>#### 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?
Brian Williams commented:
There are provisions for such people, but I do not support
enlarging those provisions and creating a class of people who stop
striving to better themselves.
I encourage and even insist on personnal responsibility.
#### You did not address the specific example I mentioned - 16 year who has
stroke (not secondary to cocaine). Is there personal responsibility in
having a stroke? Would the provision of help to stroke patients "create a
class of people who stop striving to better themselves" ?
Sadly I'm always too busy at work during the week to enjoy an
afternoon nap. Probably because I'm paying for someone else's bad
#### Me too.
---- >#### 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"?
Oldest debate tactic in the book, accuse the other side of something and force them to defend.
#### Just being unfair ;) -------
I do care about people and as I stated here in the U.S there are provisions, but I do not support an enlarging of these provisions when every piece of evidence we have says it will be to the long term detriment of all involved.
#### Very good. Could you perhaps elaborate - give examples of situations where you would feel morally obliged to render help? (some real life stories, persons, ages, especially those that describe the limits of your charity). Also, what "provisions" do you mean specifically?
By the way, I am also strongly opposed to a balloning welfare and wealth-transfer system. Any transfer that is supposed to give a "decent" life (free cable, food stamps, rent) is wrong - because the state threatens to kill the taxpayer for the sake of other persons' amenities, trifles, little wishes. Only that help which is absolutely and unavoidably necessary to prevent innnocent people from dying or physically suffering (like having a cancer melting your bones), is IMHO acceptable.
>### Well, at least no innocent persons would die, except if you >moved about too much and the jackbooted government thug, holding >the gun while taking the money, would decide to bump you off as a >precaution.
>(I am being sarcastic here)
Obviously we part company on this note.
### Sorry. I like to go off on rhetorical flights of fancy sometimes. Not trying to be mean on purpose.
Rafal Smigrodzki MD-PhD Dept Neurology University of Pittsburgh email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:56 MDT