Brief History of Communism (and the work of Ronaldus Maximus regarding)

[nik0tine]

Try this. Every time you say "the government should pay for ____", replace "the government" with "I". "I should pay for my neighbor's healthcare", "I should pay for my neighbor's education", "I should pay so that my neighbor makes as much money as I do". Because that's what's happening.

But that isn't whats happening. "I" am paying for a part of my neighbors healthcare, just as my neighbor pays part of my healthcare. If said neighbor gets cancer, I don't pay the entire bill. The entire nation pays into a system that is designed to pick each and every one of us up when we fall. I'll gladly pay into this system. I don't know why people have problems with it.

[Cloud No.9]

sasquatch if a 7 year old poor kid and a 90 year old man rich kid need a liver transplant. who do you give it to first? the one who can pay most for it? give it to the highest bidder? or give it to the person who has most to live for? isn't going to keel over in a few years anyway. of course you give it to the poor kid there should be no doubt about that. you can't auction off life and death to the highest bidder.

disease and health is a lottery. it doesn't just affect the rish or poor. it can affect everyone. so the money should be pooled to be for the benefit of everyone.

[Gnostic Yevon]

sasquatch if a 7 year old poor kid and a 90 year old man rich kid need a liver transplant. who do you give it to first? the one who can pay most for it? give it to the highest bidder? or give it to the person who has most to live for? isn't going to keel over in a few years anyway. of course you give it to the poor kid there should be no doubt about that. you can't auction off life and death to the highest bidder.

disease and health is a lottery. it doesn't just affect the rish or poor. it can affect everyone. so the money should be pooled to be for the benefit of everyone.

But the old man isn't any less deserving of a chance at a longer life than the child. You are correct that we shouldn't place a price tag on such a chance at life, but at the same time, both the old man and the child are of equal worth. Your "worthiness for life" should not be determined by the age of the person or whether or not they can produce something for the society.

I could see the first come first served idea being much more fair, because it doesn't look at the individual's "worthiness".

[The Redneck]

AkiraMarie--
Actually, we do provide health care for people who can't afford it, including the homeless (who, in the vast majority of cases, are in the position they're in because of the decisions they made). It's called indigent care, and I know for a fact it works because my roommate is a hopeless loser who would rather use his paycheck to buy weed than health insurance for his kid. Go to the county hospital, tell 'em you can't afford it, and you get it anyway.

A few years ago, there was a big flap over Jessica Santiago, who had cardiovascular problems (can't remember what it was, or whether it was in her heart or lungs, but it was a big'un.). She snuck across the border into the US from Mexico and checked into a hospital in South Carolina. Not only did she not have the money, but she had never in her life paid taxes in America--but not only did she get care worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but because of her condition she was put near the top of the organ-donor list and got a new heart and lung(s) (I dunno if they gave her just one, or both). Moreover, her body rejected them, and they gave her another set, which angered many people who had been following the rules and should have gotten those organs instead. And to add insult to injury, her family refused to donate any of her organs--including the ones that we'd put in her.

nik0tine--Partly, because whenever government manages a system, it screws things up and wastes money. You'd never put your money voluntarily into an investment that gives you 1.5% return on your investment, but with Social Security you got no choice, so there it is. You'd never give your money to a charity that only gets 28 cents on the dollar to people that need it, but that's welfare in a nutshell. Likewise, no one would voluntarily put their money (and their health) in a system as abysmal as nationalized health-care. If you want to help people who have cancer, or liver problems, or AIDS, or whatever you think is the worst health problem facing us today, or in all of them, then the answer is to find a charity that will do this and donate to them--not to have the government take money away from you by force, waste a good chunk of it, and spend what's left on someone's health care.

[nik0tine]

I will agree that the government wastes an exponential amount of money. That is why I feel that our government should instate a "Department of Governmental Efficiency" or something like that. I haven't thought of how it would work yet, but ideally it would dramatically reduce needless and haphazard spending. If we were to get the full mileage (sp?)out of our dollar more things could get done. The way I see it, it would increase efficiency, save money, and possibly even reduce taxes. Problem is, I have to figure out a way for it to work first.