refering to "taxpayer funded healthcare" as "socialized medicine" on the one hand and then using "socialized medicine" to refer to univeral helathcare on the other hand is something that should not simply be accepted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And you have been shown repeatedly that this is one restrictive definition. Evidently others did not think that was what was meant. As shown by the OP itself. You are continuing to build a strawman. The op and others are obviously using this definition. quote: not
quote: But from what I've been reading about Scott, he seems to be against 2nd definition and not the first one. So bringing up an example of him being for the first one doesn't contradict his position, and thus isn't technically hypocrisy. Not that he isn't a jerk or anything. You have to conflate the two to spin this into hypocrisy.
Yes they are, but that would be Universal healthcare, which is a form of socialized medicine. It has been shown to you that we already have forms of socialized medicine in this country. Veterans health Service, Indian health Service and medicare are existing forms of socialized medicine. They are not universal healthcare. Sure, is Scott against any of those things? Are Republicans in general?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Actually, it is. Why? Because they clamor on about smaller government and no taxes, all the while using TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTHCARE. They get cheaper health insurance that you and I pay for, yet WE have to pay out the nose for worse care. You're OK with this? No, I've already called that hypocritical bullshit. I've explained that I just don't get the 'socialized medicine' bit.
you have no problem having your taxes go to a select few, but you do have a problem if a portion goes towards all, yourself included? In some cases, sure. I don't need government assistance in my healthcare, so I don't have a problem with me not getting it. My friend got disabled and can't work and I have no problem with having my taxes going to them to help with their medical needs.
Why should certain people get better healthcare than the rest, when the same system and funds could be used to care for everyone? Because some people need help from the government but not everybody does and the government isn't up to the task of providing helathcare to everybody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
DO your taxes go towards his care? I don't know.
Do you realize that the right is trying to get rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare, regardless of whether there are people that need it? No... evidence?
That is kinda the crux of the topic at hand.... They want to get rid of ALL of it, while taking advantage of it.... I haven't seen that they want to get rid of all of it.
So you're saying this multimillionaire (the governor in the OP) IS in need of government help? More so than the janitor? No, of course not.
government isn't up to the task of providing helathcare to everybody. Why not? They can hardly get anything right. From what I've heard, the hospitals that they do have their hands in are fucked up.
Is the funding of war that important that some of those funds can't be redirected towards taking care of our own people? I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you realize that the right is trying to get rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare, regardless of whether there are people that need it?
No... evidence? Boehner: We Will Cut Social Security, Medicare Practically every GOP lawmaker in both chambers is now on record supporting a ridiculous plan to end Medicare entirely, privatizing it out of existence, and replacing it with a voucher scheme. Boehner got ’98 percent’ of what he wanted in debt deal I don't see anything in there about getting rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare.
It's not hard to find. Especially amid the fiasco labeled the "debt ceiling crisis". Well, I still haven't seen anything about getting rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare.
For profit health care (i.e.: the private insurance companies) do jack shit to care for consumers. They are all about profits....at yours and my expense. I haven't had any problems getting the care I need... and I think the services that I receive should come at my expense.
Now, I'm not claiming to know how good or bad of a job Uncle Sam would do, but at least Universal Healthcare would give EVERYONE the chance to get seen without worrying about going bankrupt just because they are sick and because they can't afford the outlandish premiums. I wonder what the side effects would be...
Again, good for you that you can afford it. Ask the single parent with a few kids if they can. (hint: I am and I can't). I've been waiting to have children until I can better afford it. What's my incentive to be responsible if I'm just gonna have to pay for the people who weren't and would've gotten mine paid for if I hadn't? With a big enough safety-net, everyone will behave recklessly. Seems like a bad idea to me.
Then why did you say the gov't wasn't up to the task? They can't get anything right.
What is so much more important than taking care of US? How much of our military spending advances the result of taking care of us? That's a complicated subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you know what Social Security and Medicare are? All I saw was cuts, not eliminations. Where can I find information on the Republican plans to eliminate it all together?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Perhaps you didn't see the second link I provided you with? I even said it in the verbiage highlighted..... You needn't look any further than the words I typed. Though, the proof is in the article. That was just a link to some guy saying that the Republicans want to end Medicare altogether. That's not convincing at all.
Here is another: The Ryan budget plan endorsed repeatedly by every Republican in Congress from Arkansas would end Medicare. It would replace the single-payer, government-run insurance plan with something much different. It would cost people more for much, much less. It would become a voucher system from which private insurance companies would profit. You could still call it Medicare. Or you could call it a ham sandwich. But it wouldn't be either as either term has ALWAYS been understood. That one replaces Medicare with something else so it doesn't get rid of all forms of taxpayer funded healthcare either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, so we have an example of getting rid of one form of taxpayer funded healthcare and replacing it with another means of funds.
I suppose you were just dropping some hyperbole when you said:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Again, that's cuts and not an elimination.
Same there.
I suppose it wouldn't kill you to rebut any of this? Why would I rebut something that doesn't support your claim?
Perhaps by providing something saying how the right actually gives a shit about anyone other than millionaires? I haven't claimed that, you're the one making claims here. You've provided one example of the elimation of one taxpayer supported program, and that one was being replaced by another means of funds.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024