RE: "So, since you are against gummit supported health care, you are going to renounce your veteran's benefits, government job and other benefits, right."
??? What if someone agrees to genital sex under certain conditions, does that mean they "automatically" consent to
anal sex, oral sex, public sex, sex with an animal, and all other forms or conditions that sex could be participated in?
And if they object to these "other forms of sex," does that mean they can't consent to normal heterosexual sex?
Where I MIGHT apply your logic to, is for people who want "govt out of health care choices"
but then want to mandate policy for ALL CITIZENS. Logically if you only want to pay for health care under certain conditions (like covering birth control, maternity, pre existing conditions or recovery for recreational drug abuse) then you should pay and manage resources and policies through your OWN programs where YOU control those terms and conditions.
The side that I see arguing for that is the OPPOSITION to ACA who WANT to keep "health care choices up to the people directly"
and NOT hand the controls over to federal mandates and regulations. The side I see handing over control to the
govt are the liberal/Singlepayer advocates who then yell when other taxpayers affected don't agree to the same terms.
So THOSE PROPONENTS of govt health care are the people I think you should be addressing:
how can you be "prochoice" when it comes to reproductive care
but then give govt control over all areas of health care?
14 days ago news bro? slow work day?
Yet slavery is an important issue.......
Yes, having universal health care is just like slavery.
So, since you are against gummit supported health care, you are going to renounce your veteran's benefits, government job and other benefits, right.
I mean, we wouldn't want a rugged individualist like yourself "enslaved" to an evil government.
What gets me is a lot of the same people who complain about religion causing
people to be slaves to some external deity or idol, turn around and make Government their God and expect everyone to follow the same religion.
They yell "separation of church and state" if they are forced to follow someone else's
religious policy or deity they don't believe in,
but when people don't believe in govt controlling health care
and instead believe in "individual freedom to pay for their own"
(similar to arguments about "anyone can be moral and responsible without
going through Jesus to follow God") then those opposing "beliefs"
"aren't valid and don't count."
they politically exclude people, without thinking twice,
when these same people argued the religious right and Christians were doing this.
I don't get why they can't see the parallel,
that they are doing the very thing they yelled about,
with "prochoice" arguments against imposing "prolife" beliefs through govt,
or "atheist" arguments against prayer, crosses, or creation references in public institutions.
now when it's THEIR turn to impose beliefs in "singlepayer health care through govt"
while opposing views are yelling for freedom not to be imposed on and penalized,
suddenly those beliefs "aren't real" and these people "don't really object to the policy."
WTF????
Are these the SAME liberals who protest when people downplay "rape" by assuming
a woman "wasn't really objecting when she said no". But when "political opponents"
say "no, we do not consent" suddenly it's OKAY to override their protests and force decisions and will against theirs?
That's the part that shocks me. like finding out people's brains
have a disconnect button or switch that can't be turned on once they shut it off.
I already thought I was a stranger on the wrong planet.
Now I'm not even sure I'm in the right universe!
