Quote:
Originally Posted by pjorourke
Which is not what I said at all. You don't have to be rich to get health care, you have to be responsible.
|
I have neither a liberal nor conservative view of this. I have a realist view of it.
The simple facts are these (using your own terms for the example):
A) Not everybody is going to be "responsible". Some are incapable because of physical or mental deficit. Some are just not willing to be responsible. This is simply a fact of life that we live with. Nothing is going to change that.
B) Those people who are going to be irresponsible are going to cost YOU money. Again, this is a simple fact. That's how it is.
C) You can either sit back and bitch about how this situation sucks for you or you can do something about it that lessens the impact it has on you.
Now tell me, which of the options in C do you think is the "responsible" thing to do. We've been living with A & B for decades. Doesn't matter why or how that situation came about. It simply is. Which of the two approaches do you think will better lead to a solution?
As I'm sure you're aware, there's also something called "social responsibility" that goes along with the "personal" equivalent. I think working to lower the cost of health care and see that everybody has access to it is pretty a responsible thing to do. I think sitting back and saying "I got mine, you get yours" is the height of irresponsible behavior. Part of reason we have government is to handle the big problems that can't be solved just by hoping that everybody is going to do the right thing.
Tell me PJ, are you in favor of or do you disapprove of mandatory auto insurance? Are you ready to rely on other drivers being "responsible" enough to fix your car if they hit you?
Quote:
|
Yes, we provide free food to people who are starving. That is humanitarian and there should be a humanitarian component to health care as well. But last I heard, we don't provide unlimited steak and lobster to the hungry. There are limits to anything -- and there should be limits to free health care.
|
Unfortunately this argument is a complete fallacy. Providing tastier food to the starving doesn't make more well fed. Providing more than basic health care to the poor
does make them more healthy, more productive, and more effective in the economy.
Like everything there is a point of diminishing returns in health care and that's where rationing and other access mechanisms come in. But in the end your argument simply falls on its face. The healthier people are the more productive they are and the less it costs to give them care over the long term. If you only provide care at life-line levels you end up costing everybody more.
You're smart enough to know that there's more to it than what you're arguing. I can see that you like to bitch and stir up trouble and pretend that you're some kind of political radical and all but I fail to see how it does anybody any good. When confronted with reason you always back away from your extreme positions. Why not just admit to yourself that you're a moderate and try to make progress rather than being negative about so many things?
Quote:
|
But i realize the word "responsible" is a nasty word for Liberals (excuse me, you are Progressive these days.)
|
Case in point.
Personally, I really don't care what terms you feel like sticking on people. If your involvement in political discussions is driven by a need to see your side "win" then more power to ya. I'm more concerned with discussing solutions to the problems we have regardless of which "side" they may come from. You can put any label on me you want. My ego isn't so inflated that it's going to worry me.
Cheers!
Mazo.
