• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

Like telling the patient they have the choice to pick death? Isn't that option a bit obvious?

Morbidity is a serious concern for people and the people around them in those situations.
 
So it all comes down to a rather subjective view on acceptable risks that are permitted in a society. I'm not surprised by that discovery at all.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not and I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Are you suggesting that risk vs reward is a subjective measure? Well gee yea. I could rob a banks for a living or I could work a job every day. It's all a matter of risk vs reward. Sure I could get rich quickly but I dunno, there's only so much risk I want to take, not even taking into account that most people actually do want to follow the laws and rules of society.:roll:
 
Why? Is there some reason that aviation and hair cutting are equivalent? Because I think some industries need strict oversight, I must think that about all industries?

Yes, they are equivalent in the government's eyes because you need a license for both. Can you explain why?
 
In Libertarian land, consumers have no rights.



They have the ultimate right: The choice of whether to be a consumer.
 
Yes, they are equivalent in the government's eyes because you need a license for both. Can you explain why?

Are they the same type of license? Can you explain why?
 
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not and I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Are you suggesting that risk vs reward is a subjective measure? Well gee yea. I could rob a banks for a living or I could work a job every day. It's all a matter of risk vs reward. Sure I could get rich quickly but I dunno, there's only so much risk I want to take, not even taking into account that most people actually do want to follow the laws and rules of society.:roll:

Actually, I'm not being sarcastic at all. You're talking about using the domain of force of the government to deal with the risk of something that could happen in the future and then saying that another risk isn't worth using the domain of force of the government to deal with. There isn't much to your argument other than subjective judgment calls.
 
So how am I to know they can cut hair or offer a good massage? Maybe I can't judge if someone is good at cutting hair or is a good masseuse. Wasn't your argument that customers need a nanny because they're too goddamn stupid?

Does a bad haircut kill you?
 
Yes, they are equivalent in the government's eyes because you need a license for both. Can you explain why?

It's not the same degree of oversight. Not equivalent.
 
Actually, I'm not being sarcastic at all. You're talking about using the domain of force of the government to deal with the risk of something that could happen in the future and then saying that another risk isn't worth using the domain of force of the government to deal with. There isn't much to your argument other than subjective judgment calls.
Well if you have a problem with subjective judgement calls you probably don't want to live in the United States. The Supreme Court makes those types of decisions all the time.
 
You don't know whether they are the same type of license or not?

School vouchers now!!

I'm well aware of whether they're the same type of license or not. Answer the question. If the licenses required to get a haircut and fly a plane are the same explain why. If they're different licenses then explain why. If you answer the question then you'll be able to figure out why one license may have more stringent requirements than another type of license.

Instead of dodging the question with ad-hominen attacks answer the question and free your mind.
 
No, this you gotta investigate.
There's lots of BS out there done by both parties, but nothing compares to the "WMD" fiasco, not even the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. After all, at least the GOTI actually happened.
 
You have to respect Dr. Carson but I just cannot understand how universal healthcare is transforming America into a socialist country when it hasn't had that affect on nearly every other democratic/representative republic (if you major in semantics) in the world.

The ACA ain't universal health care; not even close. However, I agree that many conservatives seem to regard UHC as the next step on the slippery slope to the gulag when the multitude of other countries that have implemented UHC have somehow managed to avoid the steely grip of Stalinism.
 
And so your point is that only previously elected people are qualified to hold office... seems like many of our previously elected presidents have been pretty poor at governing once in, our current high office holder a case in point.

And Dr. Carson has time... so it is anyone's guess.

My point is that the Presidency is not an entry level position. Just like you don't take a kid who just finished college and make him CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
 
No, he was in Congress during Watergate.

Ah yes, he was. My mistake. Although he was actually out of Congress by Watergate, he was the U.N. ambassador at the time of the break-in and chairman of the RNC when Nixon resigned, as per Wiki.
 
You have to respect Dr. Carson but I just cannot understand how universal healthcare is transforming America into a socialist country when it hasn't had that affect on nearly every other democratic/representative republic (if you major in semantics) in the world.

Especially when it is all private industry providing the insurance because there is no public option.
 
The ACA ain't universal health care; not even close. However, I agree that many conservatives seem to regard UHC as the next step on the slippery slope to the gulag when the multitude of other countries that have implemented UHC have somehow managed to avoid the steely grip of Stalinism.

I don't think anyone is saying it leads to Stalinism.
 
Well if you have a problem with subjective judgement calls you probably don't want to live in the United States. The Supreme Court makes those types of decisions all the time.

Well as long as the Supreme Court thinks it's a good idea then by golly it must be a good idea. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
Especially when it is all private industry providing the insurance because there is no public option.

Yeah, with the terms being guided by the state. I guess as long as it's technically private it doesn't much matter who controls it, does it? Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually understand control structures at all.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, with the terms being guided by the state. I guess as long as it's technically private it doesn't much matter who controls it, does it? Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually understand control structures at all.

All economies have structures they adhere to. I recall I think it was Alabama where the whole state had an insurance duopoly of two insurance companies you could choose from for the whole state. Wonder how many options there will be there next year in the health exchange?
 
Back
Top Bottom