Opinion of this hypothetical Universal Health Care compromise?

[Kingpoleon]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

I really don't care about your opinion. I will not, in good conscience, betray the vulnerable for my own personal gain.

The vulnerable of America or of the world? The former outnumbers the refugees, illegal immigrants, and Muslims harmed by these policies, I believe.

[Kamala]

I'm not throwing undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and refugees under the bus for free healthcare and weed.

This post is a really great representation of the state of liberalism in 2017.

I really don't care about your opinion. I will not, in good conscience, betray the vulnerable for my own personal gain.

The vulnerable of America or of the world? The former outnumbers the refugees, illegal immigrants, and Muslims harmed by these policies, I believe.

Your question is perfectly answered by:

This isn't a compromise on universal healthcare, it's a strategy to help some people by hurting others. No deal.

[Fight for Trump]

I would support it if marijuana was not legalized and there was still some mechanism to take in refugees. Closing the door to all refugees is not something I can support.

[AN63093]

This isn't a compromise on universal healthcare, it's a strategy to help some people by hurting others. No deal.

A compromise requires that some people are hurt at the expense of others.  The definition of a compromise is not "only stuff I like."  Actually, all policies require a trade-off where someone is benefited at the expense of someone else, since we don't live in utopian fantasyland.  A true compromise requires the adoption of a position you disagree with, in order to get something you want.

What you really mean to say is this particular compromise is unappealing to you, since you don't think the benefits society would receive are worth the costs imposed on others.

Which is fine.  Again, this is what I'm trying to gauge.  It's a false dichotomy, sure, but that's by design.  False dichotomies are a great way to establish what the relative importance of certain issues are to people.

[Mr. Smith]

Keep DACA and it's a deal. Much better than libertarian/plutocratic-esque compromises that usually happen.

[AN63093]

I would support it if marijuana was not legalized and there was still some mechanism to take in refugees. Closing the door to all refugees is not something I can support.

How about this.  Same plan as before, but:

-Marijuana stays on the CSA, but is moved to Schedule II

-Refugee policy remains in effect, but the annual ceiling is drastically lowered.  This provision could sunset after 2 years or something like that.

Now something you can support?

[AtorBoltox]

This is very dumb

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A compromise requires that some people are hurt at the expense of others.

No, it really doesn't.

The definition of a compromise is not "only stuff I like." Actually, all policies require a trade-off where someone is benefited at the expense of someone else, since we don't live in utopian fantasyland. A true compromise requires the adoption of a position you disagree with, in order to get something you want.

You don't say.

What you really mean to say is this particular compromise is unappealing to you, since you don't think the benefits society would receive are worth the costs imposed on others.

No, that is not what I mean. Read my post again.

Which is fine.  Again, this is what I'm trying to gauge.  It's a false dichotomy, sure, but that's by design.  False dichotomies are a great way to establish what the relative importance of certain issues are to people.

Are you sure? Because it seems to me this is a mediocre strategy at best.

[AN63093]

I am puzzled why you are being so touchy.  Do you have me confused with somebody else that annoyed you in the past?  I have popped in-and-out of these forums for maybe about a decade or so, mostly to read the demographics forum (such topic being a hobby of mine).  But I've never had a previous username and only started posting with this one maybe a couple months ago.

This thread is not a "strategy."  I think quite a lot about trends and I had a couple in mind that I wanted to test and see what types of responses I would get.  That is all, no nefarious purpose really.  Sorry to disappoint.

Anyways, your opinion is rather clear to me, so I see no need to carry on this side-bar which I'm sure you don't find very interesting.  Hopefully I catch you in another thread in a less cranky mood.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Would vote for it in a heart beat.

[AtorBoltox]

Would vote for it in a heart beat.

Geez, so much for solidarity with the international proletariat

[America Needs R'hllor]

This isn't a compromise on universal healthcare, it's a strategy to help some people by hurting others. No deal.

This isn't a compromise on universal healthcare, it's a strategy to help some people by hurting others. No deal.

A compromise requires that some people are hurt at the expense of others.  The definition of a compromise is not "only stuff I like."  Actually, all policies require a trade-off where someone is benefited at the expense of someone else, since we don't live in utopian fantasyland.  A true compromise requires the adoption of a position you disagree with, in order to get something you want.

What you really mean to say is this particular compromise is unappealing to you, since you don't think the benefits society would receive are worth the costs imposed on others.

Which is fine.  Again, this is what I'm trying to gauge.  It's a false dichotomy, sure, but that's by design.  False dichotomies are a great way to establish what the relative importance of certain issues are to people.

A compromise would be, say, tweaking taxes and healthcare that would leave both sides with some goals accomplished. "Harming some people in the expense of others" is really not the definition of compromise, it's a weird, heartless tradeoff that inflicts grave harm on thousands of people.

[AN63093]

??

This plan seems to meet your definition.  Both sides accomplish goals.

Just because the goal the conservatives get with this is extremely unappealing to you, as opposed to one you could live with (like "tweaking taxes", as you mentioned), doesn't mean it's not a compromise.  It's just one you don't like.  You'd be willing to give up something small, but not something big, for health care.

Which is OK.  Option 2 was provided to reject this deal.

[America Needs R'hllor]

??

This plan seems to meet your definition.  Both sides accomplish goals.

Just because the goal the conservatives get with this is extremely unappealing to you, as opposed to one you could live with (like "tweaking taxes", as you mentioned), doesn't mean it's not a compromise.  It's just one you don't like.  You'd be willing to give up something small, but not something big, for health care.

Which is OK.  Option 2 was provided to reject this deal.

By "accomplishing goals" I mean accomplishing goals on a specific issue. You don't make a compromise where one side gives up completely on a key issue and the other side gives up completely on another key issue. This is just bizarre and unrealistic. If you want a compromise on healthcare, both sides need to accomplish some goals on healthcare. Same for immigration.

[AN63093]

Ah, OK, I gotcha now.

That's a fair point.  However, despite my framing this as a Congressional vote in the first post, I was not intending to present this a scenario that would ever realistically be voted on in Congress, so maybe I could've put that in a footnote or something.  This was intended to just be a hypothetical, because I was curious what reactions and opinions I would get.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Id likely vote no, but I did consider it for a bit.

[thumb21]

I would vote for it happily because for me, this isn't as much of a compromise as I agree with both Universal Health Care, being harsher on Immigration (although I wouldn't repeal DACA or curtail the refugee program) and liberalizing the drug laws.

I really don't care about your opinion. I will not, in good conscience, betray the vulnerable for my own personal gain.

It is not betraying the vulnerable because illegal immigrants have chosen to be vulnerable by illegally entering a country instead of going through the proper process.

Geez, so much for solidarity with the international proletariat

Mass immigration is not solidarity with the proletariat. All it does is increase inequality on both a national and international level as it creates a brain drain where poorer countries lose their most educated and productive citizens who could have helped that country get out of its problems which hurts the people who stay in that country, many of whom are even poorer than those that emigrated and couldn't afford to emigrate themselves. The people who benefit most from mass immigration are the individual immigrants themselves, middle-class consumers and big business.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Immigrant is probably more benefical in terms of QALYs than my ideal healthcare system (and Marijuana is barely positive). Evil.

[publicunofficial]

Legalized weed nation wide is basically an inevitability at this point  and is an incredibly weak concession to exchange for forced ethnic removal. It's almost insulting.