re: What does Jimmy Kimmel's Kids Heart Problem have to do with ObamaCare?

quote:

---

Sure did, clear as day.

---

No, you haven't. A zero value doesn't support your repeated assertions.

You also still have the second point to address. Are you denying it?

quote:

---

Don't have kids if you can't feed them.
Don't have kids if you don't want to participate in their upbringing.
Don't have kids if you don't get involved with their education.

---

Don't live in society if you don't want to be bothered with other peoples kids.

I finally got around to listening to his rant. I'm very glad his kid is fine and it was great the the hospital pulled through and did what they needed to do to save his life, but JK should not have used it as a political advertisement. Nothing is sacred any more.

quote:

---

No, you haven't.

---

Of course I did. 17,000 cases, in fact.

Now, stop trying to deflect and provide a link to back up your assertion.

quote:

---

Of course I did. 17,000 cases, in fact.

---

Zero cases. Not a single one of those aligns to the claims I called you out on. You can either admit that, or back off from those ridiculous claims.

On the second point, I'm still waiting for a denial from you. Without that, I have no need to back up my assertion. You said it. As long as you and I know that, I'm good.

Watch the movie John Q with Denzel Washington and you will understand it more.

quote:

---

Or is it your contention that not a single one of those 17,000 children's deaths due to lack of insurance had to do with being denied insurance?

---

It is my contention that you have not shown a single case of a child dying in the streets because their parents were denied health insurance.

quote:

---

Now, quit trying to deflect and back up your assertion or admit you have no proof of it.

---

Not necessary, unless you deny it.

quote:

---

That's exactly what society is...

---

until they come take your stuff.

The idea that one shouldn't suffer the burden for their unfortunate health is a silly one. Why should others have to suffer the consequences? What did they do that the sick person didnt to deserve the misfortune?

Do you believe the consequence of small pox are reduced if it becomes an epidemic?

quote:

---

The idea that one shouldn't suffer the burden for their unfortunate health is a silly one.

---

If it's so silly, why are we the only developed country that hasn't adopted it?

quote:

---

Why should others have to suffer the consequences?

---

Because they might be on the other side of the ledger tomorrow.

quote:

---

Do you believe the consequence of small pox are reduced if it becomes an epidemic?

---

This is a good point, but in the opposite way that you meant it. Vaccination of a population works largely because of the concept of herd immunity. Not everyone will become exposed to a disease (in this instance, smallpox), not everyone exposed will become infected (though with smallpox susceptibility is near-universal), not everyone infected will become symptomatic, and not everyone who becomes symptomatic will have a fatal result.

So why take the risk of vaccination (even when minor, vaccinations still do have risks and side effects and potential reactions, hence VAERS) when there's no guarantee that a particular disease will become a problem for YOU?

Because there's a chance that you'll need it. And because in the even that you do need it, being vaccinated is far less pain than forgoing the vaccine and sacrificing a smaller immediate certain pain (be it financial or physical) for an indefinite future much greater pain.

So you can think of universal health insurance as vaccination against risk for yourself. Sure, if you're health you pay a little more, but that's to ensure that if you were to become ill you would be protected.

Great analogy, thanks for broaching it!

quote:

---

Go on, if it's as easy as you say you should have dozens at your fingertips.

---

Deny it.