I never understand why more isn’t made of the fallacies surrounding comments like this.
The parents can take the child to the doctor. No one’s stopping them. It’s free, if they go to the ER and say they can’t afford to pay.
40 million people without health insurance is always "40 million without healthcare". Plain wrong. So easy to counter, but hardly ever done. |
| |
Written By:
Hugo Williams
URL:
http://
|
|
I’ve heard of plenty of healthcare providers who are willing to negotiate a payment plan. Most people are reasonable; politicians excluded. |
| |
Written By:
Grimshaw
URL:
http://
|
Actually there are two issues with this statement
1. As already noted the parents can take the child for care, if they deem that the needs of the child are worth the cost. My son has a cold I’m not planning to take him to a doctor even though I health care and could afford it.
2. The statement implies somehow that the freedom to get healthcare is somehow separate from those base freedoms that are at the core of our value system: "...freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." Seems these are the very concepts that drive our ability to get quality healthcare when we need it. All that society, theoretically asks, is that we use some of what we’ve earned by contributing to society to balance what we are taking out through our use of the healthcare system. Even there it is well established that when it comes to care - society will wave the demand for payment and more importantly will render necessary care regardless of teh ability to pay.
That’s not to say Dr’s won’t pursue payment, just that as a society we are free with an opportunity to leverage one of the worlds greatest healthcare systesm, to extend and improve our lives, with liberty to select our actions and care givers all in the pursuit of happiness.... fact is can’t have a quality healthcare system without the other key elements of our society. |
| |
Written By:
BillS
URL:
http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
|
|
So someone’s sick kid trumps my freedoms? Is that really the message Hillary is sending here?? |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Allow me to rephrase this in a way your libertarian colored glasses may find more comprehensible.
"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean when the SWAT team is breaking down your door becasue they’re at Hamilton Street instead of Hamilton Drive?" |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
Ah yes. When you can’t defend the quote, change the quote to something completely different and defend that.
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
Thanks, Retief. My libertarian-colored glasses understand non-sequiturs just fine.
You’ll be glad to know we’ve also been critical of police abuse and SWAT tactics. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://QandO.net
|
|
I’m aware Jon, that’s why I used ’em. I thought that you might recognize that if "freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" translate in practice to getting shot by mistake by unaccountable police, there’s a problem. Saying so doesn’t constitute dismissing the great promises etc. etc. Nor does what Hilary said. Although why anybody’s wasting time bashing Hilary anyway is a mystery. |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
|
Nothing new here. Hillary as Grand Inquisitor: surrender your liberty, and I’ll give you security. (Of course it’s a false security, because no one’s secure under omnipotent government.) |
| |
Written By:
Bilwick
URL:
http://
|
|
By the way, what’s the consensus here on Retief: reading comprehension problem, or deliberate use of the diversionary "shifting sands" school of argument? |
| |
Written By:
Bilwick
URL:
http://
|
