jpc4p, your response reads like a Democrat talking point. Why don't you throw in "what about the children" for good measure?

At what level of spending would you say "we can't afford this"? Seriously, is there any in your mind? If we simply don't have the money to pay for it, which we don't, what happens then?

What percentage of your income are you willing to allocate to pay for it? Are you going to clear out your retirement fund to pay for it? What are you going to do when employers won't hire you, or your friends, or your kids, because the healthcare costs are so high that they can't profitably hire employees? What do the doctors do when they're told they're now government workers and will only make $40,000/year? What will the patients do when the government starts rationing healthcare, and have to wait a month or more to see a doctor, or are told their condition simply won't be treated because it's not life threatening?

When his out of control spending of trillions of dollars (that didn't create any jobs or stimulate anything) ends up causing massive inflation, and the value of your retirement fund gets drastically reduced to the point where you can't afford to live with dignity at retirement, what will you do then?

If you think the answer is "I trust Obama, he'll figure it out", I'm sorry my friend, you're mistaken. He'll be off with his $191,000+ pension, on his high paid speaking engagements by then, with the rest of the country left holding the bag while his private doctors take care of his every need for the rest of his life.

Do you really think I'm going to be swayed by you advising me to go worry about something else instead?

Here's some:


-Increased access to education/workforce development with Pell grants
-Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
-extending unemployment benefits
-Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
-Financial reform law including:
-Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading
-allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay
-requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status
-increased VA benefits
-repealed the restriction on stemcell research
-tracking spending and giving the public a voice through recovery.gov
-$18 billion dollars for nondefense science and tech research
-Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, monitors spending for fraud and waste
-Credit Card Bill of Rights
-4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals

I'd say the stimulus plan was more to save the economy, less the improve it immediately.

"Do you really think I'm going to be swayed by you advising me to go worry about something else instead?"

Nah man, I don't think I'll sway you or anyone else on the internet. Couldn't give two fucks what you want to worry about.

I was merely explaining that we disagree on what's worse for the country.

my list of stuff was in response to deadcode's question.

I sound like Democrat talking point?

Well yeah, that's because I think health care is important. They seem to too.

You sound like someone who's worried about spending 11 years too late. There's plenty to cut that should be cut, but singling out one progressive program seems a little convenient to the GOP for me.

This argument that we can't give poor people free access to basic health services because it may reduce the quality of health care received by those who are already insured totally ignores the problem of justice. A society is judged by how it treats its worst off. Even liberal philosophers as centrist as Rawls agree that a society ought to distribute primary goods -- a category which includes health services -- in such a way that maximizes the minimum benefit received by those who are worst off. In terms of health care, an unequal distribution of health services is considered just so long as it maximizes the number of individuals who have access at least to a minimal standard of health services. Its unjust, in other words, to give better health services to rich and insured at the expense of those who, by direct consequence, lose access to a minimal standard of health care. In Rawls its called the maximin principle; I'm not Rawlsian, but I do think his Theory of Justice really provides a substantive critique of the kind of arguments made ProxyCheater by the right in general against universal health care (i.e. that universal health care will reduce the quality of the excellent health care I already receive)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Maximin_in_philosophy

You are mistaken in believing that Rawls is a point of reference that we would agree on.

Rawls is certainly not someone I agree with; nor do I think that his theory of justice is in compatible with individual rights.

Boogy; let's get down to the basis of your argument. Why can't we all just leave each other alone? Why must your philosophy of justice; obligate other people to pay for your moral values? How is your legislated morality any better then the christian one? Haven't you learned anything about power corrupting absolutely? You have claimed hatred for the social conservative platform; but your philosophy only differs in 'which' morality gets legislated not 'whether' it gets legislated.

-in*

Because I believe that we are fundamentally social beings and that our ethical obligations to others, even those who we never meet face to face, are just as strong as those we have to ourselves. I do not think the individual preexists or exists independently of his social relationships; this does not mean that society must always triumph imperiously over the individual, but that we exist as individuals always in a complex reciprocity with our social relations, and that this interdependence must be taken into account in our ethical action.

I suspect this is the core philosophical disagreement we have. And I fear it is irreconcilable.