Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

mysteryman wrote:

[
Do you not have insurance by choice?
If you choose to not have insurance,then you haver only yourself to blame.

Why should I or the taxpayers be expected to foot the bill for your bad choice in life?

Not everyone is unemployed, without insurance or on the verge of homelessness because of a "bad choice in life". This is the myth propogated by the right wing in both America and in Canada. It's as flawed a logic as to think that everyone who is rich is rich because they made good choices.

0 Replies

I am not opposed to a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bad financial situation, and I believe a moral society takes care of the truly helpless whether via government or, much more preferably, through private charities.

But as FD points out, most of us can handle the day to day medical expenses. What if we handled medical insurance like we do car insurance. We all pay our own way for checkups, service, flu shots, vaccinations, routine illnesses, and then buy a low cost health insurance policy with a big deductible that kicks in for the bad accident or serious illness. I think rethinking it this way would bring overall medical costs way down and it defnitely would make insurance much more affordable.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not opposed to a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bad financial situation, and I believe a moral society takes care of the truly helpless whether via government or, much more preferably, through private charities.

.....as any good, responsible and moral society should.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I am not opposed to a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bad financial situation, and I believe a moral society takes care of the truly helpless whether via government or, much more preferably, through private charities.

.....as any good, responsible and moral society should.

But even you must admit that there is a difference between those that are truly helpless and those that CHOSE to not have insurance.
People that are truly needy do deserve our help,but if someone CHOOSES to not have insurance,or CHOOSES to not provide for themselves,then those people have no reasonable expectation that you or I should pay for their medical expenses.

The difference is that word CHOICE.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I am not opposed to a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bad financial situation, and I believe a moral society takes care of the truly helpless whether via government or, much more preferably, through private charities.

.....as any good, responsible and moral society should.

But even you must admit that there is a difference between those that are truly helpless and those that CHOSE to not have insurance.
People that are truly needy do deserve our help,but if someone CHOOSES to not have insurance,or CHOOSES to not provide for themselves,then those people have no reasonable expectation that you or I should pay for their medical expenses.

The difference is that word CHOICE.

My analogy on this has always been Citizen A and Citizen B:

Citizen A stayed in school and got as good an education as was available, didn't do drugs, didn't get pregnant before s/he could afford kids, took whatever work was available, developed a work ethic, learned a trade, and has prospered.

Citizen B dropped out, did drugs, had kids out of wedlock, wouldn't work, has no work ethic, mastered no trade, and now whines about how unfair it is that Citzen A has so much while s/he barely gets by or carries a huge chip on his shoulder to justify his own unsocial behavior.

Issues of personal charity aside, where is the morality or ethic that would require Citizen A to take care of, support, or bail out Citizen B?

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061130/combs.jpg

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061130/mackay.jpg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I am not opposed to a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a bad financial situation, and I believe a moral society takes care of the truly helpless whether via government or, much more preferably, through private charities.

.....as any good, responsible and moral society should.

But even you must admit that there is a difference between those that are truly helpless and those that CHOSE to not have insurance.
People that are truly needy do deserve our help,but if someone CHOOSES to not have insurance,or CHOOSES to not provide for themselves,then those people have no reasonable expectation that you or I should pay for their medical expenses.

The difference is that word CHOICE.

My analogy on this has always been Citizen A and Citizen B:

Citizen A stayed in school and got as good an education as was available, didn't do drugs, didn't get pregnant before s/he could afford kids, took whatever work was available, developed a work ethic, learned a trade, and has prospered.

Citizen B dropped out, did drugs, had kids out of wedlock, wouldn't work, has no work ethic, mastered no trade, and now whines about how unfair it is that Citzen A has so much while s/he barely gets by or carries a huge chip on his shoulder to justify his own unsocial behavior.

Issues of personal charity aside, where is the morality or ethic that would require Citizen A to take care of, support, or bail out Citizen B?

It is a matter of self-interest; because:

First, Citizen B doesn't just go away. Even if she dies, she leaves behind a bevvy of Citizen B-kids who need supporting. She will steal, cheat, and do whatever it takes to keep food on the table for her kids (like any parent really, only less moral overall). Therefore the wreck of her life has reprecussions which directly affect yours in terms of crime, lack of education, and poor moral and ethical sense as a member of society. It is in the best interests of society to try and alleviate the problems of Citizen B; not to the point of paying for their life, or making them equal to Citizen A, but to the point where they don't have to commit crimes just to put food on the table. You may not think such a thing is important, but situations like this lead to muggings, theft, murders.

Second, it is never too late to try and get Citizen B to turn their lives around, and the effects not only help them, but society as well.

It's a matter of societal self-interest. Same reason there shouldn't be a 'war on drugs.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A couple of things about Citizen A and Citizen B. First there are still Citizens C through Z of varying combinations of good choices and luck who are having trouble finding adequate affordable health care. Second, there is no guarantee in the current context that even Citizen A can afford his/her own health care, much less care for dependent children. Third, it is possible that though Citizen A pays for Citizen B today, the roles could reverse over the course of their lifetimes. And lastly, this is the current situation. Whether we like it or not thos of us who can afford our own care are currently paying for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. This comes in the form of taxes, higher health care costs (as the losses are spread over all payers) and higher insurance premiums (as the losses are spread but profits are ensured).

0 Replies

To Cyclop and Freeduck, I would say that first you have to deal with the initial question at face value.

If Citizen A made intentional choices that allow him/her to prosper and Citizen B intentionally made choices that ensured that s/he would not, then explain how it is moral and/or ethical for the government to require Citizen A to support Citizen B. This question is entirely separate from any other considerations either practical or legal.

(I am guessing that most if not all hard core liberals will refuse to answer it.)

Once an answer to that question is addressed, however, THEN we can discuss the morality and ethical considerations for the laws we support and any Citizen C's etc. UNTIL an answer to that question is addressed, I think we will never have policies that make a whole lot of sense to most people and/or will never have policies that are not as destructive as they are helpful.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Cyclop and Freeduck, I would say that first you have to deal with the initial question at face value.

If Citizen A made intentional choices that allow him/her to prosper and Citizen B intentionally made choices that ensured that s/he would not, then explain how it is moral and/or ethical for the government to require Citizen A to support Citizen B. This question is entirely separate from any other considerations either practical or legal.

(I am guessing that most if not all hard core liberals will refuse to answer it.)

Why would anyone refuse to answer this?

Morally, we have a responsibility to try to help one another make our way through the world as best we can. This moral isn't written into our constituion (are any, other than the freedom for the pursuit of hapiness?) but has long been held to be an American ideal.

Quote:

Once an answer to that question is addressed, however, THEN we can discuss the morality and ethical considerations for the laws we support and any Citizen C's etc. UNTIL an answer to that question is addressed, I think we will never have policies that make a whole lot of sense to most people and/or will never have policies that are not as destructive as they are helpful.

We know that you think this. Unfortunately, because people's morals and ethics differ greatly, this is a great recipie for doing nothing to help people; exactly the situation you prefer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To Cyclop and Freeduck, I would say that first you have to deal with the initial question at face value.

If Citizen A made intentional choices that allow him/her to prosper and Citizen B intentionally made choices that ensured that s/he would not, then explain how it is moral and/or ethical for the government to require Citizen A to support Citizen B. This question is entirely separate from any other considerations either practical or legal.

(I am guessing that most if not all hard core liberals will refuse to answer it.)

Once an answer to that question is addressed, however, THEN we can discuss the morality and ethical considerations for the laws we support and any Citizen C's etc. UNTIL an answer to that question is addressed, I think we will never have policies that make a whole lot of sense to most people and/or will never have policies that are not as destructive as they are helpful.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. My approach to this is that by making a larger insurance pool (that includes everyone) we spread the costs across more people and save money, whereby we can afford more and better health care. It's not an argument that person A has to support person B at all. But even if it were, I don't think I'm required to come up with an argument justifying your false scenario. All of us make choices and all of us have luck -- good and bad choices and good and bad luck. To pretend that the outcome of our lives was a direct result of choice and only choice isn't very useful in this discussion or any other because it isn't realistic. We don't all start out in the same place, we don't have all of the same opportunities, and I will reiterate that there is nothing that says that person A won't be supporting person C, who made all the same choices but had a different outcome.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
To Cyclop and Freeduck, I would say that first you have to deal with the initial question at face value.

If Citizen A made intentional choices that allow him/her to prosper and Citizen B intentionally made choices that ensured that s/he would not, then explain how it is moral and/or ethical for the government to require Citizen A to support Citizen B. This question is entirely separate from any other considerations either practical or legal.

(I am guessing that most if not all hard core liberals will refuse to answer it.)

Once an answer to that question is addressed, however, THEN we can discuss the morality and ethical considerations for the laws we support and any Citizen C's etc. UNTIL an answer to that question is addressed, I think we will never have policies that make a whole lot of sense to most people and/or will never have policies that are not as destructive as they are helpful.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. My approach to this is that by making a larger insurance pool (that includes everyone) we spread the costs across more people and save money, whereby we can afford more and better health care. It's not an argument that person A has to support person B at all. But even if it were, I don't think I'm required to come up with an argument justifying your false scenario. All of us make choices and all of us have luck -- good and bad choices and good and bad luck. To pretend that the outcome of our lives was a direct result of choice and only choice isn't very useful in this discussion or any other because it isn't realistic. We don't all start out in the same place, we don't have all of the same opportunities, and I will reiterate that there is nothing that says that person A won't be supporting person C, who made all the same choices but had a different outcome.

But, you see, to many Conservatives, things like your family being well off, not losing your job when others did, not having debilitating and expensive illnesses in the family, etc. - none of that matters at all when it comes to success... every success is a story of personal hard work and effort, and every failure is a story of laziness and poor choices.

Yaknow, the black-white mentality

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's a scenario.

I purposely chose to quit working when I had my second my child and my job was the one that carried health benefits. So I purposely chose not to have insurance (as it were). Why should some hypothetical Citizen A who was smart and made the choice not to have more than one (or any) children have to foot the bill for health care for me and my snot-noseds? Well of course, they shouldn't. But why should I, after having pumped several tens of thousands of dollars into the insurance industry over the course of 10 or more years have to suddenly do without it?

0 Replies

LOL. I'm putting FD and Cyclop down as two who won't answer the question. At least yet. Very Happy

I appreciate all the other considerations you're both putting into the equation and all are worthy of discussion.

But I still say you have to start with the bare bones question: Is it ethical/moral for the government to force Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?

It's not a difficult question at all and can be answered with a simple yes or no.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

LOL. I'm putting FD and Cyclop down as two who won't answer the question. At least yet.

I appreciate all the other considerations you're both putting into the equation and all are worthy of discussion.

But I still say you have to start with the bare bones question: Is it ethical/moral for the government to force Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?

It's not a difficult question at all and can be answered with a simple yes or no.

Well, I tried to answer above.

Yes, it is moral for the government to do so, the same way it is moral for the government to make other decisions what to do with your tax monies. I may feel that it is immoral for the gov't to spend my tax dollars on Illegal Wars in Iraq, but that doesn't make them immoral for deciding to do so.

Under what moral basis do you support spending billions of dollars to improve the lives of Iraqis - but not Americans?

My guess is, the same way for the American government spending money helping out citizen B - it is a matter of self-interest, in your opinion, to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But I still say you have to start with the bare bones question: Is it ethical/moral for the government to force Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?

It's not a difficult question at all and can be answered with a simple yes or no.

No, it's a false question. Answering it has no bearing on the current discussion because you have not established that the effect of universal health care would amount to "the government [forcing] Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?"

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But I still say you have to start with the bare bones question: Is it ethical/moral for the government to force Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?

It's not a difficult question at all and can be answered with a simple yes or no.

No, it's a false question. Answering it has no bearing on the current discussion because you have not established that the effect of universal health care would amount to "the government [forcing] Citizen A who prepared himself/herself to support himself/herself to also support Citizen B who deliberately didn't and/or won't?"

It is not a false question. It is a question for which all presidents and administrations prior to FDR came to the same answer. The question has nothing to do with health care though health care could be part of any numbers of ways Citizen A could be forced to support Citizen B.

0 Replies

And, my answer?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, my answer?

Cycloptichorn

Remove the straw men from your answer and try again as I suggested Freeduck should remove the straw man from hers.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know