Libertarians would stand by and watch someone die rather than help someone caught in a bad spot. I suppose if someone gets a flat tire and they need a jack you'd laugh and drive off?

Comment by Robert Karp on September 16, 2011 at 3:41pm
Comment by Arcus on September 16, 2011 at 3:50pm

@Robert: As much as I feel a sympathy for the libertarian cause, especially cheering for the little guy, I quite don't get cheering for cancer. OK, it's tiny and all, but my sympathy for the little guy stops at around newborn size, and I don't quite extend it to metastasized lumps of cells.

And there's a new season of The Closer started?! I love that show! ;)

Comment by kris feenstra on September 16, 2011 at 4:05pm

"Who is responsible for my choices?"

 

You are aware that many universal healthcare plans allow opt outs, right?  I've lived under two different single-payer systems, and in both cases, if I didn't want to be a part of them, I could opt out.  Bam.  No more health care premiums.

Comment by Robert Karp on September 16, 2011 at 4:29pm

But most people stay in Kris? Even if they are healthy? Is this because they might one day get sick or they just actually like society?

Comment by kris feenstra on September 16, 2011 at 5:19pm

I think hardly anyone opts out.  It probably doesn't even occur to most people, to be honest.  For people who can't afford insurance, the premiums are progressively scaled (and at the lowest income bracket, there are no premiums), so cost shouldn't be an issue.  Some people may opt out for religious reasons, I suppose.

Comment by Gaytor on September 16, 2011 at 6:33pm

You can't use logical rational arguments with people that are emotionally tied to their beliefs.

Brady, if you present a logical argument, you'll be heard. The argument that I want my freedom my way, while living in a democratic society, is not based in logic. The claim that our healthcare is superior to others even though the WHO ranks it as 37th in the world is not logical. Not to mention that we don't have the longest lifespan or lowest infant mortality rate and have many other issues. I've laid out point after point of fact that hasn't been answered by Anonymous or yourself. How is it that you feel that you have put forth a logical argument akin to religion versus Atheism when I'm the one spouting demonstrable fact and you are not addressing those points with anything but emotional argument? 

Comment by Brady on September 16, 2011 at 7:19pm

@gaytor I can see that those are good valid points. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that we have a group saying what should be done in the interest of all mankind. I can agree with nearly every point of why health care should be free.

I am just posing the argument that it is an ideology to say that any one way of life is the right way of life. My position is not firmly for or against. Ron Paul is simply stating that the guy made a choice to avoid paying for insurance when he could afford it. That is an appeal to emotion. There was no right way to answer it. He could have said, "We should have had a single payer system in place and things like that would never happen" However, what is the point? Address the problem, irresponsibility in America. I was unemployed when I got out of the military and my health benefits ran out after a few years. Guess what I did! I bought Blue Cross and got covered. It was like $150 for 2 people. That is way more important than a cell phone, HDTV, cable, internet, and starbucks. Never did I have a break in coverage.

Giving more stuff away for free will not solve the problem of personal irresponsibility. So, asking the government to chip in when a willing and capable person avoided responsibility was a red herring and an appeal to emotion fallacy. You should have known that when you posted this video.

 

Comment by Anonymous on September 16, 2011 at 8:04pm

"Who is responsible for my choices?"

1. You (mostly, depending on inherited and environmental factors.)

2. It's a fallacious argument.

@Arcus,

Thanks. I am not sure where you get "mostly" from though. I am hoping you can expound.   And what argumet is fallacious? Your answer or the question? After reviewing the rules of logic, I don't see how the question is fallacious. Could you please expound on this too? 

Please provide me rational explanations why every other first world country has one. Are they all just bonkers?

I don't believe they are bonkers, I believe they are doing the best they can in establishing peaceful and productive societies, albeit, limited by their society's collective intellect.

 

I believe by respecting, not assuming, ones personal responsibility for one's choices provides a better environment for one to become independent.  I believe that independence is a required step before you can become interdependent. I believe charity is better enacted by a collection of interdependent individuals.  I believe a charity can provide more utility by including education on how one can take more responsibility for themselves.

 

I know it is one case study, but let me give you at least an illustration.  I was approached by Andy, a homeless man asking for help in the form of cash.  My first thought was, if I give this guy money I'll just be encouraging his dependence. Then it hit me, I actually had an opportunity to at least try to help this man.  I gave him $10, but told him that I didn't believe it will be any help for him. Sure it would pacify him for a few hours but the help he needs no person can give to him accept himself. Because I stayed with him through the meal and I gave him another ride to his next destination I had the opportunity to give him some free advice, in which he seemed to be very interested in. I tried my best to give him simple ideas and ways to take responsibility for himself. He was excited and full of hope. I gave him my business card and a $10 business loan to help him accomplish his customized plan.

 

If you wish, I'll look for scientific studies that evaluate the effects of promoting ones sense of personal responsibility vs assuming ones personal responsibility.  Not sure if these are studies that have been done, the outcomes seem obvious to me though.  Even if a study like this has not been done, it shouldn't be hard to set up a scientific study.

Comment by kris feenstra on September 16, 2011 at 8:14pm

can agree with nearly every point of why health care should be free.

 

It's not free. Even in a government based single-payer system the money comes from taxation.  Anyone who pays taxes pays into the healthcare system.

 

I am just posing the argument that it is an ideology to say that any one way of life is the right way of life.

 

What way of life is being heralded as right?  I'm sure there are ideological points that have been made in this thread, but points on which system is the most efficient or productive are not ideological.  It's not ideological to say that the US spends much more on health care both per capita and as a percentage of GDP, yet overall does not achieve better results.  I know the typical line here comes down to investments in R&D or incentives for innovation, but I don't think that actually accounts for it.  We're talking about a gap of something like seven hundred billion dollar here (I'm pulling that from memory as I'm typing quickly on a coffee break atm; it could be off).  Provided citizens can opt out, it's not a personal choice issue either.

 

Address the problem, irresponsibility in America.

 

That was the problem in the hypothetical scenario.  To be honest, I don't have a problem with what Ron Paul said based on that specific hypothetical situation.  I don't know if it's practical in the context of the society he lives in, but I don't think it was wrong.  I do question whether or not irresponsibility is the root problem looking at healthcare concerns across America.  I've talked to a few Americans who pay for the coverage they can afford, but when they describe their coverage, it seems like a joke.  Admittedly, I don't know the ins and outs of the system, which is why you won't hear me proposing a specific healthcare reform for America, but it does seem like there is a vast disparity in the types of coverage people are afforded. For non-essential care and therapies, I don't have an issue with that.  For essential care, it seems counterproductive to a functioning society.

 

Guess what I did! I bought Blue Cross and got covered. It was like $150 for 2 people.

 

How much coverage did that afford you?  I mean, let's say you have three different scenarios:

  1. You get a bacterial infection, requiring a doctor's visit, some tests, and some prescription antibiotics.  
  2. You break one of your bones, receive medical treatment and require a limited stay in the hospital.
  3. You are diagnosed with prostate cancer (for which the United States has an excellent five-year survival rate on treatment).  

 

I know that really vague, but how comprehensively were you covered in these scenarios with that plan?

Comment by Brady on September 16, 2011 at 8:50pm

Anyone who pays taxes pays into the healthcare system.

Great, raise taxes as high is you want. When do you think enough is enough? 50% or would you like to have some system where anything over ex. $250,000 goes to government. How about something generic like "anything in excess" and let the government make that decision on a case by case basis?

What way of life is being heralded as right?

Currently, a general social welfare system where people's needs are given to them regardless of level of responsibility.

I've talked to a few Americans who pay for the coverage they can afford, but when they describe their coverage, it seems like a joke.

All insurance companies are in the business of gambling. You are risking that you get lots of young people to pay while you give the least amount of coverage to the ones that use it and pocket the rest as profit. Goes the same for car, home, life, electronics, etc.

You get a bacterial infection, requiring a doctor's visit, some tests, and some prescription antibiotics.

Pay a co-pay of $20 for the visit and co-pay for the drugs that depended on brand of drug, generic versus name brand. Range was $20-$40.

You break one of your bones, receive medical treatment and require a limited stay in the hospital.

This never happened but I was on the hook for the first $2,000 then after that they covered the rest. So, they said they would. But again. If they can find away not to pay. They will.

You are diagnosed with prostate cancer (for which the United States has an excellent five-year survival rate on treatment). 

Health care is the least of my worries. However, again, I cover up to the first $2000 and they pick up the tab. However, that does change based on emergency visits which can add to my debt. If I have any type of terminal cancer. I am ok with dying. Just as long as I can get some pain pills to ease my slow death, great. At this point, I am no longer a productive member to society. Life sucks and I am a burden on everyone.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Gary Clouse 51 minutes ago. 52 Replies

Sunday Disassembly

Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Society. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 12 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 15 hours ago. 40 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 15 hours ago. 5 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service