>There is a very important moral issue involved in paying for
>medical care with tax-derived funds - namely, isn't it morally
>wrong to take money under duress, (the IRS), ultimately backed by
>a threat of death, to pay for other persons' life-saving
>I would say it depends.
Brian Williams commented:
I would say you are incorrect.
#### The word "incorrenct" is out of place here. What I voiced was a moral
statement, an expression of what I perceive as right, proper, ethically
imperative, as opposed to merely "correct". Your opinion, obviously
different, is not more "correct", but indicative of a totally divergent
attitude towards fellow humans.
>There are some people who just don't care much about their health
>- they smoke, drive drunk, blow their cortical vessels with
>cocaine, and then come to depend on public largesse for treatment
>and other support, without ever paying a dime into the pool of
>insurance money. I would have no compunction about letting them
>rely on private charity for their needs.
### Are you using pluralis maiestatis?
>But then, there are other people, those who you are probably
>thinking about - the nice, hard-working, regular folks, who
>sincerely want to pay but just happen to make too little money for
>full insurance, after paying for food, rent, utilities, kids'
>college fund. I am willing to help them, to some extent, and to
>support the use of governmental oppression to force other
>citizens to help, too.
Well, with the "support the use of governmental oppression to force
other citizens to help too." we part company, the second force is
applied we are not talking about citizens, but subjects.
If people cannot afford to have children, then they shouldn't do
so. I should not be required to pay for their choices.
#### Some persons, through no fault of their own, cannot afford medical
treatment (what if you have a stroke at age 16?). Kids or no kids, they
can't pay. Are you saying that they are useless, discardable, by definition
not worthy of being helped? Would you let them starve amid plenty?
>How would you know that somebody is nice and honestly willing to
>pay their health bills?
Don't need to know.
#### You don't want to know about the suffering of others, lest it disturb
your afternoon nap?
>I think that a workable and fair system would offer tiered,
>government-standardized but privately run insurance plans to all
You're not talking government standardized, you're talking
#### No, it's subsidized AND standardized
>The difference between the actuarial, free-market cost of
>insurance, and the premiums paid, would be covered by tax money.
>The system would encourage diligent shopping for the best plan at
>the lowest cost, because the customers would be paying a lot of
>their own money, in terms of percentage of their disposable
>income. However, nobody would be denied care because of the
>inability to pay.
The difference would be payed by me, as I already indicated I don't
see this as fair.
I vote no.
#### Why should your idea of fairness be respected if you don't care about,
literally, the life and death of innocent people? It is a heartfelt
conviction of the vast majority of humans, that an innocent person (= who
didn't get in trouble through his own stupidity, laziness, etc.) has to be
helped when in need. Are we all "unfair"?
>Thus, even the poorest, but very health conscious person could >afford the best medicine. Those who would want to spend some of >their disposable income on, let's say, lipstick, would pay only a >percentage of the DI, and receive less care, assuming the full >personal responsibility for their choices.
With my help, administered with a gun to my head, no thanks.
### Well, at least no innocent persons would die, except if you moved about too much and the jackbooted governement thug, holding the gun while taking the money, would decide to bump you off as a precaution.
(I am being sarcastic here)
Rafal Smigrodzki MD-PhD Dept Neurology University of Pittsburgh email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:55 MDT