Mass surveillance versus medicare


[Read the post]


For the same reason Texas legislatures doesn’t want Federal intervention into our health and welfare, but they don’t mind messing with our local schools. I think that reason is just political bs, but I’ve never gotten a answer.


So to paraphrase:
one immense, wasteful, useless, bloated, intrusive program into our private lives, managed by inept bureaucrats because it might save lives from terrorists: BAD

Second immense, wasteful, useless, bloated, intrusive program into our private lives, managed by inept bureaucrats because it might save lives from lack of healthcare: GOOD

Well at least the president is against one of these programs-OH WAIT.


He should come to the UK, where we have public healthcare and and an invasive security state.
Don’t worry though, the Tories are doing their best to get rid of the former.


I want the Patriot Act to die and all but I’m confident that the NSA will continue to do whatever they want without any repercussion.


Obamacare in itself doesn’t offer healthcare. It’s simply a subsidy for private health insurance for low income families. It doesn’t violate the Constitution; the Republican led Supreme Court said so.

Meanwhile, the warrantless mass surveillance of citizens is pretty easily a major violation of the fourth amendment, and it doesn’t prevent terrorist attacks. The Boston Marathon bombings are proof of that. It’s not to say we can’t give the police the ability to investigate crimes, but it shouldn’t be done by making absolutely everyone a suspect.


That’s a hell of a paraphrasing. I’m not sure that “illegally spying on American citizens” is quite the same intrusion into private lives as “trying to make healthcare more affordable for everyone”. But you know… whatevs.


Medicare (except for the mess of Part D) is a very successful program, not wasteful or useless or bloated or intrusive.

It used to be said that there were three developed nations in the world without universal health care. But in the last few years, both Mexico and Turkey have gotten it, leaving the US as the only one.

With all the counterexamples why do people still insist that it can’t possibly work?


Seems logical enough to me:

If you loath and fear the ‘nanny state’, just be sure to favor anything that a nanny wouldn’t do. Unless your childhood was particularly fucked up, support for an authoritarian surveillance state likely qualifies as supporting a non-nanny outcome. Did your nanny send ostentatiously armed riot police to beat you down if she didn’t like your attitude? Did she maintain an extraordinary rendition program and disappear the least favorite child to the salt pit? Did she respond to any sign of weakness with contempt and a kick while you were down?

See, a nice safe distance from being a nanny state!

It’s just like the old trick for avoiding the antichrist: You know that he’ll come as a wolf in sheep’s clothing; so just vote a straight wolf ticket every time, and nothing can go wrong. Sure, most of the time you’ll just get mauled; but you’ll be sure to be antichrist free!


anybody have a link to the video that does not have a commercial at the beginning?


You mean like it does in the entirety of the rest of the developed world?


It’s not entirely peachy, it outright sucks at places, but warts and all it squarely beats the US model into a bloody banknote pulp, with one hand behind its back.


Because republicans get more kickbacks from defence contractors than from insurance companies?

Because republicans don’t have a single fuck to give for the health and safety of (any, but especially) poor Americans?

Because their team chose that position, and they will stick with it no matter how objectively stupid and morally won’t it is proven?


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.