Because cars are objects. Whereas a poor person that can die from a cancer is a person.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Health Care and the US Elections
- Thread starter Wirey
- Start date
I would adore you if you just said "I plead the fifth" instead of gaslighting me.
And btw,...nobody forces you to own a car. You can use public means of transportation.
When you say, "reduce deaths" you mean "reduce deaths of those able to pay".
If you are talking about the government equally and fairly compensating people for organ donation, and then the medical standards are used to decide who gets that lifesaving organ, that is a good and fair proposal. That would all be part of a socialized system of medicine. That is not what I was asking about.
I was asking about the private sale of organs, about millionaires and billionaires buying body parts. This would only increase the number of organs available to millionaires and billionaires, but it would decrease the number of organs available to others. It would create a system rife with exploitation and dehumanization.
And the point is that this is not just about organs. I asked this question because it illustrates the issue of buying and selling all forms of medical care in a private capitalist marketplace.
Auto liability insurance is a bit different, though, since it's about mitigating the risk that you pose to others.
When I say "reduce deaths", I mean to reduce the number
of people who die because there are fewer organs available
than are needed.
I assumed that "reduce deaths" would be clear. Guess not.
I wasn't addressing your specific proposal.
If a system doesn't benefit the poor too,
then do you favor letting millionaires die?
Duh.
I highly recommend that you search for Freakonomics
podcasts about alternative systems of organ exchange.
And to think more about saving lives, than about
perfecting racial & economic fairness.
People shouldn't die at your alter
of liberal social engineering.
That last line was added for fun.
You dodge discussion by demandingI would adore you if you just said "I plead the fifth" instead of gaslighting me.
answers to questions non sequitur.
I don't play that.
Same with your annoying videos.
No interest in wasting time on them.
Last edited:
"In the long run, we are all dead."
I've heard some say we're all going to Hell in a handbasket, although that seems a rather inefficient means of transportation.
That's glib, but untrue.
After I die, I'll be survived by kids & grand kids.
After they die, they too will have survivors.
So economics matters in the long run.
I plead the fifth is four words that sum up the concept.
You can't expect posters to answer allI plead the fifth is four words that sum up the concept.
the stupid irrelevant questions you
continually demand answers for.
Don't Gish Gallop or Tuscan Trot us.
It's annoying & unproductive.
The question "does the US government pay for cancer surgeries" is a legitimate question.
If you don't want to answer, it's totally fine.
But don't say it's irrelevant...please.
I guess it depends on how one defines "the long run." Is it 100 years? 1000 years? A million years?
Absolutely. But I think we should start with the billionaires. I think this world would be much better off if we just selected the top ten richest people on the planet, and ate them.
(but of course we would harvest their vital organs for transplant first.)
Do you find that question significant
when designing public policy? I don't.
To plan for benefitting others in the
future makes sense. There is no
quantifying how far in the future
that people matter, or stop mattering.
You offer a good example of how liberalism
is often the flip side of Trumpism, ie, it's
about hating certain groups of people, &
wishing woe & even death upon them.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Not if you had a sufficiently high level job where the company would shell out the 10,000 +$ for a health plan with a small annual out of pocket cap.
These are considered just the cost of getting qualified personnel. System works fine so long as you are employed.
But then there is my friend from Ghana, he was doing fine till he went through a stretch of employment without healthcare after the company we worked for sold out and moved. Couldn't afford his Hep C drugs and had to get a liver transplant. Now he really costs the insurance companies money.
I suppose we could blame it on Obama care since they can't deny his coverage for all the immune suppression drugs for his pre-existing now condition instead of the anti-virals he had been taking for years.
I don't see how any of this would make Keynes' statement untrue.
Clearly.