4 ms·

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 i

by cf498 8y 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 8y 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.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    >If you dont want the comparison between the current system and none you have to be able to present an alternative. The problem with this is that you want a top-down defined system with a master ruling over you. I want an emergent system where free people interact for mutual benefit. Surely there is some tiny fraction of the population that will be unable to take care of themselves. I'm happy to have a discussion with you about how we help that tiny percent of the population. Helping them doesn't require that you turn my healthcare decisions over to Donald Trump. >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 suspect that if you had to rely entirely on the personal charity of others for your survival that you might be more inclined to behave in a pro-social manner. >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. You're being dishonest by painting a picture of a utopia where if I'll just turn over my healthcare decisions to Donald Trump then everyone will get the care they need when they need it. Can you even say out loud, "Donald Trump should decide what kind of medical care I deserve?" >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. I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I just believe that, in general, I am better able to make healthcare decisions for myself than Donald Trump. I also believe that emergent systems tend to be better than centrally planned ones. >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. In the scenario I'm describing there is no active harm to anyone. The worst case scenario is passively not aiding someone. Your scenario actively harms many for the benefit of the few.

by cf498 8y ago

Consultant32452 8y 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.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  >If you dont want the comparison between the current system and none you have to be able to present an alternative. The problem with this is that you want a top-down defined system with a master ruling over you. I want an emergent system where free people interact for mutual benefit. Surely there is some tiny fraction of the population that will be unable to take care of themselves. I'm happy to have a discussion with you about how we help that tiny percent of the population. Helping them doesn't require that you turn my healthcare decisions over to Donald Trump. >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 suspect that if you had to rely entirely on the personal charity of others for your survival that you might be more inclined to behave in a pro-social manner. >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. You're being dishonest by painting a picture of a utopia where if I'll just turn over my healthcare decisions to Donald Trump then everyone will get the care they need when they need it. Can you even say out loud, "Donald Trump should decide what kind of medical care I deserve?" >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. I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I just believe that, in general, I am better able to make healthcare decisions for myself than Donald Trump. I also believe that emergent systems tend to be better than centrally planned ones. >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. In the scenario I'm describing there is no active harm to anyone. The worst case scenario is passively not aiding someone. Your scenario actively harms many for the benefit of the few.