OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
What's wrong with it is that whether the person is lazy or not is irrelevant. They still deserve a standard of living that is better than the poverty line. They deserve this because they are _human_.

Why? It removes the important concept of personal responsibility.

What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned. You and I have the right to have the opportunity to become wealthy. We do not have a right to be wealthy. Note the distinction. In the former, you can work towards your goals. In the latter, you are given what you seek without having earned it. I have the right to try to become a U.S. senator. I do not have a right to be one. Society owes me the opportunity to succeed, not the success itself. Society owes me the right to be able to find good medical care, not the care itself.

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness? Please recall the United States Declaration of Independence says "pursuit of happiness", not "happiness".

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
lets play it safe and stay away from abortion.

Let's, instead, not inflict one's beliefs on others.

"Judge not ..."

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I suggest you read your own constitution. People have a right to _life_ in the U.S.

That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be.

You freely admit that you don't care about people that you don't know personally? Good. It's nice to see that you're demonstrating just why you're a social parasite.

Parasite? I happen to be a taxpaying citizen who owes no money. I'm quite self-supporting, thank-you-very-much.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be.

Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe I was wrong here.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe we are wrong here.

You falsely assume that humans are not animals. This is untrue, humans are simply a more sophisticated animal. If you truly believe humans are somehow a superior form of life, never forget that this is the process which made you. Don't turn your back on it so easily.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned.

And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.

Society owes me the opportunity to succeed, not the success itself.

I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.

Society owes me the right to be able to find good medical care, not the care itself.

I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness?

You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum.

[LintMan]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why would I be appalled? My share of any such treatments would amount to tens of dollars at most over the course of a year.

The cost estimates I heard for providing healthcare for the 42 million uninsured people in the US are around $42 billion, which would work out to just over $140 per capita in the US (but there are a lot less taxpayers than people, so likely it'd be more than that per taxpayer). That would allocate just $1000 per uninsured person, which seems quite inadequate considering that standard health insurance here can cost $2000-$7000 (or quite a lot more!) for a person. I'm guessing that any plan that provides better than a bare minimum health care would also need to cost around the same amounts, so $80-300 billion is more likely the true cost for a good system. And of course this is not "universal health care" - it would provide zero benefit at all to anyone who already was paying for any level of coverage.

Is it worth it if it'll cost $300 billion? I'm not sure. My point is just that even just covering the uninsured and leaving everyone else to still pay as now will cost us a fair bit more than tens of dollars per year.