That is a fucking piss poor argument, common currency amongst reactionaries. *America invades Afghanistan and bombs tens of thousands of civilians* - "Life isn't fair!"
*The government willfully did something wrong, succumbed to corruption, caved in to the demands of the Wall Street* - "Life isn't fair!"
No. That's not an argument. We're not talking an unpreventable, unpunishable natural disaster here, we're talking about the government and its weaknesses. They can (and must) be corrected and punished. The conservative argument: sitting back on your behind, blinding yourself to all the distinctly man made, corporate-inspired bullshit the world is being afflicted by is just not good enough. You WANT life to be "unfair" when it suits, and then whine about taxes and having to pay your way to help people in the society you live in.
Get a fucking grip.
*The government willfully did something wrong, succumbed to corruption, caved in to the demands of the Wall Street* - "Life isn't fair!"
No. That's not an argument. We're not talking an unpreventable, unpunishable natural disaster here, we're talking about the government and its weaknesses. They can (and must) be corrected and punished. The conservative argument: sitting back on your behind, blinding yourself to all the distinctly man made, corporate-inspired bullshit the world is being afflicted by is just not good enough. You WANT life to be "unfair" when it suits, and then whine about taxes and having to pay your way to help people in the society you live in.
Get a fucking grip.
Yeah if your conservative you deliberately want life you be unfair! According to your logic I should support the holocaust! By the way, the taxes from my family is not helping society. Society is everyone, thus the only thing protecting society is the military, roads, the post office, and anything contributing general welfare. The US Constitution clearly says that only things should be passed for the general welfare of the people. The welfare system itself is specific welfare, but it is only specifically helping someone. Obamacare is specific because it is only specifically helping people who are sick. Specific welfare is unconstitutional.
OH NOE OBAMA IS SPECIFICALLY HELPING THE SICK! ...That would be everyone then. Not everyone requires healthcare at some point in principle, but then again, not everyone needs to use roads or the post office, the fire service etcetera. You could in theory live your life without any of those things, it's just hypocrisy to draw the line at an arbitrary point.
No: "according to (my) logic", those of the "I don't give a fuck about anyone else" mentality would say the holocaust is just a case of life not being fair.
No: "according to (my) logic", those of the "I don't give a fuck about anyone else" mentality would say the holocaust is just a case of life not being fair.
You need to be more gentlemanly sir! I disagree about the roads, you may not use them yourself if you do not have a car, but if you take the bus, order or something that might be taken on a truck, maybe you ride a bike and there are special paths on roads, maybe you have no sidewalks and you walk on the roads. A vast majority of the people use roads, but a vast majority is not sick every time. Its not like I have a cold every day for example. Thus if not a vast majority use, then it is not general, but specific. Also, I do care about people that is why I believe we should pay more people's protection, ability to transport, ability to send mail, etc. DA!
I said "in principle". What about birth, pregnancy, broken limbs, toothache, chronic head pain, broken joints, going to a morgue etc.? I mean, you don't HAVE to do any of these healthcare-necessitating things in principle during your life, but the chances of you actually not doing any of them is almost zero. The example is analogous to your mentioning of roads; that is EXACTLY my point! A vast majority need to use a hospital/healthcare at some point, a vast majority use roads at some point. What's the difference? Personally, I don't use the roads every single day, but I do have a cold quite often. There is literally no substantial difference here. We don't use national defence every day, but it is still paid for entirely out of American tax dollars!
"Also, I do care about people that is why I believe we should pay more people's protection, ability to transport, ability to send mail, etc. DA!"
..and healthcare!
"Also, I do care about people that is why I believe we should pay more people's protection, ability to transport, ability to send mail, etc. DA!"
..and healthcare!
Well for not using the roads quite often you would likely be in a minority. If you don't have a cold quite often you are in a majority.
Healthcare also makes a lot of people poorer. This extra taxes will skyrocket spending which requires taxes.
Healthcare also makes a lot of people poorer. This extra taxes will skyrocket spending which requires taxes.
At any given moment, a majority of people in the country are not using the roads. Likewise with being in need of healthcare. I still don't get your point bro!
Healthcare making people poorer? Say whaaat? I was under the impression that paying a shit ton (MORE than free healthcare, in 95% of cases) for private insurance was far, FAR costlier for the overwhelming majority of people. The super rich can waste their money on additional expensive insurance if they like, but free healthcare would be free for all. Ordinary people would get to ditch their corporate care and save a veritable fortune, which would lower healthcare expenses tremendously.
Healthcare making people poorer? Say whaaat? I was under the impression that paying a shit ton (MORE than free healthcare, in 95% of cases) for private insurance was far, FAR costlier for the overwhelming majority of people. The super rich can waste their money on additional expensive insurance if they like, but free healthcare would be free for all. Ordinary people would get to ditch their corporate care and save a veritable fortune, which would lower healthcare expenses tremendously.
When she was speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi claimed that we would pay "ten year" costs of $940,000,000,000.00 which as far as I am concerned is already very expensive. However, is that the real story? You will surprised to find out that it is not. For several reasons the Democrats' costs do not match up to the real cost. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that Obamacare may cost around 2.5 to 3 trillion dollars in the first ten years alone and costs would continue. In the current system, 1.1 trillion dollars is spent to assist medicare, but that is not enough to cover Obamacare so only two options can happen; raise the debt or raise taxes.