Page 15 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 380

Thread: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

  1. #141
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    If your daughter or wife is raped and murdered should you be allowed to sit as judge for the trail of the accused rapist/murderer?

    Making policy decision based on personal circumstances is extremely unwise.
    No, but you might suddenly find yourself in favor of the death penalty or looser gun laws.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  2. #142
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    In a social welfare state, **** YEAH. There's no debate when you use objective measures. In a non social welfare state the issue doesn't come up at all because no one but them is paying for their own care and in such a society everyone's life is worth the same.
    You lost me.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  3. #143
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    You lost me.
    A social welfare state needs money in order to operate, just like a body needs blood to keep all the organs functioning. A rich person provides a lot of money for the social welfare state to spend. A poor person provides no money, in fact, they are the recipient of money provided by the rich person. In a social welfare state the rich person is more valuable than the poor person. If you could conduct a Gedankenexperiment and vaporize the top 100,000 income earners in the US or the bottom 100,000 income earners in the US and then measure the effect of those vaporizations on the rest of society, you'd find that all of the wealth that the top 100,000 generated via their talents has been lost to society and that society is now measurably poorer for having lost those 100,000 top income earners. On the other hand, with the bottom 100,000 income earners vaporized you find that society is now measurably richer because the wealth that is extracted from the NET CONTRIBUTORS of taxes can now be allocated to a smaller base of NET RECIPIENTS, thus making all of the recipients that much better off.

    In a non welfare state, that is in a society with no government mandated wealth redistribution, if you did the same Gedankenexperiment there would no spillover effects to the rest of society for governments don't redistribute wealth and because of this the wealth that disappeared would have no effect on the rest of society. In this society everyone's life is valued equally.

  4. #144
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    A social welfare state needs money in order to operate, just like a body needs blood to keep all the organs functioning. A rich person provides a lot of money for the social welfare state to spend. A poor person provides no money, in fact, they are the recipient of money provided by the rich person. In a social welfare state the rich person is more valuable than the poor person. If you could conduct a Gedankenexperiment and vaporize the top 100,000 income earners in the US or the bottom 100,000 income earners in the US and then measure the effect of those vaporizations on the rest of society, you'd find that all of the wealth that the top 100,000 generated via their talents has been lost to society and that society is now measurably poorer for having lost those 100,000 top income earners. On the other hand, with the bottom 100,000 income earners vaporized you find that society is now measurably richer because the wealth that is extracted from the NET CONTRIBUTORS of taxes can now be allocated to a smaller base of NET RECIPIENTS, thus making all of the recipients that much better off.

    In a non welfare state, that is in a society with no government mandated wealth redistribution, if you did the same Gedankenexperiment there would no spillover effects to the rest of society for governments don't redistribute wealth and because of this the wealth that disappeared would have no effect on the rest of society. In this society everyone's life is valued equally.
    Well, as long as we're being overly cynical, welfare states have death taxes, remember? So if a rich person were to die, the state would be able to unfairly claim even more of their wealth. Muahahahaha.

    Back in reality, unless a procedure is prohibitively expensive, it's to the state's advantage to give it, because a sick or dead worker isn't gonna do much work. If it is prohibitively expensive, the rich person will be fine anyway, because they can afford it. Of course, that's under the assumption that the worker is employed, which is another thing socialism is good at.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  5. #145
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Well, as long as we're being overly cynical, welfare states have death taxes, remember? So if a rich person were to die, the state would be able to unfairly claim even more of their wealth. Muahahahaha.
    Your Kung-Fu is strong but my Kung Fu is stronger. Hah. Hah.

    I have anticipated your response and that is why I referenced "income earners" instead of "wealthy people." The income earners are using their talents to create new wealth every year whereas the wealthy are riding into the future on the benefits that they've already earned in the past.

    Back in reality, unless a procedure is prohibitively expensive, it's to the state's advantage to give it, because a sick or dead worker isn't gonna do much work. If it is prohibitively expensive, the rich person will be fine anyway, because they can afford it. Of course, that's under the assumption that the worker is employed, which is another thing socialism is good at.
    This puts the state into the position of Death Paneling people. You note that it is in the "state's interest." That's the problem that people have with Death Panels.

    I don't want the value of my life to be calculated by some bureaucrat who looks at what I contribute to the state versus what I cost the state. When people become dependent on government's money and good graces then they are also at the mercy of government. I'd rather know that I have a fixed amount of resources available to me with which I have to provide for my expensive medical care needs and know that when it comes time to ration those resources that I, or my loved ones, will be making the decisions and that if there is money to be saved that it be saved and allocated to help my family and that if they don't want the money then they can decide to blow the whole wad on keeping me alive hooked up to machines for another 4 months. Society really has no business involving itself in my end of life choices and journey.

  6. #146
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Your Kung-Fu is strong but my Kung Fu is stronger. Hah. Hah.

    I have anticipated your response and that is why I referenced "income earners" instead of "wealthy people." The income earners are using their talents to create new wealth every year whereas the wealthy are riding into the future on the benefits that they've already earned in the past.
    Ah. But the working class are income earners, remember? More so than the wealthy living on their past success or their inheritance.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    This puts the state into the position of Death Paneling people. You note that it is in the "state's interest." That's the problem that people have with Death Panels.

    I don't want the value of my life to be calculated by some bureaucrat who looks at what I contribute to the state versus what I cost the state. When people become dependent on government's money and good graces then they are also at the mercy of government. I'd rather know that I have a fixed amount of resources available to me with which I have to provide for my expensive medical care needs and know that when it comes time to ration those resources that I, or my loved ones, will be making the decisions and that if there is money to be saved that it be saved and allocated to help my family and that if they don't want the money then they can decide to blow the whole wad on keeping me alive hooked up to machines for another 4 months. Society really has no business involving itself in my end of life choices and journey.
    If people want additional care, they're free to buy it themselves. I'm sure someone would sell "extreme case" insurance for things that the government won't cover. Also, you say that you don't want society involved in your end of life choices. Well, that's basically what a "death panel" is: Society is removing itself from your medical care. It's not like the government is executing you itself or denying you care or something. They're just not paying for it anymore.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  7. #147
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    If people want additional care, they're free to buy it themselves.
    You're undermining the whole case for UHC. Look at what's going on in Canada. It used to be the case, and I think it still might be in some provinces, that you couldn't buy additional care. They frame this debate as "two-tier" health care. One side wants to have a system where one can buy additional care or just leave the public system. The other side is adamantly opposed to this because it will privilege those with resources over those without the same level of resources. This latter group is actively working to restrict the system to a one-payer model.

  8. #148
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Except that suggesting we raise taxes has been borderline political suicide since Reagan. Don't you hate it when reality disagrees with your position?
    So now, instead of raising taxes, they just borrow obscene amounts of money and spend it anyhow. They're still spending beyond their means regardless of where the money comes from.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #149
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    You're undermining the whole case for UHC. Look at what's going on in Canada. It used to be the case, and I think it still might be in some provinces, that you couldn't buy additional care. They frame this debate as "two-tier" health care. One side wants to have a system where one can buy additional care or just leave the public system. The other side is adamantly opposed to this because it will privilege those with resources over those without the same level of resources. This latter group is actively working to restrict the system to a one-payer model.
    I don't support that. As I've said before, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough. "Enough" is hard to define in this situation, but I think you get my point.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  10. #150
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    I don't support that. As I've said before, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough. "Enough" is hard to define in this situation, but I think you get my point.
    I don't, please define "enough" for the class. Is it catastrophic care? Is it preventative care? Is it anything that you can possibly have a doctor do, necessary or not? I guarantee you'll never get any agreement from everyone on what "enough" actually means.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 15 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •