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

[HeyYou]

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.

 

Where are you getting that from??

[Quetzlsacatanango]

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

 

Because they went to college to get a piece of paper at a degree mill, not to get an education. They got liberal arts degrees that are useless in the real world. The reasons are varied and not that hard to come up with.

 

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."

I agree to a point. But if you are pro-free market, you are pro-offshoring. Some other guy doing the job you used to do at half the cost is a pretty textbook example of a free market economy.

 

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?

 

*IF* they can't do work that merits any more than that, YES. I don't think that is the case, mind you. But leave the word America out of it for a second.

Any country that cannot produce things that are worth more than a few bucks per day per worker, pay for their own benefits, or support a higher standard of living, deserves just those things.

 

edit: for spelling

Edited September 14, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

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.

 

Where are you getting that from??

 

Bolded it above ^^ The post you just quoted :)

[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.

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.

 

Granted, but as I said a post before, it's all depends on your political point of view and your self-made experiences.

Since my opinion differs extremly from yours a further discussion probably lead to nowhere...

[HeyYou]

I do NOT support a free market economy, when it means the destruction of the american economy. When our economy goes down the toilet, as it has been the since around 2000.... everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Which is EXACTLY what we are seeing happening. Governments answer? Open up more "free trade" countries. Give folks even MORE places that they can outsource jobs to. Brilliant!

 

If we continue on the current course, we WILL become just another third world country, with the haves (the rich), and the have nots (everyone else). We are well on our way now. Our credit has been downgraded, our national debt is spiraling out of control, the federal budget is a flippin' joke. And where did most of the problems stem from? Lack of revenue. And why is there a lack of revenue? Because we have rampant unemployment, and the government keeps handing out tax breaks to the folks that need them the least, in the vain hope that this time, they might deign to create a few jobs HERE, instead of in China/India/whereever.

 

And, since we have so many out of work, our once "consumer driven economy" is stalling out. Why is that? Because the folks that used to buy those products, no longer have a job, so they don't HAVE the money to spend on said products. Its a vicious circle. Jobs are outsourced, average joes income goes down, or away...... demand slacks off, corporations want to make more profit, so, they outsource yet more jobs, to cut costs, and more folks join the ranks of the unemployed, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

Sure, CEO's, CFO's, and most of all Stockholders..... want to make more money. That goes without saying. But, what we come down to is, Instant Gratification vs. Long Term Security. Sure, they may make a bit more money RIGHT NOW, but, by their very actions, they are eliminating the very people they want to sell to.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Granted, but as I said a post before, it's all depends on your political point of view and your self-made experiences.

Since my opinion differs extremly from yours a further discussion probably lead to nowhere...

 

You are probably not going to change my mind if that's what you mean. But I leave open the possibility because only robots and animals can't change their minds, and I am neither.

 

But if you really are saying that a guy that is too dumb to get a job that pays well enough to support the lifestyle he feels he deserves should have that lifestyle paid for by someone who is not so dumb, I guess I would say I am somewhat intrigued and would like to hear your justification of that position.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

wall o' text, which I did read :)

 

Getting back to topic somewhat, do you not think that the revenue problem might be mitigated if we didn't give a bunch of money to people who can't afford the care they are getting? That would free up a few $billion for more worthy causes, whatever you think they are.

 

I would also say that if it so clear to you that stockholders want to make money, as everyone does, wouldn't it make sense to be come a stockholder? No one is stopping you from doing that. If it is so clear to you that offshore outsourcing is driven by stockholder profit motive, why don't you get on that side of the equation and buy some stock?

[HeyYou]

wall o' text, which I did read :)

 

Getting back to topic somewhat, do you not think that the revenue problem might be mitigated if we didn't give a bunch of money to people who can't afford the care they are getting? That would free up a few $billion for more worthy causes, whatever you think they are.

 

I would also say that if it so clear to you that stockholders want to make money, as everyone does, wouldn't it make sense to be come a stockholder? No one is stopping you from doing that. If it is so clear to you that offshore outsourcing is driven by stockholder profit motive, why don't you get on that side of the equation and buy some stock?

 

Back on topic? Say what?? There was an original topic?? :D

 

There are some folks that I would just as soon NOT provide care for. Illegal immigrants. I would also not provide them with education, any variety of welfare whatsoever, all they would get is a bus ticket/plane ride back to their country of origin. I would also eliminate the "born here, automatically a citizen" clause. If you are born here of LEGAL RESIDENTS, then sure, fine, no problem. But, if you are born here of ILLEGAL immigrants, nope. You get the same ride your parent(s) does.

 

I don't invest in the stock market for couple reasons, the two most important of which are:

 

1. I simply don't have the money to invest.

 

2. The market is rather unpredictable at this point, and I can't afford to lose any money I would invest.

 

Sure, life IS risk, but, some of them I classify as "unacceptable risk." (not to mention that I see another economic collapse coming in the not so distant future.......)

Edited September 14, 2011 by HeyYou

[Anatidaephobia]

Granted, but as I said a post before, it's all depends on your political point of view and your self-made experiences.

Since my opinion differs extremly from yours a further discussion probably lead to nowhere...

 

You are probably not going to change my mind if that's what you mean. But I leave open the possibility because only robots and animals can't change their minds, and I am neither.

 

But if you really are saying that a guy that is too dumb to get a job that pays well enough to support the lifestyle he feels he deserves should have that lifestyle paid for by someone who is not so dumb, I guess I would say I am somewhat intrigued and would like to hear your justification of that position.

 

 

Nope I neither said that someone should pay one's lifestyle HE FEELS HE DESERVES nor I would change your mind (cos I'm not a priest and everyone's free to stand to his / her opinion :) )!

 

What I wanted to say is that imho there must be a social net / welfare which allows people to live without starving, which grants a margin of subsistence.

Never mentioned that I'll support the idea of paying those people a vacation trip to Florida or a new Benz :wink:!

 

But if I got your argument right you're even against this kind of measure [margin of subsistence] so that's why I got the feeling a discussion probably ends up in nowhere.

Because that'd be very opposed opinions, wouldn't they?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Anatidaephobia

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Back on topic? Say what?? There was an original topic?? :D

 

There are some folks that I would just as soon NOT provide care for. Illegal immigrants. I would also not provide them with education, any variety of welfare whatsoever, all they would get is a bus ticket/plane ride back to their country of origin. I would also eliminate the "born here, automatically a citizen" clause. If you are born here of LEGAL RESIDENTS, then sure, fine, no problem. But, if you are born here of ILLEGAL immigrants, nope. You get the same ride your parent(s) does.

The citizenship part would require a constitutional amendment. They are hard to do for good reason.

I don't invest in the stock market for couple reasons, the two most important of which are:

 

1. I simply don't have the money to invest.

 

2. The market is rather unpredictable at this point, and I can't afford to lose any money I would invest.

 

Sure, life IS risk, but, some of them I classify as "unacceptable risk." (not to mention that I see another economic collapse coming in the not so distant future.......)

Then you should be stocking up on gold, right? Surely you are taking some action to prepare for this future which you foresee? Or are you going to blame it on the government then, too, when you saw what was coming but chose to do nothing about it?

I don't mean to hammer on you here, I'm not trying to be a total jerk. I'm just trying to illustrate that you are responsible for your own situation because you make the choices that get you there. I don't know your situation. Maybe you're a student, maybe you're a regular working guy. But if you're a student, is your degree in something that is going to be marketable when this future collapse comes? If you're a working guy, what are you doing to prepare yourself for it?

 

Granted, but as I said a post before, it's all depends on your political point of view and your self-made experiences.

Since my opinion differs extremly from yours a further discussion probably lead to nowhere...

 

You are probably not going to change my mind if that's what you mean. But I leave open the possibility because only robots and animals can't change their minds, and I am neither.

 

But if you really are saying that a guy that is too dumb to get a job that pays well enough to support the lifestyle he feels he deserves should have that lifestyle paid for by someone who is not so dumb, I guess I would say I am somewhat intrigued and would like to hear your justification of that position.

 

 

Nope I neither said that someone should pay one's lifestyle HE FEELS HE DESERVES nor I would change your mind (cos I'm not a priest and everyone's free to stand to his / her opinion :) )!

 

What I wanted to say is that imho there must be a social net / welfare which allows people to live without starving, which grants a margin of subsistence.

Never mentioned that I'll support the idea of paying these people a vacation trip to Florida or a new Benz :wink:!

 

But if I got your argument right you're even against this kind of measure [margin of subsistence] so that's why I got the feeling a discussion probably ends up in nowhere.

Because that'd be very opposed opinions, wouldn't they?

I am reminded of the 80s, when communist countries would watch american movies like The Grapes of Wrath. All they saw was that even the poorest people in America owned a car. So standard of living is very relative. I would say that even the poorest in the US today have a "margin of subsistence". Depending how you define that of course. It doesn't take much to find something to eat if you are willing to earn it.

 

I am not against safety nets in principle. I am against being forced to pay for them. They should be financed through private charities. If the charities aren't able to support them, it is a pretty good indication that it is not an important issue to the public.