Can anyone break this argument?

[Madeline]

Liberty wrote:

Government has sadly proved itself to be grossly inefficient, ripe with corruption, and millions upon millions of dollars either disappearing entirely, or wasted on pet projects. Private charity guarantees one thing that government bureaucracy can not: Proof the money you donated went where it is supposed to.

Government does not have to be inefficient or rife with fraud, Liberty. And private charities can and have fallen prey to fraud as well. But the fact remains a private charity cannot deliver as much to as many. None has the reach or the resources.

 

[Liberty]

Well, B's liberty is a bit existential for me, Liberty. Let's deal with his right to the fruits of his labor.

What if B pays nothing at all for social services of any kind? No police, no justice system, no CPS, no Adult Services, zippety doh-dah. I think we can agree, can we not, that B has a significantly lower quality of life? The reason humans live in groups is to enjoy each other's society, and that is impossible if all mutual aid from the government ceases.

So if B has a higher quality of life as a result of some government aid, then can we really say all B's gross receipts belong to him? What if B learned his trade at a government-sponsored school, and A has paid taxes every year but this one?

Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.

 

[Charles_Main]

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:

YouTube - GodSpell - All For The Best

Very refreshing to see Civil Debate. Such a rarity on these boards. Kutos to you both

Thanks... but just to opine... might it not have at least a little to do with the fact that the conversation didn't start with anything like 'libbie.. .blahblah... or rightwingers... blahblah? amazing how beginning with civility begets citility.

Definately

also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.

As do I.

 

[Liberty]

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.

"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."


I understand.

however
if a person doesn't have a job, so no money,
(assuming that we do away with ALL welfare/government subsidies (except for corporations and christian churches, of course)
that person doesn't have as much freedom or liberty or choice as you suggest


I also understand your use of the word "utopia"

however
I am NOT talking about a "utopia"

merely a country in which all the citizens, even those at the bottom, have comfortable and decent lives.

is that so bad?

I do NOT believe in EQUAL DISTRIBUTION of wealth

I have no problem with SOME PEOPLE "earning" more than others

I am opposed to cradle to the grave welfare but would gladly accept TEMPORARY WELFARE and education for people who need it UNTIL THEY ARE READY to reenter the job market

but when more and more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people...
while MORE and MORE people live in poverty
and can't afford decent health care
then I think something is wrong.

now...
I do NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!

so don't bother asking me for it....

That sounds fine, but who can have legitimate authority to accurately dictate exactly what is "a decent life"? No human being can have that power as it is different for each individual...

 

[jillian]

Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.

then let me ask another question. say B opts out of paying his pro rata part of A (and all the A's care)... and that increases the burden on the rest of society... is B then acting in a responsible way toward others of us who are similiarly situated?

 

[Liberty]

also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.

Eh...you know, the whole reason I thought USMB would be nice to sign up for is honestly not only to try to spread my own views, but to learn and see others views (assuming they were rational, logical, etc). The amount of utter trash lately has me somewhat demoralized but i will try to be better overall. I am damn tired though I think I'm going to take a nap. If I don't post for a couple hours just be patient. I am learning a lot so far in this thread and there has been some interesting points.

 

[Madeline]

This is an excellent thread, Liberty. There's nuisance and silliness posted here on USMB, but there's a lot of thought provoking stuff as well.

 

[Liberty]

Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.

then let me ask another question. say B opts out of paying his pro rata part of A (and all the A's care)... and that increases the burden on the rest of society... is B then acting in a responsible way toward others of us who are similiarly situated?

the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.

 

[jillian]

also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.

Eh...you know, the whole reason I thought USMB would be nice to sign up for is honestly not only to try to spread my own views, but to learn and see others views (assuming they were rational, logical, etc). The amount of utter trash lately has me somewhat demoralized but i will try to be better overall. I am damn tired though I think I'm going to take a nap. If I don't post for a couple hours just be patient. I am learning a lot so far in this thread and there has been some interesting points.

no problem. i had my nap already and we're going for a yom kippur walk now anyway. (need to kill some time til sundown). so i'll check back later.

it's so rare lately to actually have an interesting conversation about things that matter... between all the 'jews suck/arabs suck' convos... and rightwingnut/demonRAT convos" i get bored and lose patience with the people who start those discussions. something like this is pure fun.

thanks.

 

[jillian]

Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.

then let me ask another question. say B opts out of paying his pro rata part of A (and all the A's care)... and that increases the burden on the rest of society... is B then acting in a responsible way toward others of us who are similiarly situated?

the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.

what if A is incapable because of illness or infirmity?

what if anyone else is asked to provide a public service? e.g., do a job that earns their keep or do job training?

or... what if insurance companies have to do their bit, too?

 

[Madeline]

The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty. But before addressing it, answer me this:

Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?

Here's my list:

All pre-natal

All childhood vaccines

Well baby care

Life saving procedures, not to include heroic measures

Is this a list you could agree to?

 

[Liberty]

The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty. But before addressing it, answer me this:

Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?

Here's my list:

All pre-natal

All childhood vaccines

Well baby care

Life saving procedures, not to include heroic measures

Is this a list you could agree to?

I would agree to that if the monetary requirement is provided by all economic classes equally. I have problem accepting the notion of progressive tax because of the inequality of it. I understand that someone has a billion dollars, but it has got to be based in fairness. There has got to be a way.

 

[Liberty]

then let me ask another question. say B opts out of paying his pro rata part of A (and all the A's care)... and that increases the burden on the rest of society... is B then acting in a responsible way toward others of us who are similiarly situated?

the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.

what if A is incapable because of illness or infirmity?

what if anyone else is asked to provide a public service? e.g., do a job that earns their keep or do job training?

or... what if insurance companies have to do their bit, too?

Well, i'm honestly not sure as the point about 'A' having the responsibility to be healthy would in theory have to be enforced in some way, which I would disagree with as i believe a person has the right to damage their own body as much as they want (maintaining that the person hurting themselves are not physically detrimental to the liberty of any other individual). This point comes around back to my original thesis which is that 'B' should have no responsibility to 'A' if government can not force a responsibility onto 'A' ; which is obviously a severe encroachment on 'A's individual liberty.

Community colleges and tech schools are great assets to society, as they are paid for by local taxes, have relatively relaxed entrance criteria, and provide a great foundation for future career advancement. I hope this addresses your questions, if not I apologize. I am a tad out of it to be honest.

 

[mattskramer]

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 devil’s advocate, I’d say that Capitalism is so good that those who can’t survive it should be swept out of the way.



‘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



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 ICBM’s 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?

Thank you for a great response! I disagree a TINY BIT with a couple things, but overall you have some excellent points and i would like to think about it before responding.

Thanks for the considerate civil reply.

There will always be those who can’t make it on their own. For them, I think that we can agree that there should continue to be government-run hospitals. There are the severely mentally disturbed with no resources to buy their own care and who can’t find appropriate private charities. Police will pick them up on the side of the road and take them to appropriate tax-supported services. What percentage of the pan-handling homeless people that you might pass by is truly needy (perhaps needing just a temporary hand up or even life-time support) and what percentage is just lazy? If you say that 95 percent are lazy, then what are we to do with the remaining 5%?

 

[mattskramer]

the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.

what if A is incapable because of illness or infirmity?

what if anyone else is asked to provide a public service? e.g., do a job that earns their keep or do job training?

or... what if insurance companies have to do their bit, too?

Well, i'm honestly not sure as the point about 'A' having the responsibility to be healthy would in theory have to be enforced in some way, which I would disagree with as i believe a person has the right to damage their own body as much as they want (maintaining that the person hurting themselves are not physically detrimental to the liberty of any other individual). This point comes around back to my original thesis which is that 'B' should have no responsibility to 'A' if government can not force a responsibility onto 'A' ; which is obviously a severe encroachment on 'A's individual liberty.

Community colleges and tech schools are great assets to society, as they are paid for by local taxes, have relatively relaxed entrance criteria, and provide a great foundation for future career advancement. I hope this addresses your questions, if not I apologize. I am a tad out of it to be honest.

Private health insurance companies do try to encourage healthy life-styles. In applying for insurance, an applicant is sometimes asked about his height/weight ratio. If the applicant is overweight, he is often required to pay a higher premium. If he smokes, he often has to pay a higher premium. I see a dilemma. You can’t financially penalize those who have no money but need health insurance. Yet, government could possibly reward the indigent who try to live a healthy life style.

On a tangent, those receiving unemployment benefits are obligated to look for work. The beneficiaries may be called on at any time to provide a list of prospective employers that were visited. Similarly, I think that those on various government assistance programs must jump through certain hoops (demonstrate that they are trying to better themselves) in order to continue receiving help. Still, as I said before, there will be those who try but never succeed.

 

[Madeline]

The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty. But before addressing it, answer me this:

Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?

Here's my list:

All pre-natal

All childhood vaccines

Well baby care

Life saving procedures, not to include heroic measures

Is this a list you could agree to?

I would agree to that if the monetary requirement is provided by all economic classes equally. I have problem accepting the notion of progressive tax because of the inequality of it. I understand that someone has a billion dollars, but it has got to be based in fairness. There has got to be a way.

If we try and discuss progressive taxation as well, we aren't likely to get far. But if we agree there is some amount of health care we want all our fellow citizens to receive, can we also agree that government is the best means to distribute this aid?

After this (and I'm by no means discounting how hard the choices are), all that's left to argue over is whether that list is exhaustive.

 

[mattskramer]

The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty. But before addressing it, answer me this:

Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?

Here's my list:

All pre-natal

All childhood vaccines

Well baby care

Life saving procedures, not to include heroic measures

Is this a list you could agree to?

I would agree to that if the monetary requirement is provided by all economic classes equally. I have problem accepting the notion of progressive tax because of the inequality of it. I understand that someone has a billion dollars, but it has got to be based in fairness. There has got to be a way.

Would you repeal EMTALA?

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986... It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing EMERGENCY healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ABILITY TO PAY. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. (Emphasis is my own).

 

[Madeline]

the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.

what if A is incapable because of illness or infirmity?

what if anyone else is asked to provide a public service? e.g., do a job that earns their keep or do job training?

or... what if insurance companies have to do their bit, too?

Well, i'm honestly not sure as the point about 'A' having the responsibility to be healthy would in theory have to be enforced in some way, which I would disagree with as i believe a person has the right to damage their own body as much as they want (maintaining that the person hurting themselves are not physically detrimental to the liberty of any other individual). This point comes around back to my original thesis which is that 'B' should have no responsibility to 'A' if government can not force a responsibility onto 'A' ; which is obviously a severe encroachment on 'A's individual liberty.

Community colleges and tech schools are great assets to society, as they are paid for by local taxes, have relatively relaxed entrance criteria, and provide a great foundation for future career advancement. I hope this addresses your questions, if not I apologize. I am a tad out of it to be honest.

I don't disagree with you, Liberty. A does owe B something...everyone in a social group has some duty to all his fellow men. Exactly what A owes is harder to define, as we know there are myriad reasons why A is broke. On the whole, I'd agree A owes B and all his fellow men to become self-sufficient if he can.

So, for example, A is a 16 year old girl with a newborn baby. I'd be willing to underwrite education and day care etc. for her and the baby, so she can get on her feet. But I'd also be willing to extract from her a promise not to have more kids unless and until she does...and there is birth control available now that is suitable for this purpose.

 

[JBeukema]

No, B may choose to help the As of his own free will because he values them - but he is under no obligation to do so.

So if you're being accosted, I've no moral obligation to intervene?

 

[JBeukema]

I’d say that Capitalism is so good that those who can’t survive it should be swept out of the way.