"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wilko, why do I not listen to you?!

I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like
baby
**** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread, and
he
brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still stuck
to it.
======================
No, you brought it back. You are the one that replayed the last
thread.
I see you still can't provide an informed opinion on it.


Wilf

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser on caring for others:
==============
Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for
me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat
McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with
plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for
their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them?
What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people?
===============

Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism
and using community instead.

Let's not. Let's call socialism exactly what it is.

I think caring for your neighbors is a
part of what it means to be a member of a community.

I agree. The difference is that I believe that it's up to YOU whether you
choose to do so out of altruism, guilt or whatever emotion you choose. What
I don't agree with is the idea that unwilling partners can be required to
"care for" their neighbors by having the government forcibly take money from
them to give to someone who is most likely not a neighbor at all, but is
more likely to be some alcoholic with a damaged liver who got that way not
because he was concerned about the "community" but because he was interested
in going to hell in his own way while expecting other people to pay for it.


My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer
to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her
maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I
just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her
trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this
task. This is what it means to be a member of a community.

Good for you. That's very charitable and altruistic of you. Nothing whatever
wrong with your doing so. You are free to spend as much of your time and
money as you wish doing so. You are even free to get together with
like-minded neighbors and pool money through some organization to hire
people do do it.

What's wrong, however, is to use the Mace of State to force someone who
doesn't freely choose to participate in that altruism, to pay for what you
think "community" ought to be.

Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving
a damn about your fellow human.

No, it's about coercive force, sometimes at the point of a gun.

Down here in the USA, we have a little right we call the right to "freedom
of association." Under that right, we have the right to freely gather
together with whomever we please, whenever we please, in a peaceable manner.
Inherent in that right is the equally protected right of *dis*association.
Just as we are free to associate with others, we are free NOT to associate
with them, and that includes the right to NOT be required to subsidize or
support their particular lifestyle.

For example, I have no interest in paying for the medical expenses of those
who contract AIDS as a result of engaging in unprotected sex. I should not
be forced to do so by the government, whether directly or through socialized
medicine. They did the deed, they get to suffer the consequences. That may
result in unfortunate circumstances for them, but I didn't do the deed, so
why should I be made financially liable for their bad behavior?

Spit out the bile, Scott.

Altruism coming from the barrel of the taxman's gun is not altruism, it's
slavery and oppression.

I'll be altruistic and charitable to those whom *I* deem worthy of my
charity and altruism, not who some government flack thinks is worthy, thank
you very much.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott opines:
==============
First you need to recognize that Canadians aren't paying for "full
coverage"
for themselves, they are paying for full coverage for everyone, whether
they
themselves ever need any medical care at all, whether they like it or
not,
and they have absolutely no choice in the matter.
===============

There you go! I think you've grasped the general nature of INSURANCE.
Well done, Scott!

Not quite. Insurance is something that people freely choose or decline,
based on their own personal assessment of the various risks and costs. It's
a voluntary contract with a private entity which exchanges a small sum on a
regular basis for a promise of full compensation should a covered event
occur.

Canada's socialized medicine system is not "insurance" by any stretch of the
imagination.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:


Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start
putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan
that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such
plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you
don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles.
But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like
teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their
noses) and it encourages you to save money.

Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually
anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics.


Most of our "savings" are going into my son's college fund. So, should
we short his education in order to stuff more into "my" rainy-day
health care mattress?

That's a decision you should have made before having children. Why should
society bail you out of your lack of foresight and planning?

Besides, your son ought to be able to work his way through college, as many
millions of young people have done for a very long time. He'll be a better
student if he has to work for his education, just ask any party-girl at CU
who isn't smart enough to change a light bulb but gets to go to college and
party for four years because daddy's paying for it.

Students who work their way through college understand the value of a dollar
and the amount of hard work it takes to earn the educational privilege
college offers. Do you children a BIG favor and spend their inheritance and
college fund on yourself. Force them to become responsible, intelligent,
hard-working citizens, not self-indulgent, selfish, lazy layabouts with no
work ethic. You'll be doing society a favor too.

If I require hospitalization and don't have
insurance, then I become indebted to the hospital and doctors for the
entire bill.

Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem?

There goes my son's education, again.

Is your son disabled? Can he get a job? Is society going to have to take
over for you after you're gone because you didn't give your son the proper
work ethic and understanding of the costs of a college education.

And, what happens
if I lose a foot (or suffer some other debilitating complication from
diabetes; heart disease, kidney disease, stroke...), and am unable to
work because of a disability? I guess we can sell the house and other
personal property to help pay the bills. My wife can get a 2nd and 3rd
job, and my son can kiss college good-bye.

That could happen. It would be unfortunate, though hardly unique. Again, why
is that my problem? Perhaps you should have bought a smaller house, a
cheaper car and saved more money. Your best bet is to invest your son's
college fund in an emergency medical account and tell him he'd better look
forward to working his ass off to be worthy of the privilege of a college
degree. If your son truly understood the situation you're in, and if he was
an ethical and compassionate son, he'd decline to take your money and offer
to go to work to help you save enough to provide for your future medical
needs. After all, he's lived on-the-cuff his whole life so far, right? Time
for some payback. Sounds like you need it.

Or, maybe my wife should
take the financially sound course and divorce me?

Why not? In today's society, she can do it and you can still live together
just as you do now. Once more, why is that a problem for which I should be
required to pay?

Along with my choice
of being the recipient of bad genetics (or, was it the immunoglobulin
shot I got when I was 8 years old, to hyperactivate my immune system
against the measles going around the neighborhood at the time.

Life suck sometimes. I felt the same way when I was diagnosed. How is that
your problem?

[Should
I sue the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical company who manufactured
the immunoglobulin [[or, the donor(s) of the virus infected blood from
which the immunoglobulin was derived?]]]),

Probably a little late, but you can try if you want.

there was my personal
decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country
that lacks a civilized health care system.

So sue your parents or emigrate to Canada.

I don't know, a
single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible,
manageable, efficient and affordable system.

Except that they don't work, ever. And, they are immoral, unethical and
fattening.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:

What a MAROON!

Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the
Spanish.

What an idiot.

Wolfgang

Weiser states:
==============
Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem?
============

Thanks, Scott, for the succinct summary of the philosophical
underpinnings of the American approach to health care.

Now let's all vote. All those in favor of the "Why is that my problem?"
approach to public policy?

[SIDEBAR: I think, "Why is that my problem?" is what Canada and other
nations said when your guy went into Iraq.... HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Only sad
bit about that is all poor young people who sacrificed for that folly.
But, at least, they'll have socialized medicine when they come back,
right?]

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Frederick summarizes:
===========
there was my personal
decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country
that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a
single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible,
manageable, efficient and affordable system.
================

Frederick, I get the impression from Scott's posts that he has no
responsibilities for anyone other than himself. I suspect he can't even
begin to comprehend what it might be like putting children through
school and worrying about their health.

Not true. I'm partly responsible for supporting a family of eight, including
me. That's a choice I made knowingly and voluntarily, understanding
completely the burden I was accepting.

Every adult in this family wants the best for the children, but we also
don't expect anyone else to provide that for them. We also know that the
worst thing you can do for a child is to pamper and provide everything for
them. We understand that adversity breeds character and that only through
personal struggle do we come to understand the value of personal character
and integrity.

It may be that not all of the five children will be able to attend college
on dad's dime. So what? What's important is that the children be raised to
be strong, intelligent, self-assured, men and women who are capable of
providing for themselves through the sweat of their own brows. Scholarship
is much more important than college funds. Anybody with a college fund can
go to college, but not all (or even most) of them deserve (or need) a
college education, much less achieve the goal. If some of the children
choose mediocrity, that's their choice. That will be unfortunate perhaps,
although somebody has to flip burgers, but our responsibility is merely to
prepare them to make that choice, not force it upon them unwillingly.

However, an excellent young scholar, with a strong work ethic and good
morals will be welcome at most colleges, including Ivy League schools, even
if they don't have a dime from Mom and Dad. Does the word "Scholarship" ring
a bell?

As for their health, of course we all hope that they will be happy and
healthy, but at the same time, we all recognize that the responsibility for
providing for their medical needs is upon the parents, and that anyone else
who participates does so out of love and altruism, not because they were
coerced into it. Moreover, it's a fact that sometimes you die. In fact,
everybody dies. That's just the way it is. People get sick too. It's sad and
unfortunate, and one hopes that altruists in society will choose to help
those who cannot afford proper medical care, including these kids if it
becomes necessary. But we don't expect it, and we plan for the future
accordingly and accept that fate may not always be kind.

Many years ago, when I was in my early twenties, and well before I had
kids, I used to spout such nonsense too. I used to read Ayn Rand and
pontificate at length about personal responsibility, and "tough ****"
on those who can't fend for themselves, and "who asked you to have
kids" and everyone should pay their own way and blah, blah, blah.....

AND THEN I GREW UP!

And who paid for YOUR college education? Evidently they didn't get too much
for their money.

And then I realised that we're all in this together and that we are all
interdependent. That we are only as strong as our weakest link (BTW, I
understand that's a basic tenet of military tactics -- how very
socialist!). I learned to make connections: perhaps if my neighbors
kids were well educated and healthy, I wouldn't have to worry about
them vandalizing the neighborhood. Perhaps if my neighbors could all go
to the doctor as required, I would have less to fear from contagious
diseases.

CONNECTIONS. I wish Scott could make the connections. Geez he must live
in a sad and lonely, heartless world!

Nope. My world's just fine. But I don't whine about my plight and I don't
blame others for my bad judgments a long time ago.

There's nothing wrong with altruism, it's a wonderful thing, but it has to
come from within, it cannot be imposed or coerced by external forces, nor
should it be. Not everyone is deserving of altruism and charity, after all,
and governments are notorious for failing to hold people accountable for
their own mistakes.

I don't object to altruism and charity, I merely wish to be left to decide
for myself to whom I will extend it. What's wrong with that?


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott thnks:
===========
I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody
else's post.
============

Nope! What about the lines pertaining to life expectancies and infant
motality and measures of overall health system efficacy?

What about them? Sometimes you die. Get over it. I'd rather live with a
somewhat (slightly) less efficacious system if it ensures that I get to make
the decisions about my medical care. Liberty has costs, and that's one cost
I'm glad to bear in order to be free of government interference in my health
care choices.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:

What a MAROON!

Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the
Spanish.

What an idiot.

You certainly are. You're ignorant too.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser