UPDATE: My "inbox" is suddenly flooded with outraged Jack-in-the-Box patrons taking issue with my "elitist" metaphor in the above video commentary. If I caused any offense, I offer my utmost apologies, and would like to encourage all interested parties to join the "Jack In The Box Mini Chicken Dance Group." It's not often that I admit that I am wrong. In fact, I'm not admitting that-- I think my metaphor is apt. But if my portrayal of this fine establishment struck a raw nerve with some, I will go so far as to say that my remarks were "regrettable."



Salon.com
Comments
(As an Oklahoman, however, I didn't like your negative portrayal of Jack-in-the-Box).
Some people thrive in the thick of battle, while others prefer life on the home front. It would certainly be splendid to join, say, the cast of Fox & Friends, a forum I think I'd be well-suited for (they offer perhaps the finest news analysis I've seen on television in recent years.) But for now, I think it's more important for me to be exposing these ideas to the unconverted. Rather than preaching to the choir, I feel like I am preaching to the Godless, Socialist Omni-sexual homeless people attempting to buy drugs in the alley behind the building where choir practice is held.
If I can convince just one misguided liberal that Quality Health Care is a reward for those who have acquired massive wealth by leading Lives Of Excellence, then I've done my job here.
Rated.
Today is a good day.
Current law does not allow emergency rooms to turn away critical patients who cannot afford to pay and who don't have insurance. As long as that law is on the books, arguing against universal healthcare is simply ridiculous and ignorant. There was a young boy in Detroit a couple of years ago whose mother couldn't afford the 80 dollar dentist fee for his cavity. It abscessed, infected, and ultimately cost the boy his life--but not until he racked up $250,000 in medical expenses related to critical care. I find people who find that system superior to a universal healthcare system hard to take seriously as thinkers, as the argument completely defies all rational thought. Feelers, maybe, who have strong emotions about the idea of socialized medicine but who can't be bothered to take the time to work it out rationally. Not thinkers though. Your diatribe was quite moving and emotional, if devoid of reason.
The notion that a government healthcare system would put "bureaucrats in charge of your health decisions" is often rolled out as a boogeyman, despite the obvious flaw in the thesis: That government bureaucrats would not have financial incentives to deny you any procedure. How a disinterested civil servant who merely needs to check a few criteria off to approve is inferior to the current system--in which insurance companies pay people specifically to deny claims and grant them bonuses for each claim successfully declined, regardless of merit--eludes me.
As for the notion that we can't afford it, the argument is simply ridiculous. The United States has, as mentioned above, 5% of the World's population--yet spends more than the other 95% on war. Any objective reader examining that stat would have to conclude that a claim that we can't afford healthcare for our people because we need to outspend 95% of the world's population on war is frankly, ridiculous, and a badly warped and twisted sense of priority. Given the challenge, you would be very hard pressed to find any arguments from the collective writings of the Founding Fathers that would support that level of military spending during peacetime without badly extracting from the true context of their words.
Look at it this way: You have a neighbor who can't afford health insurance to take care of his family--but he has a bigger arsenal of guns and weapons than the rest of your neighborhood combined. Occasionally, one of his kids gets sick and dies, but he can't support their healthcare because he had to spend the money on guns. You tell me: Smart neighbor, or sick whack job?
Your argument in this video, by the way, is that he's a smart and prudent neighbor looking out for his family's defense. I on the other hand, would label that guy a dangerous kook--particularly of for over a hundred years he couldn't go a single decade without attacking another household in the neighborhood.
The very argument that we can't afford universal healthcare is predicated on the idea that all of our existing government spending is absolutely vital and necessary, by the way--including out-arming the rest of the world. Hey, I appreciate irrational paranoid fantasies that everybody is out to get me as much as the next guy, but if it came to providing for my family's medical needs versus indulging in the paranoid delusions, I'd like to think I'd pick my family.
Maybe you should stick with the choir after all; this "misguided liberal" thinks you're a nut.
May the dust of a thousand camels fly up your nose!
As a strict constructionist of the Constitution, how do you explain the 3/5 clause and Prohibition? Enquiring minds want to know.
Sincerely yours,
old new lefty
Thomas Jefferson was a horny old fart that couldn't keep his fly shut. Screwing his slave had about as much to do with being an anti-slave visionary as the apple pie I had last night making me Marie Callender.
C’mon, really! This crosses the border into pure, irrational absurdity and discredits anything else you have to say.
One wonders how much more over-the-top a person has to be...
I think we need something like "28 attacks in 28 days" about ObamaCare. (The irony is Fox News is basically already doing it - "Obama will force you to fund abortions"? Taken. "Obama wants to Kill your Gradma"? Taken. So you'll have to think REALLLY hard...)
Can a brother get a little 28A28D about some health care up in this biatch??!?
flv to wmv converter
This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing . Hulu Downloader
thanks really thanks. youtube to mp4 converter|