Can anyone break this argument?

[Liberty]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

 

[hortysir]

B could hire A and big gubmint will mandate B to insure A, regardless.

 

[rikules]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

That's an interesting perspective.

here's a different perspective;

there's this country....
in which many people say "we are the GREATEST country in the world!"
but.....
there aren't enough jobs for everyone
so many people, through no fault of their own, don't have jobs
many other people work at lowpaying jobs earning barely enough to stay warm and eat but NOT get proper health care

millions and millions of people suffering and dying because in that GREAT COUNTRY SOME people have BILLIONS of dollars while other people have trouble paying the rent...

is that REALLY the greatest country in the world?

and what about the future;
more and more jobs (even in the military) being automated, computerized and turned over to robots...

meaning even FEWER jobs for people....
(maybe someday YOU won't have a job because a robot will be doing it and the CEO of your corporation can get EVEN RICHER! won't that be nice? and you, of course, won't complain, i'm sure)

of course...
people who don't work because there are no jobs because wealthy people would rather keep ALL THE MONEY and use robots and computers to do as much work as possible are OBVIOUSLY deadbeats and deserve to just die on the streets....

in the greatest country in the world.....

 

[Liberty]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

That's an interesting perspective.

here's a different perspective;

there's this country....
in which many people say "we are GREATEST country in the world!"
but.....
there aren't enough jobs for everyone
so many people, through no fault of their own, don't have jobs
many other people work at lowpaying jobs earning barely enough to stay warm and eat but NOT get proper health care

millions and millions of people suffering and dying because in that GREAT COUNTRY SOME people have BILLIONS of dollars while other people have trouble paying the rent...

is that REALLY the greatest country in the world?

and what about the future;
more and more jobs (even in the military) beiung automated, computerized and turned over to robots...

meaning even FEWER jobs for people....
(maybe someday YOU won't have a job because a robot will be doing it and the CEO of your corporation can get EVEN RICHER!)

of course...
people who don't work because there are no jobs because wealthy people would rather keep ALL THE MONEY and use robots and computers to do as much work as possible are OBVIOUSLY deadbeats and deserve to just die on the streets....

in the greatest country in the world.....

the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life; which is much more realistic.

its all relative to one's personal opinion.

 

[Madeline]

B wants to live in peace and security. He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands. B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.

 

[Liberty]

B wants to live in peace and security. He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands. B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.

B already invests in his community via private charity donations (edit: and local / state taxes)

Why must the government force him to do more? What gives the government that power?

also, answer the questions in bold.

 

[ForestGirl]

I don't think your "argument" CAN be broken. Your perspective is spot on! The federal government continues to create and condone dependency.

the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life.

Excellent response!

 

[JBeukema]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

IDK... when you fall and break your neck and cut your leg open, what have I done to owe it to you to call 911 and apply pressure to the wound?

I suppose it's the same thing the government did to ow it to us to not throw us all in internment camps and take over our industries.

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

Really? You want to get into 'economic slavery', my capitalist friend?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility.

...

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution

repre-what?

Which draft? The one before abolition?

 

[Liberty]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

IDK... when you fall and break your neck and cut your leg open, what have I done to owe it to you to call 911 and apply pressure to the wound?
I suppose it's the same thing the government did to ow it to us to not throw us all in internment camps and take over our industries.

What is your point?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

Really? You want to get into 'economic slavery', my capitalist friend?

What is your point?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility.

...

What is your point?

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution

repre-what?

Which draft? The one before abolition?

What is your point?


--- Come on now, try to come up with an intelligent retort, instead of asinine ones. i believe in you.

 

[JBeukema]

Your evasion settles the matter.

I rest my case.

 

[jillian]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

its an interesting query. but to add to your hypothesis, i think we can assume that person B has a cadillac health care plan and person A gets the minimum treatment necessary. That isn't equal, nor am i saying it should be.

I think we can also assume that, in most instances, person A would very much like to achieve what person B did but, for whatever reason, he can't or hasn't.

That leaves us with a moral dilemma... since both person A and person B live in (I assume), the richest country on the planet, then we have to ask what kind of country we are. And what moral obligation do we have to care for the weakest, poorest and oldest among us as a society (since I'm assuming we're all people of good will and on a personal level we'd like to help someone in need if we can)

now, i'll assume person B is one of the 80% of us who is happy with their health coverage. That means that person A is one of the 20% of us who has no coverage. Does person A not have coverage because he lost his job because of a bad economy? Did he lose his coverage because he works for an employer who does not offer health insurance? Did he lose coverage because he had a pre-existing condition? or is person A a single mom whose deadbeat boyfriend got her pregnant because she never had sex education, lived in a small town and she and the boy were embarrassed to buy condoms? (since single moms are the largest group on welfare).

At that point, we then have to ask who should bear the cost of that remaining 20%? does each of us paying an additional 1% make the difference in the world we live in? Does paying for the single mom's job training and daycare so at some point she is self-sufficient make sense? or should we stamp our feet and say, 'too bad, chickadee, you got yourself into this mess and it wouldn't have happened if you kept your legs together".

Then what about the person who lost his job, has no insurance through his job or got cut off because of a pre-existing condition? Do we as a society share the cost? Do we make the insurance companies bear at least part of the cost (since they are, after oil companies = the second most profitable industry)? Do we prohibit them from cutting someone off if they get an expensive illness? Do we make healthier and younger people kick in to the system so it is more cost efficient?

i think there are a lot more issues than do you take care of deadbeats because you earn a living or not.

Economic policy is also a question of morality.

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:8

 

[Liberty]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

its an interesting query. but to add to your hypothesis, i think we can assume that person B has a cadillac health care plan and person A gets the minimum treatment necessary. That isn't equal, nor am i saying it should be.

I think we can also assume that, in most instances, person A would very much like to achieve what person B did but, for whatever reason, he can't or hasn't.

That leaves us with a moral dilemma... since both person A and person B live in (I assume), the richest country on the planet, then we have to ask what kind of country we are. And what moral obligation do we have to care for the weakest, poorest and oldest among us as a society (since I'm assuming we're all people of good will and on a personal level we'd like to help someone in need if we can)

now, i'll assume person B is one of the 80% of us who is happy with their health coverage. That means that person A is one of the 20% of us who has no coverage. Does person A not have coverage because he lost his job because of a bad economy? Did he lose his coverage because he works for an employer who does not offer health insurance? Did he lose coverage because he had a pre-existing condition? or is person A a single mom whose deadbeat boyfriend got her pregnant because she never had sex education, lived in a small town and she and the boy were embarrassed to buy condoms? (since single moms are the largest group on welfare).

At that point, we then have to ask who should bear the cost of that remaining 20%? does each of us paying an additional 1% make the difference in the world we live in? Does paying for the single mom's job training and daycare so at some point she is self-sufficient make sense? or should we stamp our feet and say, 'too bad, chickadee, you got yourself into this mess and it wouldn't have happened if you kept your legs together".

Then what about the person who lost his job, has no insurance through his job or got cut off because of a pre-existing condition? Do we as a society share the cost? Do we make the insurance companies bear at least part of the cost (since they are, after oil companies)= the second most profitable industry)? Do we prohibit them from cutting someone off if they get an expensive illness? Do we make healthier and younger people kick in to the system so it is more cost efficient?

i think there are a lot more issues than do you take care of deadbeats because you earn a living or not.

Economic policy is also a question of morality.

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:8

Your points are well written and well said and I would like to say that your questions and the overall dilema is certainly sound. My specific argument is simply that person 'B' should not be put in the position of responsibility of the health care of 'A' simply because he is successful. Person 'A' does need help, however, my argument is simply that punishing person 'B' even though he personally donates to private charity, should be off the table, and other solutions be attempted to maintain equality.

Private charities need to be more emphasized over government bureaucracy and control in both the economic factor, and the equality factor; which is demoralized in the situation of a system of UHC.

 

[Madeline]

B wants to live in peace and security. He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands. B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.

B already invests in his community via private charity donations.

Why must the government force him to do more? What gives the government that power?

also, answer the questions in bold.

B is certainly free to "invest" via charities. However, his interests in living among others who have the basic necessities of life cannot be met that way. The "government" has no power apart from the social contract among all men, A and B alike.

I don't see anything in bold, sorry.

 

[Liberty]

Your evasion settles the matter.

I rest my case.

I am simply asking for your point (or bottom line).

 

[JBeukema]

Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.

I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.

 

[Liberty]

B wants to live in peace and security. He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands. B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.

B already invests in his community via private charity donations.

Why must the government force him to do more? What gives the government that power?

also, answer the questions in bold.

B is certainly free to "invest" via charities. However, his interests in living among others who have the basic necessities of life cannot be met that way. The "government" has no power apart from the social contract among all men, A and B alike.

I don't see anything in bold, sorry.

How do you know this (in bold) to be true?

 

[boedicca]

Yes, it's economic slavery and there is nothing A can do to compensate B for being enslaved by the government to provide benefits to A.

 

[Madeline]

Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.

How do I know a private charity cannot meet those needs? Well, first, none ever has. None has the eglatarian reach or the resources of government. Health care (and I am not talking about "cadillac care") for the people one lives amongst adds to one's own health and security....and it's something I want for my community.

What should the government do with taxes, Liberty? Just build bombs?

 

[Liberty]

Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.

I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.

You obviously did not read anything I said, completely off base, and I am slightly embarrassed for your intellectual articulation of proper debate.

Feel free to actually make a point any time you wish that is based in reality. Perhaps reading is a good first start.

 

[boedicca]

Maddy,

Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.