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

[HeyYou]

Perhaps I misinterpreted this portion of your earlier post then:

 

And to address a generalisation stated earlier : The argument people make is that by giving people healthcare, they are no longer free due to not taking responsibility for their actions. This of course is a incorrect statement, since sometimes it is not their actions that cause problems.

Err no. For most it's actually the fact that your health is not my responsibility unless I choose to help you. The same applies to my health.

 

As for your latest post. Yeah, I agree with you. Only minor detail is, Obama-care doesn't provide a public option. He wanted one, but, didn't get it. That said, I don't think Obama-care is going to do squat for what its supposed intention was... (reduce health care costs) Maybe reduce the GOVERNMENT's health care costs, but, for the average joe on the street, its just gonna INCREASE costs. Such fun. But, I again, I wax off-topic. My bad.

 

Back on topic...... No, I don't think we should allow folks that can't afford the care they require to just fall over dead. I see that as "inhuman". Where I depart from that stance though.... is illegal immigrants. Come here illegally? You get deported. End of story.

[marharth]

Perhaps I misinterpreted this portion of your earlier post then:

 

And to address a generalisation stated earlier : The argument people make is that by giving people healthcare, they are no longer free due to not taking responsibility for their actions. This of course is a incorrect statement, since sometimes it is not their actions that cause problems.

Err no. For most it's actually the fact that your health is not my responsibility unless I choose to help you. The same applies to my health.

 

As for your latest post. Yeah, I agree with you. Only minor detail is, Obama-care doesn't provide a public option. He wanted one, but, didn't get it. That said, I don't think Obama-care is going to do squat for what its supposed intention was... (reduce health care costs) Maybe reduce the GOVERNMENT's health care costs, but, for the average joe on the street, its just gonna INCREASE costs. Such fun. But, I again, I wax off-topic. My bad.

 

Back on topic...... No, I don't think we should allow folks that can't afford the care they require to just fall over dead. I see that as "inhuman". Where I depart from that stance though.... is illegal immigrants. Come here illegally? You get deported. End of story.

"Obama-care" is really just a way to give more money to the insurance companies. It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare at all imo.

[HeyYou]

Perhaps I misinterpreted this portion of your earlier post then:

 

And to address a generalisation stated earlier : The argument people make is that by giving people healthcare, they are no longer free due to not taking responsibility for their actions. This of course is a incorrect statement, since sometimes it is not their actions that cause problems.

Err no. For most it's actually the fact that your health is not my responsibility unless I choose to help you. The same applies to my health.

 

As for your latest post. Yeah, I agree with you. Only minor detail is, Obama-care doesn't provide a public option. He wanted one, but, didn't get it. That said, I don't think Obama-care is going to do squat for what its supposed intention was... (reduce health care costs) Maybe reduce the GOVERNMENT's health care costs, but, for the average joe on the street, its just gonna INCREASE costs. Such fun. But, I again, I wax off-topic. My bad.

 

Back on topic...... No, I don't think we should allow folks that can't afford the care they require to just fall over dead. I see that as "inhuman". Where I depart from that stance though.... is illegal immigrants. Come here illegally? You get deported. End of story.

"Obama-care" is really just a way to give more money to the insurance companies. It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare at all imo.

 

On that, I will most certainly agree with you.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

EDIT: For the purposes of the question, let's assume the poor either cannot afford insurance (or have to choose between it and having a place to live, food etc.) because employers don't provide it. Not everyone is lucky enough to have an awesome job or even a decent one that offers benefits.

 

I'm going to take a bit of an exception to your premise -

 

Having a job with benefits is not a matter of luck. Businesses use things like health insurance to lure and retain the talent they want to employ. If you don't have the skills that one of these businesses desire, that is not bad luck. That is on you.

If you decide that the corporate rat-race is not for you and want to be a musician, you are a grown up and you know that you are making a choice to have a less-stable career that doesn't offer health insurance. That is not bad luck. That is on you.

You can come up with any number of reasons why you don't have health insurance, but I guarantee that every single one comes back to a choice that you yourself made, to some degree.

Social safety nets are well and good, but let's call them what they are: Charity

The issue that Ron Paul and others like him have with government charity is that it is taken by force, without the citizen's consent.

I agree that some people need help. There are charities for that. If I want to help them, I will donate, by choice, to the charity that helps them. There is no way I should be responsible for giving money to some faceless stranger that for whatever reason can't take care of themselves.

And if they are just too proud to ask for charity, then yes, I guess they should die. That's their choice.

[HeyYou]

For a moment though, let's forget about politics and whose money it is. Let's discuss the human factor. Is it really a good idea to allow someone to die if they can't care for themselves? Not everyone chooses to be poor. Plenty of poor people work their asses off and do the best they can.

 

So the question is: should we really just let people die, when they have exhausted all venues for help, because some people feel we should all just take care of ourselves? By all venues, I mean churches/synagogues, friends and family, charities, and so on.

 

EDIT: For the purposes of the question, let's assume the poor either cannot afford insurance (or have to choose between it and having a place to live, food etc.) because employers don't provide it. Not everyone is lucky enough to have an awesome job or even a decent one that offers benefits.

 

I'm going to take a bit of an exception to your premise -

 

Having a job with benefits is not a matter of luck. Businesses use things like health insurance to lure and retain the talent they want to employ. If you don't have the skills that one of these businesses desire, that is not bad luck. That is on you.

If you decide that the corporate rat-race is not for you and want to be a musician, you are a grown up and you know that you are making a choice to have a less-stable career that doesn't offer health insurance. That is not bad luck. That is on you.

You can come up with any number of reasons why you don't have health insurance, but I guarantee that every single one comes back to a choice that you yourself made, to some degree.

Social safety nets are well and good, but let's call them what they are: Charity

The issue that Ron Paul and others like him have with government charity is that it is taken by force, without the citizen's consent.

I agree that some people need help. There are charities for that. If I want to help them, I will donate, by choice, to the charity that helps them. There is no way I should be responsible for giving money to some faceless stranger that for whatever reason can't take care of themselves.

And if they are just too proud to ask for charity, then yes, I guess they should die. That's their choice.

 

What world do you live in?

 

Where I am, local unemployment is pushing 14% (according to the government, REAL numbers are over 20%). State wide, unemployment is over 10%. Better than 25% of the population of the county I live in, is on some form of government assistance. The economy here is that bad. Not because people chose to leave their jobs, but, because business/industry decided to move those jobs overseas. To put it simply, there ARE no jobs here that actually offer health insurance as a perk anymore. I don't know of too many people willing to relocate to China/S. Korea/India/Venzuela/etc. for a factory job that pays a few bucks a day, and you get to live with two dozen other folks, in one room.

 

Did you happen to miss the crash in 2008, when 8 MILLION jobs simply vanished into thin air?

 

To state that it is 'the peoples' fault they don't have a job, is denying reality.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

No one is forcing you to rely on someone else for your employment. That is your choice. If you do it and it doesn't go your way, it is naive to get mad about it after the fact.

This "Business/Industry" you speak of as abstract concepts are people. People who founded their own businesses or rose to the top of existing ones, who are doing the best they can for themselves *the same as you would do in their place I might add*.

No one forces someone to go to a factory job and skip college. That is a choice. If someone did that and thought they would have a job for life as is their God-given right, they were mistaken.

If they didn't foresee that the Chinese, Mexicans, Cambodians, etc. could do the same job at 1/5 the cost, they shouldn't have been resting on their laurels. No one is stopping you from improving your skills to the point where it hurts your company more to lay you off than to keep you.

I see no reason why I should be forced to give you my money because you made poor decisions.

[Anatidaephobia]

:pinch:

 

 

I think there is another ethical issue worth thinking about here. Using your example of disabled peoples: some are likely in the conditions they are in through no fault of their own. They are the victims of nature, or bad luck, or something else. But others may be at fault. I think we have a moral obligation to aid members of our society who need help because they were unable to help themselves, but what right does any individual have to demand that sort of treatment from society when they chose to engage in behavior which they should have known better than to be a part of? I think that there is no ethical obligation to provide support for such people. In fact, I think it is unethical for such people to place that burden on society.

 

An easy example of what Im talking about if the above is unclear would be someone who chooses to do drugs, smoke, or drink heavily even though there is plenty of evidence to show the consequences of engaging in that sort of stuff, and even though there are plenty of organizations which help people to stay or get away from those sorts of things, they demand that society shoulder the burden of treating their ailments.

 

There are other examples, but this one is an easy and obvious one.

 

 

I get the point of your argumentation and in general I do also believe that every single human being is responsible for his action.

I've got the similiar feeling deep down below in my stomach sometimes that it can't be fair I pay for people which have deliberately choosen a noxious way of lifestyle.

But then my mind consistently rembers me that I live in a solidary community with all it's advantages and disadvantages...

And that's why I feel like I described above.

 

From my own job experience I'm aware there are too many circumstances why someone's getting addiccted to some kind of above mentioned stuff (e.g. burn-out, depressions, stress.....) and most of this people are stucked in a circle they can't break through without professional help.

And that's the problem I see... of course, professional help cost lots of bucks, but how should many of these people been able to afford the payment when the system or the community denies help?....

 

 

If you think it further you can also cut off people from welfare when they're unemployed and refuse to take a job which earnings are far worsened compareable to their formerly ones.

And I bet there are many more examples where you can cut off payments when you think this way.

 

Anyway it's humans nature not to be perfect.

And I don't want to live in a society where everyone stands alone, struggels alone and where every wrong decision in one's life comprised the possibility to end up in a dead end.

 

But I admit the answer for this question depends on everyones first hand experience and your political point of views.

So it is very likely that we can discuss this thing until the cows come home... :wink:

 

Edited September 14, 2011 by Anatidaephobia

[Anatidaephobia]

No one is stopping you from improving your skills to the point where it hurts your company more to lay you off than to keep you.

 

Yep, you're right... IF you have the mental and intellectual capacity!

If you're not in the positon to gain a well-educated level for whatever reason it'll be very hard to gain an "easy" job after your former job is transferred to China.

 

Problem is our society changes from coal-and-steel industry to knowledge economy.

And this change spares out lots of the formerly laboring classes due to lacks in education / intellectual capacity etc.!

 

Sorry, I'm going off-topic, but maybe you'll regard this point in your considerations.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Anatidaephobia

[HeyYou]

No one is forcing you to rely on someone else for your employment. That is your choice. If you do it and it doesn't go your way, it is naive to get mad about it after the fact.

This "Business/Industry" you speak of as abstract concepts are people. People who founded their own businesses or rose to the top of existing ones, who are doing the best they can for themselves *the same as you would do in their place I might add*.

No one forces someone to go to a factory job and skip college. That is a choice. If someone did that and thought they would have a job for life as is their God-given right, they were mistaken.

If they didn't foresee that the Chinese, Mexicans, Cambodians, etc. could do the same job at 1/5 the cost, they shouldn't have been resting on their laurels. No one is stopping you from improving your skills to the point where it hurts your company more to lay you off than to keep you.

I see no reason why I should be forced to give you my money because you made poor decisions.

 

So, explain to me why we have a boat load of degreed folks, working at macdonalds, whose jobs went to india, or china.

 

The government getting involved is what screwed it all up in the first place. Tax breaks for 'creating jobs in developing nations', which translated literally to "MOVING jobs to developing nations."

 

So, by your reasoning, the american workers should learn to content themselves with jobs that pay a few bucks a day, offer no benefits, and reduce themselves to the standard of living equivalent to a third world country?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

No one is stopping you from improving your skills to the point where it hurts your company more to lay you off than to keep you.

I see no reason why I should be forced to give you my money because you made poor decisions.

 

Yep, you're right... IF you have the mental and intellectual capacity!

If you're not in the positon to gain an well-educatet level for whatever reason it'll be very hard to gain an "easy" job after your former job is transferred to China.

 

Problem is our society changes from coal-and-steel industry to knowledge economy.

And this change spares out lots of the formerly laboring classes due to lacks in education / intellectual capacity etc.!

 

Sorry, I'm going off-topic, but maybe you'll regard this point in your considerations.

 

I agree completely, but if you grant that I am not responsible for people making bad decisions, I am surely not responsible for someone just being dumb.

The very idea that a stupid person has a right to a certain standard of living, involuntarily subsidized by those less stupid, quite literally makes me want to puke.

 

edit: Also, I never said easy job anywhere in this thread.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango