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.
And, if you can't afford to pay the fire department, I suppose you advocate letting their house burn down. Then since government should not help the homeless, you'll let them die. All so you don't have to have any shared responsibility.
Yep, sure, that's the ticket. And, how long do you think a society like that would survive before descending into armed violence and anarchy? Oh, right, you probably have your guns and are hoping for that day...
Do hospitals and doctors let you die if you don't have health insurance? But, why should I have shared responsibility if I didn't set the fire?
This is why some degree of wealth/quality of life redistribution, whether TANF, Social Security, universal healthcare, or universal FIRE PROTECTION of all things is necessary, just, and utilitarian in any basically capitalist society (such as the U.S.).
Why? Because I don't buy into the argument put forth by libertarians that income is a truly accurate determination of merit. Some good people who want to find productive work are poor. Some bad people who sit around and contribute little to society are rich. Basically (for the sake of discussion), you have 4 groups of people:
A. Poor people who don't deserve to be poor -- This would include skilled workers who lose their jobs due to layoffs and can't find another job, all children (no child deserves to be poor), most people willing and able to work who for some reason or another are unable to find a job where they can support themselves or their families. Contrary to what the Libertarian Party would have you believe, these people exist. These people have merit equal to most of the middle class families living in your neighborhood but due to some circumstance or another are living in shacks, projects, and homeless shelters instead. Just look at how many homeless people are war veterans with mental problems, or even out there trying to find a job with all their smelliness and same-set-of-clothes every day-ness.
B. Poor people who deserve to be poor (assuming that any decent person actually deserves to be poor)-- These would be people too lazy to want to find a job... underachievers who would rather live a life of poverty on the public dole than seek out a better life for themselves. Common sense leads me to believe that these people should be pretty rare -- lots of people on welfare work (and sometimes leave their kids home alone because they can't pay for childcare), unemployment is usually 5% or higher so there's always a sizable portion of the workforce out looking for a job but unable to find one (if you give the unemployed people the benefit of the doubt, at least). Especially if you include children, this group becomes pretty outnumbered by the A group.
C. Non-poor or wealthy people who have exactly what, or less than, they deserve -- This would be middle class-type people and others who earned every cent they have through hard work and determination, like the kid who grew up in the Bronx, went to college and became a doctor or got a decent-paying blue collar or white collar job.
D. Wealthy people who have more than they deserve -- predatory loan sharks, slumlord property speculators, people who inherit billions, monopolizing corporate bosses, and CEOs who get paid 100 times more than what their labor and skills would actually merit... generally people who either have wealth bestowed upon them or people who "earn" their riches by contributing absolutely nothing, or very little, of worth to society.
So... is a basically capitalist system more just with NO redistribution of wealth/quality of life, or with a basic level of wealth redistribution to create a basic, just-above-poverty minimum standard of living?
The unfettered market is more just for B and C, no doubt. But in a purely unfettered market with no safety net, B would be extremely uncommon because pretty much everyone of the "have-nots" would be desperate for labor and employment, everyone would be looking for work because they would have no other options. The ranks of A would increase, wages would be depressed as labor lost its bargaining power (as they would have to depend entirely upon employers for their own sustenance), and these people (and their children) would be subjected to a pretty sorry lot in life. The injustice for A becomes extreme because the undue punishment is the inavailability of the basic needs of existence. The ranks of D increase as well, as their undue reward is increased, and it becomes harder for people to move from A to C because of the lack of the social safety net and insurance against health disasters, FIRES (I mean come on now), etc. As a result more people in C (deserved middle class-ness) are pushed into A. Pretty unjust system.
With wealth redistribution?
Things are undoubtably far more just for the A group. No (or considerably less) undeserved poverty. Things are also more just for D because they have less of what they didn't really aquire through their own merits or contributions to society. The B group becomes somewhat larger as the desperation for labor decreases, but I think a well-implemented welfare system that incentivizes work and graduates benefits with income, rather than cutting them off at a certain point, could reduce this. The C group gets screwed over somewhat, but their undue punishment is far less than that which would be experienced by the A group without a safety net, as long as the taxation system is equitable and fair... so, generally, the injustice is reduced.
Another issue is that everyone carries some degree of obligation to the society around them, because nearly everyone benefits from the society around them. Bill Gates wouldn't be a multibillionaire if he grew up on a desert island somewhere... he'd be a friendless savage eating wild boars for dinner. Really, the only people who owe nothing to society are hermits.
And the final hypothetical scenario:
Joe Jojonathan supports his family with his car factory job up in Detroit or somewhere. One day the factory decides to move to Somalia and unemployment goes up to 20%, Joe doesn't have a job to go to and winds up living in the homeless shelter with his kids trying to find a job. The federal government then mandates that Paris Hilton go without buying one $10,000 pair of sunglasses a year so that Joe can have the money to get a home and find a job somewhere. Compulsory charity? Or justice?
Also, if right now you're thinking, "Man, this is really poorly written and borderline incoherent," you probably are 100% correct. I didn't get to sleep until like 2:00 last night...
Last edited by fishmonger; 02-26-2007 at 05:09 PM..
But, why should I have shared responsibility if I didn't set the fire?
Because of Chaos Theory, in which the beating of a butterfly's wings halfway around the world creates effects which eventually affect you. Everything affects all of us. You can deny it, but that doesn't change it.
Because of Chaos Theory, in which the beating of a butterfly's wings halfway around the world creates effects which eventually affect you. Everything affects all of us. You can deny it, but that doesn't change it.
This is fairly easy since emergency rooms are required by law to treat the uninsured it just shows up on your insurance bill and you have a much longer wait to see a somebody in the emergency room then you would if all the people had health insurance and subsidies.
If the emergency rooms started refusing the uninsured in mass numbers could you imagine what would happen if there was a flu epidemic or something absolute chaos more then likely.
Its bizzare nothing is ever said about the billions and billions of dollars insurance companies use as administration costs, that could build many hospitals and provide the uninsured with health care.
I couldn't agree more with anything that you said! Nicely done, especially for someone "running on empty".
(Ummm... BTW, if you have nothing better to do, I could use your help over in the "slavery apology" thread. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger
This is why some degree of wealth/quality of life redistribution, whether TANF, Social Security, universal healthcare, or universal FIRE PROTECTION of all things is necessary, just, and utilitarian in any basically capitalist society (such as the U.S.).
Why? Because I don't buy into the argument put forth by libertarians that income is a truly accurate determination of merit. Some good people who want to find productive work are poor. Some bad people who sit around and contribute little to society are rich. Basically (for the sake of discussion), you have 4 groups of people:
A. Poor people who don't deserve to be poor -- This would include skilled workers who lose their jobs due to layoffs and can't find another job, all children (no child deserves to be poor), most people willing and able to work who for some reason or another are unable to find a job where they can support themselves or their families. Contrary to what the Libertarian Party would have you believe, these people exist. These people have merit equal to most of the middle class families living in your neighborhood but due to some circumstance or another are living in shacks, projects, and homeless shelters instead. Just look at how many homeless people are war veterans with mental problems, or even out there trying to find a job with all their smelliness and same-set-of-clothes every day-ness.
B. Poor people who deserve to be poor (assuming that any decent person actually deserves to be poor)-- These would be people too lazy to want to find a job... underachievers who would rather live a life of poverty on the public dole than seek out a better life for themselves. Common sense leads me to believe that these people should be pretty rare -- lots of people on welfare work (and sometimes leave their kids home alone because they can't pay for childcare), unemployment is usually 5% or higher so there's always a sizable portion of the workforce out looking for a job but unable to find one (if you give the unemployed people the benefit of the doubt, at least). Especially if you include children, this group becomes pretty outnumbered by the A group.
C. Non-poor or wealthy people who have exactly what, or less than, they deserve -- This would be middle class-type people and others who earned every cent they have through hard work and determination, like the kid who grew up in the Bronx, went to college and became a doctor or got a decent-paying blue collar or white collar job.
D. Wealthy people who have more than they deserve -- predatory loan sharks, slumlord property speculators, people who inherit billions, monopolizing corporate bosses, and CEOs who get paid 100 times more than what their labor and skills would actually merit... generally people who either have wealth bestowed upon them or people who "earn" their riches by contributing absolutely nothing, or very little, of worth to society.
So... is a basically capitalist system more just with NO redistribution of wealth/quality of life, or with a basic level of wealth redistribution to create a basic, just-above-poverty minimum standard of living?
The unfettered market is more just for B and C, no doubt. But in a purely unfettered market with no safety net, B would be extremely uncommon because pretty much everyone of the "have-nots" would be desperate for labor and employment, everyone would be looking for work because they would have no other options. The ranks of A would increase, wages would be depressed as labor lost its bargaining power (as they would have to depend entirely upon employers for their own sustenance), and these people (and their children) would be subjected to a pretty sorry lot in life. The injustice for A becomes extreme because the undue punishment is the inavailability of the basic needs of existence. The ranks of D increase as well, as their undue reward is increased, and it becomes harder for people to move from A to C because of the lack of the social safety net and insurance against health disasters, FIRES (I mean come on now), etc. As a result more people in C (deserved middle class-ness) are pushed into A. Pretty unjust system.
With wealth redistribution?
Things are undoubtably far more just for the A group. No (or considerably less) undeserved poverty. Things are also more just for D because they have less of what they didn't really aquire through their own merits or contributions to society. The B group becomes somewhat larger as the desperation for labor decreases, but I think a well-implemented welfare system that incentivizes work and graduates benefits with income, rather than cutting them off at a certain point, could reduce this. The C group gets screwed over somewhat, but their undue punishment is far less than that which would be experienced by the A group without a safety net, as long as the taxation system is equitable and fair... so, generally, the injustice is reduced.
Another issue is that everyone carries some degree of obligation to the society around them, because nearly everyone benefits from the society around them. Bill Gates wouldn't be a multibillionaire if he grew up on a desert island somewhere... he'd be a friendless savage eating wild boars for dinner. Really, the only people who owe nothing to society are hermits.
And the final hypothetical scenario:
Joe Jojonathan supports his family with his car factory job up in Detroit or somewhere. One day the factory decides to move to Somalia and unemployment goes up to 20%, Joe doesn't have a job to go to and winds up living in the homeless shelter with his kids trying to find a job. The federal government then mandates that Paris Hilton go without buying one $10,000 pair of sunglasses a year so that Joe can have the money to get a home and find a job somewhere. Compulsory charity? Or justice?
Also, if right now you're thinking, "Man, this is really poorly written and borderline incoherent," you probably are 100% correct. I didn't get to sleep until like 2:00 last night...
For all the people who genuinely have circumstances that put them out of health care coverage I feel really bad for them. But there are people who abuse the system IMO.
The government spends money to bail out the airlines, they give money to Israel, China, Africa to bail them out of whatever woes they have...when the hell is the government going to turn around and start bailing out healthcare?? What about the OB's who have to pay 80K in insurance premiums for malpractice who might not have a record of malpractice at all?
Interesting fact. When I worked for Baystate Health Systems in MA back in 2002 they were the ONLY hospital operating "in the black" in MA. That same time period a hospital in Boston completely went under because of finances. People seem to think the hospitals are rolling in the dough while most are not. They have lawyers, case workers, people that deal just with medicare regs..it is not just nurses and doctors and housekeepers. Then they have to carry insurance, pay their electric bills..insure their workers against injury.
Does this not concern you all? We spend and spend our national debt goes up and up, and hospitals cannot even make ends meet? That many are understaffed and residents sometimes work 80 hours a week? These are the people making decisions regarding your health and your life...and the nursing shortage in this country has not yet come to a head. It won't be pretty if it does get worse.
The problem is not primarily getting everyone health care it is fixing our health care system and the insurance woes in this country which will hopefully make it affordable to step into your doctor's office again. Fixing frivilous lawsuits and putting fair caps on damages. Too bad we are too worried about overseas to fix our basic social services.
For all the people who genuinely have circumstances that put them out of health care coverage I feel really bad for them. But there are people who abuse the system IMO.
Who really likes going to the doctor when they don't have to?
Quote:
The government spends money to bail out the airlines, they give money to Israel, China, Africa to bail them out of whatever woes they have...when the hell is the government going to turn around and start bailing out healthcare??
Good question.
Quote:
What about the OB's who have to pay 80K in insurance premiums for malpractice who might not have a record of malpractice at all?
What about the patients who have to pay more in insurance premiums for gigantic administration costs, profits, and hospitals that lose money by giving non-emergency care in emergency rooms to people who aren't covered and can't pay? How would government-funded healthcare aggravate the malpractice situation?
Quote:
Interesting fact. When I worked for Baystate Health Systems in MA back in 2002 they were the ONLY hospital operating "in the black" in MA. That same time period a hospital in Boston completely went under because of finances. People seem to think the hospitals are rolling in the dough while most are not.
Right... it's the insurance and drug companies. Hospitals should stay private.
Quote:
They have lawyers, case workers, people that deal just with medicare regs..it is not just nurses and doctors and housekeepers. Then they have to carry insurance, pay their electric bills..insure their workers against injury.
Does this not concern you all?
Of course it does, but if we siphoned the 15% of GDP we spend on medical care off into actual CARE rather than paying for insurance company administrative costs and profits, maybe those doctors would have more money to take home at the end of the day.
Quote:
We spend and spend our national debt goes up and up, and hospitals cannot even make ends meet? That many are understaffed and residents sometimes work 80 hours a week? These are the people making decisions regarding your health and your life...and the nursing shortage in this country has not yet come to a head. It won't be pretty if it does get worse.
Interestingly enough,
Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, Hungary, Greece, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Belgium, and Austria all have more doctors per capita than we do…
Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, Austria all have more nurses per capita than we do…
Despite the fact that they spend far less on healthcare than we do… could there be something wrong with the system?
Quote:
The problem is not primarily getting everyone health care
Why not? Everyone needs health care.
Quote:
it is fixing our health care system and the insurance woes in this country
Exactly.
Quote:
which will hopefully make it affordable to step into your doctor's office again.
Exactly.
Quote:
Fixing frivilous lawsuits and putting fair caps on damages.
Separate issue.
Quote:
Too bad we are too worried about overseas to fix our basic social services.:rolleyes
Exactly.
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.
Okay, look...
Bravo, Bravo!
)