Narrowing the focus.
"But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children."
Yep, but that was the example I used.
Yep, there was more to it than just children.
But children make such an easy emotional target.
"That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan."
Ah, but is that true in this specific instance?
"In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy"
Yes and no. It is an emotional ploy. It is not a strawman. And it doesn't dodge the issue.
Universal Health Care was proposed. By a Democrat (I can't say "liberal") and defeated.
The Republicans have not offered any counter plan.
Children are still uninsured.
Again, the easy emotional tie is that CERTAIN PEOPLE are INSENSITIVE to the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN.
While CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE are CARING about the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN.
Of course, in theory, a bad plan could be worse than no plan.
But this is the real world, not a theoretical construct.
So, in theory, does not apply.
Actions and results are all that matter.
Those poor, poor children. *sobs*
Who will care for those poor, poor children? *sobs*
