Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that they rank higher than us in this category is just an indication of how much less freedom they have. In the US, it is not necessarily the job of the government to "prevent death". It is still more or less up to the individual to be responsible for their health. I don't want my tax dollars to have to go towards preventing someone's death...it's up to that person to do what they have to do. If I'm unwilling or unable to take necessary precautions against some life-threatening event, it's no one else's fault but my own.
The fact that they rank higher than us in this category is just an indication of how much less freedom they have. In the US, it is not necessarily the job of the government to "prevent death". It is still more or less up to the individual to be responsible for their health. I don't want my tax dollars to have to go towards preventing someone's death...it's up to that person to do what they have to do. If I'm unwilling or unable to take necessary precautions against some life-threatening event, it's no one else's fault but my own.
I fail to see how it's someone's fault for not taking precautions you say they are "unable" to do... that makes no sense.
As for all the screaming about the 2003 incident in France... many seem to be more angry that France is rated number 1 than they are that America ranks as low as it does... isn't there something wrong with that? Shouldn't we be more concerned with how our own country fares, rather than whether some other country arguably recieved the crown undeservedly? Let's go ahead and put France in last place arbitrarily... that still doesn't leave the US in a good position, does it?
I fail to see how it's someone's fault for not taking precautions you say they are "unable" to do... that makes no sense.
A person, at whatever stage of their life, is nothing more than the sum total of all the choices they have made in their life. Which means that if, at a particular point in their life, they are unable to afford air conditioning, and it leads to their death in a heatwave, it was, ultimately, their fault.
Now, there are examples of people who truly have not ever had the chance to make the choices necessary to properly take care of themselves...but the numbers of these, I'm sure, is quite small compared to the other category. And, in these cases, private charity should be more than capable of handling the situation.
A person, at whatever stage of their life, is nothing more than the sum total of all the choices they have made in their life. Which means that if, at a particular point in their life, they are unable to afford air conditioning, and it leads to their death in a heatwave, it was, ultimately, their fault.
Now, there are examples of people who truly have not ever had the chance to make the choices necessary to properly take care of themselves...but the numbers of these, I'm sure, is quite small compared to the other category. And, in these cases, private charity should be more than capable of handling the situation.
What non-ideological evidence do you have for this "sureness," though? People's conditions are a function of both their choices AND their circumstances... you can't really separate the two, or claim that only one influences the final condition to the exclusion to the other. The average person unable to afford air conditioning may very well have made some poor choices earlier in life... everyone makes poor choices, anyway. However, it's likely that most of their initial conditions were also unfavorable to the extent that the consequences of those poor choices (if they were made) will be amplified far beyond what they might be otherwise. Most people who grow up in an upper-middle class or above household, for example, will be very unlikely to ever end up having their air conditioning shut off, no matter how many "bad choices" they make.
What non-ideological evidence do you have for this "sureness," though? People's conditions are a function of both their choices AND their circumstances... you can't really separate the two, or claim that only one influences the final condition to the exclusion to the other. The average person unable to afford air conditioning may very well have made some poor choices earlier in life... everyone makes poor choices, anyway. However, it's likely that most of their initial conditions were also unfavorable to the extent that the consequences of those poor choices (if they were made) will be amplified far beyond what they might be otherwise. Most people who grow up in an upper-middle class or above household, for example, will be very unlikely to ever end up having their air conditioning shut off, no matter how many "bad choices" they make.
Regardless of the circumstances, it is not my place to bail them out.
Is it worse for you to be "put out of your place" by "bailing them out," or for no "bailing out," as you put it, to occur, causing unneccesary suffering + death?
Is it worse for you to be "put out of your place" by "bailing them out," or for no "bailing out," as you put it, to occur, causing unneccesary suffering + death?
If I understand your question right, then my answer is that, while it's unfortunate when people suffer and die, it is not my job to bail them out. If I choose to help them, I should be allowed to do so, but I should not be forced to do so at the point of a gun.
"At the point of a gun," is quite an exxageration, but why would your "freedom" from a dreaded small percentage of your income going to social programs "at the point of a gun" be better than other people's "freedom" from suffering, poverty, death, homelessness? Is the lack of the former "freedom" truly a greater blight on humanity/injustice than the absence of the latter "freedom"?
"At the point of a gun," is quite an exxageration, but why would your "freedom" from a dreaded small percentage of your income going to social programs "at the point of a gun" be better than other people's "freedom" from suffering, poverty, death, homelessness? Is the lack of the former "freedom" really a greater blight on humanity/injustice than the absence of the latter "freedom"?
It's not nearly an exaggeration...I wish it were. What happens when I refuse to pay taxes because I disagree with how the tax money is spent? I am arrested at gunpoint and thrown in jail.
When I do not have control over the fruits of my labor, I am not free. If the government can come take money away from me to give to someone else, I do not have freedom. What freedom is left when I do not even control my own labor? It is unfortunate when bad things happen to people, but it is more unfortunate when people feel justified in stealing from others to cover their own shortcomings.
I fail to see how it's someone's fault for not taking precautions you say they are "unable" to do... that makes no sense.
As for all the screaming about the 2003 incident in France... many seem to be more angry that France is rated number 1 than they are that America ranks as low as it does... isn't there something wrong with that? Shouldn't we be more concerned with how our own country fares, rather than whether some other country arguably recieved the crown undeservedly? Let's go ahead and put France in last place arbitrarily... that still doesn't leave the US in a good position, does it?
I raised the point, and it was hardly a scream. I simply felt that rating France as the best at "preventable deaths", while ignoring the 2003 public health disaster there, was an indication of irresponsible (or certainly less than disinterested) research. I still do.
For the umpteenth time: our own country, given its vast expanses and geographical diversity, its varied and partially unidentified population, and urban areas much more heavily populated than many of the countries compared in the study, does quite well at providing a high level of medical care. It is also the source of the highest number of Nobel Prize winners in medicine, and by far the leader in reserarch, development, and advances in therapy, treatment, and diagnosis in most fields of medicine.
Is America perfect? No. Does American public health policy need improvement? Of course. But comparing our country to smaller, more homogeneous, less populous, and culturally different nations is of limited value in the conversation, except for those who do little besides bash America -- while enjoying its excellent medical care and quality of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
