" Personal Responsibility," a conservative mantra- or is it??

Personal responsibility is a moral value and it has nothing to do with which side of the isle your on.

Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.
 
Personal responsibility is a moral value and it has nothing to do with which side of the isle your on.

Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

That's exactly wrong, hosebag. Either you take responsibility for your actions or you blame your problems on others. That is clearly a moral issue.
 
Well, even "free" healthcare isn't free. We all know that this will mean higher taxes for all of us. But then, we're already paying for the uninsured now.

And on the brighter side of things-if more people who are uninsured have access to health insurance, then perhaps they wouldn't be neglecting that hypertension that they haven't been treating for the last 10 years...which will ultimately lead to renal failure, strokes, etc...which will then lead to total disability which =medicaid, social security, and obviously the inability to work. Or maybe they will start getting treatment for diabetes, which will lead to decubitus ulcers on their feet-which left untreated will lead to foot or leg amputations. More disability, and eventual probable renal dialysis.

If some of these people could get the care that they are lacking, perhaps they would feel physically better, and be more productive members of society. To be crude, diabetes makes a person feel like concentrated ass. And untreated....must be hell on earth.

I think that would depend on whether people would use it wisely.

There are hypochondriacs who pretty much rush to the doctor for every minor ache and pain. And there are people like myself who dread going and don't until they are really sick. I haven't had a complete physical in five years, and the last time before that was the last one I had in the Army, which was back in the 1980s.

The former group would probably bankrupt a socialized medicine system long before the latter group ever got a benefit from it. JMO.

Which goes back to my point. In England and Canada (which you and other single payer advocates don't want to talk about) there are long waiting lists, refusals to fund certain treatments, and so on.

So as you say, everything is a trade-off.
 
Personal responsibility is a moral value and it has nothing to do with which side of the isle your on.

Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

That's exactly wrong, hosebag. Either you take responsibility for your actions or you blame your problems on others. That is clearly a moral issue.

you're view of this universe is vastly oversimplistic, and you are wrong. taking responsibility has nothing to do with morality. Insofar as negligence may negatively effective someone else, only then can it be considered immoral. Merely 'blaming' someone else is not an immoral act, if it does not directly effect them.
 
No person on earth is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for every facet of the state of affairs of their lives.

Of course we are all personally responsible for those things over which we do have some measure of control (and that's a LOT, too, just not everything).
 
I advocated for "medicare for all" for a long time.

Medicare for All!

Get more. Pay less. Cover everyone.

1stpage5.jpg
 
Personal responsibility is a moral value and it has nothing to do with which side of the isle your on.

Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality

BULLSHIT Morality is not cut and dried, we all have different standards.
 
Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

That's exactly wrong, hosebag. Either you take responsibility for your actions or you blame your problems on others. That is clearly a moral issue.

you're view of this universe is vastly oversimplistic, and you are wrong. taking responsibility has nothing to do with morality. Insofar as negligence may negatively effective someone else, only then can it be considered immoral. Merely 'blaming' someone else is not an immoral act, if it does not directly effect them.

Wrong again. Taking responsibility for your own life is a moral act. Shooting up drugs, becoming an alcoholic, have children you can't support, being lazy and becoming a failure and a loser are all moral failings. These are all behaviors that start you down the road to becoming a burden on society.
 
No person on earth is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for every facet of the state of affairs of their lives.

Of course we are all personally responsible for those things over which we do have some measure of control (and that's a LOT, too, just not everything).
Sorry, editec, that's not true of me. When I did stupid stuff as a kid, I suffered the consequences. When I blamed other people for the consequences, it had no improvement effect whatever on deed or consequence. But when I learned to accept blame for my errors, it kind of fell into place that when you do know it's you and not somebody else, then you can do something about it. Whereas before, when you were busy blaming anybody and everybody else for your mistake, you got absolutely nowhere.

Those who blame other people for all the mischief that befalls them do not rise above the level of what similarly stupid people think.

Doh! It's a live and learn world.

I know. I'm sooooooooo free world. :D
 
Last edited:
Personal responsibility is not a moral value. that's idioitic. it's a condition that one puts into his or her existence by choice, but is completely exclusive with respect to morality. perhaps this is the fundamental problem in philosophy with many republicans who feel right in judging others who are poor on moral grounds. They falsely equate personal responsibility with morality. The two are mutually exclusive.

That's exactly wrong, hosebag. Either you take responsibility for your actions or you blame your problems on others. That is clearly a moral issue.

you're view of this universe is vastly oversimplistic, and you are wrong. taking responsibility has nothing to do with morality. Insofar as negligence may negatively effective someone else, only then can it be considered immoral. Merely 'blaming' someone else is not an immoral act, if it does not directly effect them.

Fail. Taking Responsibility for your Thoughts, Words, and Actions is a Requirement of moving on to the next level. You claim taking responsibility has nothing to do with Morality, then you lay down conditional terms. Absurd. Give it a rest. :eusa_whistle:
 
As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

Do I think that government-run health insurance for all is good? No, not really. With some of the gov't programs of the past...this would take a huge leap of faith for all of us.

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

Most of it is apprehension at the thought of the government being capable of running something effciently, I suspect. But then one wonders: if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases? Please don't use the British or Canadian example. What do you think, hypothetically?

I think the problem with that is that hypothetically, if you had it all for free, people would grab it with both hands.

If they didn't have to make a co-payment or anything, they would go to the doctor for every sniffle. Unless you ration it.

The thing is, everything is a tradeoff. You could have 100% coverage, but you'd have to control prices, which would in turn mean the best and brightest wouldn't necessarily go into medicine. FOr instance, when I used to deal with my last company's Canadian branches, the manager of that branch lamented his daughter just got her nursing degree and was probably going to move to "the States" for the better money.

Well, even "free" healthcare isn't free. We all know that this will mean higher taxes for all of us. But then, we're already paying for the uninsured now.

And on the brighter side of things-if more people who are uninsured have access to health insurance, then perhaps they wouldn't be neglecting that hypertension that they haven't been treating for the last 10 years...which will ultimately lead to renal failure, strokes, etc...which will then lead to total disability which =medicaid, social security, and obviously the inability to work. Or maybe they will start getting treatment for diabetes, which will lead to decubitus ulcers on their feet-which left untreated will lead to foot or leg amputations. More disability, and eventual probable renal dialysis.

If some of these people could get the care that they are lacking, perhaps they would feel physically better, and be more productive members of society. To be crude, diabetes makes a person feel like concentrated ass. And untreated....must be hell on earth.
There is lot of truth in what you say. Early diagnosis can save billions in health care cost. However, insurance with high deductibles and high co-pays saves money by encouraging people not to seek medical care for what seems to be a minor problem. Those minor problems are often symptoms of a serious illness which needs early diagnosis and that diagnosis can cost thousands of dollars.

I think a person with financial resources, is likely to spend the money out of pocket to see that minor health problems are just that and not a more serious illness. For a poorer person, the money is more likely to go for school supplies, fixing the kids teeth, and paying the rent.
 

Forum List

Back
Top