Just an Obama question.

[Smoblikat]

This is aimed at those of you who (like myself) hate Romney, but (unlike me) like Obama. I see plenty of obama ads that talk about how Romney wont let people have control of their bodies, which he wont, but what strikes me as funny is the blatant hypocrisy. Obama is putting Romney down for not letting people handle their own bodies and health issues, yet Obama is forcing people to get healthcare. That seems like him not letting people handle their own bodies. So my question is:

How can it be wrong for Romney to tell people that murdering babies is not Ok, but when Obama forces people to pay for healthcare they dont want/need/cant afford its all fine and dandy?

 

[shortylickens]

Theres no such thing as "just a question".
But to answer you, they are both full of crap. They say whatever they have to in order to get elected, then do whatever they damn well please once in office.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Let me see what talking point Media Matters recommends as a response for that specific question.

I'll get back to you in a second.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're really not comparing two control-of-bodies issues here. Abortion choice is a control-of-body issue. Obamacare is really a money/cost/tax issue.

The two would be comparable in the way you suggest if the Democrats passed a law forcing you to actually use healthcare services.

In theory, I agree that nobody should be forced to pay for health insurance. They should decide if they want to pay for it or not, and if they don't pay for it, they should pay out of pocket or go without medical care.

In practice, society doesn't work that way. Many people lack foresight or are unable to make wise choices. Some underestimate the chances of unforeseen circumstances. The truth is that everyone does need medical care at some point, and we as a society are not willing to allow people to die on the hospital steps, so we have laws requiring people to be given care even if they cannot pay. This creates a situation where people have an incentive to free-ride on the system, and to consume medical care in the most expensive way possible. Mandatory healthcare is designed to address this problem.

Note that Romney himself has made this exact argument. That was before he decided it was politically convenient to do a 180 on this issue.

It's really a lot like social security. It was always the case that people who were better off and/or wiser would save for retirement, but some folks would not, or would lose all of their money due to stupidity or bad luck -- and then they'd be screwed. So the government started forcing people to save for retirement, rather than having to deal with either allowing millions of people to live off others' savings, or eat cat food. (The system isn't perfect, of course. Far from it.)

 

[bfdd]

Vote with courage, vote for ANYONE besides Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is aimed at those of you who (like myself) hate Romney, but (unlike me) like Obama. I see plenty of obama ads that talk about how Romney wont let people have control of their bodies, which he wont, but what strikes me as funny is the blatant hypocrisy. Obama is putting Romney down for not letting people handle their own bodies and health issues, yet Obama is forcing people to get healthcare. That seems like him not letting people handle their own bodies. So my question is:

How can it be wrong for Romney to tell people that murdering babies is not Ok, but when Obama forces people to pay for healthcare they dont want/need/cant afford its all fine and dandy?

I am not sure where you get this 'can't afford thingi' Can you help me with that?

Other than that, the parallels you draw do not exist. Babies are not being murdered. Abortion is legal. The Supreme Court says the health care thingi is legal too. Perhaps the problem is within your own mind and has no correspondence in reality.

 

[Smoblikat]

Vote with courage, vote for ANYONE besides Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Gary Johnson 2012 my friend.

You're really not comparing two control-of-bodies issues here. Abortion choice is a control-of-body issue. Obamacare is really a money/cost/tax issue.

The two would be comparable in the way you suggest if the Democrats passed a law forcing you to actually use healthcare services.

In theory, I agree that nobody should be forced to pay for health insurance. They should decide if they want to pay for it or not, and if they don't pay for it, they should pay out of pocket or go without medical care.

In practice, society doesn't work that way. Many people lack foresight or are unable to make wise choices. Some underestimate the chances of unforeseen circumstances. The truth is that everyone does need medical care at some point, and we as a society are not willing to allow people to die on the hospital steps, so we have laws requiring people to be given care even if they cannot pay. This creates a situation where people have an incentive to free-ride on the system, and to consume medical care in the most expensive way possible. Mandatory healthcare is designed to address this problem.

Note that Romney himself has made this exact argument. That was before he decided it was politically convenient to do a 180 on this issue.

It's really a lot like social security. It was always the case that people who were better off and/or wiser would save for retirement, but some folks would not, or would lose all of their money due to stupidity or bad luck -- and then they'd be screwed. So the government started forcing people to save for retirement, rather than having to deal with either allowing millions of people to live off others' savings, or eat cat food. (The system isn't perfect, of course. Far from it.)

Excellent answer. I really appreciate you taking a non-partison view of the situation and explaining it as such. We need more people who can view the issues as issues and not as things against the other team.

 

[Smoblikat]

I am not sure where you get this 'can't afford thingi' Can you help me with that?

Other than that, the parallels you draw do not exist. Babies are not being murdered. Abortion is legal. The Supreme Court says the health care thingi is legal too. Perhaps the problem is within your own mind and has no correspondence in reality.

This is a perfect definition of an asshole. Though im sure he is baing sarcastic, so if you are then so am I.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If you really wanted to call out Obama on the hypocrisy of letting people control their own bodies, a better parallel would be the increased prosecution of marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized medical marijuana. Buying health care isn't limiting the control of your body; prosecuting people who sell a product that is legal in your jurisdiction is.

 

[bfdd]

http://imgur.com/q9kJb

Smoblikat, my GF and I are Gary Johnson supporters.

 

[Bird222]

You're really not comparing two control-of-bodies issues here. Abortion choice is a control-of-body issue. Obamacare is really a money/cost/tax issue.

The two would be comparable in the way you suggest if the Democrats passed a law forcing you to actually use healthcare services.

In theory, I agree that nobody should be forced to pay for health insurance. They should decide if they want to pay for it or not, and if they don't pay for it, they should pay out of pocket or go without medical care.

In practice, society doesn't work that way. Many people lack foresight or are unable to make wise choices. Some underestimate the chances of unforeseen circumstances. The truth is that everyone does need medical care at some point, and we as a society are not willing to allow people to die on the hospital steps, so we have laws requiring people to be given care even if they cannot pay. This creates a situation where people have an incentive to free-ride on the system, and to consume medical care in the most expensive way possible. Mandatory healthcare is designed to address this problem.

Note that Romney himself has made this exact argument. That was before he decided it was politically convenient to do a 180 on this issue.

It's really a lot like social security. It was always the case that people who were better off and/or wiser would save for retirement, but some folks would not, or would lose all of their money due to stupidity or bad luck -- and then they'd be screwed. So the government started forcing people to save for retirement, rather than having to deal with either allowing millions of people to live off others' savings, or eat cat food. (The system isn't perfect, of course. Far from it.)

QFT. I can't seem to get those that are against Obamacare to agree to let their own family members die if they can't afford the care. I guess that isn't the kind of society they want (or they could just be selfish when it comes to their family members ).

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a perfect definition of an asshole. Though im sure he is baing sarcastic, so if you are then so am I.

I am a very simple person and do not undestand the meaning of your post. I am sorry.

 

[bfdd]

QFT. I can't seem to get those that are against Obamacare to agree to let their own family members die if they can't afford the care. I guess that isn't the kind of society they want (or they could just be selfish when it comes to their family members ).

Because we understand that resources are finite and they come from somewhere. It has nothing to do with selfish, I am not a selfish person by any means, and has everything to do with stealing and forcing others to do things are wrong. The people who seem to be out of touch and want everything covered, seem to me, to be those who have yet to come to terms with their own mortality and reality. Thinking the cure for death is right around the corner. Believing such makes you an ignoramus.

Also, there absolutely is a fair comparison between choosing if you want healthcare and choosing if you want to carry a baby. Both require choices for an individual to make, what those of you who support the overarching centralized healthcare are supporting is the lack of choice in healthcare. That makes you anti-choice.

 

[emperus]

How does having to have health care mean you don't control your body? I feel these questions trivialize the abortion issue. I can imagine when you have something growing in your body that may cause you harm or your life. You may re think your position on whose choice it is to control what happens in your body?

 

[ericlp]

http://imgur.com/q9kJb

Smoblikat, my GF and I are Gary Johnson supporters.

I'm kinda pissed that there isn't an Atheist candidate to vote for. Most poles show that Americans would vote for an Atheist.

 

[Farang]

Obama isn't forcing you to buy healthcare. He's changing the point of sale for healthcare because the system now is wildly inefficient (i.e. those without insurance go to emergency room instead of getting checkups). He also isn't controlling your healthcare.. right now insurance companies control your healthcare. He is returning that control to the people, through the government. If you don't like what the government is doing with healthcare, you can vote in new elected officials. Compared to the previous system--did you get to elect the people at insurance companies who approved or denied coverage?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Obama isn't forcing you to buy healthcare. He's changing the point of sale for healthcare because the system now is wildly inefficient (i.e. those without insurance go to emergency room instead of getting checkups).

If the system is inefficient due to emergency rooms servicing people who can't pay or won't pay, why not pass legislation that allows emergency rooms to turn away people who either can't or won't pay?

A restaurant won't feed you if you come in hungry and can't or won't pay, so why should hospitals?

 

[Farang]

If the system is inefficient due to emergency rooms servicing people who can't pay or won't pay, why not pass legislation that allows emergency rooms to turn away people who either can't or won't pay?

A restaurant won't feed you if you come in hungry and can't or won't pay, so why should hospitals?

Aside from the sick society that would operate this way, I guess we just disagree on that..

So when you're bleeding out on the roadway and unconscious, should we wait to identify you and find your insurance card? Left it at home? 'Please come back when you can pay, sir,' says the nurse to the unconscious bleeding dead corpse on the steps of the hospital.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If the system is inefficient due to emergency rooms servicing people who can't pay or won't pay, why not pass legislation that allows emergency rooms to turn away people who either can't or won't pay?

Because people don't want to live in a society that operates that way.

A restaurant won't feed you if you come in hungry and can't or won't pay, so why should hospitals?

Because you won't die on the front doorstep if you're turned away from a restaurant?

And we do provide ways for hungry people to get food.

PS Atomic Playboy is quite right with his analogy.

 

[nehalem256]

Control of your body is code for abortion.

Why is a 15 year old girl allowed to get an abortion, in many states without parental consent, but not an ear piercing?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Aside from the sick society that would operate this way, I guess we just disagree on that.

What's sick about allowing people to earn a living? What's sick about allowing people to determine whether or not they want to provide health services to someone?

It seems like you want a slave society where you can force people to serve interests not of their choosing, much the same way slave owners wanted to force their slaves to serve interests not of their choosing.

So when you're bleeding out on the roadway and unconscious, should we wait to identify you and find your insurance card? Left it at home? 'Please come back when you can pay, sir,' says the nurse to the unconscious bleeding dead corpse on the steps of the hospital.

I don't see why a person's insurance information can't be on file with every hospital in the country. It's not 1800s, you know. I'm sure hospitals can be left to determine who is capable and not capable of paying for medical services.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Because people don't want to live in a society that operates that way.

Speak for yourself. I'm fine with it.

Because you won't die on the front doorstep if you're turned away from a restaurant?

People die of starvation all the time. There are homeless people who routinely die of starvation who simply stop going to the soup kitchen. One of them could easily get turned away at a restaurant and die.

I guess that means we should turn all restaurants into "emergency eating rooms" that can't turn people away, right?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Control of your body is code for abortion.

Why is a 15 year old girl allowed to get an abortion, in many states without parental consent, but not an ear piercing?

Because most Leftists are closet eugenicists, and it was eugenicists (Margaret Sanger and Rockefeller Foundation) who initially created and funded Planned Parenthood.

Leftists love aborted fetuses because they are basically anti-human. They want fewer people on Earth, especially those of the poor and minority class.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Speak for yourself. I'm fine with it.

I'm not speaking for just myself. I'm speaking for most people.

Maybe you should try Somalia.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I'm not speaking for just myself. I'm speaking for most people.

LOL. "Most people" used to think the world was flat.

Maybe you should try Somalia.

Maybe you should try North Korea. I hear they love forcing themselves on others there.