the new health care?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

The fact that you have a finite limit to your selflessness makes you inherently selfish, even if marginally. That is to say at certain point you will abandon your altruism and therefore disregard the interest of others in favor of your own. Let me paint you a picture that you will comprehend Joe. At one extreme of the selfish spectrum you have Jesus (zero and therefore completely selfless) and at the other you have the devil (completely selfish); with Humans somewhere in between. You can sugar coat your selfishness with self-interest all you want Joe, still you remain selfish. Further more, you've debased this whole topic to "is oral-sex sex" Joe and no further discussion in this matter is warranted.

I agree that the selfishness vs. self-lessness debate has no relevance to healthcare reform, but that just makes me question why you brought it up in the first place. Seems to me that Joe was merely defending himself against a loaded term...which you've here defined in a clear, but ultimately in a manner that is academically and grammatically unsubstantiated. In other words: fascinating opinion, man! The human mind can do craaazy things!

Fun simile though.

Originally Posted by saden1

I have actually given you deference in this matter Joe in hopes of just moving on yet you still stagger around in the ring all bloodied. The truth is Joe UHC is not debatable under the "promote the general welfare statue" at all. If it was enacted today and you challenged it in the highest court of the land you would lose. Better men have tried and failed. Similarly I cannot go into court and challenge certain defense appropriations (i.e. rendition and torture expenditure) and expect to win. Certainly you can go into court and argue on the basis of your hyperbole but the truth is there is also a hyperbole that can also be used to argue against common defense so the question becomes what is the point of using a hyperbole in first place to argue against UHC?

Doesn't this imply that:

1) All forms of UHC promote general welfare,
2) A healthcare program that does not promote the general welfare is not UHC,

therefore

3) UHC, as you use it, is a loaded term aimed at suggesting what healthcare reform should accomplish, and not an actual descriptive term of any particular individual healthcare bill or act.

I think we can agree that by your logic, the Obama bill is not to be considered UHC, and also that we've yet to hear a realistic idea aimed at implementing UHC in the United States. For all you or I know, your definition of UHC in the US may very well be impossible.