Sebelius stands behind end-of-life planning

A more legitimate argument would be to question whether or not it is appropriate for taxpayer dollars to be funding this sort of counseling.

There is a compelling case that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize medical procedures like abortions and euthanasia that are morally abhorrent to many of them.
 
"go psycho analyze one of your friends, you want to see paranoid.."

Probably not covered by his health plan.
 
Epicurus said:
A more legitimate argument would to question whether or not it is appropriate for taxpayer dollars to be funding this sort of counseling.

There is a compelling case that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize medical procedures like abortions and euthanasia that are morally abhorrent to many of them.
Click to expand...

well excuse me I didn't write out all those long and winding words about it.
 
As long as mememe! is the ugly face of conservatism, we Progressives have nothing to worry about!
:)
 
Epicurus said:
It's a wholly different argument. Yours relies on the fallacious premise that such counseling is in any way mandatory.
Click to expand...

and like this government takeover of our health care you don't believe it will become mandatory..please
 
I admire the passion of the rank and file, but good grief. Someone needs to teach them some basic logic. They are ultimately hurting our cause more than they are helping.
 
meme said:
and like this government takeover of our health care you don't believe it will become mandatory..please
Click to expand...

You could use the slippery slope argument. Despite being a logical fallacy it would still be better than the factually inaccurate argument you are advancing.
 
DNC said:
As long as mememe! is the ugly face of conservatism, we Progressives have nothing to worry about!
:)
Click to expand...

I'd say you all have a lot to worry about right now, something called..failure

which of course is good for the American citizens..
 
Epicurus said:
You could use the slippery slope argument. Despite being a logical fallacy it would still be better than the factually inaccurate argument you are advancing.
Click to expand...

oh for crying out loud..who the hell speaks like that all the time..
 
I don't understand the objection to the end of life planning.

I can understand the objection to panels to control costs, but I can't see how helping people make a living will would be something to fight.

I think people are misunderstanding what end of life planning is.
 
meme said:
oh for crying out loud..who the hell speaks like that all the time..
Click to expand...

It's really not particularly challenging for anyone possessing education beyond the 7th grade level. I'm sorry if my big words hurt your brain.

But my issue is really not with your word choice, rather your inability to formulate an intellectually honest argument.
 
Damocles said:
I don't understand the objection to the end of life planning.

I can understand the objection to panels to control costs, but I can't see how helping people make a living will would be something to fight.
Click to expand...


I don't object to end of life planning, we did it with my mom..I object to the Government getting involved in it..
 
Epicurus said:
It's really not particularly challenging for anyone possessing education beyond the 7th grade level. I'm sorry if my big words hurt your brain.

But my issue is really not with your word choice, rather your inability to formulate an intellectually honest argument.
Click to expand...

ummm okey dokey, carry on..:rolleyes:
 
Actually Epic is one of the most reasonable articulate posters on this board. The quality of this board would be greatly enhanced with more posters like him.
 
yeah more like him.., that way they can write out a long and eloquent worded book just to call people stupid...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top