I responded to a guy who incredibly belives that healthcare is not a human right, and that my saying so validates that the takers, i.e., poor people, are getting something for nothing, and that if they only werent so lazy (they just have to do hard work), theyd be successful. heres my reply: I am not going to get in a tit-for-tat ideological debate; it is a total waste of time and nothing I can say or do would convince you anyway. [Y]our first comment that “[h]ealth care is not a basic human right” to me is incredibly callous. Perhaps, because you have your health, you can afford to have such a self-centered position. Obviously, if you had the empathy to place yourself in the shoes of people born into poverty (and the statistics I have posted over and over prove that if you are born into poverty, you almost surely will not escape it, despite “hard work”, because there is simply not an equality of opportunity). Your “hard work” mantra is callous and naive. Hard work does not guarantee shit. There are a lot of hardworking Americans out there working two jobs and still not earning enough to pay for their families to have a decent life. You make ideological or rhetorical assumptions about upward mobility which do not comport with reality. Calling me or others who believe in basic human dignity and the right to healthcare in a civilized society “liberals” is meaningless; it just seems to vent an innate anger that I cannot comprehend. The US is the only first or second-world nation which does not have universal health care. The reason is purely political; and it has a lot to do with inequality - those with clout and money are able to write laws that benefit themselves, and to create budgets that subsidize huge corporations and the very wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and working poor. That’s just a fact. Your buying into their rhetoric, because they succeeded in making you angry at those “takers” the poor people, when their “take” is far, far, far less than these huge corporations and uber-wealthy whose rhetoric you have adopted, enables them to continue to take a bigger and bigger share of the American revenue and national wealth pie. Do you really have the naivete to think that anyone who wants to can start a business and become wealthy? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Are you so self-centered that you can’t conceive that there are sectors of society that simply didn’t have the resources, advantages, born-into socioeconomic/geographic advantages you were born into? Your rant is full of rhetoric which is 100% bass-ackwards. For instance, you talk about “government taking something that belongs to one person to give to someone else”. Well, guess what - the FACT is that the “redistribution” you are ranting about has been from the working poor and middle class overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 1% (and in reality to the wealthiest ½ of 1%) - from a mere 11% of national wealth in the pre-Reagan era to over 35 % today. The wealthiest 1% have more national wealth and income today than the poorest 70% of Americans - and these people have that wealth because they wrote laws that make the transfer of wealth to them, from us, possible and likely. So your complaints are spitting in the wind - on yourself. And your love of the Kochs is obviously because you ignore that the vast majority of their “charitable” donations are to political 501(c)(3)’s and NOT to hospitals, poor people, the needy, etc, as you seem to believe. Do they give to such charities? Sure. But the percentage of their giving dedicated to non-political matters is minuscule. I’ll bet you never researched that.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:48:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015