Wow....so, because of decisions other people make, I have to expend my labor for their care and existence --making me, in essence, their slave? So, money should be taken from me at gunpoint and used to treat some gang banger that got shot in a drive-by? That's your idea of ethical? What you propose is not only evil, but counterproductive. There are a substantial number of human beings on this planet and in this country who are not going to work and make themselves afford things like medical care when they can get it for free. It's a law of the universe: when you pay for something you get more of it. When you pay people not to work you get more people not working.cb1000rider wrote:Consider the alternative: We let the sick die because they can't afford to pay. Which way is more ethical?MeMelYup wrote:CB1000 how is taxing the healthy to pay for the sick ethical?
For the sake of argument, let's say that we keep things the way that they are today as most people seem to like that idea. You have an accident and you can't afford a single life saving surgery, what happens? In most cases it gets paid for. Who pays for it? You and I do. We pay for it through taxes and we pay for it through ridiculous "non-negotiated" rates on health care expenses.
Obamacare changes that somewhat. It makes us pay up front to subside people who are sick and the people that can't afford it. On the basis of who is paying, nothing changes... We're just slightly more aware of what is going on.
You've totally bought into the notion that the government solves problems. There never has been such a government on this planet, and never will be. The government creates problems...and outside of a functioning justice system (which we no longer have), and a military to defend our borders (which it no longer does), that's all it does...create problems and make life worse for the majority, while enriching the elites who rule over us. That's all any government has ever done. Henry David Thoreau could already see it over 150 years ago:
This American government,—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we all must allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most left alone by it.