RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:13:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

As for a snowflaky hissy fit, it's hard to top the "War on Christmas."

A Walmart cashier wished me "happy holidays!" I'm scarred for life!

Oh I thought about his toughness and bullying shining through, but he wanted a safe place for pence after the hamilton incident, and then not going to the dinner because the press are mean to him was pathetic, as was his inauguration fit...that was so speshul.

Altho the war on christmas, is fox fueled and I dont think it gets the twitter useage as much as the Scrotus.
Its a shield for their paranoid psyche.




bounty44 -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:34:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

almost anything that doesn't emphasize movement towards a free market is a non-starter for me. I haven't followed closely enough to say for sure but I suspect that's the freedom caucus folks' main objection too.

anything with the government involved is going to be Obamacare-lite. unfortunately, once you "give" something to someone, no matter even if its bad, taking it back is a challenge.


You know... in everything there has to be balance. Personally i don't think healthcare should be a money-making enterprise.



two things--one is, nothing produces excellence like a free market. if you want the best healthcare for the least amount of dollars spent, allow competition.

the other, despite the lefties who read way too much into too little of our constitution, people don't have a "right" to healthcare.



Everyone should have the right to healthcare.



apart from how bosco first answered the question, which I am in agreement with, you cannot really say "should" without giving an argument as to "why" that "should" exists.




tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:36:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

almost anything that doesn't emphasize movement towards a free market is a non-starter for me. I haven't followed closely enough to say for sure but I suspect that's the freedom caucus folks' main objection too.

anything with the government involved is going to be Obamacare-lite. unfortunately, once you "give" something to someone, no matter even if its bad, taking it back is a challenge.


You know... in everything there has to be balance. Personally i don't think healthcare should be a money-making enterprise.



two things--one is, nothing produces excellence like a free market. if you want the best healthcare for the least amount of dollars spent, allow competition.

the other, despite the lefties who read way too much into too little of our constitution, people don't have a "right" to healthcare.



Everyone should have the right to healthcare.



apart from how bosco first answered the question, which I am in agreement with, you cannot really say "should" without giving an argument as to "why" that "should" exists.



Because it is morally the right thing to do.




bounty44 -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:51:50 PM)

that's really not an answer to the question.

whats "right" or "moral" is a function of having a basis by which to make those judgments.

murder is wrong for instance because it deprives me of my life, which is a violation of natural law.

so the question remains.

some helpful reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights




tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:55:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's really not an answer to the question.

whats "right" or "moral" is a function of having a basis by which to make those judgments.

murder is wrong for instance because it deprives me of my life, which is a violation of natural law.

so the question remains.


People have the right to life and the pursit of happiness. Both of those things imply the right to be cared for if ill.




bounty44 -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 5:58:25 PM)

no, they don't. the first two are forms of negative rights, the latter is a form of "positive" right.

the first two leave me free to act, the latter imposes something on others for my benefit.

youre right back to how bosco answered you---if I have a right to healthcare based on a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, then I have a right to be fed and clothed and employed, etc.

in fact, what you are thinking turns me either into your servant, or a servant of the state.




tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:01:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

no, they don't. the first two are forms of negative rights, the latter is a form of "positive" right.

the first two leave me free to act, the latter imposes something on others for my benefit.

youre right back to how bosco answered you---if I have a right to healthcare based on a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, then I have a right to be fed and clothed and employed, etc.


Well you look a sick person in the eyes and tell them that they are not deserving of care.




Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:05:54 PM)

Natural law is full of killing, homosexuality cruelty.
Even outside the food chain parameters.

Gods will is funny, when women are likely to face higher pricing and scarcity for maternity coverage, birth control and fertility issues, not to mention regular preventative care, half the population, will suffer.

What is moral about that?
what is RIGHT about that?
<snip>

Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, the insurance market was a bleak place for women. They often had to pay more than men for the same coverage. Only 12 percent of individual market plans covered maternity care. And it was completely legal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to women who were pregnant or might become pregnant in the future.

But many Republicans argue that this pre-2010 system was better, because men shouldn’t have to pay for things like maternity care. Republicans argue that premiums will go down if people can shop around more for a la carte services.

Experts worry that if insurance companies are given the option of offering expensive services like maternity care, it will become a race to the bottom where that coverage, once again, becomes scarce.






bounty44 -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:07:01 PM)

again, based on what?




Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:11:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Natural law is full of killing, homosexuality cruelty.
Even outside the food chain parameters.

Gods will is funny, when women are likely to face higher pricing and scarcity for maternity coverage, birth control and fertility issues, not to mention regular preventative care, half the population, will suffer.

What is moral about that?
what is RIGHT about that?
<snip>

Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, the insurance market was a bleak place for women. They often had to pay more than men for the same coverage. Only 12 percent of individual market plans covered maternity care. And it was completely legal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to women who were pregnant or might become pregnant in the future.

But many Republicans argue that this pre-2010 system was better, because men shouldn’t have to pay for things like maternity care. Republicans argue that premiums will go down if people can shop around more for a la carte services.

Experts worry that if insurance companies are given the option of offering expensive services like maternity care, it will become a race to the bottom where that coverage, once again, becomes scarce.




Some are calling congressional Trump supporters the "Vichy Republicans."




tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:15:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

again, based on what?


Common sense.




Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Natural law is full of killing, homosexuality cruelty.
Even outside the food chain parameters.

Gods will is funny, when women are likely to face higher pricing and scarcity for maternity coverage, birth control and fertility issues, not to mention regular preventative care, half the population, will suffer.

What is moral about that?
what is RIGHT about that?
<snip>

Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, the insurance market was a bleak place for women. They often had to pay more than men for the same coverage. Only 12 percent of individual market plans covered maternity care. And it was completely legal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to women who were pregnant or might become pregnant in the future.

But many Republicans argue that this pre-2010 system was better, because men shouldn’t have to pay for things like maternity care. Republicans argue that premiums will go down if people can shop around more for a la carte services.

Experts worry that if insurance companies are given the option of offering expensive services like maternity care, it will become a race to the bottom where that coverage, once again, becomes scarce.




Some are calling congressional Trump supporters the "Vichy Republicans."

heh




Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:19:52 PM)

He's playing a philosophical game with you, one that could go on for decades.

He could just as easily have played it the other way. Here ya go, from philosophybasics.com

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.

It is the opposite of Moral Relativism, the position that moral propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It is related to, but not the same as, Moral Realism (the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion), and to Moral Universalism (the position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all people, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing feature).

The ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle believed in a kind of Absolutism or Universalism, opposing the Moral Relativism of the Sophists. Immanuel Kant was a prominent promoter of Moral Absolutism, and his formulation of the deontological theory of the Categorical Imperative was essentially absolutist in nature. Moral Absolutism has been favoured historically largely because it makes the creation of laws and the upholding of the judicial system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings.

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded absolutism, where in the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or, still lower, property). Divine Command Theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham argued that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory).

Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life). In this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentialism (in which a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions).




tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:32:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

He's playing a philosophical game with you, one that could go on for decades.

He could just as easily have played it the other way. Here ya go, from philosophybasics.com

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.

It is the opposite of Moral Relativism, the position that moral propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It is related to, but not the same as, Moral Realism (the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion), and to Moral Universalism (the position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all people, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing feature).

The ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle believed in a kind of Absolutism or Universalism, opposing the Moral Relativism of the Sophists. Immanuel Kant was a prominent promoter of Moral Absolutism, and his formulation of the deontological theory of the Categorical Imperative was essentially absolutist in nature. Moral Absolutism has been favoured historically largely because it makes the creation of laws and the upholding of the judicial system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as the Divine Right of Kings.

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, and regard their system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Many Christians regard Christian theology as teaching a hierarchy of moral absolutes known as graded absolutism, where in the case of a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one (God) exempts one from the duty to the lower ones (fellow humans or, still lower, property). Divine Command Theory is an absolutist meta-ethical theory that an act is obligatory if (and only if) it is commanded by God (William of Ockham argued that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory).

Sometimes, Moral Absolutism can mean the more extreme position that actions are moral or immoral even regardless of the circumstances in which they occur (e.g. lying is always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good, such as to save a life). In this form, it can be contrasted with Consequentialism (in which a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence or outcome, regardless of the intentions).


I had the feeling something like that was going on. It has been 30 years since i took Philosophy 101 in college (omg 30 years).






Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:32:58 PM)


BREAKING NEWS
President Trump has issued an ultimatum to House Republicans: Pass a new health bill or he will leave Obamacare in place
Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:46 PM EDT
President Trump issued an ultimatum on Thursday to recalcitrant Republicans to fall in line behind a broad health insurance overhaul or see their opportunity to repeal the Affordable Care Act vanish, demanding a vote on a bill that appeared to lack a majority to pass.
The demand, issued by his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, in an evening meeting with House Republicans, came after a marathon day of negotiating at the White House and in the Capitol in which Mr. Trump — who has boasted of his deal-making prowess — fell short of selling members of his own party on the health plan.

The initial House vote, called Thursday to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act’s signing, had to be postponed, and Mr. Trump confronted the possibility of a humiliating loss on the first significant legislative push of his presidency.
Read more »https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/health-republicans-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news




Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 6:46:34 PM)

Well. This should be a show.




BoscoX -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 7:05:49 PM)

It is immoral, for many reasons

You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure

For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give





tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 7:09:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

It is immoral, for many reasons

You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure

For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give




They are cutting taxes for rich people. Even Warren Buffett said they shouldn't be cutting his taxes.




dcnovice -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 7:11:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well. This should be a show.

Seriously. Interesting times . . .

My healthcare-wonk brother predicts a narrow passage in the House but finds the Senate too early to call.




Musicmystery -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 7:13:09 PM)

Not like if they sent a bill later he'd refuse to sign it.

If they cave to this, they are seriously spineless.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02