Tell that to Norway.Making a government that handles your needs is not a good way to form a working economy. It's not a good way to form a responsible society.
Did you really just compare health care to owning a cell phone? Having a tumor removed is not a consumer item or cosmetic service. It's not a matter of "desiring" to have the tumor removed, I can have it removed or I can die a slow and painful death. What other product can this be said about? I can find food anywhere if I look hard enough, water too. I can't plant a health service tree or convert seawater into treatment. You're so worried about being dependent on a government product, but have no problem being dependent on a private product.But another reason you keep it just to protections of rights and liberties is because what you desire has no real way to be defined and any service, be it a cell phone, healthcare, or housing can become a need if people become dependent on it.
Last edited by Bardo; 09-14-11 at 11:39 PM.
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." Bertrand Russell
No, DA can choose to think in a selfish way (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself), America is a free country after all, but someone with what I view as a better moral standard would feel a responsibility to the society he lives in. Responsibility to society means trying to make that society better for the people in it (which includes himself) and for the future. What I see as a better society is one that doesn't let people die due to lack of medical cares when the society can afford to provide that care. A better society is one that would provide basic human necessities (like food, water, and temporary shelter) to the needy if that society could provide it. That is why in my view, the US is a better society than Somalia and many other developing countries. You can argue that US society could not afford to provide these necessities to the needy - but why it is that it can afford the billions for war?
Maybe he feels that a better society is where everyone is free to do whatever they want with limited (limited to what?) or no government interference. And that standing by while people may be hurt or die from the consequences of a stupid decision is what makes a better society. To that I and many Americans would disagree. Somalia is free from many government regulations you and I currently have to deal with in a developed western country, but I'm glad of those regulations because they make the country much easier for me and others to live in, because while they restrict they also protect us.
DA and Paul knows that it's immoral to let someone die just because he can't afford the medical cares he needs. So they prevaricate with answer like "charity". But in practice, charity is not enough to pay for the more than 40millions currently without health insurance who might fall ill at anytime. And what is the reality of "charity care" in today's system? It's government aid: Charity care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
DA and Henrin and Paul wants to talk about a Utopia where people either take responsibility for their actions or face the consequences and it has no repercussion on everyone else - but that ignores moral responsibilities and the connectedness of society. When someone choose to abuse drugs, it doesn't just affect him. Some drugs make the users more aggressive - that affects other people than the user. Drunk drivers are more likely to get into accidents - that affects other people than the drinker. Drug abusers are more likely to steal - that affects other people than the abuser. We can either try prevention, or we can let the people who got hurt deal with the consequences and say "It's not me, so I should be free to do what I want". When someone chooses to not buy health insurance or save enough for it when they can - it doesn't just affect them. It affects their family who will be left with the bill if they die from it. If they survive the impact on their wealth will still affect their spouse and children. We as a society can isolate ourselves from it (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself) by letting him die if he can't pay the bills upfront- but we still bear the immorality of letting someone die when it could be avoided.
Vastly different cultures and historical context.
It's annoying when so-called "Christains" quote the Hebrew bible when it suits them, but completely ignore the archaic laws, historical context, and contradictions with the NT.
Hitler has similar views... eugenics, get rid of the undesirables.Some of us would have no problem with that. If you can't find a job that provides insurance at age 30, maybe you should just "go away".
Last edited by hazlnut; 09-15-11 at 12:40 AM.