tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post997935094372645874..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 458Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-48926908459840454392009-08-17T10:13:36.419-06:002009-08-17T10:13:36.419-06:00RE,
Thanks, and I like the wallpaper anmalogy. It...RE,<br /><br />Thanks, and I like the wallpaper anmalogy. It's quite apt for the state of the debate.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-89640700709277612352009-08-17T09:41:52.425-06:002009-08-17T09:41:52.425-06:00Agreed that something is afoot with this whole &qu...Agreed that something is afoot with this whole "no public option" thing. Drudge doesn't whiff very often, but he might have found a red herring this time.<br /><br />I imagine it is some tactical retreat like you suggest, and perhaps they'll move in a direction similar to France and Germany (you pay out of pocket and get reimbursed) and watch the Democratic voter base howl... and hope enough low-income independents and Republicans see it as a nonviable option that they can reverse the public into clamoring for a single-payer option.<br /><br />This is possible because the tenor of the current debate on health care is picking between colors of wallpaper for a house yet unbought; the purchase of the house has become an assumed done deal. The critical argument that isn't being made (except in O'ist circles mainly) is that it wouldn't matter if socialized medicine costed a fraction of the current cost and provided brilliant, top-end care to all -- and even its proponents are not claiming it will be that cheap or effective -- it's still a violation of individual rights to expropriate money from the productive to pay for even so much as one aspirin for the unproductive.REhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552535397929988865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-83415175592360225872009-08-17T09:25:14.089-06:002009-08-17T09:25:14.089-06:00Gus,
I salute your statement "that a religiou...Gus,<br />I salute your statement "that a religious motivation should supersede the law is completely wrong".<br /><br />In my current personal battle I am finding out, my reasoned convictions of what I hold as important and of immense value and willing to fight for will have little standing in a court of law, my lawyer says, because my adversary brings in the sacred cow of "religious traditions" and no judge apparently will dare to question that line of defense! The upside down morality and gross injustice is possible only because courts have chosen to bar reason when it comes to mystic religion brought in as defense in the legal process -just say it is "pertaining to religious faith" and anything goes.<br />JasmineRational Educationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02520568540990573166noreply@blogger.com