Wednesday, March 10, 2010

There's a Price to Pay for Not Voting for Health Care Reform

Finally the pro-health care reform advocates are letting their voices be heard. Health insurance companies have been raising rates 20-100%. That's akin to theft and fraud. It's time for Democrats in Congress to hear the voices of the millions of people that need health care reform now. Our voices are getting louder and hopefully we can drown out the voices of the teabaggers.

9 comments:

Paul said...

Bruce, what's your response to this?

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/03/10/is_health_care_a_right

Bruce Fealk said...

Paul, I too believe health care should be a right.

How can we ethically or morally deny people the access to health care? I'm guessing you consider yourself to be anti-abortion and believe that life begins at conception, if I'm wrong, forgive my assumption, but I just don't understand how anti-abortion people, can be against providing health care to all, regardless of ability to pay.

And using slavery to describe providing health care to people who can't afford to pay, well that is beyond the pale. That's why we must address this issue as a moral and ethical society.

Paul said...

No surprise, you have no response to the article. Well, at least one that makes sense.

Bruce Fealk said...

Paul, I was responding to the article.

Paul said...

That may be the case Bruce, but you said nothing to refute Williams argument. He laid out in lucid, logic terms why health care isn't a right and your response was, "Paul, I too believe health care should be a right". That's an opinion, not fact.

Then, as usually the case, you attempt to focus the debate on the moral and ethical argument, all the while ignoring the morality of forcing someone else to pay for another's health care. If you were truly interested in morality and principles, you see the hypocrisy in that argument.

Finally, the slavery analogy is a perfect example in the debate over who pays for health care.

Bruce Fealk said...

Paul, I consider Williams' article his opinion and nothing more than that. His argument makes no sense whatsoever to me.

We have many "rights" that may impose something on someone else.

His slavery argument is particularly ridiculous.

vomamike said...

Paul - Libertarians virtually believe government has no roll whatsoever in the affairs of man. An argument pro or con on virtually any issue facing mankind, can be made. But what it boils down to is: "are we a "me" society or a "we" society"? There are plenty of shills out there whose opinion is up for sale to the highest bidder. I like to see whose paying for their diatribe when I see such a negative response.

Paul said...

"Paul, I consider Williams' article his opinion and nothing more than that. His argument makes no sense whatsoever to me."

No surprise here. I think from reading your words, you'd have difficulty with the concept of shoelaces.

"We have many "rights" that may impose something on someone else."
Examples please.

"His slavery argument is particularly ridiculous."

And...

Sorry Bruce, you don't win a debate by avoiding the issue or simply dismissing it by saying, "That's just stupid".
The fact is, you got nothing and you know it. You don't have the ability or the reasons to refute Williams article and that bothers you immensely. Because at the end of the day, deep down, you know your position is unethical. You just don't have the guts to admit it.

Paul said...

"There are plenty of shills out there whose opinion is up for sale to the highest bidder. I like to see whose paying for their diatribe when I see such a negative response."

This blog appears to be a repository for Fallacious Arguments. In this case, an Ad Hominem attack. "I also have nothing to refute the words of the author, but if I can prove he was paid by someone with an agenda, in my book that negates his opinion."

That's all well and good if you're his tax attorney, but unfortunately, it offers no argument to prove him wrong.

Also, in regard to your "me" or "we" society, that's known as "Argument By Emotive Language" or "Appeal to the People" Congratulations, two in one post.