4 ms·

Your choice to live by an absurdly low standard of care is what forces the rest of us to suffer from a low standard of care as well (against our will). Your req

Your choice to live by an absurdly low standard of care is what forces the rest of us to suffer from a low standard of care as well (against our will). Your request to "don't force me against my will" is hypocritical.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Please don't force me against my will to be limited to what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. How I choose to live or die is none of your business.
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  Are you trolling? Don't you understand that this goes both ways? By accepting this, you are forcing me against my will to be limited by what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. Again, your request is hypocritical and carries no merit.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    No, I'm not trolling. Your freedom ends where mine begins. If you want to turn your healthcare choices over to a third party then I have no intention of stopping you. What you're calling your "choice" is to enslave me against my will, to steal the fruits of my labor for your personal benefit. All I'm asking of you is that you don't enslave me. You are still free to participate in collective bargaining, turning over your healthcare choices to a third party, etc. You don't need me to do those things.
    - neverender 9y ago
      This is what libertarians actually believe, folks.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        As opposed to authoritarians who want to force me to ask the likes of Donald Trump for permission to get the kind of healthcare I want. I'll take the libertarian solution any day, thanks.
        m1n1 8y ago
        Do libertarians think it's wrong for the federal government to require hospitals provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay? Surgeons are forced to operate, which violates their personal freedom? Edit: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/libertarians_health_insurance https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/l...
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        I think this sentence is the key to the lack of understanding. >The problem is, it leads directly to the conclusion that "if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be entitled to any medicine." You are not entitled to anything from anyone even if you do have money. I'm curious if you've been following the popular show, The Handmaid's Tale. If you haven't, it's a show in which the human race is facing potential extinction because women are becoming infertile. To solve this problem they essentially enslave and repeatedly rape fertile women in the hopes of increasing the population. Now obviously this is an exaggerated scenario, but by what moral principal would you suggest that it's wrong to to enslave and rape women to save the human race? And why would you not apply that same moral principal to a surgeon and an individual patient? Does the moral principal no longer apply simply because the scale is different? What level of coercion are you willing to apply to the surgeon? If he won't help a bankrupt person will you remove his license and create an additional bankrupt person? That doesn't seem to be beneficial to society at all. The moral thing, of course, is for the surgeon to spend some portion of his time aiding those who cannot help themselves. And the moral thing, of course, is for all of us to help those who cannot help themselves by either providing our own time/labor or perhaps funding the surgeon so he can perform more "free" surgeries. Some people will certainly choose not to aid others, but that doesn't justify forcing them against their will.
- cf498 9y ago
  It becomes societies problem once you are about to die because you bet to not get an expensive disease and cant afford the care once it happens. You dont live in an isolated bubble. This boils down to a simply question. Is society ok with letting people die in the gutter because they cant care for themself as a result of having bet on not needing insurance? If not the discussion is moot. Because then the freedom of not being insured simply means people leeching on society once it happens.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    You are creating a false dichotomy where either sick people die in the gutter or you forcibly take everyone's resources to pay for it. Maybe society IS okay with letting people die in the gutter, but I suspect not. I am a member of society and I would not stand by while someone dies in the gutter. And you don't need to force me to subject myself to the kinds of healthcare options Donald Trump would pick for me in order to convince me to help someone dying in the gutter.
    - cf498 8y ago
      If you dont want the comparison between the current system and none you have to be able to present an alternative. In the system we live in if you arent insured, you are betting that you wont become a burden on the rest on society. You are betting on charity and thats a bet which society has to pay for if you loose. If you cant pay because of other circumstances thats fine, but if you dont share the burden out of principle and your own stubbornness, you are simply acting anti social and living off others. I am not saying it is either or, but if you boycott the current system without offering a new one its simply dishonest. Your actions still have consequences whether you like it or not. Fundamentalism is rarely a working model for society. Despite your motivations, your actions have effects in reality. They have effects on others. And no matter what you think might be possible, as long as its not, you are still betting on getting bailed out by the current system. We are all stuck with each other whether we like it or not and we have to find a way to coexist without actively seeking to harm each other for your own benefit.
      - 8y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

Please don't force me against my will to be limited to what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. How I choose to live or die is none of your business.

txcwpalpha 9y ago
Are you trolling? Don't you understand that this goes both ways? By accepting this, you are forcing me against my will to be limited by what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. Again, your request is hypocritical and carries no merit.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  No, I'm not trolling. Your freedom ends where mine begins. If you want to turn your healthcare choices over to a third party then I have no intention of stopping you. What you're calling your "choice" is to enslave me against my will, to steal the fruits of my labor for your personal benefit. All I'm asking of you is that you don't enslave me. You are still free to participate in collective bargaining, turning over your healthcare choices to a third party, etc. You don't need me to do those things.
  - neverender 9y ago
    This is what libertarians actually believe, folks.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      As opposed to authoritarians who want to force me to ask the likes of Donald Trump for permission to get the kind of healthcare I want. I'll take the libertarian solution any day, thanks.
      - m1n1 8y ago
        Do libertarians think it's wrong for the federal government to require hospitals provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay? Surgeons are forced to operate, which violates their personal freedom? Edit: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/libertarians_health_insurance https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/l...
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        I think this sentence is the key to the lack of understanding. >The problem is, it leads directly to the conclusion that "if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be entitled to any medicine." You are not entitled to anything from anyone even if you do have money. I'm curious if you've been following the popular show, The Handmaid's Tale. If you haven't, it's a show in which the human race is facing potential extinction because women are becoming infertile. To solve this problem they essentially enslave and repeatedly rape fertile women in the hopes of increasing the population. Now obviously this is an exaggerated scenario, but by what moral principal would you suggest that it's wrong to to enslave and rape women to save the human race? And why would you not apply that same moral principal to a surgeon and an individual patient? Does the moral principal no longer apply simply because the scale is different? What level of coercion are you willing to apply to the surgeon? If he won't help a bankrupt person will you remove his license and create an additional bankrupt person? That doesn't seem to be beneficial to society at all. The moral thing, of course, is for the surgeon to spend some portion of his time aiding those who cannot help themselves. And the moral thing, of course, is for all of us to help those who cannot help themselves by either providing our own time/labor or perhaps funding the surgeon so he can perform more "free" surgeries. Some people will certainly choose not to aid others, but that doesn't justify forcing them against their will.
cf498 9y ago
It becomes societies problem once you are about to die because you bet to not get an expensive disease and cant afford the care once it happens. You dont live in an isolated bubble. This boils down to a simply question. Is society ok with letting people die in the gutter because they cant care for themself as a result of having bet on not needing insurance? If not the discussion is moot. Because then the freedom of not being insured simply means people leeching on society once it happens.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  You are creating a false dichotomy where either sick people die in the gutter or you forcibly take everyone's resources to pay for it. Maybe society IS okay with letting people die in the gutter, but I suspect not. I am a member of society and I would not stand by while someone dies in the gutter. And you don't need to force me to subject myself to the kinds of healthcare options Donald Trump would pick for me in order to convince me to help someone dying in the gutter.
  - cf498 8y ago
    If you dont want the comparison between the current system and none you have to be able to present an alternative. In the system we live in if you arent insured, you are betting that you wont become a burden on the rest on society. You are betting on charity and thats a bet which society has to pay for if you loose. If you cant pay because of other circumstances thats fine, but if you dont share the burden out of principle and your own stubbornness, you are simply acting anti social and living off others. I am not saying it is either or, but if you boycott the current system without offering a new one its simply dishonest. Your actions still have consequences whether you like it or not. Fundamentalism is rarely a working model for society. Despite your motivations, your actions have effects in reality. They have effects on others. And no matter what you think might be possible, as long as its not, you are still betting on getting bailed out by the current system. We are all stuck with each other whether we like it or not and we have to find a way to coexist without actively seeking to harm each other for your own benefit.
    - 8y ago