3 ms·

As I mentioned to another poster, it depends on your point of view. On one hand, I sympathize with people who believe in a minimal state, are are fearful of our

As I mentioned to another poster, it depends on your point of view. On one hand, I sympathize with people who believe in a minimal state, are are fearful of our (mostly shitty) government getting involved in the health care industry. It's uncaring if you believe that all people should have healthcare provided by the government and through taxation of other people whether they want it or not. It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. I am in favor of government run healthcare for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider the opposite point of view to be profoundly uncaring or amoral. In fact, I'd say that if you ignore that the intent of the ACA was to continue to entrench the government into the healthcare industry, it seems quite immoral to essentially guarantee corporate profits for health insurers. Neither the democrats or republicans in charge really want single-payer. I think at least the republicans are more honest about it.

mcphage 9y ago
> It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. Yeah, that pretty much is what "uncaring" is.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  You can care about people and think they should provide for themselves.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    And if they can't take care of themselves, and you leave them to rot, then no—you don't actually care about them.
    - muninn_ 9y ago
      You leave people to rot every day. Why aren't you paying for healthcare in Africa or paying for healthcare for people in rural West Virginia? So are you a hypocrite or callous? There is a far larger philosophical discussion to be had. Summarizing healthcare as "if you don't pay for it you don't care about people who die" is either a political talking point of no value, or a lack of philosophical training and understanding.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > So are you a hypocrite or callous? ...or merely not omnipotent? I don't do anything for healthcare in Africa, true, because I can only do so much, and so donate money to more local organizations. However, I don't think that they should be left to fend for themselves, and do want help to be provided—and so am supportive of organizations that help. That's a far cry from "I think people should fend for themselves", which conveniently ignores those that can't.
        muninn_ 9y ago
        Why not donate to Africans instead of those local to you?

mcphage 9y ago

> It's not uncaring if you believe that people should provide for themselves. Yeah, that pretty much is what "uncaring" is.

muninn_ 9y ago
You can care about people and think they should provide for themselves.
- mcphage 9y ago
  And if they can't take care of themselves, and you leave them to rot, then no—you don't actually care about them.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    You leave people to rot every day. Why aren't you paying for healthcare in Africa or paying for healthcare for people in rural West Virginia? So are you a hypocrite or callous? There is a far larger philosophical discussion to be had. Summarizing healthcare as "if you don't pay for it you don't care about people who die" is either a political talking point of no value, or a lack of philosophical training and understanding.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      > So are you a hypocrite or callous? ...or merely not omnipotent? I don't do anything for healthcare in Africa, true, because I can only do so much, and so donate money to more local organizations. However, I don't think that they should be left to fend for themselves, and do want help to be provided—and so am supportive of organizations that help. That's a far cry from "I think people should fend for themselves", which conveniently ignores those that can't.
      - muninn_ 9y ago
        Why not donate to Africans instead of those local to you?