Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.
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, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.
I am not advocating 'A' go die in a ditch or anything. I am simply arguing from a philosophical stand point that essentially forcing 'B' to pay for 'A' is against the principles of equality which is what people have been fighting for in America since day one. there has got to be a better way to take care of 'A' without sacrificing essential principles such as equality.
Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.
I am not advocating 'A' go die in a ditch or anything. I am simply arguing from a philosophical stand point that essentially forcing 'B' to pay for 'A' is against the principles of equality which is what people have been fighting for in America since day one. there has got to be a better way to take care of 'A' without sacrificing essential principles such as equality.
Fail. It conflicts with liberty. It is the pursuit of equality.
There's a word for absolute liberty: Somalia.
Maddy,
Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.
Maddy,
Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.
B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
Maddy,
Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.
B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
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?[/ QUOTE=Liberty;2748304]
I’m not a fortune-teller
YesIs 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.
Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence says, not all people are created equal. Some people are born mentally and/or physically handicapped. Some are born into wealth and some into poverty. It is difficult, if not impossible, for some people to have liberty and responsibility if they were born with a handicap.
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.
True enough. ‘B’ must lose a little liberty so that ‘A’ can have a better chance at survival.
[QOUTE]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 representation 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.
So it's the Government's job to determine when that "social obligation" has been met??Maddy,
Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.
B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Compliment returned.
I understand your arguments. And I answered the way I did because I think these types of questions are important. I also dont think complex problems lead themselves to simplistic answers. It's not that I think private charity should be off the table, but I think its clear that they are inadequate. Am I all for upping our private charity involvement? Of course. Go to it! Donate to your favorite. But to whom would you give the money to help person A with his or her medical coverage? Doctors? Planned parenthood? This organization?Free Medical Clinics, Free Dental Clinics, Free Medical Help All over USA
Ultimately, I think it is all of our responsibilities because it is the right thing to do.... and because we who have been blessed with ability, drive and circumstances that perhaps others haven't been blessed with, should help out... for most of us it changes our life very little.
Don't you think moral issues should come into these decisions?
or is it like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIW-eIAJxE]YouTube - GodSpell - All For The Best[/ame]
So it's the Government's job to determine when that "social obligation" has been met??Maddy,
Nonsense. That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.
B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
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'?
This is a classic political-philosophical question that people have been contemplating for centuries. To what degree are people responsible to their fellow man? People have concluded that pure laissez faire capitalism does not work and that pure socialism does not work. Why is it that B should NOT be responsible for A? You are using circular logic to say that he should keep it because he earned it. It would be as if I were to argue that B should give it to A so that A does not die in the street.
There is no simple answer. It comes down to a difference of opinion about to what degree people should be required to help their fellow human beings.
Here is my reply: B (by his good fortune to be in a relatively free society, and by his being intelligent and resourceful enough, and by being able to receive a education, is in a position to help those less fortunate. It is simply the right thing that he be required to do so to an extent. Society has concluded that we will not have desperately needy people starve on the street. We will have government serve as a safety net for those who have nowhere else to turn.
I like your signature line. To play devils advocate, Id say that Capitalism is so good that those who cant survive it should be swept out of the way.
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?
A, to the best of his ability (considering to what degree he might be mentally retarded or severely physically handicapped) is responsible for trying to become self-reliant.
Yes
Will the government force people to modify their behavior?[/ QUOTE=Liberty;2748304]
Im not a fortune-teller
Yes
Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence says, not all people are created equal. Some people are born mentally and/or physically handicapped. Some are born into wealth and some into poverty. It is difficult, if not impossible, for some people to have liberty and responsibility if they were born with a handicap.
True enough. B must lose a little liberty so that A can have a better chance at survival.
[QOUTE]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.
There is a middle ground. If someone has $1,000,000,000 to spare, does he really lose any significant degree of liberty if he is required to give $1,000 to someone in need? The question is not whether or not to draw the line but where to draw the line.
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 representation 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.
During the founding, slavery was condoned. Women were forbidden from voting. There was little concern about taking land from the Indians. Times change. We should not resort to a literal interpretation of the Constitution. If we did so, then private citizens can have ICBMs and animal sacrifices would be allowed. Read the Bill of Rights. Finally, what is to happen to those who, due to severe mental retardation will never be self-reliant and cant find adequate help in the private sector. If it comes to it, are such human beings to be cast away to die in the streets?
So it's the Government's job to determine when that "social obligation" has been met??B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
It is, but hortySir, the government is us. We determine what amount of mutual aid each of us wants made available via the government. I may want more, you may want less. We disagree, hold elections and viola', we get a result.
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.
Thanks. Compliment returned.
I understand your arguments. And I answered the way I did because I think these types of questions are important. I also dont think complex problems lead themselves to simplistic answers. It's not that I think private charity should be off the table, but I think its clear that they are inadequate. Am I all for upping our private charity involvement? Of course. Go to it! Donate to your favorite. But to whom would you give the money to help person A with his or her medical coverage? Doctors? Planned parenthood? This organization?Free Medical Clinics, Free Dental Clinics, Free Medical Help All over USA
Ultimately, I think it is all of our responsibilities because it is the right thing to do.... and because we who have been blessed with ability, drive and circumstances that perhaps others haven't been blessed with, should help out... for most of us it changes our life very little.
Don't you think moral issues should come into these decisions?
or is it like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIW-eIAJxE]YouTube - GodSpell - All For The Best[/ame]
Very refreshing to see Civil Debate. Such a rarity on these boards. Kutos to you both
Public safety (police, fire fighters) are not social services. They don't exist to transfer income from one group to another (unless one focuses on the unionized aspect).
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.
So long as we agree on that point, and gubmint isn't our nanny, you're rightSo it's the Government's job to determine when that "social obligation" has been met??B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca. Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection. Prisoners. Severely disabled people. Etc.
It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn. My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance. I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason. Etc. I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.
It is, but hortySir, the government is us. We determine what amount of mutual aid each of us wants made available via the government. I may want more, you may want less. We disagree, hold elections and viola', we get a result.
