Originally Posted By: Derid

I need to go get lunch, but I will happily dissect the monstrosity of non sequiturs you just puked up once I grab my food. I mean seriously, you try to make a correlation between the principle of rule of law over mob rule equating "denying others the right to live healthily" ? It would be laughable if you didnt take yourself so seriously.


It would be fool's laughter.

Concept of accessible healthcare is not so arcane that partisan ideologues like you would not be capable of understanding it.

They are:

1. Healthcare, a basic need, take precedence over higher-order necessities. Without satisfying basic necessities there is no way we can guarantee higher-order necessities, like an ability to participate in democratic process. Since we agree that ability to participate in our democratic process has to be protected, we also have to remove issues that impede it. Fail to do so undermines the very foundation of our democratic process.

2. It is both practical and cost effective to enable all-inclusive access to health care. People priced out of the system still end up using it to some degree (emergency rooms and so on) but in ineffective manner, and this increases overall cost to society.

3. Pure market forces are unable to regulate health care system, there is clearly no price point that would suppress demand, the only control on whole system is % of people getting priced out of the system. This is undesirable and ineffective way to control the system.

Now I spelled out the argument for you, have a go at it.

[Linked Image]