Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

They have. Over and over, but you dismiss them as you tried to dismiss mine by calling them Platitudes. This fact speaks volumes about how highly you hold others views.

 

Summarize them for me please, I am obviously too dense to grasp the argument.

[kvnchrist]

 

They have. Over and over, but you dismiss them as you tried to dismiss mine by calling them Platitudes. This fact speaks volumes about how highly you hold others views.

 

Summarize them for me please, I am obviously too dense to grasp the argument.

 

 

No, you're not dense. I would never call you that. You simply dismissed their arguments as tripe, as you've done mine.

[greywaste]

You can post your platitudes all day long if you want. I feel bad for you if that's what you really think.

 

As far as you calling my posts platitudes. This is another form of name calling. There is a great quote from a grand lady who dealt with this by saying

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Margaret Thatcher

 

I am just waiting for one of these pro-UHC people to explain to me

 

1) why they feel justified in other people paying for their medical care, a.k.a. why they have the right to other peoples' money that they didn't earn

2) why i should be forced to join the scheme if I don't want to.

 

No one has yet done such a thing besides saying that I'm mean if I don't want to help sick people when that is not the issue at all.

 

 

 

They have. Over and over, but you dismiss them as you tried to dismiss mine by calling them Platitudes. This fact speaks volumes about how highly you hold others views.

 

Calling a platitude doesn't really qualify - he isn't attacking your character.

 

Morally, I personally feel he's right. Income tax is really just a form of theft (and no, when work is necessary for survival, having to sign a form as a condition to work to allow that theft doesn't somehow make it morally okay to help yourself to the product of someone else's labour). However, it's a form of theft that people similar to me see as something that is tolerable given the circumstances and I just wish, considering that ones health should be their top priority that so many people wouldn't be allowed to just discard the responsibility for it into someone elses lap.

 

In short, I can tolerate it because there are plenty of nice people with genuine needs, but I have zero respect for and object very strongly to those who just mooch off the workforce - Universal healthcare as being presented here just enables that.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Calling a platitude doesn't really qualify - he isn't attacking your character.

 

Yes It did. Dismissing a persons argument without debating it, is the same as dismissing you. Your argument comes from you and is apart of you. It is your take on things. If he wants to address my arguments, then do so. He does not, which tells me he has nothing to bring to the table.

 

Morally, I personally feel he's right. Income tax is really just a form of theft (and no, when work is necessary for survival, having to sign a form as a condition to work to allow that theft doesn't somehow make it morally okay to help yourself to the product of someone else's labour). However, it's a form of theft that people similar to me see as something that is tolerable given the circumstances and I just wish, considering that ones health should be their top priority that so many people wouldn't be allowed to just discard the responsibility for it into someone elses lap.

 

In short, I can tolerate it because there are plenty of nice people with genuine needs, but I have zero respect for and object very strongly to those who just mooch off the workforce - Universal healthcare as being presented here just enables that.

 

 

Your argument about morals are the same as his and I have the same answer to you. Income tax was authorized by an amendment to the constitution. I too hate those that abuse the system, but is that the fault of those that need it. What gets me, is there are so many people who see abuse, everywhere, but they somehow have a problem reporting it.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

Your argument about morals are the same as his and I have the same answer to you. Income tax was authorized by an amendment to the constitution. I too hate those that abuse the system, but is that the fault of those that need it. What gets me, is there are so many people who see abuse, everywhere, but they somehow have a problem reporting it.

 

That really just comes down to saying "I want your property. I can use it better than you. There's a law that says I can take it. I'm gonna take it."

Edited September 20, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango

[kvnchrist]

 

Your argument about morals are the same as his and I have the same answer to you. Income tax was authorized by an amendment to the constitution. I too hate those that abuse the system, but is that the fault of those that need it. What gets me, is there are so many people who see abuse, everywhere, but they somehow have a problem reporting it.

 

That really just comes down to saying "I want your property. I can use it better than you. There's a law that says I can. I'm gonna take it."

 

 

I know. It sucks, but it beats swapping spit with Westley Snipes in a dark secluded cell somewhere. LoL

[Sepherose]

 

Your argument about morals are the same as his and I have the same answer to you. Income tax was authorized by an amendment to the constitution. I too hate those that abuse the system, but is that the fault of those that need it. What gets me, is there are so many people who see abuse, everywhere, but they somehow have a problem reporting it.

 

That really just comes down to saying "I want your property. I can use it better than you. There's a law that says I can take it. I'm gonna take it."

 

How did you get that from what he wrote?? I got this:

 

1. Taxation on income is legal.

2. He also dislikes those that leech from the system but are fully capable of supporting themselves.

3. People that abuse the system regularly tend to get away with it because so many people do not report it.

 

You have not heard a single argument against your stance, not really. You keep resorting to essentially calling those that would use it thieves and leeches. This is not true. What you aren't realizing I don't think, is that this would also help you were you to ever need it, and in today's market, you may find yourself needing it next week. Would it be your fault if the company you work for suddenly had a financial lapse and you couldn't find work somewhere else due to a rough market? No it wouldn't. Would you deserve it if you slowly lost your means to live due to not being able to find a job because of the market? No, you wouldn't. In said situation, if you lost your health insurance due to all of these other variables, would you deserve to be left to die after a car accident or during an illness? No, you wouldn't. Because you are human.

 

This is what this whole situation really boils down to: A human does not deserve to be left to die when the means to save them is readily available. There are of course societal exceptions, but even the death penalty is humane and quick, unless there has been a mistake. Since this is talking about UHC from an American standpoint, I think these points are valid.

[pseudobio]

 

Your argument about morals are the same as his and I have the same answer to you. Income tax was authorized by an amendment to the constitution. I too hate those that abuse the system, but is that the fault of those that need it. What gets me, is there are so many people who see abuse, everywhere, but they somehow have a problem reporting it.

 

That really just comes down to saying "I want your property. I can use it better than you. There's a law that says I can take it. I'm gonna take it."

 

How did you get that from what he wrote?? I got this:

 

1. Taxation on income is legal.

2. He also dislikes those that leech from the system but are fully capable of supporting themselves.

3. People that abuse the system regularly tend to get away with it because so many people do not report it.

 

You have not heard a single argument against your stance, not really. You keep resorting to essentially calling those that would use it thieves and leeches. This is not true. What you aren't realizing I don't think, is that this would also help you were you to ever need it, and in today's market, you may find yourself needing it next week. Would it be your fault if the company you work for suddenly had a financial lapse and you couldn't find work somewhere else due to a rough market? No it wouldn't. Would you deserve it if you slowly lost your means to live due to not being able to find a job because of the market? No, you wouldn't. In said situation, if you lost your health insurance due to all of these other variables, would you deserve to be left to die after a car accident or during an illness? No, you wouldn't. Because you are human.

 

This is what this whole situation really boils down to: A human does not deserve to be left to die when the means to save them is readily available. There are of course societal exceptions, but even the death penalty is humane and quick, unless there has been a mistake. Since this is talking about UHC from an American standpoint, I think these points are valid.

 

 

Spot on Seperose

[Quetzlsacatanango]

How did you get that from what he wrote?? I got this:

 

1. Taxation on income is legal.

2. He also dislikes those that leech from the system but are fully capable of supporting themselves.

3. People that abuse the system regularly tend to get away with it because so many people do not report it.

 

You have not heard a single argument against your stance, not really. You keep resorting to essentially calling those that would use it thieves and leeches. This is not true. What you aren't realizing I don't think, is that this would also help you were you to ever need it, and in today's market, you may find yourself needing it next week. Would it be your fault if the company you work for suddenly had a financial lapse and you couldn't find work somewhere else due to a rough market? No it wouldn't. Would you deserve it if you slowly lost your means to live due to not being able to find a job because of the market? No, you wouldn't. In said situation, if you lost your health insurance due to all of these other variables, would you deserve to be left to die after a car accident or during an illness? No, you wouldn't. Because you are human.

 

This is what this whole situation really boils down to: A human does not deserve to be left to die when the means to save them is readily available. There are of course societal exceptions, but even the death penalty is humane and quick, unless there has been a mistake. Since this is talking about UHC from an American standpoint, I think these points are valid.

 

He agreed with me, didn't he?

Legal and illegal have nothing to do with right and wrong. This is the third time I have stated this.

The government wants your money. That's why the IRS exists. If you don't pay up, they will take it by force. That's the definition of robbery.

 

My issue with UHC is that I don't want to join up so it can "help" me. Let me opt out and deal with my problems on my own and I am fine with it.

If I get into trouble I can't help myself with, I will depend on the kindness of strangers, not take their property because I need it more than they do. If there are no kind strangers, I guess I am screwed. That's life.

[Balagor]

>snip<

The government wants your money. That's why the IRS exists. If you don't pay up, they will take it by force. That's the definition of robbery.

>snip<

 

I do not know how it works in your country. In my country my politicians will make a hard work to tell me what they will and will not do, just before an election. So what my gouverment does is what I have asked them to do. :tongue: