The Couch

Government subsidized

Comments on Government subsidized

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 02/25/11 - 3:23 PM:
Subject: Government subsidized
Another spin-off from the Wet Houses topic.

Should the government subsidize healthcare? What, in your view, should or should not be government subsidized?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 02/25/11 - 4:04 PM:

Yes. That is, basic health care should be the only thing that the government is involved in, ie, the only thing that should be socialised. Pretty much everything else ought to go to the free market with maximum liberty.

A healthy people are a productive people. It makes no sense to put up barriers to people achieving good health, which medical fees certainly are. Nor does it make sense to treat doctors with a god-like reverence OR put them under the ridiculous strain that they experience. For one thing, promoting a healthy population will decrease the need for acute treatment.

When a person is injured or diseased they often lose all ability to earn a living and hence care for themselves. A humane society ought to desire to take care of the least of its citizens, because, given how chaotic life is, any one of us could be in the position one day.

Health care is the only thing worth promoting and maintaining on a national level, imo. Politically I consider myself a libertarian, except for this healthcare issue, which is quite socialist.

8)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 02/25/11 - 5:11 PM:

"Should the government (the citizens) subsidize healthcare (for a nation)?"

In other words: all for one and one for all?

No.

Your breast exam and the surgery that comes after the discovery of a cancer is your problem, not mine.

My prostate exam and the surgery that comes after the discovery of a cancer is my problem, not yours.

It's your job to keep YOU alive, not mine.

It's my job to keep ME alive, not yours.

Fundamentally: a civilization is an agreement between two or more to NOT steal, NOT rape, and NOT kill one another.

Compulsory attendance to another's wounds, sickness, etc. is not part of the deal.

Certainly: if YOU wanna provide for another, then, as you like.

Certainly: as I can, I provide for those I love.

What any one CHOOSES to provide for another with personal resources, or volitionally pooled resources, is just jake with me.

Mandatory participation?

PFFFTT!
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
Posted 02/25/11 - 8:27 PM:

Right, healthy people are productive. But these sorts of programs aren't for healthy people, they're for the people that eat 4 McDonald's cheeseburgers a day, or the guy that's 73 and has been smoking since middle school.

Or it's for people who can't afford health care, many times because they're not being productive in the first place.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 02/26/11 - 1:59 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:
Right, healthy people are productive. But these sorts of programs aren't for healthy people, they're for the people that eat 4 McDonald's cheeseburgers a day, or the guy that's 73 and has been smoking since middle school.

Or it's for people who can't afford health care, many times because they're not being productive in the first place.


So universal health care is only useful for the fat, lazy, and self destructive.

That's a stupid and deliberately inflammatory sentiment.

thumb down
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 02/26/11 - 2:01 AM:

henry quirk wrote:

Mandatory participation?

PFFFTT!


You of course are free to go live in the jungle where you'll find the circumstances much more to your liking.

rolling eyes
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 02/26/11 - 11:37 AM:

"You of course are free to go live in the jungle where you'll find the circumstances much more to your liking."

I'm also free to stay right here, in the midst of you all, and NOT participate.

If my non-participation (me, using my money/resources/myself as I see fit, not as you see fit) irks you (or any one): do something about it.

Gotta find me first... whatever
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 02/26/11 - 11:42 AM:

Monk wrote:
That's a stupid and deliberately inflammatory sentiment.

pretty inflammatory word choice on your part as well. thumb down

Edited by libertygrl on 02/26/11 - 11:51 AM
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 02/26/11 - 11:43 AM:

quoting Z's post #17 from the wet houses topic:

Z wrote:
Social medical care often benefits those that contribute nothing to society.

let me ask you (and everyone) this: if socialized medical care benefits everyone, 90% of which - no, let's say 75% - of which have diligently and legitimately paid into it, another 25% of which are scamming the system - is it worth it? or do you feel that 75% should be punished because of the 25% who are scamming the system?

Z wrote:
Let those that do not contribute starve. Or freeze. Or whatever natural calamity will cause them to either become productive or die. Either way society will benefit.

i think this raises a question worthy of consideration, given also henry's position.

Z wrote:
What about a dam, a military or fire department? Everyone benefits from those things, how should we go about dispersing the taxes for them?

things like dams, a military, a fire department, police protection - in my view, these are rightly subsidized and tax-appropriate. why? because, as Z aptly pointed out, you can't easily prevent anyone from benefitting from these services. if a crime is in progress, or a house burning down, no one is going to stop and check to see who has paid their taxes before dealing with an emergency situation. emergency healthcare actually falls into this same scenario, because if a person has been hit by a car and is taken unconscious to the emergency room with rapid blood loss and needs immediate, critical attention in order to survive, again, the staff shouldn't be sitting around trying to figure out if this person paid their taxes. in such cases, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

there are lot of other services which don't fall into this same kind of scenario. libraries, for example. non-emergency healthcare, for another. why not have a system of voluntary participation only, in these cases? if someone wants to use the library, then they pay monthly or annual membership dues, rather than being taxed for it. if someone wants to use the government-subsidized healthcare system, then they pay into it as a public option. and so on and so on. why not?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 11:53 AM:

also, for those compassionate souls who can't bear to see someone turned away from healthcare just because they lacked the foresight (or whatever else) to pay into the system, they are free to set up charitable healthcare facilities where free healthcare, sustained by voluntary donations, is available for anyone.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 3:10 PM:

The question comes down to what kind of people we are willing to be. If we want to be a society of 'every man for himself' then let dog eat dog and be done with it.

If we want to rise above the level of beasts and practice compassion for our fellow human beings, we ought to at least recognize a basic level of needs procurement for the masses to which all members of society shall agree and willfully participate in. Not voluntarily, but as a duty to be a good citizen of such a nation.

What point is building and maintaining roads when people are sick and dying from lack of good food and sufficient health care? How can society thrive when the least of us live in squalor?

Such a society must establish itself from the bottom up, from the least to the greatest.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 3:12 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

pretty inflammatory word choice on your part as well. thumb down


If you say so. I bit my tongue pretty hard there. If that is a real sentiment it represents the height of ignorance; if not, its just there to stir up trouble. In my view, the lack of compassion for humanity it reflects is appalling. But that's just my knee-jerk reaction.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 4:09 PM:

Monk wrote:
The question comes down to what kind of people we are willing to be. If we want to be a society of 'every man for himself' then let dog eat dog and be done with it.

If we want to rise above the level of beasts and practice compassion for our fellow human beings, we ought to at least recognize a basic level of needs procurement for the masses to which all members of society shall agree and willfully participate in. Not voluntarily, but as a duty to be a good citizen of such a nation.

what happens when you have a society whose feelings are divided? some who want to "practice compassion" as you suggest, others who don't. are you suggesting that those who don't want to be compassionate should be coerced into doing so? mind you, such coercion might be difficult, but obviously not impossible. after all, taxes can be garnered from wages and sales, in most cases. but in order for a system, any given system, to work for people - to work for most people - then most people have to be willing to get behind it. most people have to think to themselves that the system is fair. when that's not the case, then the system starts to fall apart. that's when more and more people start abusing the system. which i think is what we have now, here, in the u.s., in many aspects: a system that is not meeting people's needs. too many people are abusing the system, from the politicians right on down to the mothers "pumping out welfare babies".

something to consider. maybe you will note the relevance. many christian groups, catholicism for example, openly insist on a policy of sexual abstinence before marriage. meanwhile, we have in many countries a literal AIDS epidemic, not to mention a pandemic of STDs. unwanted pregnancies and abortions are also clearly a problem. but rather than educate their children on the importance of using condoms, which they see as condoning immorality, they insist on adhering to this ideal, an ideal which seems clearly to be out of the reach of millions.

another something to consider. here in california, there's tremendous controversy raging about rave legislation. certain groups want to educate young people on the dangers of using ecstasy and other party drugs. one group had printed flyers with tips on how to reduce health risks while taking ecstasy. caused quite a tizzy and they were ordered to take a different tack.

i do believe that here in the U.S., honest, hardworking people are suffering at the cost of others who are abusing the system. by looking at that fact realistically, i would much rather see a better system implemented that forces people who don't pay into it to go elsewhere. as in the examples i just presented, i do believe the ideal is set so high that it may be doing more harm than good.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 8:05 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

what happens when you have a society whose feelings are divided?


Such a society cannot stand. If society can't agree on the most fundamental rules it will abide by it is hardly a society at all. At best its just an aggregate of social intentions, a loose collective of separate groups vying for more power or resources.


libertygrl wrote:

some who want to "practice compassion" as you suggest, others who don't. are you suggesting that those who don't want to be compassionate should be coerced into doing so?


In voting to determine such a basic, fundamental right, society needs to be nearly unanimous in support. It can't be 51%. But if it's like 75-25, then yes, the naysayers should be 'coerced' by reasonable means to go along with the accord of the majority.

This is a core issue that defines the very nature of the society. If someone wants to 'opt out' they are not just rejecting, say, universal health care, they are rejecting society itself, and must become either quirkists or move to some other society. Either way they have become anti-social as far as the society in question is concerned.


libertygrl wrote:

something to consider. maybe you will note the relevance. many christian groups, catholicism for example, openly insist on a policy of sexual abstinence before marriage. meanwhile, we have in many countries a literal AIDS epidemic, not to mention a pandemic of STDs. unwanted pregnancies and abortions are also clearly a problem. but rather than educate their children on the importance of using condoms, which they see as condoning immorality, they insist on adhering to this ideal, an ideal which seems clearly to be out of the reach of millions.


Who's to blame here? A group that clearly defines an ideal and trys to stick to it, or a bunch of people who claim to belong to that group and yet consistently fail to live up to its simplest of values?

I mean, the church also frowns upon murder and theft, yet murder and theft continue, in some countries at an epidemic level. Should the group just abandon the moral policy and say 'ok, we get it, people can't handle moral responsibility or stick to anything, so go for it--kill and steal till your heart's content.' Or more analogously, to recommend a halal way of killing your enemies so as not to cause fear or pain?

Clearly abstinence--from sex or violence--is well within the bounds of human volition. Because people fail to live up to this is no fault of the ideal nor even an indication that the idea is unrealistic. It shows rather the disdain people have for following moral rules when it inconveniences them or trys to corral their animal desires.


libertygrl wrote:

i do believe that here in the U.S., honest, hardworking people are suffering at the cost of others who are abusing the system. by looking at that fact realistically, i would much rather see a better system implemented that forces people who don't pay into it to go elsewhere. as in the examples i just presented, i do believe the ideal is set so high that it may be doing more harm than good.


We already have large portions of the population who don't pay into anything. Children. Yet we have no problem taking every effort to care for them when they are in need. We can also see how the extremely impoverished, the old, the sick are limited or prevented entirely from making contributions. 'Go elsewhere' should we tell them?

Look at it this way. If I'm not a home owner I don't pay any of the related taxes. A great deal of taxation is taken directly from homeowners. Suppose some of that tax is ear-marked for the preservation of public parks. Because I never paid into this system, should I be barred from enjoying a public park and be told to go elsewhere?

I think that certain things ought to be covered for all citizens in a society whether or not the distribution of payment or taxation is 'equal' precisely because of economic class inequalities--which is something our economic system thrives on and drives the competition that some have said is so important.

I also think that what will fall under this category will be a very small set of policies, with the rest being turned over to the free market. If people are guaranteed health care and affordable housing, then practically everything else should be freely determined by the market and the choices and agreements of individuals.

In the past people demanded liberty to have their own land. Nowadays there's practically no where to go. What we can demand is a equal distribution of fundamental services to go along with fundamental human rights. Above and beyond that, governments are of little use.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/11 - 9:46 PM:

Monk wrote:
Who's to blame here? A group that clearly defines an ideal and trys to stick to it, or a bunch of people who claim to belong to that group and yet consistently fail to live up to its simplest of values?

strikes me as an absurd question. this "bunch of people" who are "failing" as you say are not the devout catholics themselves (well, don't get me started on the priests who sexually abuse everyone around them, including nuns and children) but rather their teenage children who likewise find the ideal so oppressive that they rebel against it, or practice it covertly. studies have found that abstinence-only programs for teens actually lead to an increase in teen pregnancies. does anyone actually find this surprising? i don't. furthermore, this "bunch of people" includes the populations of impoverished countries that catholic missionaries would try to "save" from their plight of AIDS by handing out self-righteous admonitions instead of condoms.

Monk wrote:
Should the group just abandon the moral policy and say 'ok, we get it, people can't handle moral responsibility or stick to anything, so go for it--kill and steal till your heart's content.'

wow, that's quite a leap from what i was saying. "god no we can't advocate condom use, might as well tell people to murder and steal!" no. i hardly think it's the same. you think condom use is analogous to advocating "halal" murder? seriously? oh, wait a minute, i think it get it now. it seems you're using an "all or nothing" basis of determination, which i think is impractical and even downright harmful in many cases. case in point, this one.

Monk wrote:
Look at it this way. If I'm not a home owner I don't pay any of the related taxes. A great deal of taxation is taken directly from homeowners. Suppose some of that tax is ear-marked for the preservation of public parks. Because I never paid into this system, should I be barred from enjoying a public park and be told to go elsewhere?

no, for the same reason i already stated earlier, which is that some services are impossible to regulate, which is why they're subsidized to begin with. as i said already, emergency services would be included in this category. maintenance of roads and other public works services would likewise be included.

Monk wrote:
We already have large portions of the population who don't pay into anything. Children. Yet we have no problem taking every effort to care for them when they are in need. We can also see how the extremely impoverished, the old, the sick are limited or prevented entirely from making contributions. 'Go elsewhere' should we tell them?

again, quite a leap here. the health care of children is provided for by decisions made by their parents. presumably, most parents would be providing for their children with either public option health care or private insurance. "old people" don't suddenly become old overnight. again, presumably they have paid into the public option while they were able, and can make use of the retirement benefits. and, as i said before, emergency healthcare services would be subsidized for anyone having a true emergency.

and, quite frankly, i myself would be someone funding a charitable source of healthcare. so no, i wouldn't be telling any able-bodied person to "go elsewhere". if asked, i would tell any disadvantaged individual exactly where they could find free healthcare. meanwhile, an able-bodied person who opts never to pay into the system should not be getting free healthcare from anyone who doesn't want to give it willingly. if you think they deserve to, you're welcome to volunteer your own time and money to support the freeloaders.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/11 - 2:34 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
The question comes down to what kind of people we are willing to be. If we want to be a society of 'every man for himself' then let dog eat dog and be done with it.

If we want to rise above the level of beasts and practice compassion for our fellow human beings, we ought to at least recognize a basic level of needs procurement for the masses to which all members of society shall agree and willfully participate in. Not voluntarily, but as a duty to be a good citizen of such a nation.

What point is building and maintaining roads when people are sick and dying from lack of good food and sufficient health care? How can society thrive when the least of us live in squalor?

Such a society must establish itself from the bottom up, from the least to the greatest.

8)


It's not a matter of being compassionate, it's a matter of me not wanting to give my resources away to someone else that is not deserving of them.

I have compassion for my loved ones, not a complete stranger, especially if they have decided they don't feel like working.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/11 - 2:37 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


So universal health care is only useful for the fat, lazy, and self destructive.

That's a stupid and deliberately inflammatory sentiment.

thumb down


No, it's stupid to want to see your resources wasted on the leaches of society.

We live in a world of limited resource. A world of inequality. I'm sorry but I don't believe in all men being created equal. Some are not fit for survival. I don't see a reason to suffer because someone else that I have no personal connection to can't afford health-care.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/11 - 2:40 PM:

"let me ask you (and everyone) this: if socialized medical care benefits everyone, 90% of which - no, let's say 75% - of which have diligently and legitimately paid into it, another 25% of which are scamming the system - is it worth it? or do you feel that 75% should be punished because of the 25% who are scamming the system?"

The people that are being punished are the ones having their resources taken away and given to someone else in the first place.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/11 - 2:43 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


If you say so. I bit my tongue pretty hard there. If that is a real sentiment it represents the height of ignorance; if not, its just there to stir up trouble. In my view, the lack of compassion for humanity it reflects is appalling. But that's just my knee-jerk reaction.

8)


Don't hold back for my sake, I can roll with the punches.

Like lib said, there is a need for emergency health care. But beyond that people shouldn't just have things handed to them for nothing.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for everyone else's free ride.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/11 - 2:46 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

what happens when you have a society whose feelings are divided? some who want to "practice compassion" as you suggest, others who don't. are you suggesting that those who don't want to be compassionate should be coerced into doing so? mind you, such coercion might be difficult, but obviously not impossible. after all, taxes can be garnered from wages and sales, in most cases. but in order for a system, any given system, to work for people - to work for most people - then most people have to be willing to get behind it. most people have to think to themselves that the system is fair. when that's not the case, then the system starts to fall apart. that's when more and more people start abusing the system. which i think is what we have now, here, in the u.s., in many aspects: a system that is not meeting people's needs. too many people are abusing the system, from the politicians right on down to the mothers "pumping out welfare babies".

something to consider. maybe you will note the relevance. many christian groups, catholicism for example, openly insist on a policy of sexual abstinence before marriage. meanwhile, we have in many countries a literal AIDS epidemic, not to mention a pandemic of STDs. unwanted pregnancies and abortions are also clearly a problem. but rather than educate their children on the importance of using condoms, which they see as condoning immorality, they insist on adhering to this ideal, an ideal which seems clearly to be out of the reach of millions.

another something to consider. here in california, there's tremendous controversy raging about rave legislation. certain groups want to educate young people on the dangers of using ecstasy and other party drugs. one group had printed flyers with tips on how to reduce health risks while taking ecstasy. caused quite a tizzy and they were ordered to take a different tack.

i do believe that here in the U.S., honest, hardworking people are suffering at the cost of others who are abusing the system. by looking at that fact realistically, i would much rather see a better system implemented that forces people who don't pay into it to go elsewhere. as in the examples i just presented, i do believe the ideal is set so high that it may be doing more harm than good.


Excellent post.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/11 - 2:33 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:


No, it's stupid to want to see your resources wasted on the leaches of society.

We live in a world of limited resource. A world of inequality. I'm sorry but I don't believe in all men being created equal. Some are not fit for survival. I don't see a reason to suffer because someone else that I have no personal connection to can't afford health-care.



It's true. A small world is easier. Create your own little parish and live an untroubled life. If you're lucky.
You won't leave this place any better than you found it, but maybe that was too tough a demand for mere humans to begin with.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/11 - 2:35 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

strikes me as an absurd question.


The analogy is sound.

You were suggesting that the group promotes an ideal that is rarely if ever followed to the letter, and that because of that, the ideal itself is impractical and ought to be abandoned in favour of some new policy that is more forgiving and accepting of the behaviours the ideal is trying to limit or eliminate.

So 'don't have sex with anyone else but your lawful spouse' becauses 'at least have sex in the least harmful manner using this device'.

Perfectly equivalent to 'don't kill anyone except what the law allows' to 'at least kill people in the least harmful manner using this device'.

The ideal is not the issue, as it is well within the bounds of human beings to adhere to it. That humans do not choose to do so is not a valid reason to reject the ideal. Again, it's like saying 'people don't follow posted speed limits and drive fast all the time, so let's just take them all down and forget about speed limits, as long as we encourage people to drive fastly but safely.'


libertygrl wrote:

no, for the same reason i already stated earlier, which is that some services are impossible to regulate, which is why they're subsidized to begin with. as i said already, emergency services would be included in this category. maintenance of roads and other public works services would likewise be included.


You don't believe health care promoting good health for all citizens should be included in such a set of services? What good are roads when people are dying and starving?


libertygrl wrote:

if you think they deserve to, you're welcome to volunteer your own time and money to support the freeloaders.


That's exactly what charity does which you support, lol.

rolling eyes
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/11 - 2:50 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

It's not a matter of being compassionate, it's a matter of me not wanting to give my resources away to someone else that is not deserving of them.


Who are you to decide what people do and do not 'deserve'?


Zenoplata wrote:

I have compassion for my loved ones, not a complete stranger


Big deal. Like Jesus said, even the tax collectors love their own family.



Zenoplata wrote:

No, it's stupid to want to see your resources wasted on the leaches of society.


All public works ought to be deprived of taxation then. God forbid that a 'leech' should walk upon a nicely groomed road, enjoy a public park, or drink clean water from a public fountain.


Zenoplata wrote:

We live in a world of limited resource.


A finite world, but not necessarily limited. The limits is our imagination. Our urban predicaments merely presents a challenge to humanity to resolve. At any rate, right now any 'limitation' of resource is largely manufactured and is caused by politics and not nature.



Zenoplata wrote:

A world of inequality. I'm sorry but I don't believe in all men being created equal. Some are not fit for survival. I don't see a reason to suffer because someone else that I have no personal connection to can't afford health-care.


LOL, how is supporting universal health care causing YOU to suffer? What a joke.


Zenoplata wrote:

The people that are being punished are the ones having their resources taken away and given to someone else in the first place.


What resources? You think that citizens of a supposed united society contributing to the good of every person through a monetary support of universal health care is a kind of 'punishment'? Ridiculous.



Zenoplata wrote:

Like lib said, there is a need for emergency health care. But beyond that people shouldn't just have things handed to them for nothing.


Indeed. Hopefully that tax on air will go through and make all those lazy bastard who have just been breathing it in for free all these years pay up. How dare some leech suck up all MY air without paying his dues!!



Zenoplata wrote:

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for everyone else's free ride.


There's plenty of free lunches. A human society is built by human choices. There's no 'free lunch' if and only if we decide that it shall be so. We are free to do otherwise and are not constrained by some law of nature in this regard. That a person would reject such a fundamental support for their fellow human beings says more about their character than it does about the finitude of resources.


----


smokinpristiformis wrote:

It's true. A small world is easier.


And does not exist anymore.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/11 - 2:57 PM:

There's two things I feel should always be 'free' in a just, humane, and civilized society: Education and health care. Support for these should be distributed evenly across the entire population and maintained to a high standard, not the lowest common denominator. And, with the exception of the courts, police, and military, everything else should be localized and run at the community level.

For those that support emergency health care but not general health care consider the fact that by the time an emergency happens it is already too late. The point of good, solid health care is to promote a strong and healthy society so that, to some people's pleasure, people will be able to work and be productive. Ultimately it seeks to avoid dependence on acute care and reduce the need for emergency services.

What does it say about our society when we assert that we don't and won't care about people except as a last resort (emergency)?

That is all. Now get back to work and be productive you dirty leeches!

laughing
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/11 - 3:20 PM:

There are no free lunches. Simply saying there are proves nothing.

Resources don't just poof into existence.

Yes, universal health care punishes me. My money is going to pay for someone else because they can't afford it. My doctors are going to have less incentive to provide me with top-tier service.

If we allowed the "leeches" to die off like nature intended then we wouldn't have to worry about them walking in parks or drinking from water fountains.

You sure do have a strong sense of entitlement.

Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.