10 ms·

So which are you arguing against, public healthcare or the mandates that hospitals admit emergency patients regardless of ability to pay?

nicetryguy 5y ago
Neither. You should consider other people for a change.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  > Neither. You should consider other people for a change. And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake. That is your argument not mine. I believe liberty means you can choose not to wear a seatbelt, and society can choose not to support your mistake. Personally I do not wear a seatbelt while riding a motorcycle, and if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery, but I don't believe I am owed that luxury by her or anyone else. Rather any support should be voluntary (through trade or voluntary charity). Your argument is rooted in a belief that people are owed something (either public healthcare, or at a bare minimum mandatory admission by hospital even if they cannot pay.) Because of that belief you seek to modify the behavior of others because of your selfish desire to minimize the cost of supporting them in the event of accident. The simple solution is to simply remove the support of society to remove that cost. You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life.
  - nicetryguy 5y ago
    > if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? > You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life. You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster? According to your infallible view of the rules and regulations of society we should just have four way free-for-alls and accept the risks of piloting tons of steel at unregulated speeds hurling towards each other and accept the inevitable consequences of mass death on a daily basis. I cannot prescribe to your worldview. I believe in road signs, traffic lights, and people being punished for breaking these rules with my tax dollars. I believe i am entitled by the government to a right to travel to point A to point B without legitimately fearing for my life on a daily basis. "Well some accidents happen so that means that traffic lights and road signs are completely useless. It's just the government infringing on my ability to hit an accelerator whenever i damn well please." Give me a break. You are narrow headed, selfish, foolish, and wrong.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      >What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would she engage in such risky behavior? Should I report her to CPS for child endangerment every time the child is taken somewhere in a vehicle for enjoyment (such as the park), exposing them to danger of horrible death by car accident? Could it be that we have a consensual agreement that we allow each other to engage in risky behavior as an understanding that we do not find life worth living without taking even unnecessary risks? Did I mention she rides the motorcycle too, also without a seatbelt? > Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster? Yes often it does. If it is 2am and no one is on the road I might run a red light rather than wait. Maybe you wouldn't. You may want to alert my local attorney general so I may be taken into custody promptly. >I believe i am entitled by the government to a right to travel to point A to point B without legitimately fearing for my life on a daily basis. That's a nice belief but you have no right to not fear for your life. If you don't fear for your life every time you drive, you must not live in any major US city. I fear for my life daily here, but no one forced me to get on the road so the risk is voluntary. Everyone else will not stop driving just because it makes you scared. >"Well some accidents happen so that means that traffic lights and road signs are completely useless. It's just the government infringing on my ability to hit an accelerator whenever i damn well please." Give me a break. You are narrow headed, selfish, foolish, and wrong. That's an excellent straw man. I design radar detectors and devices for detecting the evil guys doing traffic enforcement for a living. My job is literally to make sure people don't have to deal with the consequences of silly traffic laws. My life's work is channeling my hate of traffic control into devices that prevent new victims of the state. It feeds myself and my family. So yes I do not believe in people being punished for victimless crimes like speeding or running a light without property damage or physical harm. >According to your infallible view of the rules and regulations of society we should just have four way free-for-alls and accept the risks of piloting tons of steel at unregulated speeds hurling towards each other and accept the inevitable consequences of mass death on a daily basis. I have lived/travelled in 3rd world countries with almost no traffic enforcement such as Philippines, Syria, and Paraguay. It is probably dangerous, but somehow people survived. I road the taxis and motorcycles there and actually loved it. It is possible to drive in a way that reduces your risk even without traffic control devices. Believe it or not even in these countries people do not view driving as particularly risky part of their life and when I have questioned these 3rd world taxi drivers about their occupation they have not been nearly as worried as you are.

nicetryguy 5y ago

Neither. You should consider other people for a change.

quantumBerry 5y ago
> Neither. You should consider other people for a change. And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake. That is your argument not mine. I believe liberty means you can choose not to wear a seatbelt, and society can choose not to support your mistake. Personally I do not wear a seatbelt while riding a motorcycle, and if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery, but I don't believe I am owed that luxury by her or anyone else. Rather any support should be voluntary (through trade or voluntary charity). Your argument is rooted in a belief that people are owed something (either public healthcare, or at a bare minimum mandatory admission by hospital even if they cannot pay.) Because of that belief you seek to modify the behavior of others because of your selfish desire to minimize the cost of supporting them in the event of accident. The simple solution is to simply remove the support of society to remove that cost. You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life.
- nicetryguy 5y ago
  > if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? > You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life. You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster? According to your infallible view of the rules and regulations of society we should just have four way free-for-alls and accept the risks of piloting tons of steel at unregulated speeds hurling towards each other and accept the inevitable consequences of mass death on a daily basis. I cannot prescribe to your worldview. I believe in road signs, traffic lights, and people being punished for breaking these rules with my tax dollars. I believe i am entitled by the government to a right to travel to point A to point B without legitimately fearing for my life on a daily basis. "Well some accidents happen so that means that traffic lights and road signs are completely useless. It's just the government infringing on my ability to hit an accelerator whenever i damn well please." Give me a break. You are narrow headed, selfish, foolish, and wrong.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    >What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would she engage in such risky behavior? Should I report her to CPS for child endangerment every time the child is taken somewhere in a vehicle for enjoyment (such as the park), exposing them to danger of horrible death by car accident? Could it be that we have a consensual agreement that we allow each other to engage in risky behavior as an understanding that we do not find life worth living without taking even unnecessary risks? Did I mention she rides the motorcycle too, also without a seatbelt? > Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from point A to point B faster? Yes often it does. If it is 2am and no one is on the road I might run a red light rather than wait. Maybe you wouldn't. You may want to alert my local attorney general so I may be taken into custody promptly. >I believe i am entitled by the government to a right to travel to point A to point B without legitimately fearing for my life on a daily basis. That's a nice belief but you have no right to not fear for your life. If you don't fear for your life every time you drive, you must not live in any major US city. I fear for my life daily here, but no one forced me to get on the road so the risk is voluntary. Everyone else will not stop driving just because it makes you scared. >"Well some accidents happen so that means that traffic lights and road signs are completely useless. It's just the government infringing on my ability to hit an accelerator whenever i damn well please." Give me a break. You are narrow headed, selfish, foolish, and wrong. That's an excellent straw man. I design radar detectors and devices for detecting the evil guys doing traffic enforcement for a living. My job is literally to make sure people don't have to deal with the consequences of silly traffic laws. My life's work is channeling my hate of traffic control into devices that prevent new victims of the state. It feeds myself and my family. So yes I do not believe in people being punished for victimless crimes like speeding or running a light without property damage or physical harm. >According to your infallible view of the rules and regulations of society we should just have four way free-for-alls and accept the risks of piloting tons of steel at unregulated speeds hurling towards each other and accept the inevitable consequences of mass death on a daily basis. I have lived/travelled in 3rd world countries with almost no traffic enforcement such as Philippines, Syria, and Paraguay. It is probably dangerous, but somehow people survived. I road the taxis and motorcycles there and actually loved it. It is possible to drive in a way that reduces your risk even without traffic control devices. Believe it or not even in these countries people do not view driving as particularly risky part of their life and when I have questioned these 3rd world taxi drivers about their occupation they have not been nearly as worried as you are.