Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Additionally, the Bill Clinton issues are now being viewed through a cultural shift that took place over 20 years, capped off by post-Weinstein perceptions of abuse by men in power.

To say that the people who now view Bill Clinton differently solely because he's not "their guy" anymore, politically, I think is only a small part of it. If that were the case you would have seen the backlash start in 2001.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

This is sort of how I remember the first year or so of Trump's presidency through the lens of Youtube.

 Ouze wrote:
Additionally, the Bill Clinton issues are now being viewed through a cultural shift that took place over 20 years, capped off by post-Weinstein perceptions of abuse by men in power.

To say that the people who now view Bill Clinton differently solely because he's not "their guy" anymore, politically, I think is only a small part of it. If that were the case you would have seen the backlash start in 2001.

There is that as well.

But I think we also should keep in mind that Bill got his cigar wet in the Oval Office, while Trump was getting his before he was ever an elected figure anywhere. So seeing Democrats being outraged now, after defending Bill (and many still defending him today), wreaks of partisan double standards.

Which, to be fair, is also evident when the folks who even last year vocally made it clear that the woman who didn't divorce her husband for getting blown in the White House isn't fit to be POTUS are now defending a serial adulterer who just happens to be a POTUS on their side of the political spectrum.

As an unabashed dirty stinking socialist (and a Canuck to boot, eh?) I can admit I've gone full circle on Bill. When it came out, I was all "it's just a beej" and "she was just a whore looking to score with the leader of the free world".

But now, 20 years later, I've come to learn a lot more about the relationship between power and consent. I've also read Lewinsky's account of things. 1998 Feeder was wrong.

Culture has progressed since 1998. It is basically never okay for a boss to initiate sexual contact with a subordinate. That includes Presidents and interns.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

I was responding to Seb's point about how people "put up walls to certain kinds of information" and how people change their opinions long after Bill Clinton's presidency.

 whembly wrote:
I was responding to Seb's point about how people "put up walls to certain kinds of information" and how people change their opinions long after Bill Clinton's presidency.

But I don't see where this change is. At the time the opinion from his supporters was "it was a thing to do, but it wasn't illegal and the impeachment attempt was 100% partisan politics". Now the opinion of his supporters is "it was a thing to do, but it wasn't illegal and the impeachment attempt was 100% partisan politics". The only change is that, in the context of broader social change, we've come to a more complex understanding of " thing to do" and the reasons for that opinion have shifted from purely "cheating on your spouse is bad" to more consideration for the power imbalance involved.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I was responding to Seb's point about how people "put up walls to certain kinds of information" and how people change their opinions long after Bill Clinton's presidency.

But I don't see where this change is. At the time the opinion from his supporters was "it was a thing to do, but it wasn't illegal and the impeachment attempt was 100% partisan politics". Now the opinion of his supporters is "it was a thing to do, but it wasn't illegal and the impeachment attempt was 100% partisan politics". The only change is that, in the context of broader social change, we've come to a more complex understanding of " thing to do" and the reasons for that opinion have shifted from purely "cheating on your spouse is bad" to more consideration for the power imbalance involved.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath... not for using an intern as a mobile cigar humidifier in the oval office. But, I didn't bring up that up.

I brought up the fact that the Bill Clinton's supporters ignoring credible claims of harassments/rape, in support of sebster's statement.

I'm actually agreeing with sebster here.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

This is a good point. Sometimes I wonder if I am caught up in the same kind of irrational anti-Trump hysteria that the people that thought Obama was going to put gun owners in FEMA camps were.

Too bad Obama didn't have the same stream of consciousness Twitter habit. It would have been easier to determine his motivations.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I don't think this is at all true. There are left-wing crazies, sure, but they aren't anywhere near as numerous or influential as the right-wing crazies. Let us recall that the republican primaries in 2016 gave us the worst presidential candidate in recent history, and likely in the entire history of the US, winning over raving lunatics that were somehow worse than Trump. The democrats, on the other hand, gave us a fight between a center-left career politician and a slightly more left-leaning career politician, and the more centrist of the two won by a significant margin. The potential raving lunatic candidates never even made it onto the ballot, and certainly didn't have any meaningful influence in the election. There was no democrat equivalent to Ben "the pyramids were ancient grain silos" Carson or Rick "totally not an obscene image" Santorum.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I agree with Peregrine, I doubt there are nearly as many crazy democrats and they're certainly nowhere near as loud. I mean, who do the democrats have that can compare to Joe Arpaio? Or Paul Ryan? For every crazy democrat there is atleast 2-3 republicans that are as bad or worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I don't think this is at all true. There are left-wing crazies, sure, but they aren't anywhere near as numerous or influential as the right-wing crazies. Let us recall that the republican primaries in 2016 gave us the worst presidential candidate in recent history, and likely in the entire history of the US, winning over raving lunatics that were somehow worse than Trump. The democrats, on the other hand, gave us a fight between a center-left career politician and a slightly more left-leaning career politician, and the more centrist of the two won by a significant margin. The potential raving lunatic candidates never even made it onto the ballot, and certainly didn't have any meaningful influence in the election. There was no democrat equivalent to Ben "the pyramids were ancient grain silos" Carson or Rick "totally not an obscene image" Santorum.

Hillary Clinton had the lowest favorability rating of any Democratic presidential nominee ever. The only presidential candidate viewed more negatively than Hillary Clinton was Donald Trump.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/trump-clinton-finish-historically-poor-images.aspx

The Democrats nominated a bad candidate that failed to generate enough enthusiasm to earn enough votes to win states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, all states that Obama won twice. The Republican turnout in 2016 grew by about 500k, the Democratic turnout dropped by 3 million.

The "raving lunatics that were somehow worse than Trump" that Trump won over were the same people that voted for Mitt Romney and John McCain. The army of crazy deplorables that turned out to elect Trump had no problem staying home and letting Obama win in '08 and '12 when Republican turnout was lower than '16 but millions of Obama voters, faced with the possibility of a Trump presidency, chose to stay home instead of voting for Hillary Clinton.

That's one of the downsides of partisan politics, it's always real convenient to blame the other side for everything.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I agree with Peregrine, I doubt there are nearly as many crazy democrats and they're certainly nowhere near as loud. I mean, who do the democrats have that can compare to Joe Arpaio? Or Paul Ryan? For every crazy democrat there is atleast 2-3 republicans that are as bad or worse.

Nah, there are just as many. The difference is they are better at disguising their crazyness under a veneer of respectability. The crazyness is evident when you look at what their ultimate policy goals and ideals are. If you want specifics, Bernie Sanders is a straight up leftwing crazypants.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I agree with Peregrine, I doubt there are nearly as many crazy democrats and they're certainly nowhere near as loud. I mean, who do the democrats have that can compare to Joe Arpaio? Or Paul Ryan? For every crazy democrat there is atleast 2-3 republicans that are as bad or worse.

Nah, there are just as many. The difference is they are better at disguising their crazyness under a veneer of respectability. The crazyness is evident when you look at what their ultimate policy goals and ideals are. If you want specifics, Bernie Sanders is a straight up leftwing crazypants.

It's all a matter of perspective and priorities.

Bernie is only left through the (fairly far-right) lens of American politics. If he was Canadian, he'd be a centrist.

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I agree with Peregrine, I doubt there are nearly as many crazy democrats and they're certainly nowhere near as loud. I mean, who do the democrats have that can compare to Joe Arpaio? Or Paul Ryan? For every crazy democrat there is atleast 2-3 republicans that are as bad or worse.

Nah, there are just as many. The difference is they are better at disguising their crazyness under a veneer of respectability. The crazyness is evident when you look at what their ultimate policy goals and ideals are. If you want specifics, Bernie Sanders is a straight up leftwing crazypants.

It's all a matter of perspective and priorities.

Bernie is only left through the (fairly far-right) lens of American politics. If he was Canadian, he'd be a centrist.

That is true. Other countries are far more left wing than the US, but we are talking about the context of US politics here.

It's all a matter of perspective and priorities.

Bernie is only left through the (fairly far-right) lens of American politics. If he was Canadian, he'd be a centrist.

Pretty much this, I can't think of one of his policies that isn't already implemented in other modern countries in the world.

Of course this being the US the concept that minorities have rights is still considered "crazy" by a troubling large number of people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Kinda like how now, the old defenders of Bill Clinton has gone full circle in realizing that his treatment of women may had merits.

You might have a point if anyone was supporting impeaching Trump over his affairs, instead of (correctly) pointing out that he's a horrible person. The defense of Clinton was not that he was a great person for cheating on his wife, it was that his actions were not a crime. I genuinely have no idea why you would think that his defenders have gone "full circle" on anything.

Are we pretending that there are not people thinking this is just another reason to impeach Trump?

When talking about Republican crazies it's important not to forget that there are Democrat crazies who are almost as numerous and almost as deluded. Trump could trip on the White House grass and those people would say he was disrespecting the office.

I agree with Peregrine, I doubt there are nearly as many crazy democrats and they're certainly nowhere near as loud. I mean, who do the democrats have that can compare to Joe Arpaio? Or Paul Ryan? For every crazy democrat there is atleast 2-3 republicans that are as bad or worse.

Nah, there are just as many. The difference is they are better at disguising their crazyness under a veneer of respectability. The crazyness is evident when you look at what their ultimate policy goals and ideals are. If you want specifics, Bernie Sanders is a straight up leftwing crazypants.

So Bernie Sanders is the only name you can come up with? I agree he's the most far left currently (even if it's not that far left compared to the rest of the 1st world countries), but compared to Joe Arpaio (John Oliver covers everything he's done pretty well), Paul Ryan (the horrible tax rework recently comes to mind), or Arthur Jones (Self proclaimed Nazi and holocaust denier). The worst you can level at Bernie is he wants everyone to have healthcare. Truly a monster compared to a Nazi, corrupt/power mad sheriff, or a guy so deeply bought by the corporations it's unsettling.

But really, Bernie is probably the closest in viewpoint to the younger generations (i.e. almost anyone not currently in office), and was also the only presidential candidate to get his campaign funds solely through non super PAC/lobbyist groups. If there are as many as you claim, list them. List anyone as bad as Joe Arpaio, or Arthur Jones or Paul Ryan.

I could level far worse at Bernie. Namely him being deeply biased against Christians and freedom of religion in general. During questioning of an appointment candidate he asked utterly irrelevant questions about the guy's religious beliefs to an unconstitutional level.

Fienstein wants to ban all guns[youtube] https://youtu.be/Mj4AcjyuV38[/youtube]

And nobody actually objects to Healthcare itself. Its the baggage of big government oversight and increased taxes that is objected to.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I could level far worse at Bernie. Namely him being deeply biased against Christians and freedom of religion in general. During questioning of an appointment candidate he asked utterly irrelevant questions about the guy's religious beliefs to an unconstitutional level.

And nobody actually objects to Healthcare itself. Its the baggage of big government oversight and increased taxes that is objected to.

I dunno, look at Roy Moore, it's important to keep church and state separate otherwise you get nutjobs like him trying to impose their beliefs as law, and thus it is important to make sure they wouldn't be biased against one group, especially when the candidate he was interviewing/questioning had expressed anti-islamic sentiments.

Hrm, no there has very much been a strong element of "why should *I* have to pay for *them*" thinking coming out of the GOP on healthcare. Hell, Ron Paul openly said people without insurance in need of care should be left to die and was *applauded* for it on national television.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I could level far worse at Bernie. Namely him being deeply biased against Christians and freedom of religion in general. During questioning of an appointment candidate he asked utterly irrelevant questions about the guy's religious beliefs to an unconstitutional level.

And nobody actually objects to Healthcare itself. Its the baggage of big government oversight and increased taxes that is objected to.

Big government oversight and increased taxes to access a service you have little to no choice in utilizing is better than the current big pharma oversight and leading cause of bankruptcy system America has, no?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I could level far worse at Bernie. Namely him being deeply biased against Christians and freedom of religion in general. During questioning of an appointment candidate he asked utterly irrelevant questions about the guy's religious beliefs to an unconstitutional level.

And nobody actually objects to Healthcare itself. Its the baggage of big government oversight and increased taxes that is objected to.

Okay lets be honest here, Republicans have been injecting their religion into their politics for quite some time now and it is facing predictable backlash now and for the past few years as well. Don't try and act like a persecuted class because Christians still make up 70+ percent of the American population, and maybe keep your religion out of politics like it was meant to be.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, no there has very much been a strong element of "why should *I* have to pay for *them*" thinking coming out of the GOP on healthcare. Hell, Ron Paul openly said people without insurance in need of care should be left to die and was *applauded* for it on national television.

Ron Paul definitely put his foot in his mouth on that one and I can't defend that.

However regarding the general resistance to publicly funded healthcare. Its an objection to having to pay for other people's healthcare. Not an objection to people actually having healthcare. This is because healthcare is not viewed, and is not currently enshrined as, any sort of right that people have.

Now I personally would be willing to compromise on this. If it came with some expanded protections for 2nd amendment rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I could level far worse at Bernie. Namely him being deeply biased against Christians and freedom of religion in general. During questioning of an appointment candidate he asked utterly irrelevant questions about the guy's religious beliefs to an unconstitutional level.

And nobody actually objects to Healthcare itself. Its the baggage of big government oversight and increased taxes that is objected to.

Okay lets be honest here, Republicans have been injecting their religion into their politics for quite some time now and it is facing predictable backlash now and for the past few years as well. Don't try and act like a persecuted class because Christians still make up 70+ percent of the American population, and maybe keep your religion out of politics like it was meant to be.

See, thats an unreasonable demand. First and foremost because Religion by definition involves every aspect of someone's life. People who don't understand religion think its just something you should or can keep to yourself, but religion is a more pervasive thing than that. It effects how you act, including how you vote.

What you are taking the Separation of Church and State to mean is that everybody should be Atheists as far as politics is concerned. That itself is quite deplorable as its effectively forcing a "Religious Test" upon involvement in politics.

However regarding the general resistance to publicly funded healthcare. Its an objection to having to pay for other people's healthcare. Not an objection to people actually having healthcare. This is because healthcare is not viewed, and is not currently enshrined as, any sort of right that people have.

Emphasis mine, this is classic feth you Jack, I got mine. Textbook Laveyan philosophy.

Now I personally would be willing to compromise on this. If it came with some expanded protections for 2nd amendment rights.

How do you conflate those two things?

 feeder wrote:

Now I personally would be willing to compromise on this. If it came with some expanded protections for 2nd amendment rights.

How do you conflate those two things?

I'm not conflating them. I'm just offering a compromise. I'll give you what you want in exchange for what I want.

 feeder wrote:

However regarding the general resistance to publicly funded healthcare. Its an objection to having to pay for other people's healthcare. Not an objection to people actually having healthcare. This is because healthcare is not viewed, and is not currently enshrined as, any sort of right that people have.

Emphasis mine, this is classic feth you Jack, I got mine. Textbook Laveyan philosophy.

I'll counter with this.

Should there be laws that if something happens to someone else you are legally obligated to help them? Why? Thats a path that just leads to total loss of any personal freedom.

Health Insurance companies are large and in every single aspect of our lives, and often they own the insurance plans, providers, equipment manufacturing, drug distribution, and every other aspect.

Maybe we should start treating them as a public space or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we talk religion, we might as well lock this thread. Because nothing brings out the stupid on every side more than gun control and religion.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Now I personally would be willing to compromise on this. If it came with some expanded protections for 2nd amendment rights.

How do you conflate those two things?

I'm not conflating them. I'm just offering a compromise. I'll give you what you want in exchange for what I want.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

 feeder wrote:

However regarding the general resistance to publicly funded healthcare. Its an objection to having to pay for other people's healthcare. Not an objection to people actually having healthcare. This is because healthcare is not viewed, and is not currently enshrined as, any sort of right that people have.

Emphasis mine, this is classic feth you Jack, I got mine. Textbook Laveyan philosophy.

I'll counter with this.

Should there be laws that if something happens to someone else you are legally obligated to help them? Why? Thats a path that just leads to total loss of any personal freedom.

No, of course not. Paying taxes doesn't fall under that, though. Your tax dollars already go to things you may not personally benefit from. Why is healthcare different?

 feeder wrote:


No, of course not. Paying taxes doesn't fall under that, though. Your tax dollars already go to things you may not personally benefit from. Why is healthcare different?

Because its not really a necessary thing for the functioning of society. Roads, Emergency Services, National Defense, Subsidized Education. Thats stuff I do/will/have benefit from, and these benefits from tax money have been around for a very long time. Plus its something I can see, its tangible. My tax dollars pay for national parks and game reserves, which I rarely go to, but at any time I can choose to go benefit from it. Like going hunting for the first time this year.

Healthcare is different. People don't go see the doctor if they don't feel sick. If I am healthy, I have zero reason to ever go see a doctor. Unlike say going to a National Park on a whim which could happen at any time.

So a person who is young and fit might choose not to purchase health insurance. Because after all there are likely better more useful things to spend that money on. Like rent, savings, car payments, etc... Health insurance is expensive.

Now this person is taking a risk that they don't suffer some catastrophic injury or catch a terrible disease. But that was their choice, which is key. People here in the US want to be able to choose, and forcing them to buy expensive healthcare they might not be able to afford is a problem.

I'm lucky that my employer has generous healthcare coverage, but if I had to foot the bill for my own healthcare I wouldn't be able to afford it. Oh and I would be ineligible for any of the Obamacare subsidies either. Thats why forced purchase of healthcare under Obamacare was bad because so many people are in my position. You make too much to qualify for the healthcare subsidies, but not enough to actually afford to pay for it. So I would rather have the option of not paying for it at all and roll the dice hoping I don't have an accident or contract something that forces hospitalization.

 Grey Templar wrote:

So I would rather have the option of not paying for it at all and roll the dice hoping I don't have an accident or contract something that forces hospitalization.

Under this plan, I still pay for your healthcare.

At least be consistent and say that nobody should have to give you any treatment of any kind unless you can pay for it out of pocket and you should be left to die if you can't afford it. Of you don't have insurance, it should be cash or death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[ If I am healthy, I have zero reason to ever go see a doctor.

Thinking like this is why healthcare is so expensive in the US, and why we have health outcomes that make us the shame of every other western country.

Do you also not take your car in for preventative maintenance until your engine blows?