- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
the healthier a society is, the more efficient & prosperous it is, the richer everyone is.
that's why considering healthcare a right....ends up benefiting us all.
the healthier a society is, the more efficient & prosperous it is, the richer everyone is.
that's why considering healthcare a right....ends up benefiting us all.
Costing us more money doesn't benefit us at all.
Everyone should have the right to proper medical care.
This is Stockholm Syndrome. You're saying people should be grateful for their hostage takers. It's a strategic choice since it makes you look good, but it's not ethical.
You're also saying that all parts of society are equally causal. Would you save two people who are hanging off a cliff equally even if one influenced your life more?
Again, you're enslaving supply to demand. Not only is potential limited, but potential takes commitment to be fulfilled.
I'm not sure why you would even consider saving people who don't personally commit to your potential's fulfillment.
Everyone should have the right to the services of another?
A house is just as much needed as health care. So should everyone have the right to have a house built for them? Clothing is also just as needed....
how does a healthier, more productive, and more efficient society end up costing us more?
if anything, it will end up costing us LESS.
Smoke didn't say anything about not taking responsibility for yourself nor did she say that you should concern yourself with what everyone else should do to make your life possible.Wow, that is so not how I view things. I'd rather take responsibility for myself rather than concern myself with what everyone else should do to make "my life possible".
Well, I could be wrong here, I don't think health care is free. Therefore, SOMEONE has to pay for it (at least) eventually.
Um, what are you talking about? Hostage takers?
They are, after a fashion. Even the weak ones who can't provide for themselves bring out an important aspect of society. We are better as a people, and more ethical in general, the more we take care of the weak ones. Societies that care the least are the worst to live in.
In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.
Again, what are you talking about?
If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.
Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.
Wow, that is so not how I view things. I'd rather take responsibility for myself rather than concern myself with what everyone else should do to make "my life possible".
yes, we all pay for it.
but we would all pay less, if we all had health insurance.
If more people are getting something that costs money, how do we pay less? Is this a "it'll pay off in the end" kind of things?
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "inalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments
Smoke didn't say anything about not taking responsibility for yourself nor did she say that you should concern yourself with what everyone else should do to make your life possible.
She talked about a society that makes life possible for people which coexists with personal responsibility. Whether you like it or not, when you are a member of society, a bunch of people are making your life possible. That's an undeniable truth. Opinion comes into this depending on how much you think everyone should contribute to the lives of their fellow citizens. I think everyone should contribute to healthcare for themselves and their fellow citizens and there's absolutely no reason why that can't coexist with personal responsibility.
because anyone who has ever gone to an ER knows that our ER costs are significantly inflated inorder to compensate for the costs of folks who have NO health insurance and get treated by the ER anyways.
This explains why we have to respect people. It doesn't explain why we have to go out of our way to save people.
Theoretically speaking, you could be permanently enslaved by people constantly hanging off a cliff. Now, your entire life is spent saving them, and you're never entitled to live your own time or exercise your own energy or attention.
By the same token, weak ones would be expected to save people hanging off a cliff, even if they couldn't afford to do so without falling off themselves.
No... that's prejudiced. You should have to exert equal simultaneous effort saving both.
No, that's coercion.
Nobody asks to be born into society. Therefore, we are all hostages. A hostage is not obligated to so much as lift a finger for one's hostage takers.
Your statement sounds politically correct, but that's just because you're making an appeal to cohesion (people living together), not an appeal to foundations (people making individual decisions).
Unfortunately, cohesion doesn't exist without foundations, so that's an argument by stolen concept.
Today - its available for nearly all...even the native Americans may have clinics in many cases..
.
She never said anything about not taking responsibility for your well being. But the fact that we won the freaking birth lottery by being born in America is not something we should take for granted, and we must realize that the reason our lives are so great compared to the rest of the world is that our society is stable, and that we have one of the best forms of government.
And I attribute all those good things more to notions of indvidualism, liberty from the government as much as possible, as well as a free market and the benefits of capitalism.
Did you mean to quote me, X?
And these costs will be shifted how? It'll still cost money for people to go to the ER. If I'm not mistaken, the burden is placed on the wealthiest Americans. If they wanna go to the ER, they gotta pay.
Is it the embodiment of conservatives and republicans to draw back a couple hundred years? It's the 21st century folks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?