29 ms·

I doubt I can convince you, but yes, no cancer patient should have to beg for their treatment. And yes, I think it is good that the government takes money from

by creata 6y ago

I doubt I can convince you, but yes, no cancer patient should have to beg for their treatment. And yes, I think it is good that the government takes money from its people to that end. The alternative is that the rich people decide who lives and dies, and I find that reprehensible.

jonfw 6y ago
The government deciding who lives and dies, however, is fine and OK?
- techsupporter 6y ago
  As opposed to private insurers (who routinely deny treatment for people deemed as "not sufficiently likely to recover," assuming they even bother applying a reason) or hoping that the charitable giving of a person's friends and families will carry the day? Absolutely. I will, with no hesitation, be fine with that trade. A government, or more broadly, a society has no requirement to earn a profit and every incentive to keep its citizens healthy and happy so as to be positive members of society in order to perpetuate that society. Remember that, in some areas of the country, fire protection is for-profit and if you didn't pay your fire company dues, your house will burn while you watch. Meanwhile, in the "socialist" areas with government-owned-and-operated fire departments, everyone's residence will receive at least some protection.
- groby_b 6y ago
  One, the government doesn't decide that. It's lovely propaganda, but it's just not what happens. Not in countries with decent healthcare, and not in the US. Two, if there's any body who would need to decide that, yes, the government would be a much more appropriate body than individuals - it is at least theoretically a representative of the whole population.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  I don't understand are you purposely deflecting or are did you not understand his point. Maybe it's easier if we used schooling as an example. Do you believe, today, that the government decides which children go to school? I think any reasonable argument would be no, the government, tries to ensure every child goes to school. Would you rather replace this with a system where children had to beg on gofundme for middle school tuition, where funding is implicitly decided by who has the best sob story and appeases the FB algorthim for that day. Replace school with health care and his point is clear.
- edoceo 6y ago
  You're right! It's better that for profit medical & insurance companies, with CEO compensation 800% higher than their average worker pay, makes these decisions.
nickff 6y ago
I agree that it would be best if everyone could receive a high standard of care without begging, but I would personally prefer this to be paid for with minimal government intervention. I believe that charity is good for both the donor and the recipient, as it creates a feeling of social connection, through more 'personal' institutions, and develops a sense of empathy in the participants, which is lacking in government programs.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Unfortunately people aren't charitable enough to sustain a population.

by creata 6y ago

jonfw 6y ago

The government deciding who lives and dies, however, is fine and OK?

techsupporter 6y ago
As opposed to private insurers (who routinely deny treatment for people deemed as "not sufficiently likely to recover," assuming they even bother applying a reason) or hoping that the charitable giving of a person's friends and families will carry the day? Absolutely. I will, with no hesitation, be fine with that trade. A government, or more broadly, a society has no requirement to earn a profit and every incentive to keep its citizens healthy and happy so as to be positive members of society in order to perpetuate that society. Remember that, in some areas of the country, fire protection is for-profit and if you didn't pay your fire company dues, your house will burn while you watch. Meanwhile, in the "socialist" areas with government-owned-and-operated fire departments, everyone's residence will receive at least some protection.
groby_b 6y ago
One, the government doesn't decide that. It's lovely propaganda, but it's just not what happens. Not in countries with decent healthcare, and not in the US. Two, if there's any body who would need to decide that, yes, the government would be a much more appropriate body than individuals - it is at least theoretically a representative of the whole population.
nemothekid 6y ago
I don't understand are you purposely deflecting or are did you not understand his point. Maybe it's easier if we used schooling as an example. Do you believe, today, that the government decides which children go to school? I think any reasonable argument would be no, the government, tries to ensure every child goes to school. Would you rather replace this with a system where children had to beg on gofundme for middle school tuition, where funding is implicitly decided by who has the best sob story and appeases the FB algorthim for that day. Replace school with health care and his point is clear.
edoceo 6y ago
You're right! It's better that for profit medical & insurance companies, with CEO compensation 800% higher than their average worker pay, makes these decisions.

nickff 6y ago

I agree that it would be best if everyone could receive a high standard of care without begging, but I would personally prefer this to be paid for with minimal government intervention. I believe that charity is good for both the donor and the recipient, as it creates a feeling of social connection, through more 'personal' institutions, and develops a sense of empathy in the participants, which is lacking in government programs.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Unfortunately people aren't charitable enough to sustain a population.