Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[dblack]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

I suspect that if you took government out of the question, you'd get different reactions. And get closer to the truth regarding the morality question. My problem with threads like this, at least on a politics board, is that they usually make the assumption that opposition to government programs that force the issue, is the same thing as rejection of the moral obligation. And it's not.

True, there's this mythology among the people with a death-grip on their wallets that Gubmint Bad (unless it's kicking ass in the Middle East or building a wall along the entire southern border) and possibly run by aliens (the ET kind) if not Secret Muslims that "If government would just get out of the way, charities would pick up the slack."

They, of course, would not be contributing to those charities. That's for some other poor sucker to do.

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Either way, I don't see much sense in attacking the people or second-guessing their motivations. Either their arguments add up, or they don't

 

[Arianrhod]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Either way, I don't see much sense in attacking the people or second-guessing their motivations. Either their arguments add up, or they don't

When their arguments consist primarily of "ME, ME, MEEEEE!" I'll call them on it.

 

[dblack]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

 

[Arianrhod]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Either way, I don't see much sense in attacking the people or second-guessing their motivations. Either their arguments add up, or they don't

When their arguments consist primarily of "ME, ME, MEEEEE!" I'll call them on it.

To suggest that charitable organizations can effectively supplant government social programs is worse than a mere fantasy — it's a cynical and dangerous fantasy. When times are at their worst and help is needed the most is exactly when charitable contributions are often the lowest.

According to the CBO, only one 1/3 of charitable contributions go to the poor. Another problem is that charitable given is based on emotional appeal. For example a charity campaign to save the tigers had such a strong emotional appeal it raised millions more than it needed. Meanwhile a campaign to raise money for boys and girls clubs falls on it's face because it had little emotional appeal.

 

[dblack]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?

 

[Arianrhod]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?

There are reputable sources for those figures. I can dig them up if you want.

I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.

This was under a Republican president.

I'd also address something that would have been considered treasonous in the 1950s - outsourcing jobs. Penalize companies that do it; reward companies that don't.

 

[dblack]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?

There are reputable sources for those figures. I can dig them up if you want.

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.

I said without coercion. Can you imagine Americans working to alleviate poverty without government forcing them to?

This was under a Republican president.

Yep. Reagan was the President who signed EMTALA into law. I see precious little difference between Republicans and Democrats on these issues. Both parties are intent on using the power of the state to control society - for our own good, of course.

 

[LOki]

Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Meh.

Sometimes I regard Malthus as an optimist.

People aren't an endangered species; there's no reason to treat them like one.

 

[Arianrhod]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

 

[dblack]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?

 

[LOki]

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?

There are reputable sources for those figures. I can dig them up if you want.

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.

I said without coercion. Can you imagine Americans working to alleviate poverty without government forcing them to?

This was under a Republican president.

Yep. Reagan was the President who signed EMTALA into law. I see precious little difference between Republicans and Democrats on these issues. Both parties are intent on using the power of the state to control society - for our own good, of course.

 

[Arianrhod]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?

As I indicated, I no longer have the hardcover book where I found the number of homeless kids who froze every winter. (AFAIC, one is too many, but there ya go.)

And you don't have to read the entire book I linked to. It's broken down into (short) chapters. Chapters 15-17 will give you some information.

 

[dblack]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?

As I indicated, I no longer have the hardcover book where I found the number of homeless kids who froze every winter. (AFAIC, one is too many, but there ya go.)

And you don't have to read the entire book I linked to. It's broken down into (short) chapters. Chapters 15-17 will give you some information.

Alright. I browse it. But I should be clear that my only interest in reading it, or asking for further details in the first place, is because I find the claim you made to be preposterous. I'd agree that one is too many, but I don't really see how our society would stand by and let such a tragedy happen year after year. I certainly don't think government mandates are the only thing preventing it.

 

[Arianrhod]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?

As I indicated, I no longer have the hardcover book where I found the number of homeless kids who froze every winter. (AFAIC, one is too many, but there ya go.)

And you don't have to read the entire book I linked to. It's broken down into (short) chapters. Chapters 15-17 will give you some information.

Alright. I browse it. But I should be clear that my only interest in reading it, or asking for further details in the first place, is because I find the claim you made to be preposterous. I'd agree that one is too many, but I don't really see how our society would stand by and let such a tragedy happen year after year. I certainly don't think government mandates are the only thing preventing it.

We sometimes forget how slowly news traveled in those times. It was occasionally reported in the local newspapers, but the upper classes didn't want to know about it or dismissed the deaths of "street Arabs" as exaggerated or "the poor are always with us." Advances in photography made it possible for Riis and his contemporaries to go into the darkest slums with flash attachments and quite literally illuminate the problem.

His reporting earned him death threats. Besides, he was an immigrant and didn't travel in the right social circles. Horace Greeley, on the other hand, was a social Brahmin and an editor, not a mere reporter, so he could hobnob with the elite. He was savvy enough to know he couldn't appeal to their generosity, so he tapped into their fears.

The wealthy people uptown were terrified that marauding gangs from downtown would break into their homes, murder them in their beds, and steal there stuff. Greeley warned them that unchecked poverty would only increase the likelihood that this would happen. Suddenly the Ladies Who Lunch were overseeing the creation of soup kitchens and settlement houses.

But the real changes came after WWI, because something had to be done for the wounded returning from the trenches. Then came the Spanish flu, which didn't care how much money you had, so medical care was expanded, etc.

 

[dblack]

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?

As I indicated, I no longer have the hardcover book where I found the number of homeless kids who froze every winter. (AFAIC, one is too many, but there ya go.)

And you don't have to read the entire book I linked to. It's broken down into (short) chapters. Chapters 15-17 will give you some information.

Alright. I browse it. But I should be clear that my only interest in reading it, or asking for further details in the first place, is because I find the claim you made to be preposterous. I'd agree that one is too many, but I don't really see how our society would stand by and let such a tragedy happen year after year. I certainly don't think government mandates are the only thing preventing it.

We sometimes forget how slowly news traveled in those times. It was occasionally reported in the local newspapers, but the upper classes didn't want to know about it or dismissed the deaths of "street Arabs" as exaggerated or "the poor are always with us." Advances in photography made it possible for Riis and his contemporaries to go into the darkest slums with flash attachments and quite literally illuminate the problem.

His reporting earned him death threats. Besides, he was an immigrant and didn't travel in the right social circles. Horace Greeley, on the other hand, was a social Brahmin and an editor, not a mere reporter, so he could hobnob with the elite. He was savvy enough to know he couldn't appeal to their generosity, so he tapped into their fears.

The wealthy people uptown were terrified that marauding gangs from downtown would break into their homes, murder them in their beds, and steal there stuff. Greeley warned them that unchecked poverty would only increase the likelihood that this would happen. Suddenly the Ladies Who Lunch were overseeing the creation of soup kitchens and settlement houses.

You seem to be taking up the argument of those who claim private charity would compensate for government welfare if state safety nets were phased out. To be clear, I'm not making that claim. I don't think it would be as dire as you've predicted, but I'm sure privately supported charity would be more selective and offer nothing like the blanket security of government programs. But to me, it's irrelevant.

As I've said, I oppose the welfare state because it attempts to legislate morality.

 

[Arianrhod]

^I guess I'm talking too much and saying too little.

I don't believe that NGOs could pick up the slack, not at all.

It's just the alibi right-wing extremists use.

 

[Flopper]

Improve prenatal care. Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs. Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they couldn't use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems?

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?

I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.

Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?

There are reputable sources for those figures. I can dig them up if you want.

Please do. I'd love to read up on it.

I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.

I said without coercion. Can you imagine Americans working to alleviate poverty without government forcing them to?

This was under a Republican president.

Yep. Reagan was the President who signed EMTALA into law. I see precious little difference between Republicans and Democrats on these issues. Both parties are intent on using the power of the state to control society - for our own good, of course.

Every single tax payer dollar spent is considered coercion by many taxpayers. I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is my very great pleasure to remind you yet again that you are nobody's moral standard, nor are anyone that people give a tin shit about impressing.

"Is" anyone.

Actually, fucknut, that particular typo should have been "nor are YOU anyone".

So either way you made an error while trying to impress me with your brilliance. Got it.

It's called a typo, shitforbrains. If that's the best argument you have, you should probably go join a knitting chat. And we all know, that's the best argument you have. Begone.

 

[Arianrhod]

It's called a typo...

Yes, it is.