[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I wasn't aware that the proper way to judge whether something was good was to ignore every single instance where that thing fails.

I'm the one ignoring every instance where it fails? You seem to be doing that yourself. Every person who leaves the country to seek treatment represents a failure of the health care system. Yet you'd ignore this when claiming your system is better.

I won't deny that some people do this. I will still ask to see that the number of people who do this is statistically significant.

That depends on how you define statistically significant. After all, people who are rich is a small slice of the population already, and smaller still is the population of rich people who are sufficiently sick to do this. They also don't exactly fill out a form indicating they're doing it.

But so what really? When it comes down to it you pay less than if you weren't paying for everyone else's problems, and all of society benefits as a whole.

Err....if I wasn't paying for everyone else's problems, I'd pay less for healthcare. Far less for healthcare. Like, say, zilch. Because I'm not sick. I get to keep my money. Funny how that works. And I see no evidence to suggest that society benefits as a whole: These people are not contagious, and what they have isn't going to affect me, or anyone else. I fully support the idea that a publicly-funded program against infectious diseases is a good one. I don't believe that publicly-funded healthcare in general is, as there are an awful lot of really frivolous treatments that get funded at your expense.

Yes, because people don't bother to work hard when that means that they will make more money.

They wouldn't have to try as hard. After all, they don't have to worry about saving money for if they get sick. They can just be totally useless slackers and expect somebody else to pay for them. I'm not saying everyone does this, but it's obvious that the people who end up becoming sick as a result, and couldn't have afforded to pay, are.

I suppose that you also support the privatization of police forces, since only people that require them should have to pay for them.

Not at all: The police arguably provide a public service that is beneficial to all. Everyone benefits from them, mostly, unless you happen to be a criminal. I say "arguably", because many times, it's not really clear that they're actually providing this effectively, as they're overburdened with meaningless, frivolous things. However, the theory remains sound, even if present implementation is lacking in many areas. This doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't take care of themselves, though. We have the second amendment for a reason, insofar as certain politicians keep trying to hamstring it, something which is apparently sadly lacking in Canada and leaves you at the mercy of killers, rapists, robbers, and other hoodlums.

Yep. The standard "people who fail are always lazy" fallacy of false causes.

Oh, not at all. I don't believe people who fail are always lazy. Everyone has their own cause for failure, which can be summarized as consisting of some combination of apathy, incompetence, stupidity, and laziness. If you bothered to apply yourself and didn't just give up and whine when the going got though, you would succeed, or die trying. Either way, you have dealt with your personal problems personally, the way it should be.

[ July 28, 2004, 18:23: Message edited by: Norfleet ]