My opinion on the Jimmy Kimmel tearful address...

[dblack]

Those who voted to repeal ACA should burn in Hell, along wih those who rationalize that they're right.

Fire and brimstone! I'm all tingly!

 

[dblack]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

 

[IResist]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

 

[dblack]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

 

[IResist]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

 

[dblack]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

 

[IResist]

Kimmel was absolutely right.

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

 

[dblack]

How could he be wrong? Does anyone think poor children should die? The real question is whether such a moral conviction justifies nationalizing health insurance. I mean, no one should starve to death either - should we nationalize grocery stores?

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

And if nationalizing grocery stores did the same, you'd be in favor of it - because no on should die from hunger if they can't afford food?

 

[IResist]

People can still have food and safety nets if need be. Nationalizing healthcare isn't a matter of if in this country, it's a matter of when. That's my opinion.

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

And if nationalizing grocery stores did the same, you'd be in favor of it - because no on should die from hunger if they can't afford food?

The difference though is that we don't need to nationalize grocery stores as Americans are guaranteed a safety net and assistance if they need it, which includes food stamps.

 

[dblack]

I'm just trying to make sense of your logic here. If poor people not being able to afford health insurance, justifies nationalizing insurance, do you think we should have the same policy for all of life's necessities?

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

And if nationalizing grocery stores did the same, you'd be in favor of it - because no on should die from hunger if they can't afford food?

The difference though is that we don't need to nationalize grocery stores as Americans are guaranteed a safety net and assistance if they need it, which includes food stamps.

We do that for medical care too. How is it different?

 

[IResist]

I think we already do have that as people are allowed to use social programs and safety nets, but what you consider a necessity might not be what I consider to be one.

For example, I consider a car a convenience, a major one, but not a necessity. Healthcare, however, is a necessity, in my view and something everyone needs. If you don't want it, don't get it, but you should be able to receive it if you need it.

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

And if nationalizing grocery stores did the same, you'd be in favor of it - because no on should die from hunger if they can't afford food?

The difference though is that we don't need to nationalize grocery stores as Americans are guaranteed a safety net and assistance if they need it, which includes food stamps.

We do that for medical care too. How is it different?

While everybody needs food, everybody needs treatment. There is no price gouging or being refused treatment for a pre-existing condition in regard to food. Healthcare is not free. It cannot be free, but funding healthcare through public dollars which the people pay into so that everybody could use it an excellent way to get us on par with the rest of the world. Let's not be different for the sake of being different. Let's be different when we should be while also acknowledging the poor scores our healthcare system has achieved throughout the years.

 

[dblack]

And should we adopt the same policy for everything that you consider a necessity?

I think one way, or another, there must be assistance. Nationalizing healthcare means everybody pays into the system for everyone to use. Nobody should die if they can't afford treatment.

And if nationalizing grocery stores did the same, you'd be in favor of it - because no on should die from hunger if they can't afford food?

The difference though is that we don't need to nationalize grocery stores as Americans are guaranteed a safety net and assistance if they need it, which includes food stamps.

We do that for medical care too. How is it different?

While everybody needs food, everybody needs treatment. There is no price gouging or being refused treatment for a pre-existing condition in regard to food.

No one is refused treatment for a pre-existing condition. I've never actually heard of such a thing. People are only refused treatment when they can't afford to pay for it. It's the same thing for food. And housing. And clothing. And every other necessity of life. Do you really want all of those things controlled by government?