Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.

I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example

Originally Posted by me

[our government has]

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by [BleedBurgundy's] numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.

And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example


And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...

Yeah, I guess I did... gets back to my defensive nature...

Onward and Upward, Football shall soon return!