Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    May 4, 2009 at 2:37 am

    I mean you don’t use the example of a skydiver’s of race car driver’s risk choices to justify not covering most people. Evel Knievel’s health insurance policy is not the example and justification of why so many people have no coverage. It does not follow to compare his with a librarian’s risks and cost. It is not logical, it is a straw man argument.

    Again you lead with a statement that “I” would like to be taken care of by the government in a “utopian” health care system… Another leading and misleading argument. Another non sequitur.

    Regarding Reinhardt’s mother, he considered what most American’s would consider, to help his mother. She declined the offer & scolded him & you think she is foolish because she choose not to employ his assistance to move ahead of the line elbowing someone else out of the way. Therefore that “proves” the German system is flawed, not “perfect,” not immune to influence. As for her foolishness at not pushing to the head of the line, perhaps she does not have a glioblastoma so 2 weeks is not life threatening therfore her “foolishness” is more related to a lack of fast-food treatment expectations. Reinhardt did not elaborate & still spoke of her in the present tense therefore it was probably not a life threatening issue so her foolishness is moot?

    I never said anyone was ignorant because they are religious. I look down on no one based on the presence of religious belief. Why do you need to make non sequitur arguments? I’m very sure we don’t share religious beliefs but for you to therefore conclude something more perhaps says something about your beliefs than mine. I did see a woman with a sign this weekend that said, “You have to be ________ to get to Heaven.” The space was filled in but I don’t share her, IMO, narrow-minded view about which flavor of belief is necessary to get to heaven.