4 ms·

We already do. If you work less, you get paid less, thus can afford less food and shelter. You get lower unemployment benefits. For healthcare however, you get

We already do. If you work less, you get paid less, thus can afford less food and shelter. You get lower unemployment benefits. For healthcare however, you get the whole package, regardless.

piva00 4y ago
Your only value as a human is based on the compensation you get from your worldview, I'm not sure many would agree with you. If you are poor you are undeserving of care, regardless of why, your value as a human is directly attributed to how much a capitalist system values your labour. Don't you see the disconnection and how morally wrong this is?
- incrudible 4y ago
  I reject your conveniently naive framing. Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. The reality is that you might just as well be a properly compensated worker who chooses to work less, thus getting an unjustified discount on full healthcare. That is morally wrong. Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive. This framing of trying to attribute individual contributions to a distributed societal system is, frankly, stupid, shortsighted and extremely transactional. You can and should think in broader terms than pure transactional value of someone's contribution, these are all people, like you and me, not numbers in a population. This decharacterisation of human lives into pure economical terms is a machine-like view of lives, a rationality-taken-too-far instead of having a soul. Yes, somebody pays: everyone. Everyone contributing to make everyone's else lives better, if you can only think in transactional terms about lives I'm very sorry for you, it's a cynical way of living... > Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question. What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on? Just complexity, into a system that should take care of people, not transaction their lives. That's how you end up with the convoluted insurance system the USA has, which is absurd and stupid but needs to be that way because the USA likes to put everything into a transactional mindset. Why should we care if someone is contributing more or less if the system can work without forcing this micromanagement of tracking individuals and how much they are worth based on if they work full time or not? Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives. You can be better than that, morally, we all should. Adapt and imbue your transaction thinking with more compassion, you'd like someone to do that to your loved ones. Such extreme individualism is toxic, we are stronger together, as a species...
    - incrudible 4y ago
      > And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive. If the whole of society collectively decides that it doesn't want to do so much work for each other, because no matter how hard they work, the entitlements are the same, then everyone becomes less productive. It's not such a big deal if it's just healthcare, but the principle applies. > What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on? Welfare entitlements in general are special cases. Maybe there's no net upside in the final calculation, but then again, I'm arguing the principle. > Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives. Sure, whatever. This conversation has run its course.

We already do. If you work less, you get paid less, thus can afford less food and shelter. You get lower unemployment benefits. For healthcare however, you get the whole package, regardless.

piva00 4y ago

Your only value as a human is based on the compensation you get from your worldview, I'm not sure many would agree with you. If you are poor you are undeserving of care, regardless of why, your value as a human is directly attributed to how much a capitalist system values your labour. Don't you see the disconnection and how morally wrong this is?

incrudible 4y ago
I reject your conveniently naive framing. Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. The reality is that you might just as well be a properly compensated worker who chooses to work less, thus getting an unjustified discount on full healthcare. That is morally wrong. Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question.
- piva00 4y ago
  > Somebody has to work and pay for all the healthcare. And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive. This framing of trying to attribute individual contributions to a distributed societal system is, frankly, stupid, shortsighted and extremely transactional. You can and should think in broader terms than pure transactional value of someone's contribution, these are all people, like you and me, not numbers in a population. This decharacterisation of human lives into pure economical terms is a machine-like view of lives, a rationality-taken-too-far instead of having a soul. Yes, somebody pays: everyone. Everyone contributing to make everyone's else lives better, if you can only think in transactional terms about lives I'm very sorry for you, it's a cynical way of living... > Of course, accommodations can be made for those who absolutely can not afford healthcare otherwise, but that is a separate question. What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on? Just complexity, into a system that should take care of people, not transaction their lives. That's how you end up with the convoluted insurance system the USA has, which is absurd and stupid but needs to be that way because the USA likes to put everything into a transactional mindset. Why should we care if someone is contributing more or less if the system can work without forcing this micromanagement of tracking individuals and how much they are worth based on if they work full time or not? Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives. You can be better than that, morally, we all should. Adapt and imbue your transaction thinking with more compassion, you'd like someone to do that to your loved ones. Such extreme individualism is toxic, we are stronger together, as a species...
  - incrudible 4y ago
    > And that somebody is the whole of society, as a collective, supporting a system that is for the betterment of society as a whole, having less sick people in general makes a society happier, thus more productive. If the whole of society collectively decides that it doesn't want to do so much work for each other, because no matter how hard they work, the entitlements are the same, then everyone becomes less productive. It's not such a big deal if it's just healthcare, but the principle applies. > What do you gain by introducing exceptions, special cases, and so on? Welfare entitlements in general are special cases. Maybe there's no net upside in the final calculation, but then again, I'm arguing the principle. > Again, you are saying that people that work less or earn less are less deserving of care because they don't contribute as much, that's an absurd, inhumane and unempathetic view of human lives. Sure, whatever. This conversation has run its course.