>From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU>
>#### 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" ?
Sorry, wasn't trying to duck the question.
Okay, he's 16, which means he should be covered by his parents
insurance, unless he has no parents in which case he's a ward of
the state. Those provisions would apply.
The question is always who's going to pay, I'm of the mind that
individual adults are responsible for themselves and their
There should be limited means for special cases, and there are.
>>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?
Quite the trap you've set. ;)
My favorite biblical story was always the good Samaritan.
I've rendered first aid at numerous accidents, interfered in a few
crimes, and have been known to make considerable contributions to
charity. I'm a regular donor of platelets to the American Red Cross
(18 times 2 units each last year, 8 this year plus this Sat) and a
member of the national bone marrow registry. In short, I've never
walked away from anyone who needed my aid with the exception of a
few bums pretending to be homeless. (there is a difference).
Probably my only limits are those of ability.
I guess by provisions I mean I don't support the idea of a
government run universal health care system. I had a taste of that
when I was in the military, and didn't like it a bit.
I'm convinced most people who do support the idea are convinced
that everything will remain the same only everyone will be covered.
I know that won't be the case.
>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, there are public hospitals for this, like Chicago's Cook
County. My best friend worked in their emergency room for four
years and he can tell you they're the people who complain the
I just happen to know people with two homes, three cars, two of
them SUV's who go on big vacations every year, and complain that
they can't "afford" health insurance.
Some people need help getting their priorities straight.
>>>(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.
Nevermind, as the old saying goes "When strangers meet, allowances
need to be made". ;)
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:56 MDT