Scott's point is really good, actually. I'm going to have to think on that one. I don't know how to respond to people who simply don't want to pay for any healthcare.
I told you. Exile. I wasn't kidding.
I'm going to have to make an argument of degrees here. It would be silly to me to punish someone for missing a flu shot.
Did they stab themselves? Then no. Did someone else stab them? Then yes
You don't know why. All you know is that they are dying. You have to decide without knowing. Yes or no?
Yes but only because I choose to do so. If someone else saw the person and took the money from my pocket I would be angry
Ok, so we're all standing there looking at a guy dying in the street. You want to save the guy, but you have no money. I'm standing there with a pile of gold bars. I'm being an evil dick, and not doing anything. Do you steal the gold bars from me to save the person?
Did they stab themselves? Then no. Did someone else stab them? Then yes
You don't know why. All you know is that they are dying. You have to decide without knowing. Yes or no?
Yes but only because I choose to do so. If someone else saw the person and took the money from my pocket I would be angry
Ok, so we're all standing there looking at a guy dying in the street. You want to save the guy, but you have no money. I'm standing there with a pile of gold bars. I'm being an evil dick, and not doing anything. Do you steal the gold bars from me to save the person?
I would but that wouldn't make it right. I would choose the burden of a bad deed for what I precieve to be the greater immediate good, for all I know you were about to donate it to cancer research which would save many more lives
Scott's pretty scrawny. I don't think he'd be able to hold onto all those gold bricks when the rest of the crowd tries to take them from him.
Yes, insurance is all about shared risk but why should someone have to pay for a risk that does not apply to them?
For example I am a man (or woman). Some health issues are gender related and do not apply to me so why should my money be used to share the risk of something that I am not at risk of falling ill to?
Health care does require judgement calls and risk assessments, not just in dollars and cents either. If two people need a kidney and you only have one, who gets it? If a person has lived 90 years and an operation has a 20% chance of giving them a few more years of life with a high risk factor of them not surviving the operation do you take the risk and operate? If someone gets a new liver and then lives an unhealthy life that requires another new liver do they get it?
My greatest fear of a government run universal healthcare system is the abuse. It's one thing if someone games the system for a few dollars of free money every month. It's something entirely different when their gaming results in someone else not getting the health care that they need to live.
You wouldn't carry even catastrophic instance health insurance? I had a friend who got into an accident (while his fault, wasn't because of being stupid) and didn't have insurance, 60k later and a few years he's only now getting close to paying it off AND getting the additional surgery he needed. If I didn't have health insurance I probably would just stay home and watch TV all day :-p Universal healthcare would be a small price to pay for the peace of mind that you could take a risk in business or in life without fearing you'll be overwhelmed by medical bills.
I would but that wouldn't make it right. I would choose the burden of a bad deed for what I precieve to be the greater immediate good, for all I know you were about to donate it to cancer research which would save many more lives
It actually is right. Not only is it right by my atheist morality, it's even right by the morality of the old testament.
I've asked at least two very religious rabbis if it was ok to steal like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They said no, that is one of the ten commandments, thou shalt not steal. It doesn't say thou shalt not steal, except from the rich.
However, in both cases they went out of their way to make one exception. It's ok if it's to save a life. Any other crime is forgivable in the name of saving lives. Even the most orthodox of jews will break any rule if it is necessary to do so in order to save lives. If it could slightly prolong even one life, it would be forgivable to steal from the entire neighborhood on Saturday while driving a car.
I can steal from someone to save a life without any guilt whatsoever. If someone stole from me to save a life, I would be glad that they did so. If you feel the same way, you should pay a tax to save lives with joy even though you know not who you are saving or why or from what.
If you feel otherwise, then you are evil in my eyes. I will feel no guilt kicking you in the junk repeatedly.
The Tick is in favor of DEATH PANELS. Lol, I agree with you on that point. There has to be a cost benefit analysis on what we do to save a 90+ year old person.
However, I don't agree with your argument on Gender issues. You pay for risks that don't apply to you and they pay for risks that don't apply for them. Your Prostate is probably a slowly ticking time bomb that women don't have to worry about.
I think you're trying to black and white actions a bit there Scott. Saying you have no guilt because an action is a net good seems a poor choice to me. My philosophy is that you should take at least some guilt from the bad parts of our choices even if it's a net good. Feeling melancholy about something but knowing that it's the best possible choice of those you were offered is honest and genuine. Thinking that you made the best possible choice, therefore you should feel great is how tyrants often come into being.
I would but that wouldn't make it right. I would choose the burden of a bad deed for what I precieve to be the greater immediate good, for all I know you were about to donate it to cancer research which would save many more lives
It actually is right. Not only is it right by my atheist morality, it's even right by the morality of the old testament.
I've asked at least two very religious rabbis if it was ok to steal like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They said no, that is one of the ten commandments, thou shalt not steal. It doesn't say thou shalt not steal, except from the rich.
However, in both cases they went out of their way to make one exception. It's ok if it's to save a life. Any other crime is forgivable in the name of saving lives. Even the most orthodox of jews will break any rule if it is necessary to do so in order to save lives. If it could slightly prolong even one life, it would be forgivable to steal from the entire neighborhood on Saturday while driving a car.
I can steal from someone to save a life without any guilt whatsoever. If someone stole from me to save a life, I would be glad that they did so. If you feel the same way, you should pay a tax to save lives with joy even though you know not who you are saving or why or from what.
If you feel otherwise, then you are evil in my eyes. I will feel no guilt kicking you in the junk repeatedly.
But this removes the freedom to make that choice, I would make the choice everytime to save a life I will not however allow someone to tell me I have to.
I think you're trying to black and white actions a bit there Scott. Saying you have no guilt because an action is a net good seems a poor choice to me. My philosophy is that you should take at least some guilt from the bad parts of our choices even if it's a net good. Feeling melancholy about something but knowing that it's the best possible choice of those you were offered is honest and genuine. Thinking that you made the best possible choice, therefore you should feel great is how tyrants often come into being.
I'm not saying I feel no guilt ever. I'm saying I won't feel guilty about taking money from rich people by force to give medicine to poor people.
I would but that wouldn't make it right. I would choose the burden of a bad deed for what I precieve to be the greater immediate good, for all I know you were about to donate it to cancer research which would save many more lives
It actually is right. Not only is it right by my atheist morality, it's even right by the morality of the old testament.
I've asked at least two very religious rabbis if it was ok to steal like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They said no, that is one of the ten commandments, thou shalt not steal. It doesn't say thou shalt not steal, except from the rich.
However, in both cases they went out of their way to make one exception. It's ok if it's to save a life. Any other crime is forgivable in the name of saving lives. Even the most orthodox of jews will break any rule if it is necessary to do so in order to save lives. If it could slightly prolong even one life, it would be forgivable to steal from the entire neighborhood on Saturday while driving a car.
I can steal from someone to save a life without any guilt whatsoever. If someone stole from me to save a life, I would be glad that they did so. If you feel the same way, you should pay a tax to save lives with joy even though you know not who you are saving or why or from what.
If you feel otherwise, then you are evil in my eyes. I will feel no guilt kicking you in the junk repeatedly.
But this removes the freedom to make that choice, I would make the choice everytime to save a life I will not however allow someone to tell me I have to.
The problem arises when not everyone will make that choice, or when people are unable to make that choice. Say the person with the gold bricks has an assault rifle with a grenade launcher attached. You rushing that guy means you get killed messily. If we as a society decide that the person has to give up some gold bricks peacefully so that others may live, we don't have to make the choice to rush the guy. I hope I'm getting the idea across, I know I'm over simplifying here.
But this removes the freedom to make that choice, I would make the choice everytime to save a life I will not however allow someone to tell me I have to.
Except you already do with taxes for stuff like police and firefighters. Firefighters, for example, put out all fires whether or not they were accidental. You pay for that service. So if someone's an idiot and burns down their house? Yup, firefighters take care of it, because that fire can endanger others.
Health care is the same way. The decision is made for you because left to their own devices, people will let other people die, and will engage in behavior that endangers the health and welfare of others.
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
Precisely. Tax-funded services only work BECAUSE we don't get to pick and choose how the money is spent. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
If I could choose where my tax dollars were spent, I'd be an authoritarian asshole. People I don't like wouldn't get to have my money. Religious organizations would be marginalized. States that don't allow gay marriage would stop getting any federal money from me.
So no, we don't get to do that. It's not a "punishment," it's a necessary byproduct of social systems.
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
If the government wasn't I would step in to do so and I hope so would everyone else.
They wouldn't. That's why we have to have the Constitution to protect those rights. If everyone supported them by default, we wouldn't need the law that says we have to.
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
If the government wasn't I would step in to do so and I hope so would everyone else.
How would that work? Would we all contribute to a charitable firefighting/police/whatever group?
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
If the government wasn't I would step in to do so and I hope so would everyone else.
How would that work? Would we all contribute to a charitable firefighting/police/whatever group?
I meant protecting the right to free speech, but since you mention it most of the firefighters in the US are volunteers, so we already do that.
I just want to address the idea that other fundamental rights, like free speech and freedom of religion, don't cost money.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
Precisely. Tax-funded services only work BECAUSE we don't get to pick and choose how the money is spent. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
If I could choose where my tax dollars were spent, I'd be an authoritarian asshole. People I don't like wouldn't get to have my money. Religious organizations would be marginalized. States that don't allow gay marriage would stop getting any federal money from me.
So no, we don't get to do that. It's not a "punishment," it's a necessary byproduct of social systems.
Religous organizations shouldn't get money they should be paying it, and gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Tax dollars go to pay to oppress people and promote religion. So that wouldn't make you an asshole.
If the government wasn't I would step in to do so and I hope so would everyone else.
I believe that eventually they would. All government is inherited from the natural anarchy at some point. People that grew up "sheltered" in the assumptions of protection for generations seem likely to have to fail a few times before they figure it out again - but eventually people always come back to wanting to form societies for mutual benefit.
I meant protecting the right to free speech, but since you mention it most of the firefighters in the US are volunteers, so we already do that.
One, firefighters in places where there isn't a great need for firefighting are volunteers. In major cities, where the work is much more dangerous and necessary, they are paid professionals.
Two, tax dollars go toward the equipment, infrastructure, and medical care of volunteer firefighters: they wouldn't exist without tax dollars paying for everything.
I meant protecting the right to free speech, but since you mention it most of the firefighters in the US are volunteers, so we already do that.
One, firefighters in places where there isn't a great need for firefighting are volunteers. In major cities, where the work is much more dangerous and necessary, they are paid professionals.
Two, tax dollars go toward the equipment, infrastructure, and medical care of volunteer firefighters: they wouldn't exist without tax dollars paying for everything.
I meant protecting the right to free speech, but since you mention it most of the firefighters in the US are volunteers, so we already do that.
One, firefighters in places where there isn't a great need for firefighting are volunteers. In major cities, where the work is much more dangerous and necessary, they are paid professionals.
Two, tax dollars go toward the equipment, infrastructure, and medical care of volunteer firefighters: they wouldn't exist without tax dollars paying for everything.
We also rely heavily on donations. Considering the amount of man hours volunteered the taxes spent on equipment are trivial
Comments
Say you break your leg in a freak accident. Do you have any idea how much it costs someone without insurance to cover that?
Yes, insurance is all about shared risk but why should someone have to pay for a risk that does not apply to them?
For example I am a man (or woman). Some health issues are gender related and do not apply to me so why should my money be used to share the risk of something that I am not at risk of falling ill to?
Health care does require judgement calls and risk assessments, not just in dollars and cents either. If two people need a kidney and you only have one, who gets it? If a person has lived 90 years and an operation has a 20% chance of giving them a few more years of life with a high risk factor of them not surviving the operation do you take the risk and operate? If someone gets a new liver and then lives an unhealthy life that requires another new liver do they get it?
My greatest fear of a government run universal healthcare system is the abuse. It's one thing if someone games the system for a few dollars of free money every month. It's something entirely different when their gaming results in someone else not getting the health care that they need to live.
You wouldn't carry even catastrophic instance health insurance? I had a friend who got into an accident (while his fault, wasn't because of being stupid) and didn't have insurance, 60k later and a few years he's only now getting close to paying it off AND getting the additional surgery he needed. If I didn't have health insurance I probably would just stay home and watch TV all day :-p Universal healthcare would be a small price to pay for the peace of mind that you could take a risk in business or in life without fearing you'll be overwhelmed by medical bills.
I've asked at least two very religious rabbis if it was ok to steal like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They said no, that is one of the ten commandments, thou shalt not steal. It doesn't say thou shalt not steal, except from the rich.
However, in both cases they went out of their way to make one exception. It's ok if it's to save a life. Any other crime is forgivable in the name of saving lives. Even the most orthodox of jews will break any rule if it is necessary to do so in order to save lives. If it could slightly prolong even one life, it would be forgivable to steal from the entire neighborhood on Saturday while driving a car.
I can steal from someone to save a life without any guilt whatsoever. If someone stole from me to save a life, I would be glad that they did so. If you feel the same way, you should pay a tax to save lives with joy even though you know not who you are saving or why or from what.
If you feel otherwise, then you are evil in my eyes. I will feel no guilt kicking you in the junk repeatedly.
However, I don't agree with your argument on Gender issues. You pay for risks that don't apply to you and they pay for risks that don't apply for them. Your Prostate is probably a slowly ticking time bomb that women don't have to worry about.
Health care is the same way. The decision is made for you because left to their own devices, people will let other people die, and will engage in behavior that endangers the health and welfare of others.
That's a lie. They cost taxpayer dollars to protect. Police forces to protect protesters, civil servants to process paperwork and permits, court systems to hear disputes... all of these things are paid for by taxes.
You don't want the government taking your money to protect Westboro Baptist's right to spread hate and bigotry? TOO BAD, THEY ARE.
If I could choose where my tax dollars were spent, I'd be an authoritarian asshole. People I don't like wouldn't get to have my money. Religious organizations would be marginalized. States that don't allow gay marriage would stop getting any federal money from me.
So no, we don't get to do that. It's not a "punishment," it's a necessary byproduct of social systems.
Religous organizations shouldn't get money they should be paying it, and gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Tax dollars go to pay to oppress people and promote religion. So that wouldn't make you an asshole.
Two, tax dollars go toward the equipment, infrastructure, and medical care of volunteer firefighters: they wouldn't exist without tax dollars paying for everything.
We also rely heavily on donations. Considering the amount of man hours volunteered the taxes spent on equipment are trivial