# Can anyone break this argument?



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*

*Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *

*Is this not a type of economic slavery?*

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful. 

Thanks for reading!


----------



## hortysir (Sep 18, 2010)

B could hire A and big gubmint will mandate B to insure A, regardless.


----------



## rikules (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> 
> Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?
> 
> ...




That's an interesting perspective.

here's a different perspective;

there's this country....
in which many people say "we are the GREATEST country in the world!"
but.....
there aren't enough jobs for everyone
so many people, through no fault of their own, don't have jobs
many other people work at lowpaying jobs earning barely enough to stay warm and eat but NOT get proper health care

millions and millions of people suffering and dying because in that GREAT COUNTRY SOME people have BILLIONS of dollars while other people have trouble paying the rent...

is that REALLY the greatest country in the world?

and what about the future;
more and more jobs (even in the military) being automated, computerized and turned over to robots...

meaning even FEWER jobs for people....
(maybe someday YOU won't have a job because a robot will be doing it and the CEO of your corporation can get EVEN RICHER!  won't that be nice?  and you, of course, won't complain, i'm sure) 

of course...
people who don't work because there are no jobs because wealthy people would rather keep ALL THE MONEY and use robots and computers to do as much work as possible are OBVIOUSLY deadbeats and deserve to just die on the streets....

in the greatest country in the world.....


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> ...



the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life; which is much more realistic.

its all relative to one's personal opinion.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

B wants to live in peace and security.  He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands.  B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> B wants to live in peace and security.  He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands.  B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.



B already invests in his community via private charity donations (edit: and local / state taxes)

Why must the government force him to do more? What gives the government that power?

also, answer the questions in bold.


----------



## ForestGirl (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't think your "argument" CAN be broken. Your perspective is spot on! The federal government continues to create and condone dependency.



> the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life.



Excellent response!


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?



IDK... when you fall and break your neck and cut your leg open, what have I done to owe it to you to call 911 and apply pressure to the wound?

I suppose it's the same thing the government did to ow it to us to not throw us all in internment camps and take over our industries.


> Is this not a type of economic slavery?



Really? You want to get into 'economic slavery', my capitalist friend?


> In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility.



...



> I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution



repre-what?

Which draft? The one before abolition?


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> ...



What is your point?



> Is this not a type of economic slavery?
> 
> Really? You want to get into 'economic slavery', my capitalist friend?



What is your point?



> In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility.
> 
> ...



What is your point?



> I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution
> 
> repre-what?
> 
> Which draft? The one before abolition?



What is your point?


--- Come on now, try to come up with an intelligent retort, instead of asinine ones. i believe in you.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2010)

Your evasion settles the matter. 

I rest my case.


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> 
> Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?
> 
> ...



its an interesting query. but to add to your hypothesis, i think we can assume that person B has a cadillac health care plan and person A gets the minimum treatment necessary. That isn't equal, nor am i saying it should be.

I think we can also assume that, in most instances, person A would very much like to achieve what person B did but, for whatever reason, he can't or hasn't.

That leaves us with a moral dilemma... since both person A and person B live in (I assume), the richest country on the planet, then we have to ask what kind of country we are. And what moral obligation do we have to care for the weakest, poorest and oldest among us as a society (since I'm assuming we're all people of good will and on a personal level we'd like to help someone in need if we can)

now, i'll assume person B is one of the 80% of us who is happy with their health coverage. That means that person A is one of the 20% of us who has no coverage. Does person A not have coverage because he lost his job because of a bad economy? Did he lose his coverage because he works for an employer who does not offer health insurance? Did he lose coverage because he had a pre-existing condition? or is person A a single mom whose deadbeat boyfriend got her pregnant because she never had sex education, lived in a small town and she and the boy were embarrassed to buy condoms? (since single moms are the largest group on welfare).

At that point, we then have to ask who should bear the cost of that remaining 20%? does each of us paying an additional 1% make the difference in the world we live in? Does paying for the single mom's job training and daycare so at some point she is self-sufficient make sense? or should we stamp our feet and say, 'too bad, chickadee, you got yourself into this mess and it wouldn't have happened if you kept your legs together".

Then what about the person who lost his job, has no insurance through his job or got cut off because of a pre-existing condition? Do we as a society share the cost? Do we make the insurance companies bear at least part of the cost (since they are, after oil companies = the second most profitable industry)? Do we prohibit them from cutting someone off if they get an expensive illness? Do we make healthier and younger people kick in to the system so it is more cost efficient?

i think there are a lot more issues than do you take care of deadbeats because you earn a living or not. 

Economic policy is also a question of morality.


> Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
> - Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:8


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> ...



Your points are well written and well said and I would like to say that your questions and the overall dilema is certainly sound. My specific argument is simply that person 'B' should not be put in the position of responsibility of the health care of 'A' simply because he is successful. Person 'A' does need help, however, my argument is simply that punishing person 'B' even though he personally donates to private charity, should be off the table, and other solutions be attempted to maintain equality.

Private charities need to be more emphasized over government bureaucracy and control in both the economic factor, and the equality factor; which is demoralized in the situation of a system of UHC.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > B wants to live in peace and security.  He also wants to be able to hire workers if and when his business expands.  B invests in the well-being of A (and others in his community) because it serves B's best interests to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.
> ...



B is certainly free to "invest" via charities.  However, his interests in living among others who have the basic necessities of life cannot be met that way.  The "government" has no power apart from the social contract among all men, A and B alike.  

I don't see anything in bold, sorry.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Your evasion settles the matter.
> 
> I rest my case.



I am simply asking for your point (or bottom line).


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2010)

Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.

I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



How do you know this (in bold) to be true?


----------



## boedicca (Sep 18, 2010)

Yes, it's economic slavery and there is nothing A can do to compensate B for being enslaved by the government to provide benefits to A.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.

How do I know a private charity cannot meet those needs?  Well, first, none ever has.  None has the eglatarian reach or the resources of government.  Health care (and I am not talking about "cadillac care") for the people one lives amongst adds to one's own health and security....and it's something I want for my community.

What should the government do with taxes, Liberty?  Just build bombs?


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.
> 
> I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.



You obviously did not read anything I said, completely off base, and I am slightly embarrassed for your intellectual articulation of proper debate.

Feel free to actually make a point any time you wish that is based in reality. Perhaps reading is a good first start.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 18, 2010)

Maddy,

Nonsense.  That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.



I am not advocating 'A' go die in a ditch or anything. I am simply arguing from a philosophical stand point that essentially forcing 'B' to pay for 'A' is against the principles of equality which is what people have been fighting for in America since day one. there has got to be a better way to take care of 'A' without sacrificing essential principles such as equality.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.
> 
> I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.



Ah so people who worked for their money are no different then hereditary kings who had it handed to them and stole it from the masses. 

Interesting. 

I see the liberal school system is doing it's class warfare job very well indeed.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty, you ignore the value to B if all the A's he lives among are receiving some basic health care.
> ...




Fail. It conflicts with liberty. It is the pursuit of equality.


There's a word for absolute liberty: Somalia.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Liberty stems from the concept of the rule of law. I really have no time, and it is off topic, for me to educate you on Locke's concept of liberty. I will simply say that liberty can not exist without the rule of law. The rule of law is what stabilizes a free society, by punishing those individuals who forcefully remove the liberty of other individuals (theft, murder, etc.) Synonymic comparisons between liberty and anarchy, is simply incorrect comparison. Please read some John Locke or educate yourself in some way. This is basic philosophical knowledge. Also, please refrain from attempting to derail this thread from here on out. Stay on topic.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Maddy,
> 
> Nonsense.  That assumes that B thinks his purpose in life is to support a bunch of As.



B does have a social obligation to support some A's, boedicca.  Kids who have been removed from their homes for their own protection.  Prisoners.  Severely disabled people.  Etc.

It's those who are ready, willing and able to work but have no income, or none sufficient to pay for basic health care that cause such heartburn.  My contention is, I don't want poor women in my community going without pre-natal care because they have no health insurance.  I don't want elderly people giving up their insulin for that reason.  Etc.  I feel more secure, healthier and more optimistic about my community (and my ability to make a good living there) if all the members of it receive at least basic health care.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Maddy,
> ...



Is there a solution that does not damage the liberty of 'B', and his right to the fruits of his labor to care for 'A's needs?


----------



## boedicca (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Maddy,
> ...





No, B may choose to help the As of his own free will because he values them - but he is under no obligation to do so.

As your post indicates, you value providing help to others.  There are a lot of people who do feel this way.   Those who do should be able to donate their hard earned dollars to the charities of their choice which do far more good than bureaucratic and often rife with fraud government programs.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 18, 2010)

> If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?



This is a classic political-philosophical question that people have been contemplating for centuries.  To what degree are people responsible to their fellow man?  People have concluded that pure laissez faire capitalism does not work and that pure socialism does not work.  Why is it that B should NOT be responsible for &#8216;A&#8217;?  You are using circular logic to say that he should keep it because he earned it.  It would be as if I were to argue that &#8216;B&#8221; should give it to &#8216;A&#8217; so that &#8216;A&#8217; does not die in the street. 

There is no simple answer.  It comes down to a difference of opinion about to what degree people should be required to help their fellow human beings.  

Here is my reply:  B (by his good fortune to be in a relatively free society, and by his being intelligent and resourceful enough, and by being able to receive a education, is in  a position to help those less fortunate.  It is simply the right thing that he be required to do so to an extent. Society has concluded that we will not have desperately needy people starve on the street.  We will have government serve as a safety net for those who have nowhere else to turn.   

I like your signature line.  To play devil&#8217;s advocate, I&#8217;d say that Capitalism is so good that those who can&#8217;t survive it should be swept out of the way. 



Liberty said:


> Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it?



&#8216;A&#8217;, to the best of his ability (considering to what degree he might be mentally retarded or severely physically handicapped) is responsible for trying to become self-reliant. 



Liberty said:


> Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing?



Yes



Liberty said:


> Will the government force people to modify their behavior?[/ QUOTE=Liberty;2748304]
> I&#8217;m not a fortune-teller
> 
> 
> ...



There is a middle ground.  If someone has $1,000,000,000 to spare, does he really lose any significant degree of liberty if he is required to give $1,000 to someone in need?  The question is not whether or not to draw the line but where to draw the line.



> I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representation of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.



During the founding, slavery was condoned.  Women were forbidden from voting.  There was little concern about taking land from the Indians.  Times change.  We should not resort to a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  If we did so, then private citizens can have ICBM&#8217;s and animal sacrifices would be allowed.  Read the Bill of Rights. Finally, what is to happen to those who, due to severe mental retardation will never be self-reliant and cant find adequate help in the private sector.  If it comes to it, are such human beings to be cast away to die in the streets?


----------



## hortysir (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Maddy,
> ...


So it's the Government's job to determine when that "social obligation" has been met??


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Thanks. Compliment returned. 

I understand your arguments. And I answered the way I did because I think these types of questions are important. I also dont think complex problems lead themselves to simplistic answers. It's not that I think private charity should be off the table, but I think its clear that they are inadequate. Am I all for upping our private charity involvement? Of course. Go to it! Donate to your favorite. But to whom would you give the money to help person A with his or her medical coverage? Doctors? Planned parenthood? This organization?Free Medical Clinics, Free Dental Clinics, Free Medical Help All over USA 

Ultimately, I think it is all of our responsibilities because it is the right thing to do.... and because we who have been blessed with ability, drive and circumstances that perhaps others haven't been blessed with, should help out... for most of us it changes our life very little. 

Don't you think moral issues should come into these decisions?

or is it like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIW-eIAJxE]YouTube - GodSpell - All For The Best[/ame]


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

Well, B's liberty is a bit existential for me, Liberty.  Let's deal with his right to the fruits of his labor.

What if B pays nothing at all for social services of any kind?  No police, no justice system, no CPS, no Adult Services, zippety doh-dah.  I think we can agree, can we not, that B has a significantly lower quality of life?  The reason humans live in groups is to enjoy each other's society, and that is impossible if all mutual aid from the government ceases.

So if B has a higher quality of life as a result of some government aid, then can we really say all B's gross receipts belong to him?  What if B learned his trade at a government-sponsored school, and A has paid taxes every year but this one?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Very refreshing to see Civil Debate. Such a rarity on these boards. Kutos to you both


----------



## boedicca (Sep 18, 2010)

Public safety (police, fire fighters) are not social services.   They don't exist to transfer income from one group to another (unless one focuses on the unionized aspect).


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



It is, but hortySir, the government is us.  We determine what amount of mutual aid each of us wants made available via the government.  I may want more, you may want less.  We disagree, hold elections and viola', we get a result.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> > If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for a great response! I disagree a TINY BIT with a couple things, but overall you have some excellent points and i would like to think about it before responding.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Government has sadly proved itself to be grossly inefficient, ripe with corruption, and millions upon millions of dollars either disappearing entirely, or wasted on pet projects. Legitimate private charity organizations can guarantee one thing that government bureaucracy can not: Proof the money you donated went where it is supposed to.


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Thanks... but just to opine... might it not have at least a little to do with the fact that the conversation didn't start with anything like 'libbie.. .blahblah... or rightwingers... blahblah? amazing how beginning with civility begets citility.

also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Public safety (police, fire fighters) are not social services.   They don't exist to transfer income from one group to another (unless one focuses on the unionized aspect).



Safety forces are a form of mutual aid, boedicca.  And more importantly, I am secure in my home in my (fairly) nice neighborhood, even though nearby thousands live in dire poverty, because my neighborhood is adequately patrolled.  If the impoverished I live near are driven even further into despair, my choices are to alleviate some of their suffering or build a wall.

I choose not to live behind a wall...I think it's anti-American and inhumane.


----------



## rikules (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



"the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life; which is much more realistic."


I understand.

however
if a person doesn't have a job, so no money,
(assuming that we do away with ALL welfare/government subsidies (except for corporations and christian churches, of course)
that person doesn't have as much freedom or liberty or choice as you suggest


I also understand your use of the word "utopia"

however
I am NOT talking about a "utopia"

merely a country in which all the citizens, even those at the bottom, have comfortable and decent lives.

is that so bad?

I do NOT believe in EQUAL DISTRIBUTION of wealth

I have no problem with SOME PEOPLE "earning" more than others

I am opposed to cradle to the grave welfare but would gladly accept TEMPORARY WELFARE and education for people who need it UNTIL THEY ARE READY  to reenter the job market

but when more and more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people...
while MORE and MORE people live in poverty
and can't afford decent health care
then I think something is wrong.

now...
I do NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!

so don't bother asking me for it....


----------



## hortysir (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


So long as we agree on that point, and gubmint isn't our nanny, you're right


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

> Liberty wrote:
> 
> Government has sadly proved itself to be grossly inefficient, ripe with corruption, and millions upon millions of dollars either disappearing entirely, or wasted on pet projects. Private charity guarantees one thing that government bureaucracy can not: Proof the money you donated went where it is supposed to.



Government does not have to be inefficient or rife with fraud, Liberty.  And private charities can and have fallen prey to fraud as well.  But the fact remains a private charity cannot deliver as much to as many.  None has the reach or the resources.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, B's liberty is a bit existential for me, Liberty.  Let's deal with his right to the fruits of his labor.
> 
> What if B pays nothing at all for social services of any kind?  No police, no justice system, no CPS, no Adult Services, zippety doh-dah.  I think we can agree, can we not, that B has a significantly lower quality of life?  The reason humans live in groups is to enjoy each other's society, and that is impossible if all mutual aid from the government ceases.
> 
> So if B has a higher quality of life as a result of some government aid, then can we really say all B's gross receipts belong to him?  What if B learned his trade at a government-sponsored school, and A has paid taxes every year but this one?



Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



That sounds fine, but who can have legitimate authority to accurately dictate exactly what is "a decent life"? No human being can have that power as it is different for each individual...


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.



then let me ask another question. say B opts out of paying his pro rata part of A (and all the A's care)... and that increases the burden on the rest of society... is B then acting in a responsible way toward others of us who are similiarly situated?


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.



Eh...you know, the whole reason I thought USMB would be nice to sign up for is honestly not only to try to spread my own views, but to learn and see others views (assuming they were rational, logical, etc). The amount of utter trash lately has me somewhat demoralized but i will try to be better overall. I am damn tired though I think I'm going to take a nap. If I don't post for a couple hours just be patient. I am learning a lot so far in this thread and there has been some interesting points.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

This is an excellent thread, Liberty.  There's nuisance and silliness posted here on USMB, but there's a lot of thought provoking stuff as well.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to think that 'B' should have the choice of whether or not to be a part of social programs, whether the provider or the receiver. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to respond to that due to a personal lack of knowledge of the intricacies. Take that as you will.
> ...



the responsibility, if this is the case, must be mutual. 'B' has no responsibility to 'A', if 'A' has 4 STDs, lung disease due to smoking, and 20% of a working liver due to drinking. The dilemma is "who gets to decide?" and "What gives them the power to decide?"

The fog over those questions makes me very skeptical and concerned by the implications of UHC on all of American society. Power corrupts...especially if that power involves the very life of a person. I do not see enough reason to trust any government entity with this kind of power, simply because of the failure of their management of other implemented programs.


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > also liberty and i have had some interesting convos. he thinks i'm okay for a leftie.
> ...



no problem. i had my nap already and we're going for a yom kippur walk now anyway. (need to kill some time til sundown). so i'll check back later.

it's so rare lately to actually have an interesting conversation about things that matter... between all the 'jews suck/arabs suck' convos... and rightwingnut/demonRAT convos" i get bored and lose patience with the people who start those discussions. something like this is pure fun.

thanks.


----------



## jillian (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



what if A is incapable because of illness or infirmity?

what if anyone else is asked to provide a public service? e.g., do a job that earns their keep or do job training?

or... what if insurance companies have to do their bit, too?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty.  But before addressing it, answer me this:

Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?

Here's my list:

All pre-natal

All childhood vaccines

Well baby care

Life saving procedures, not to include heroic measures

Is this a list you could agree to?


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty.  But before addressing it, answer me this:
> 
> Is there any health care at all you'd want to see delivered to all your fellow citizens regardless of their ability to pay?
> 
> ...



I would agree to that if the monetary requirement is provided by all economic classes equally. I have problem accepting the notion of progressive tax because of the inequality of it. I understand that someone has a billion dollars, but it has got to be based in fairness. There has got to be a way.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Well, i'm honestly not sure as the point about 'A' having the responsibility to be healthy would in theory have to be enforced in some way, which I would disagree with as i believe a person has the right to damage their own body as much as they want (maintaining that the person hurting themselves are not physically detrimental to the liberty of any other individual). This point comes around back to my original thesis which is that 'B' should have no responsibility to 'A' if government can not force a responsibility onto 'A' ; which is obviously a severe encroachment on 'A's individual liberty.

Community colleges and tech schools are great assets to society, as they are paid for by local taxes, have relatively relaxed entrance criteria, and provide a great foundation for future career advancement. I hope this addresses your questions, if not I apologize. I am a tad out of it to be honest.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > > If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> ...



Thanks for the considerate civil reply.  

There will always be those who cant make it on their own.  For them, I think that we can agree that there should continue to be government-run hospitals.  There are the severely mentally disturbed with no resources to buy their own care and who cant find appropriate private charities.  Police will pick them up on the side of the road and take them to appropriate tax-supported services.  What percentage of the pan-handling homeless people that you might pass by is truly needy (perhaps needing just a temporary hand up or even life-time support) and what percentage is just lazy? If you say that 95 percent are lazy, then what are we to do with the remaining 5%?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Private health insurance companies do try to encourage healthy life-styles.  In applying for insurance, an applicant is sometimes asked about his height/weight ratio.  If the applicant is overweight, he is often required to pay a higher premium.  If he smokes, he often has to pay a higher premium.  I see a dilemma.  You cant financially penalize those who have no money but need health insurance.  Yet, government could possibly reward the indigent who try to live a healthy life style.  

On a tangent, those receiving unemployment benefits are obligated to look for work.  The beneficiaries may be called on at any time to provide a list of prospective employers that were visited.  Similarly, I think that those on various government assistance programs must jump through certain hoops (demonstrate that they are trying to better themselves) in order to continue receiving help.  Still, as I said before, there will be those who try but never succeed.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty.  But before addressing it, answer me this:
> ...



If we try and discuss progressive taxation as well, we aren't likely to get far.  But if we agree there is some amount of health care we want all our fellow citizens to receive, can we also agree that government is the best means to distribute this aid?

After this (and I'm by no means discounting how hard the choices are), all that's left to argue over is whether that list is exhaustive.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The lifestyle question is provocative, Liberty.  But before addressing it, answer me this:
> ...



Would you repeal EMTALA?

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986... It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing EMERGENCY healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ABILITY TO PAY. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. (Emphasis is my own).


----------



## Madeline (Sep 18, 2010)

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



I don't disagree with you, Liberty.  A does owe B something...everyone in a social group has some duty to all his fellow men.  Exactly what A owes is harder to define, as we know there are myriad reasons why A is broke.  On the whole, I'd agree A owes B and all his fellow men to become self-sufficient if he can.

So, for example, A is a 16 year old girl with a newborn baby.  I'd be willing to underwrite education and day care etc. for her and the baby, so she can get on her feet.  But I'd also be willing to extract from her a promise not to have more kids unless and until she does...and there is birth control available now that is suitable for this purpose.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 20, 2010)

boedicca said:


> No, B may choose to help the As of his own free will because he values them - but he is under no obligation to do so.



So if you're being accosted, I've no moral obligation to intervene?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 20, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> Id say that Capitalism is so good that those who cant survive it should be swept out of the way.


----------



## rikules (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



so
what you are saying is;

conservatives should start dieting, exercising, stop smoking tobacco and start eating healthy foods to minimize the dangerous of obesity, heart disease, diabetes because YOU
don't want to be  a slave is who forced to pay for the irresponsible lifestyles of these people?


I agree.

why should a gay guy or a single guy/female have to pay for insurance and towards
medicare/medicaid that is being DRAINED by people with irresponsible lifestyles?

and why should single people be forced to pay into an insurance system or medicare/medicaid  that is being OVERLY TAXED by married conservatives with wives and too many children?


----------



## FireGod (Sep 20, 2010)

This thread was going along so good too


----------



## Liberty (Sep 20, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> ...



you missed the point completely. From a philosophical stand point, those who advocated UHC (not me) and it's logical conclusion would be control over the lifestyles of individuals. If you want to go fuck hookers and get crabs, fine, but don't BILL ME FOR YOUR MEDICAL BILLS! Get it?

I believe anyone can damage their own bodies as much as they want if it does not impede on the liberty of other individuals. Any law that restricts the life style of individuals is obviously tyrannical and the wrong direction if you value liberty. Thus, UHC violates liberty.

I am for private charity to provide for the truly needy. Some say that isn't enough, but before you say that, let's give it a try. I have faith in the person, not in government...


----------



## boedicca (Sep 20, 2010)

There is one major reason why we should all be leery of the Government providing Health Insurance/Care to Those In Need:   it makes what care they receive Everybody's Business.

There is a special level in Hell where one's life is not one's own, and is bandied about by other people's opinions, preferences, biases, and plain old busybodiness.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 20, 2010)

The breakable part of this scenario is, businesses do not ultimately pay for health care or taxes.  Costs associated with the product or service offered by the business are all passed on to consumers.  Some services and products are easier than others to pass these costs on.  For those that can't, they lose their business and pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Twofox (Sep 20, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> > If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to agree.  There is a middle ground there somewhere.  Gov't should be involved only to the extent that they allow us as a nation to have that safety net in place.  Ever draw unemployment because you lost your job?  Same concept.  Building an institution that isn't corrupt or mired down with red tape is also an important topic to discuss along with this.

B has no obligation to A, but anyone paying taxes should be able to expect that those tax dollars are being spent correctly and getting to where they need to be.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Can anyone break this argument? 

yep, just watch Moe do it...

[youtube]M8Pk1UYkB3I[/youtube]

if I were to argue that &#8216;B&#8221; should give it to &#8216;A&#8217; so that &#8216;A&#8217; does not


----------



## Liberty (Sep 20, 2010)

just ignore the troll.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

just consider the vapidness/vapidity of the OP question.


----------



## rikules (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...




I don't know where the line should be drawn

I do know that lines HAVE been drawn before...

there was a day when coal miners lived in shacks, and worked in DEADLY conditions for slave wages, 6 days a week...

these people lived miserable and pathetically poor lives while the coal mine owners got richer and richer

unfettered capitalists had drawn a line;

"YOU will do ALL the work 6 days a week, 12 hours  a day for NO MONEY and you WILL DIE EARLY because of black lung!"
"while we will REAP ALL the rewards and build MANY big mansions all over the country"


that was a very bad place to draw the line

so unions and politicians worked to move that line;
the owners were still getting rich and now the workers were living better, too....

things are still pretty good, today, in fact..better....;

reasonable working hours, plenty of time off, 3 and 4 and 5 day work weeks, health benefits, holiday pay....

and most workers live decent lives in nice housing....
and can afford good things for their families....

(btw...this reminds....."it's a wonderful life" was voted (by conservatives in the national review)  as the greatest "conservative movie" ever made (back in the 1990's)...and one of the points jimmy steart makes in that movie is about workers living in decent housing and living decent lives......)

however
the basic question of this thread is "should government be involved in fettering the hands of capitalism in defense and protection  of workers

I fear that if you tie the hands of government then big business will not behave in a moral manner
and we'd all be living in shacks again (I mean really...what right do we have asking for a decent livable wage simply because we do all the work for megacorp if it means the owners of megacorp can't buy another yacht?)

there's is currently an acceptable line drawn....

I would not want to see us go back to an earlier, more repressive time


----------



## rikules (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



I think you miss the point completely....

if in the given scenario it is deemed unfair  for B to have to give of his own for the benefit of A then, in my scenario I would ask "why should single people pay more into a system that benefits married people with children" (who pay LESS because of tax breaks for their families)?

or why should people who don't need much medical care because they are responsible for their own health and diets have to pay for people who refuse to take care of their own health and diets?

let's be REALLY fair and give NO tax breaks for families
That merely unfairly punishes single people 
and let's deny people B with unhealthy life styles who stuffed themselves with fatty foods and refused to diet or exercise the opportunity to drain insurance or medicare or medicaid and make them pay for their own medical expenses so that C doesn't have to



and now I want to know why you think B giving for A's benefit is BAD (or fiscal slavery of some kind) but think that it's fine for C to have to pay MORE for B's benefit


----------



## Liberty (Sep 20, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 20, 2010)

rikules said:


> there's is currently an acceptable line drawn....
> 
> I would not want to see us go back to an earlier, more repressive time





Actually you do.  You want us to go back to a modern form of FEUDALISM in which The State (this time run by a Secular Elite instead a Monarch) takes the bulk of one's productivity and doles out sustenance, while the ruling elite live large on our "surplus".


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 20, 2010)

I haven't scanned replies so maybe I am repeating someone, but this thought experiment posits two extremes and assumes they constitute reality. There are a great number of counters that threaten the stability of the premise.

Was the poverty stricken person always poor? One can assume not as most everyone exists in some social structure that supports the person, and thus the social setting. That being the case either the poor person or their family has provided monies to the state and as such under the laws of the state is able to gain assistance when needed. 

There is also the responsibility of the shop owner to the society that provides them sustenance.  No business operates in a vacuum, and thus they have a responsibility to pay for the social infrastructure in which hey operate. paying taxes etc are just part of the social agreement we make as citizens. 

This so called unbreakable argument has no basis in a real world. I haven't time now to list more arguments against so simplistic a point of view.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 20, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> I haven't scanned replies so maybe I am repeating someone, but this thought experiment posits two extremes and assumes they constitute reality. There are a great number of counters that threaten the stability of the premise.
> 
> Was the poverty stricken person always poor? One can assume not as most everyone exists in some social structure that supports the person, and thus the social setting. That being the case either the poor person or their family has provided monies to the state and as such under the laws of the state is able to gain assistance when needed.
> 
> ...



it's a philosophical argument meant to stimulate debate on the relationship between government and the fruits of an individual's labor. Ever hear of a platonic dialog? Something like that. Read the whole thread you might learn something.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



Racist!


----------



## Oddball (Sep 20, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> There is also the responsibility of the shop owner to the society that provides them sustenance.  No business operates in a vacuum, and thus they have a responsibility to pay for the social infrastructure in which hey operate. paying taxes etc are just part of the social agreement we make as citizens.


That's why he pays his fuel taxes, city sewer and water, electric bills and other infrastructure costs, not a just rationale why he should be shaken down, under threat of criminal prosecution, to pay for services rendered to indigents.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.



I agree.  Yet, what if there are some mentally handicapped indigent and ignorant adults (practically abandoned by friends and family) who dont know how/where to go for charity?  What if, provided that such people find prospective shelters, there is no vacancy?  People might be too stingy with their wealth to give to those in need.   There might be too many needy people and not enough giving in the private charity to go around? 

I consider the safety net provided by government (tax money) to be a necessary evil for the over-all good of society.  The issue for me, if there is one, is in deciding how much of a safety net is needed and how long it should be available for each supposedly needy individual.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Remember, B has money because he runs a business (as opposed to inheriting it, etc.).  B has customers, suppliers, etc.  This is one reason B chooses to live among his neighbors, one of who is A.  

In choosing to live there and in profiting from the commerce of/with his neighbors, B runs up a debt to them.  We call this debt "taxes".  How high that debt should be is debatable, but IMO -- and I freely admit, this is a personal opinion -- B is best served and in fact does owe for some portion of the cost of health care of some sort for A whilst A is unable to pay those costs alone.

We keep talking about how much we should "take" from B...but what about what we "take" from A for B's benefit?  What about the government resources dedicated to facilitating B's business that could otherwise have been dedicated to A's well-being?  As a member of the community, doesn't A have some right to a portion of the government's largess, just as B does?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 20, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.
> 
> I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.



Actually, his challenge is that you justify your position. Since you are incapable of doing that, you have to resort to idiocy, which you excel at.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 20, 2010)

I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case.  That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person.  So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them?  Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later.  Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas.  The same is true for healthcare.  Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.  

So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare.  And who picks up the bill on all of these issues?  Tax-payers.  The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees.  Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.  

But you see, we're not on a desert island.  It's not person B paying person A.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 20, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case.  That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person.  So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them?  Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later.  Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas.  The same is true for healthcare.  Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.
> 
> So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare.  And who picks up the bill on all of these issues?  Tax-payers.  The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees.  Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.
> 
> But you see, we're not on a desert island.  It's not person B paying person A.



fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



1.  Are the poor, these non-taxpayers, not entitled to protection by law enforcement?  Firefighters? Access to the courts?  Public Education?  Are they not entitled to use the highways, public libraries, public parks?  The logical application of Wilkow's premise would say no, they are not entitled.  

2.  If the poor receive public funding for their healthcare, it is because the People, through their elected representatives,  have decided to approve that funding.  The democratic process that decides what does or doesn't become law, what is or isn't done with public money, is the process our Constitution established.  It does however necessarily produce winners and losers.  If there weren't enough votes for what you wanted, well, the democratic process, although it WORKED, didn't happen to work to your advantage in that case.

There is no system that can make everyone happy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> [fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.
> 
> States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.



Wilkow's argument in principle doesn't change just because it's a state government.  That's absurd.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 20, 2010)

Liberty said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case.  That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person.  So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them?  Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later.  Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas.  The same is true for healthcare.  Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.
> ...



Well first, not all states can do it.  Some are too poor or too overpopulated.  Others have large rural areas it would never be possible to adequately serve.  When you rule out the federal gov't paying the freight, you also rule out the revenues that level of government can offer...I'm not sure why you think state governments would be superior distributors of health care, Liberty, but the fact is they just cannot pay for it.


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 21, 2010)

Liberty said:


> [it's a philosophical argument meant to stimulate debate on the relationship between government and the fruits of an individual's labor. Ever hear of a platonic dialog? Something like that. Read the whole thread you might learn something.



In other words you have no reply? And if it were a Philo discussion other points of view would move the debate, but you seem stuck in a libertarian universe of self interest, or pejoratively greed.

Additional comments:

Being a member of a society is not a tit for tat formula. The person in need may have been a veteran either down on their luck, or in need of help. If injuries are serious no one denies the vet the care, so why in lesser cases should we. The person in need may just be in need, if an animal appears on TV desolate and in need, much help arrives, how it the human animal is not treated the same. 

Supporting the society that provides stability has other agreements and potentialities that are neglected in the narcissistic premise of the OP. The shop owner is not alone in the world and may have family requiring help. The only direct transfer is in the rhetoric of example. Would the shop owner deny support for children in need of help even when the child's parents are having a hard go of it?

The shop owner may someday require support. Just as any business owner requires customers, a society requires a degree of fairness and shared responsibilities. The social infrastructure works as a whole to support the business and the customers regardless of their current position. The Golden Rule social premise operates here, even though I think contemporary religion in America has lost its soul. 


"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13


----------



## California Girl (Sep 21, 2010)

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?
> ...



Anyone who thinks they would be better off in another country, is welcome to leave.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

It is a pursuit of happiness, life and liberty.  That means opportunity, not a guarantee.  A goal to WORK for, not be handed.

rikules, we give away so much of our taxes to other nations.  I guess when you do that, it is the government who is allowing those people to go hungry.  Why is it they value other nation's people more than our own?


----------



## Twofox (Sep 21, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



The problem with that scenario is that B is paying taxes while A is not.  It depends on if A is legitmately unable to pay taxes or is simply leaching off of society.  We need safety nets, but not for those who wish to leach off of society.

Besides, B running a business doesn't mean much.  He could be making just enough to survive on while running his business.  Believe it or not, there are business owners who live below the poverty line.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 21, 2010)

If B runs his business at or below the break-even point, he'll pay no income taxes.  A pays taxes on his purchases and on other transactions -- no adult in America is a "non-taxpayer", although many pay no _income_   tax.

But this is not quite my point.  A may be one of B's customers, or potential customers.  Is B better off if A and all like him die off?  Certainly not.  Has B "earned" all his gross receipts?  Certainly not...some portion of them are attributable to the orderly society he does business in, an order partially attributable to A and others like him.  An order enforced by government, which B must help to fund.

This libertarian belief that we "steal" from one another when we mutually agree to pay for some government services is bizarre-o.  It's akin to complaining we "steal" when we buy fire insurance, especially if it is _our_  home that burns.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 21, 2010)

Liberty said:


> fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.
> 
> States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.



While your point regarding what's written on various pieces of paper is accurate, please understand that I really don't care about much outside the concept.  The title of the thread is to break the argument, which I did.  It did not request I do so within the constraints of your interpretation of documents, or how you believe government ought to be run.



Twofox said:


> The problem with that scenario is that B is paying taxes while A is not.  It depends on if A is legitmately unable to pay taxes or is simply leaching off of society.  We need safety nets, but not for those who wish to leach off of society.



I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.  The problem however is how to respond, GIVEN both possibilities.  We can err on the side of stinginess to ensure no one leaches, or err on the side of giving, allowing many people healthcare who need it and are legit, at the cost of allowing some leaches.


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



Modern conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Every other industrialized country has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 22, 2010)

Liberty said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case.  That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person.  So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them?  Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later.  Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas.  The same is true for healthcare.  Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.
> ...



Well first, this has nothing to do with the social contract you wanted discussed in your Op.  Beyond that, it is not how the Gang of Nine has interpreted the constitution.  It's interesting and fun to discuss whether the Supremes have gotten it right, but it's not quite accurate to say "that is not constitutional" when they have the only power to decide the question, and have found that it is.


----------



## sitarro (Sep 22, 2010)

This discussion is adorable, obviously none involved have ever worked for a very large company. Humans lie, cheat, break rules and do whatever they can to get over on each other. If a company has been around for very long they will have rules that make all accountable because there are those that refuse to be. That is what's so funny about the simpletons that want to blame everything on evil corporations........ try looking around you, look at yourselves, what do you do that you justify because it's some big corporation that deserves to be gotten over on. What bullshit story have you told an insurance company because what they don't know, it's their fault, it's your right to take advantage of them because they are in business to take advantage of you?! That is the reality of living on this planet. Those that try to do the right thing, do their job correctly, care about helping others are taken advantage of by those that want to get by with the least amount of effort. 
Those that have been brainwashed into thinking that only the rich take advantage are naive imbeciles that walk around with blinders on. 
I have known people that were getting numerous checks from Medicare and assorted other government welfare because they were supposedly injured and couldn't work. Those same people could stand all day if a keg and joints were available yet couldn't qualify for work where they might have to be on their feet. I knew a family very well in Denver, the guy had been hit by a motorcyclist when he, in a drunken stupor, stepped into the road. He lived off of various programs the government provided, he and his wife were experts at this. She would work for a month and then stop for a year. They had 5 televisions, at least that many stereo systems, 3 kids, always had beer and pot, would eat at McDonalds constantly, all were very overweight and drove a car without insurance.......... they knew exactly how to work the system....... that is reality.
Giving away services and money without accountability is foolish and yet that is exactly what government does with your tax dollars. It breeds generation upon generation of freeloaders which makes it harder for the person that is truly down on their luck and could actually use some help. If, we can't force drug tests on those that want money for nothing....... if we can't force a 16 year old, that wants us to pay for her kid, to have birth control implanted into her system....... if we can't enforce the abuse of food stamps and other social service monies, then the system will never work. 
The ACLU will always fight the enforcement....... there is no solution. But, by all means, keep discussing it like there is a solution......... good mental masturbation for you guys.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> ...



Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.

Over half of those industrial nations are socialist.  A small price to pay for independence.  Note their systems are crumbling.  It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.


----------



## jillian (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.
> 
> Over half of those industrial nations are socialist.  A small price to pay for independence.  Note their systems are crumbling.  It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.



i'd argue with your definition.

conservatism is a desire to keep things as they are and a resistance to change.

liberalism is a desire to move forward.

both are needed for society to operate properly and successfully.

neither conservatism nor liberalism is an economic system, so confusing one with capitalism and the other with socialism is inappropriate, imo.

what societies are you referring to, btw? i'd think the ideal society has both capitalistic and socialistic aspects.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.
> ...



I switched paragraphs.  Which has traditionally meant a change in subject or point.  I did not associate either with an economic system.  The US has both and clearly is not ideal.


----------



## jillian (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



We are the only civilized nation in the world not to assure that each of its citizens has health care.

You're right. We aren't ideal.

What aspects of our society do you believe are socialist?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Public education.  Resulting in reduced standards and performance of students.

Public Assistance.  Allowing family structure to deteriorate at an alarming rate.

Unemployment Insurance.  What once was a short term safety net is now a life style.

Social Security.  A system intended as a supplement has become most people's primary source.  Also, it is mandatory which is wrong.

Healthcare.  It has been set up to fail by the current adminstration.  Next stop universal health care.


----------



## jillian (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Public education.  Resulting in reduced standards and performance of students.
> 
> Public Assistance.  Allowing family structure to deteriorate at an alarming rate.
> 
> ...



education is socialistic? i suppose we could be like saudi arabia and our children can be 'taught' in madrassas. education should not be privatized so that only the wealthy have access to it.

public assistance? that was largely reformed a long time ago and is a fairly small part of our our budget. and the largest segment of people on welfare are single white mothers. would you suggest they and their children starve to death?

The interesting thing about that is the same people who oppose helping single mothers also oppose sex education and abortion. 

unemployment insurance? i really can't respond to that since i think cutting off people at the height of a bad job market is ill-considered and mean-spirited. I'm sorry you've bought into the extremists' assertion that people are choosing to live off of unemployment insurance.

health care? my arguments at the beginning of this thread outline my opinions on that issue.

ultimately, i'd rather not live in the type of society you describe. it sounds like a banana republic where i will need armed guards in front of my home.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Public education.  Resulting in reduced standards and performance of students.
> ...



The question you asked me was, "What aspects of our society do you believe are socialist?".  I responded to your question with an answer.  In addition, I added some of the consequences of those socialist institutions.  You chose to twist that into some type attack.  Whatever.  Have a nice morning.


----------



## Intense (Sep 22, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



Personally, I see three areas of concerns, or Pitfalls. 

First, The concept of Government by the consent of the Governed. Limited Government, there are aspects of our lives and being that few or none really want the Government having any part in at all. The question is, what are those boundaries????? Where is it not okay for Government to intrude on Personal Liberty????? Are there Powers that No Government should have over the People, and what are they????? Tyranny is Tyranny, no matter how many people approve of it????? Let's take an honest look at it.

Second, The Unfunded Mandate. It seems more born out of Arrogance than Reason. Why is it okay to demand of others what one is incapable of producing on one's own????? Even when the fix has not been developed, or invented yet, or funded. Why is that okay, just because Government made a decree????? Why do we so easily abandon reason and buy into it????? Could we be more irresponsible with a trust?????

Third, Value for Value. Thank You Ayn Rand for painting the Bullseye so vividly. Could it not be more clear????? Cause and Effect. What you sow, you reap. Ethics teaches us that a true balanced scale is the goal, not something for nothing, no matter the amount of votes the corruption of principle buys you. There is no substitute for an honest trade and there never will be. Charity has it's place, there is no argument there, let each set his or her own limit. Opportunity will remain the path out of poverty, not dependency. 

Just a thought. God I miss my home planet.


----------



## jillian (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



and i don't believe education is socialistic. in fact, the thought of that being socialistic is beyond me.

i didn't attack you at all. i responded honestly, respectfully and politely to your points. i'm not sure how you found that to be some type of attack.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

Education has become socialistic by things like no child left behind, grade inflation to preserve self esteem, social promotion and making the whole system dependent on government control and funding.

Unemployment is not being abused?  Seriously?  We have people bailing left and right out of homes they owe too much on.  Is it really that big a leap for you to accept people will look at accepting a government check, while working on the side?


----------



## Intense (Sep 22, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.
> 
> I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.



Ah the Guillotine, at one time used on almost anyone who had any advantage at att over the angry mob, be it the ability to spell, hygiene, a differing opinion. With the point of a finger, a false accusation, .... chop chop... next in line....step right up.... 

We always seem to end up there, why is that????

Rich or poor, Private Property does matter. There is no way around that.


----------



## jillian (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Education has become socialistic by things like no child left behind, grade inflation to preserve self esteem, social promotion and making the whole system dependent on government control and funding.
> 
> Unemployment is not being abused?  Seriously?  We have people bailing left and right out of homes they owe too much on.  Is it really that big a leap for you to accept people will look at accepting a government check, while working on the side?



i don't believe in grade inflation or social promotion. i also have issues with no child left behind because i think the funds would be better used to improve schools that are underperforming rather than allowing children from underpeforming schools to bring down the numbers in high performing schools.

how else would it be funded? its PUBLIC education.

if there are abuses, the abuses need to be addressed... but the system shouldn't be trashed for a small percentage of abuses. do you have actual and credible evidence as to a percentage of people collecting unemployment and working? if they are, they should be cut off and have to repay the money. i think that's also subject to criminal charges.

as for people's homes being underwater, well, i personally would never have taken all of the equity out of my home on the promise of some mortgage broker that he/she would re-fi me when the ARM kicked in in 5 years. I can't even begin to tell you how many mcmansions i did re-fi's on during the height of the bubble.

i'm afraid, though, that i don't understand how the house issue relates to the other issues that you consider 'socialistic'.

it seems like you choose the worst abuses and attribute them to 'socialism'. well, i see a purely capitalistic system as being one that destroys the middle class and creates a permanent underclass. I think history proves this to be true since a middle class doesn't really exist absent government protections.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

When you take away a person's ability to build toward something of value and maintain posession of it, society will deteriorate.  Almost all economic systems will lead to this.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Education has become socialistic by things like no child left behind, grade inflation to preserve self esteem, social promotion and making the whole system dependent on government control and funding.
> ...



Capitalism is what started, grew and maintains a middle class.


----------



## CountofTuscany (Sep 22, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



We say our tax rates are roughly 20% to 30% for the average American. But when you add all the taxes we pay, sales tax, property tax, hidden taxes on almost every commodity we buy we are really in about a 60% tax bracket.  The average American is taxed so heavily he can't afford to spend and stimulate the economy. We are taxing ourselves to the point were growth is impossible. The cost of living keeps growing. Incomes remain flat or fall. Yet each year a higher percentage is taken in taxes. Don't let the federal income tax alone fool you. That's the game politicians love to play. Federal funding was cut drastically this year to many programs so federal income tax didn't have to rise. So that burden was pushed onto states and has been covered by increases to mass transit costs, increased vehicle registration fees, taxes on goods and services. Soft drinks just had major taxes added. Recycling fees added to plastic bottles.  There is a new game in town and politicians are pros at playing it.


----------



## Intense (Sep 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Part of the biggest corruption of the free market is Government involvement, not with maintaining the playing field, but with picking winners and losers, that and back room deals, strong arm monopolies, unholy partnerships with the Oligarchy class that bound us by self serving contracts, and restrictions, and protections, that hurt us, the host, off of which it feeds.


----------



## parentrap (Sep 22, 2010)

Health care is a universal right.


----------



## Intense (Sep 22, 2010)

parentrap said:


> Health care is a universal right.



Who told you that, the Tooth Fairy?????


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 22, 2010)

parentrap said:


> Health care is a universal right.



Hi there parentrap.  I don't OWE you shit.


----------



## Intense (Sep 22, 2010)

CountofTuscany said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> ...



Parasite thinking only increases the Bureaucratic numbers, salaries, and benefit packages, at everyone else's expense. There are no other winners.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 23, 2010)

Liberty said:


> (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then *what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?*
> 
> *Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior? *
> 
> ...



Here is something simple to think about.  When a society loses its middle class what happens?  In your example, you make an assumption that everyone should be able to afford healthcare if they just work for it and contribute to society.  Here is the problem; healthcare costs have become so costly, and it is only going to get much worse, that a large percentage of the population cannot afford it.  As the costs continue to rise, the percentage of the population that cannot afford healthcare will continue to increase, and we're not just talking a few people here.  Within ten years, 80% of Americans will either not be able to afford it period or will have a very difficult time paying for it.  This will lead to a much lower standard of living for everyone, as jobs in healthcare will begin to be cut since no one will be able to afford it.  In the end, the middle class will be destroyed.  Then you won't have to worry about citizen A and citizen B, because there will be so many in the B category that they will revolt.  

The bottom line is this; if citizen A wants to remain citizen A, they better figure a way to make healthcare work for everyone, or at least the vast majority.  We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not addressing the healthcare debacle, and it was a debacle long before Obamacare.  Unless we truly make some drastic changes, healthcare in the US may well lead to the end of free capitalism as we know it.  Everytime someone says that healthcare is not a right, that pushes us one step closer to socialism.  

While healthcare may not be a right, it is a necessity of almost everyone, and if too many can no longer afford it, than it can be looked at pretty much the same as telling people they don't have a right to eat if they can't pay for their own food.  Put too many people in that situation, and you end up with socialism or maybe something worse.  Does that mean we should just let the goverment take over healthcare completely?  Probably not.  There are many good ideas from the right, but the few good ideas that come from the right are rarely discussed.  It's all about keeping the status quo, and the status quo has been a disaster so far.


----------

