Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aapo, Jun 3, 2009.
Or rightist strawmen. Got the pitchfork out from the first sentence there.
Because if they're richer they obviously worked harder! Duh! Didn't you learn that at the Mises Seminar for Capitalist Doctrination?
No. Just food.
Of which thread?
Because they didn't come from wealthy families, yet they weren't on the streets, either. And they weren't middle class, either.
Loans don't due until six months after you graduate unless you get a short-term loan, anyway, so unless you're not planning on having a job after you graduate they're not as big of a deal as people make them out to be. And even if you don't have a job after you graduate, you can always go to grad school. Granted, you'll be even more in debt, but chances are you should have a job by the time you come out and the increase in pay will more than make up for the amount of money invested into going to school.
In essence, then, your argument comes down to a gamble.
"If we pay for his/her health care, he might climb out of poverty."
I don't like that sentiment very much.
Pay for their healthcare = possibility that they will be able to pay it back through being a net tax payer in the future.
Refuse to pay for their healthcare = near certainty that they'll be collecting welfare the rest of their lives.
Still don't like it?
Nice own goal.
Do you think sick people can work as effectively (and therefore get as much income) as healthy people?
No one "deserves" anything, whether they're rich or poor. The rich wouldn't be afforded more than basic health care simply because they're rich, but because they pay for it. Even though you might not see it, there's a stark difference in giving someone who is rich the best in health care because they're rich, and because they paid for it.
The rich can buy food that the poor cannot. The rich can buy houses that the poor cannot. The rich can buy clothes that the poor cannot. So why shouldn't the rich be able to buy health care that the poor cannot? I'm not saying that the poor get nothing at all. What I am saying, however, is that everyone should get a basic level of health care and those who want more than just the basic be afforded it at a higher cost to themselves instead of everyone being given the best health care based off of taxable income.
Is anyone making that proposal besides Senator Strawman?
- Second student's income shouldn't matter, as everything related to education is provided by state. Both had possibility to same education, going to same school. First student had no advantages other people could provide.
This is where capitalist Individualism departs from humanity (in that it is inhuman). It takes something like 1-1.5 days' labor to feed a person for a year. As such, food is sufficiently abundant that there is no logical reason that anyone should go hungry. On that basis, and on the basis that all human beings have a right to live, I would argue that all humans, purely by being human, deserve as much food as they need. This reasoning extends to other basics such as proper health care, proper housing, and so forth.
If we were living in a far more primitive society, in which it would take perhaps 100 days' labor to feed a person, I might be inclined to agree with you that yea, perhaps health care isn't a universal human right. However, since we are able to provide proper health care to everyone, it has become, due to the wealth of our modern society, such a right.
There is no difference, because only the rich are able to pay for it. Providing health care on a "how much you pay" basis is essentially the same as providing health care on a "how high is your socio-economic status" basis.
That's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that the poor should get access to the most basic of health care plans imaginable, which would in practice be woefully insufficient at meeting their needs. By that same token, you're arguing that decent health care should be reserved for the sole right of the rich.
Want? Jewelry is a "want." Luxury cars are a "want." Health care is a basic human need. If I fall ill with cancer, I need treatment for it, rather than merely desiring some thing which I could just as well go without. Everyone should get sufficient health care to meet their needs. If someone wants something on top of that, like unnecessary elective surgeries with no medical benefit whatsoever, then make him pay for it with his own money.
But that is not the real world. People go to different quality schools. Even taking your stack of straw of the sam school hypo as reality, the quality of your home life will make it harder or easier to focus on your school work. On income, one kid may be pressured to work part time while in high school, thus having less time to concentrate on the books.
No really, no, because they should be paying for their own health care.
...And don't get me started on welfare
What own goal? The other guy (Or girl) said that we should pay for others health care on the basis that they might recover and stop being a "drain" on the economy. I said that's pretty much a gamble and not a very good reason for doing as much.
There's very little doubt that healthier people are more productive then unhealthy people, but whether or not paying for someone to undergo surgery to make them "healthy" will, indeed, raise them out of poverty or be a net gain for the economy is questionable.
I know what you said in that quote. Now read carefully what you said in the other part I quoted where you endorsed gambling.
Except, as you absolutely have factual knowledge of, they can't afford it.
Just to make sure we're on the same page here, are we talking about human beings, or mindless, unfeeling automata? Your callous attitude suggests the latter, whereas I am thinking of the former.
Either your points contradict each other, or you're setting up a strawman that somehow says people are paid to undergo medical procedures that don't work.
No, it's more like charging the rich guy $1.50 instead of a $1, and he whines about it incessantly for the rest of his like while hiring the best potato chip makers on the face of the planet for $10 for his own use. Everybody else must eat the incredibly bad ones out of necessity because there are insufficient funds to pay for adequate ones, and to make matters even worse, the best chip makers are no longer available to train everybody else how to make decent ones.
Gee, what a surprise...
If you want to fix the medical problems in the US, get rid of the AMA, prohibit doctors from owning hospitals or any other business that make a profit from the medical industry, and build a lot more medical schools. End of problem.
Hello, I see many guys have very rightist economic views on this forum. Why is that?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see too many good things about the right.
Judging people's work ethic by their income or economic status. Regressive taxation, yet only supporting government functions that are more beneficial to the wealthy
Deregulation that primarily serves to allow the wealthy to more easily take advantage of the system
View that free market solves everything
Fairness, equality seem like taboo subjects
For example, it is commonly held that the high incomes some people get are such a human right that they should not be taxed in order to make health care more easily available for the less fortunate.
I took no offense, but you just failed at Europe. Money isn't the only thing that gets you into a university. There is an obvious second filter called grades, and if the state has too many applicants for a job with too few free slots, then they regulate the universities to take fewer student applications.
"Everyone wins" was an utter mistake from your side, which was what I directed at. Dead people aren't victorieous.
As I said before, medical treatment, even the uttermost basic lifesaving treatments, cost extraordinary amounts of money. There is no possible thing such as a "low-cost basic healthcare". Because life-saving healthcare isn't low-cost. So, yes, you are practically saying that rich people deserve to live because they got lucky with life.
It has nothing to do with the apparent high number of doctors that apparently show up in Europe due to your logic. It's because of the hospitals' internal fundings - as public hospitals aren't bound to be profitable, while private are. Private hospitals need to raise their wages a bit in order to have the best schooled doctors for the more important part of the people.
Food isn't healthcare either. Blimey, now I'm reminded about some other thread where xarthaz continually compared food to healthcare.
The hypothetical situation you're proposing doesn't work that way in real life, not in healthcare. Healthcare almost always costs more than the regular poor person can afford. Food is cheap. Everyone has the right to live, and most sectors are covered by their low prices, but healthcare costs. Of course it's unfair for rich people to pay more in order to make the system affordable for the poor, but I'd rather have their porches a little less shiny in order to have one more man or woman in the world. That's just me, perhaps.
Separate names with a comma.