3 ms·

The US has four states with population comparable to Australia. It would be perfectly centrist for a couple states to enact the policies you mention, assuming

The US has four states with population comparable to Australia. It would be perfectly centrist for a couple states to enact the policies you mention, assuming they can work out the details and balance the books. When these policies turn into wild success stories, other states might follow. It probably makes sense to start with some small-medium sized, well-governed blue states first, like when MA implemented Romneycare. But the left position is to enact these polcies nationally across the US, which has >10x the number of people in your country. And there are a ton of details that nobody really even wants to talk about, and no plan to adapt when things don't work out. So, we are just supposed to trust Congress with a huge amount of extra money and a lot more power because the title of the bill sounds nice? There are also a lot of policies that seem uniquely designed to punish the "right". I am pro-choice, but I recognize that a lot of people in the US are really, really not. But a lot of people on the left don't just want it legal, they want to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Think about how that makes tens of millions of evangelical Christians feel? There are enough pro-choice organziations that they can pool money from pro-choice people to subsidize abortions. The taxpayer money isn't needed. Why force it?

edmundsauto 6y ago
Couldn't this argument be made for the Border Patrol, or the war in Iraq? There are lots of things my tax dollars pay for that I find morally repugnant.
- chmod600 6y ago
  It's a matter of degree and alternatives. Borders and wars are clearly the domain of the federal government as described by the Constitution. If you don't like it, your only real option is to elect better people. Yeah, it sucks when our leaders invade Iraq for no reason, and then we elect one of few diseenting voices to be our next president and then he... invades Libya. So I realize my words are cold comfort, but there's no much else I can say. But abortion funding is not the domain of the federal government and there is not much reason for it to be. There are plenty of private citizens who are pro choice and could fund abortion subsidies. It would probably be easier to do that than fight a political battle over it, which also costs money. A government should govern the people that are actually here, not who you wish were here. Maybe in some places nobody minds abortion, but the US is not one of those places. So, we've got to respect those tens of millions of people at least enough to not spend their money on abortion.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    This sounds like a technicality argument - wars are in the Constitution, so whatcanyoudo? If we should respect the views of tens of millions of people in one area, we should do it in another. If we think that life is sacred and we shouldn’t spend federal money to end it, let’s be consistent. there are significant gaps in funding for these services, especially in underprivileged areas. Would you support increasing WIC and other benefits for these children? Because if not, this policy decision would increase the number of people who grow up hungry.
kwinten 6y ago
That last argument sure sounds like an argument from feels rather than facts and logic, I thought the right hated that kind of rhetoric. The obvious answer is of course that health care is a public service and should not be reliant on charitable organizations, which would be absolutely ridiculous. (Yes reproductive care is health care, arguments made from personal feelings or believes are not a worthy retort against medical scientific consensus)

edmundsauto 6y ago

Couldn't this argument be made for the Border Patrol, or the war in Iraq? There are lots of things my tax dollars pay for that I find morally repugnant.

chmod600 6y ago
It's a matter of degree and alternatives. Borders and wars are clearly the domain of the federal government as described by the Constitution. If you don't like it, your only real option is to elect better people. Yeah, it sucks when our leaders invade Iraq for no reason, and then we elect one of few diseenting voices to be our next president and then he... invades Libya. So I realize my words are cold comfort, but there's no much else I can say. But abortion funding is not the domain of the federal government and there is not much reason for it to be. There are plenty of private citizens who are pro choice and could fund abortion subsidies. It would probably be easier to do that than fight a political battle over it, which also costs money. A government should govern the people that are actually here, not who you wish were here. Maybe in some places nobody minds abortion, but the US is not one of those places. So, we've got to respect those tens of millions of people at least enough to not spend their money on abortion.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  This sounds like a technicality argument - wars are in the Constitution, so whatcanyoudo? If we should respect the views of tens of millions of people in one area, we should do it in another. If we think that life is sacred and we shouldn’t spend federal money to end it, let’s be consistent. there are significant gaps in funding for these services, especially in underprivileged areas. Would you support increasing WIC and other benefits for these children? Because if not, this policy decision would increase the number of people who grow up hungry.

kwinten 6y ago

That last argument sure sounds like an argument from feels rather than facts and logic, I thought the right hated that kind of rhetoric. The obvious answer is of course that health care is a public service and should not be reliant on charitable organizations, which would be absolutely ridiculous. (Yes reproductive care is health care, arguments made from personal feelings or believes are not a worthy retort against medical scientific consensus)