SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: longnshort who wrote (25071)11/28/2012 3:10:28 PM
From: Lane31 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
if the gov won't pay the hospitals it's the same a prohibiting treatment

That statement is simply not true. You might reasonably say that it's effectively the same as prohibiting treatment for some people some of the time, but your statement is an exaggeration. There's already enough wrong with Obamacare that there's no reason to distort it into something worse. Those distortions make what might be a good argument vulnerable.

I find it interesting that this distinction is understood when it comes to claims on the other side, for example, the claim that not requiring insurance companies to pay for birth control deprives people of birth control. You can easily see right through that, yet you do the same thing when you claim that Medicare not paying for treatment prohibits treatment. Sure, there are some practical differences between the two examples but the concept is the same. The concept of covering/not covering treatment is quite different from the concept of allowing/prohibiting treatment. I can more easily understand why folks on the left can't get their heads around that notion that the government not providing something is not the same as citizens being deprived of it. The distinction should be obvious to folks on the right.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext