Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original  |
The fact that it wasn't original, doesn't mean that it wasn't on point. Your argument against my thought, was that it would be difficult and imperfect. Some causes are noble enough that you take them head-on, even though they will be difficult and imperfect. Sometimes when you have the ability to do something, then you also have the responsibility to do it. That was Bush's argument wen he launched his AIDS treatment plan in Africa. It was difficult, and it was imperfect, and probably has some waste. But Stanford University estimates that it saved more than one million lives. If I have to work an extra month or two before I retire, to pay for my share of the cost of saving a million lives, that's something I'll gladly take.
Scott, you and Detbuch pointed out a long lit of absolutely valid concerns about why such a thing would likely be inefficient, wasteful, possibly ineffective, and maybe unconstitutional. I concede all of that.
I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?
I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.