Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mister
Look at the post I was responding to. Terry made broad assumptions about all conservatives that didn't reflect what conservatives tend to actually believe, so I made an attempt to correct him. Conservatives don't have to support a federal health care program just because states can opt out. There's no real conflict there. I was speaking broadly about conservatives because Terry was speaking broadly about conservatives first and I was responding to him.?
|
...stop. just stop. You're not addressing the point here. You decided to "attack the messenger" with my post by showing that you, a self described conservative, do not prescribe to the classic party line of "less government...unless you're gay or wanting an abortion." and suggesting that I "ask" before making assumptions.
What in God's name does WHY you spoke in generalities have anything to do with your sudden decision that speaking in generalities was unfair or not based in logic for people who disagree with you?
Terry spoke in "generalities", you responded with generalities, I responded with generalities, then you responded that generalities are wrong.
That's ridiculous. ANYWAY, back on topic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mister
States may or may not agree with my stance on any given issue. That's the whole point. If state's rights are respected, I can go and live in a state that more accurately reflects my views or I can attempt to change things in the state I already live in. With the federal government, that's next to impossible since my ideas have to compete with the entire country. There is a lot of variance in opinion in this country and it makes no sense force one solution on everybody unless it can only work with the aid of the federal government, like the interstate highway system, for example.?
|
I never like to say this, but based on your proposal above it seems extremely apt: I you don't think your rights are respected, you can go live in a country that more accurately reflects your views or you can attempt to change things in the country you already live in.
So your issue with the federal government is that changing things to fit your personal worldview is too hard? That you have to compete with the whole country?
Without "forcing" one solution on everybody, I'd bet you good money the south would still be segregated. Using this not as an inflammatory example but a real life example that has merit. Sometimes the "will of the masses" is not the right thing. That's why we have a government. It's why we have a court system and a constitution. T.S. Mills wrote about the "tyranny of the majority." I find it ironic that conservatives (ON AVERAGE) supported the federal government for 8 years with Bush and Co. in charge...then the second a democrat gets in there it's suddenly back to the old catchphrases.
So I don't know what to say to you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mister
Calm down. I agree, the current system doesn't work. Why does the solution have to be a federal single-payer health care program?
|
THAT'S NOT THE PROPOSAL@!$#!$#@ AAAAHHH!!!!Good christ, this is why the healthcare debate (like global warming and evolution) becomes so emotional...because one side (apparently) doesn't even take the time to know what's actually TRUE.
The single payer health care program hasn't been on the table since like...the first week. We have a proposed ROBUST private sector marketplace where private companies can compete across the country, and we ALSO have a public OPTION to provide help and service to those who cannot afford the private options.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding of terms you're using? Are you aware of what "single-payer healthcare program" actually means?
Outside of that whopper of a mistake, what is your proposed plan?