3 ms·

He can afford it. Others can't. Why should he pay for them just because they have a lower value?

cortesoft 10y ago
So these 'lower value' people should just die when they get cancer? I find the idea that not being able to earn a high enough salary means you are unworthy of basic medical care repugnant.
- tylersmith 10y ago
  It depends on how much the people that know how to treat your cancer want to charge and if the hypothetical person with cancer can afford it. Nowhere else in the world do we say "This person can't afford this? Oh well we'll ignore it then. cortesoft finds it repugnant!" I wouldn't call cancer treatments "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
- brutus1213 10y ago
  If you read my post, I said I was in favor of this as long as it doesn't burden income earners. Some degree of health care and education are basic human rights in my opinion. If you want everyone to have the "Cadillac" health plan and education plan, you need to tell me how society will pay for it? And lets talk sustainable plans .. no more kicking down the can to our kids and grand kids. Finally, to all the negative commentators on my post, please read up on the difference between wealth and income. At current rents, factoring current child care costs, lack of pensions and existing tax rates, someone who makes 200K in California is worse off than someone who owns a detached house in Mountain View and a few other properties (by virtue of being here from the Orchard days), and then hides his/her income. I've seen too many people like that at this point in my life. Enough is enough.
Apocryphon 10y ago
To be blithe, it goes into the same ultimate goal of social welfare: to keep the not-well-off contented enough to prevent revolution. So he can either pay for programs to improve medical care in general, or he can pay for a militia to protect him should there be a class-based insurrection. That is the pragmatic principle behind taxation.

So these 'lower value' people should just die when they get cancer? I find the idea that not being able to earn a high enough salary means you are unworthy of basic medical care repugnant.

tylersmith 10y ago
It depends on how much the people that know how to treat your cancer want to charge and if the hypothetical person with cancer can afford it. Nowhere else in the world do we say "This person can't afford this? Oh well we'll ignore it then. cortesoft finds it repugnant!" I wouldn't call cancer treatments "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
brutus1213 10y ago
If you read my post, I said I was in favor of this as long as it doesn't burden income earners. Some degree of health care and education are basic human rights in my opinion. If you want everyone to have the "Cadillac" health plan and education plan, you need to tell me how society will pay for it? And lets talk sustainable plans .. no more kicking down the can to our kids and grand kids. Finally, to all the negative commentators on my post, please read up on the difference between wealth and income. At current rents, factoring current child care costs, lack of pensions and existing tax rates, someone who makes 200K in California is worse off than someone who owns a detached house in Mountain View and a few other properties (by virtue of being here from the Orchard days), and then hides his/her income. I've seen too many people like that at this point in my life. Enough is enough.

Apocryphon 10y ago

To be blithe, it goes into the same ultimate goal of social welfare: to keep the not-well-off contented enough to prevent revolution. So he can either pay for programs to improve medical care in general, or he can pay for a militia to protect him should there be a class-based insurrection. That is the pragmatic principle behind taxation.