or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 12

post #441 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

All I promote is that life is worth more than what others are perceived to get from you.

Did your father have a will written down that stated that? If he did, then it should have been respected. Sorry that he had to go that way if it was not his wish.

We have recently (in the past few years) lost my wife's father to a liver disease and we are currently losing her mother to Alzheimer's (which is almost worse, there but not) so I am no stranger to death. It is definitely very hard on those left behind.

My father: He was implanted a pacemaker against his wishes by an overly eager ER doc. My mother was not consulted and the rest of the family was in different states.

Life is over abundant and therefore pretty much worthless. However, an individual mind may have value. This is an emotional matter not a value matter. Capitalism does not apply here. For most of mankind's history the life of a person was valued by how many other people benefited from the death of this individual. Thus the development of Christianity.
post #442 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Families should be in charge of making health care decisions because they will make irrational decisions?

No, because they will more likely choose what is in the best interest of the patient. There are always exceptions to this, the world is not perfect.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #443 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I make an effort to provide just that - food, shelter and health care - for myself and my family. It takes 40 hrs a week, going on for close to 40 years now. Are you suggesting I need to make that effort for folks that don't?

All the resources in the world are there, the effort to extract them from the environment isn't, and if folks don't provide for themselves in the same manner I do, then what should motivate me to do for them what they won't do for themselves?

I want the same for everyone else. I want all of them to have food, shelter, safety, and good health. If they work hard and earn their way, they can have it.

Short answer: No, with a but. Long answer: Yes, with an if. I don't have time to get into the long answer so very quickly...First of all, in this country, we work far too much for far too little compensation. Healthcare costs, corporate culture, and greed are largely responsible for that. What I am saying requires a full paradigm shift. The world's resources should not be concentrated to a select few groups and individuals as it is now. There's no reason for the level of opulence and waste as long as there are people still starving, without shelter, or lacking the proper medical care.

But this "I work too hard and if they don't want to, screw them" attitude needs to be checked at the door. Even lazy, useless people are still people, and everyone should be guaranteed basic living conditions. If you want something beyond the bare minimum, sure go work and enjoy the fruits of your efforts.

Bottom line: people shouldn't be killing themselves for 40 hours a week to provide the basics in the first place.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #444 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

My father: He was implanted a pacemaker against his wishes by an overly eager ER doc. My mother was not consulted and the rest of the family was in different states.

Life is over abundant and therefore pretty much worthless. However, an individual mind may have value. This is an emotional matter not a value matter. Capitalism does not apply here. For most of mankind's history the life of a person was valued by how many other people benefited from the death of this individual. Thus the development of Christianity.

I cannot speak to your fathers situation and will not. Nothing I can say will make any difference in the outcome, I hope you have found a measure of peace in how things turned out.

As far as the value of life in Christianity one verse popped out in my mind, and there are many others. I thought of John 15:13, but I put the surrounding others so it was more in context. Basically, life has value, no matter what. And one man decided that others lives were of more value than his own and were worth dying for. And most people cannot truly understand why. Tough concept to swallow. It is the rare individual that follows this commandment, let alone truly understands it. I cannot claim to be that rare individual most times. Perhaps one day...

John 15-12-17
Quote:
12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another.

This is not a religious thread so we don't have to go down this trail any further unless it is truly on topic.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #445 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Families should be in charge of making health care decisions because they will make irrational decisions?

Strawman - try, try again. Compassion and the other emotions one has for one's family aren't irrational by any definition of the word.
post #446 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But this "I work too hard and if they don't want to, screw them" attitude needs to be checked at the door. Even lazy, useless people are still people, and everyone should be guaranteed basic living conditions. If you want something beyond the bare minimum, sure go work and enjoy the fruits of your efforts.

Exactly, but for someone to be entitled to something they haven't earned, someone else has to earn it for them.

The ultimate entitlement is - I should be able to keep what I earn, not be expected to share with someone that hasn't.
Quote:
Bottom line: people shouldn't be killing themselves for 40 hours a week to provide the basics in the first place.

Until that time when money grows on trees, I've got to go to work. We're all gunna die, might as well go out doing for my family as any other reason.
post #447 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Strawman - try, try again. Compassion and the other emotions one has for one's family aren't irrational by any definition of the word.

Emotions are by their very definition irrational.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #448 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Exactly, but for someone to be entitled to something they haven't earned, someone else has to earn it for them.

The ultimate entitlement is - I should be able to keep what I earn, not be expected to share with someone that hasn't.

Until that time when money grows on trees, I've got to go to work. We're all gunna die, might as well go out doing for my family as any other reason.

Then you better hope your efforts permit you to afford a pretty hefty private security contingent.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #449 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I put a price on your life, or your neighbors, but not mine nor those in my family.

Get real, everybody does that. Which is why families should be in charge of end of life decisions and not disinterested 3rd parties.

By "disinterested 3rd parties" I assume you mean "medical insurance executives"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #450 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

By "disinterested 3rd parties" I assume you mean "medical insurance executives"?

Damn. I was just going to say that.

It's funny. I totally trust my father's care at the VA hospital without any hesitation. I live in fear that Kaiser will drop me and wife because we've had to go the hospital a couple of times and recently had a child. Obviously, Kaiser may lose money on us this year. We're waiting for "the letter" to arrive any day now.

Is it right that I work hard, make a decent living and STILL live in fear that my medical insurance will be cancelled at any given minute?

I guess my point is that I trust the government to provide non-stop continual health care to my father and I absolutely do not trust my insurer to do the same.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #451 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Emotions are by their very definition irrational.

You're gunna have to back that up with something other than a link to some scifi Vulcan wannabe.

It's incredibly reasonable to have an emotional attachment to one's family, given that emotion is a trait all humans possess.
post #452 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I guess my point is that I trust the government to provide non-stop continual health care to my father and I absolutely do not trust my insurer to do the same.

There is only one reason for that, and you touched on it - one needs to make a profit, the other doesn't. There's my argument against government health care, right there.
post #453 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There is only one reason for that, and you touched on it - one needs to make a profit, the other doesn't. There's my argument against government health care, right there.

Right. Because the people who own health care delivery systems care about their families to the exclusion of yours, and don't see why they should have to have to foot the bill if your family gets sick. So they'll spend a lot of time figuring out how to not have to pay when your family gets sick, because that means they can take better care of their family.

Which is just how God intended it to be.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #454 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

You're gunna have to back that up with something other than a link to some scifi Vulcan wannabe.

It's incredibly reasonable to have an emotional attachment to one's family, given that emotion is a trait all humans possess.

I can't believe I have to provide a link that explains that emotions are not reason, but here you go. I hope AC Grayling is authoritative enough. I can probably find something in The Republic, too. I mean, this is sort of like having to back up a claim that left is not right. For thousands of years in philosophy, reason and emotion (or "sentiment") have been contrasted and described as antithetical facets of human existence.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #455 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I can't believe I have to provide a link that explains that emotions are not reason, but here you go.

Nice attempt, but some wiki post saying what some folks think doesn't cut it, especially when there's no citation. Perhaps if you quote Grayling exactly?

Emotions are (and I quote) "a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others".

Irrational is: "not logical or reasonable".

Since emotions are a natural instinctive state, it's quite reasonable.
post #456 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Nice attempt, but some wiki post saying what some folks think doesn't cut it, especially when there's no citation. Perhaps if you quote Grayling exactly?

Emotions are (and I quote) "a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others".

Irrational is: "not logical or reasonable".

Since emotions are a natural instinctive state, it's quite reasonable.

Well, I hate to say this, but if you refuse to see that an emotion is by its very definition not the use of reason, there's not much point in demanding links or quotes from me. Here, for instance, are 36 million hits for "reason versus emotion."

Note, in your complaint, that you have emotions equaling an "instinctive state of mind." An instinct is not the use of reason. It cannot be the use of reason. It is an instinct, which, again, is something that happens independent of the use of reason. My dog runs away from loud noises because that is her instinct. She doesn't sit there and reason out that the best reaction to the situation is to run.

I think you are getting hung up on the idea that having emotions "is reasonable" in terms of some kind of evolutionary development. That's not the claim at issue. Reason and emotion are different things, and emotions are, by their very definition as "instinct," cannot be about the use of reason.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #457 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Basically, life has value, no matter what.

Buddhism.
post #458 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


Since emotions are a natural instinctive state, it's quite reasonable.

You say you support your family but the above statement can only be made by a single or a homosexual person.
post #459 of 2360
Does health effect my (or anyone else's) "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

I really don't see how a rational citizen can say health care is not a right.

(I do have to quantify that by saying that in my opinion non-citizens don't hold that right, meaning illegals, those who avoid paying their taxes, etc.)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #460 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Does health effect my (or anyone else's) "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

I really don't see how a rational citizen can say health care is not a right.

Apparently it's not about rationality, it's about an emotional attachment to one's own. Thus America is re-imagined as a great many, very small family sized tribes competing relentlessly for finite resources.

Quote:
(I do have to quantify that by saying that in my opinion non-citizens don't hold that right, meaning illegals, those who avoid paying their taxes, etc.)

Would you extend that to the well-to-do who avoid paying taxes via the agency of tax shelters, off shore accounts, and highly paid accountants on retainer charged with discovering and exploiting every available loophole?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #461 of 2360
For me, the question is a simple one:

Is government-run health care constitutional?

The answer is: no.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #462 of 2360
Anywho, maybe it's time to come clean and admit that all this talk of "family" is just code for "keep gummit bureaucrats out of it."

Which is a problem, because, as Midwinter has pointed out, "families" are not necessarily going to be making medically sound choices, and, anyway, "choices" are something (increasingly) available to the fortunate few. Bureaucrats already make most Americans major health decisions for them, they call it "denying coverage" or "lifetime caps" or "non-reimbursable services."

For the life of me, I can't figure out why "we are charged with keeping as much of our policy holder's premiums as is humanly possible" is better proof against fucking with my care than "government sucks."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #463 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

For me, the question is a simple one:

Is government-run health care constitutional?

The answer is: no.

Gosh, what a completely mainstream, non-fringy analysis.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #464 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, I hate to say this, but if you refuse to see that an emotion is by its very definition not the use of reason, there's not much point in demanding links or quotes from me.

Give me a break and stop moving the goal post. You claimed "Emotions are by their very definition irrational". A human without emotions is irrational since emotion is "a natural instinctive state of mind", by definition. Spoc is a fabrication of the imagination. People without emotions are psychopaths, and that's absolutely not a natural state of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychop...ition_deficits

You can't twist this to mean anything else and it's foolish to continue trying by dissecting sub definitions. It is what it is.
post #465 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Give me a break and stop moving the goal post. You claimed "Emotions are by their very definition irrational."

Yes.

Quote:
A human without emotions is irrational since emotion is "a natural instinctive state of mind," by definition.

No. That does not follow from the above statement. A human without emotions but with reason would be a computer. A human without reason but with emotions would be no different than any other animal, reacting purely on instinct.

Quote:
Spoc is a fabrication of the imagination. People without emotions are psychopaths, and that's absolutely not a natural state of mind.

You are the only person talking about Star Trek here. I am suggesting that family members are likely to make health care decisions for a loved ones based on emotionalthat is to say, irrationalreasons.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #466 of 2360
If emotion is such a great way to make decisions, why do we have a legal system designed to put emotion aside in favor or reasoned, informed analysis?

If a prosecuting attorney can stir up a jury with emotional appeals, to the point that he successfully gets them to ignore evidence and convict an innocent man, is that a satisfying outcome, by your lights? On account of the "naturalness" of emotion, and the dreadfulness of dispassionate consideration?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #467 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You are the only person talking about Star Trek here. I am suggesting that family members are likely to make health care decisions for a loved ones based on emotional—that is to say, irrational—reasons.

"Care" is an emotion. Lack of care is irrational when the subject is a family member. Having someone make decisions for another without caring ... no, that's not something I'd support, family member or not. I'd believe, in the greatest majority of cases, a family member would care more for someone needing care than a stranger would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emotions
post #468 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"Care" is an emotion. Lack of care is irrational when the subject is a family member. Having someone make decisions for another without caring ... no, that's not something I'd support, family member or not. I'd believe, in the greatest majority of cases, a family member would care more for someone needing care than a stranger would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emotions

So, again, I assume you're eager to reform the current system wherein decision are made by insurance bureaucrats?

Moreover, there's nothing in making decisions based on reasoned analysis that precludes "caring."

You might just as well be explicit about your believe that a program of national healthcare would mean all medical decisions would be made by uncaring, unfeeling "bureaucrats", instead of dancing around it like this.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #469 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So, again, I assume you're eager to reform the current system wherein decision are made by insurance bureaucrats?

Where the alternative is the government? I don't see any indication that the government would care more than the insurance company.
post #470 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Where the alternative is the government? I don't see any indication that the government would care more than the insurance company.

Yes, because the insurance company is explicitly charged with paying out as little money as possible, whereas the government is charged with simply administering payments.

I can see why you'd feel that way.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #471 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Yes, because the insurance company is explicitly charged with paying out as little money as possible, whereas the government is charged with simply administering payments.

I can see why you'd feel that way.

How can you see that unless you're projecting? The discussion I engaged in was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss

Which is why families should be in charge of end of life decisions and not disinterested 3rd parties.

I also engaged in a discussion where I communicated that I don't want to be expected to support people who don't support themselves.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. In which case, I don't know how you can "see" anything about how I feel.
post #472 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

How can you see that unless you're projecting? The discussion I engaged in was this:
I also engaged in a discussion where I communicated that I don't want to be expected to support people who don't support themselves.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. In which case, I don't know how you can "see" anything about how I feel.

OK, putting your feelings aside, why is having an insurance company which has a vested interested in paying out as little of their premium dollar as possible preferable to having that same dollar administered by the government?

Since you have expressed a philosophy of "looking out for your own" to the exclusion of others, why would you expect the people with a financial stake in your health insurance company to treat you any differently?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #473 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

How can you see that unless you're projecting? The discussion I engaged in was this:
I also engaged in a discussion where I communicated that I don't want to be expected to support people who don't support themselves.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. In which case, I don't know how you can "see" anything about how I feel.

Do you build your own roads as well?
Only use oil from YOUR land and not public land?
Why should I support your driving with my tax dollars?
post #474 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

OK, putting your feelings aside, why is having an insurance company which has a vested interested in paying out as little of their premium dollar as possible preferable to having that same dollar administered by the government?

Since you have expressed a philosophy of "looking out for your own" to the exclusion of others, why would you expect the people with a financial stake in your health insurance company to treat you any differently?

Once the government gets my money, I pay for the "public option" for others, whether or not I use it for myself. When I purchase insurance from another provider, I'm double billed, more or less.

Just like public education is today - I pay for public schools and if I want a better education for my children, I still pay for the public school in addition to what I'll pay for my kids education at a private institution. I can't "opt out".

So, I don't want to "opt in" to begin with.
post #475 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Gosh, what a completely mainstream, non-fringy analysis.

Thank you.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #476 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Once the government gets my money, I pay for the "public option" for others, whether or not I use it for myself. When I purchase insurance from another provider, I'm double billed, more or less.

Just like public education is today - I pay for public schools and if I want a better education for my children, I still pay for the public school in addition to what I'll pay for my kids education at a private institution. I can't "opt out".

So, I don't want to "opt in" to begin with.

The idea that a country like America could be operated on an ala carte basis, with each citizen paying only for what they, personally, have use for, to the extent they could afford it, is utterly unworkable. I'm surprised that I would have to point this out.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #477 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thank you.

So, Social Security, Medicare, Pell Grants-- also unconstitutional?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #478 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So, Social Security, Medicare, Pell Grants-- also unconstitutional?

Yes, they are unconstitutional.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #479 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, they are unconstitutional.

Then I would submit that your position is vastly out of the mainstream, your suspicions notwithstanding.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #480 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"Care" is an emotion. Lack of care is irrational when the subject is a family member.

I don't know that "care" is an emotion so much as it is a blanket term for a bunch of other emotions (it is not on your list of emotions, but "care/love" is), but anyway. "Care," as an emotion, is irrational. Period. It is not something conducted with reason; it is something conducted with the heart. It is, again, completely irrational, divorced from reason.

Quote:
Having someone make decisions for another without caring ... no, that's not something I'd support, family member or not. I'd believe, in the greatest majority of cases, a family member would care more for someone needing care than a stranger would.

And again, you are saying that the family members would base their decisions on the irrational.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality