Stop expecting others to take care of you.

[Melkor Unchained]

I seriously don't understand why humans ought not to help other humans out. This whole "dependency" thing is not the case for the vast majority...

I think this is where the two sides (right vs left) begin to talk past each other. I can't speak for everyone else (and I only consider myself a member of the 'right' in the economic sense) but I don't think the complaint is so much that people shouldn't "help other humans out," I think it has more to do with the fact that we're often forced to do so. Charity and compassion are fine; coming around to my house and saying "Hey these guys are in trouble and oh by the way help them out or I'll throw you in a f'ing cage" is moral cannibalism.

Can you show that people are able and willing to give as much in charity as is provided by government welfare programs?

If you can't, it seems to me that this line of reasoning is not really relevant, as the logical conclusion of your policies is less helping of others regardless of whether you think charity is nice or not.

I suspect you already know the answer to this question...

But at any rate, being as said government programs are inefficient and/or easily abused, I would argue that attaining precise financial parity between the two is not necessary. Charities tend to have a more direct interface with actual poor people, whereas the government programs are (by necessity) a lot more monolithic. I have a cousin who isn't marrying the father of her child not because she doesn't love him, but because she gets more benefits from the state as a single mother than she would earn in tax breaks for being married. My own brother has been on unemployment for almost a year now and has spent the wide majority of his money on weed and comics.

Government-run programs are (in a country like this at least) simply too easy to abuse. It's not so much the amount, as it is what's done with it. I think the actual, genuine "need" (in this country at least) is probably far less than most people think it is, and I would guess that private charities (pound for pound) address it more directly than social welfare subsidies. Not because the government is OMG EBIL, just that they have more ground to cover.

[Barringtonia]

Volition need not be at the time of the event, of course. It can be an expressed will forged into a promise at an earlier time (which is what all contracts are).

Indeed, we should place all new-born babies on Ellis island until they can choose to enter society or not,

No, because Constitution is an implied contract. This is why US used to have civics classes in schools: so that everyone would understand the contract under which they live. Not having those classes does, in fact, remove volition from consent. I would be all for making them required again (perhaps even making them a requirement for participation in any public-sponsored activity -- including driving).

Wait, but what choice do they have given civics classes or not?

Could they opt out of society back then?

I mean, and I hate hyperbole, but if I explain I'm going to rob you does that mean you've consented?

No, and it makes the entire Randian volition/coercion in respect to society idea false, because life does not work that way.

[Czardas]

I don't give a shit if insurance companies make a profit or not. I'm concerned with people's health and lives. I'm sorry if that doesn't register as a point of concern for you.

There, once again, is the disconnect Melkor was talking about.

Left-wingers think right-wingers want all the unemployed and sick people to starve and die. Right-wingers think left-wingers want to legalize theft by resorting to appeals to emotion. Except on NSG, where we have people like Hiddenrun and Treznor, that's not really accurate at all, from the arguments I've seen (the ones that make sense, anyway).

[Virtud Tierra]

If you are working class and you get an unexpected and costly illness, there is simply no way you are not going to be fianically ruined by it.

Say a guy and his wife with highschool eduation work 40 hours a week, make 800$ a week between the two of them, and their goddamn 4 year old has leukemia. The treatments run into the hundreds of thousands and the kid dies anyways.

Thats some serious hardship that they could never have predicted or have been prepared for. Their insurance companies refuse to pay for it and they spend the rest of their lives working off interest on their debt.

Seems like their could be a more elegant arrangement then that.

then you go to your neighbors you go to your church you organize a walk-a-thon if you have to. people will help you but the government should not.

What if everyone in the neighborhood is in the same situation? Since you know, that hurricane just killed half of them and left the rest bankrupt like yourself?

Or say a terrorist vaporized your city with a nuclear weapon? Shit out of luck because you didn't have nuclear terrorism insurance? You think a walk-a-thon would be an ideal solution to rebuilding your city?

Somethings might require more intervention then charity and family members. History has shown that sometimes the government has to intervene to make sure its population doesn't fall into ruin and poverty.

[Treznor]

It's also profit-based. They therefore have a vested interest in taking money from people, while giving back as little as possible. That's not help so much as exploitation. Got a little risk, because you had a traffic ticket or a previous illness? They won't cover you the way you're likely to need it.

Of course they will, the rate will just go higher to get that coverage. I know what hiddenrun is saying is bullshit, but that doesn't excuse bashing insurance companies for making sensible precautions like increasing the risk premium. The increases in risk premiums are to stop the companies from going broke, you only need a very small profit margin on the premiums in order for the company as a whole to make comfortable profits. Any unnecessary profit margin that does exist would be competed away from other companies anyway. Society is very dependent on these institutions (even governments to an extent), even if they wont inevitably cover everyone, it's obnoxious to call them exploitative evil profit obsessed corporations just yet.

The problem is not that they do what businesses do, which is to protect themselves from risk. The problem is that they're basing their profits on people's lives. Humans cannot simply reject health care when their lives are at stake, which makes medicine an essential service. I don't mind that there are businesses focused on health care, I mind that they put profits over lives. The end result is even higher costs because people avoid getting basic care until their problems get out of control, and that's just immoral as well as inefficient. The focus in health care should be prevention, but that doesn't give the same return on investment so instead the industry focuses on response.

That makes it an issue of exploitation. The industry is exploiting the people's need for health care by driving up costs and denying coverage when it would impact their profit margins.

[Custodiscia]

Again, to all those anti-healhcare guys - have any of you seen Sicko?

[Poliwanacraca]

Finally, someone who has at least half a brain on NS. I agree with everything Hidderun says. These jobless whiners, whinge about how they are desperate for money. Normal people learn how to plan. Let these idiots who never listened in school, and then couldnt be bothered to get a job stew in their own mess.

I really love some of the hilarious assumptions you people make.

I had a 4.3something GPA in high school. I went to a college consistently rated as one of the top 20 or so in the entire world. I also got laid off from my job last year, because the company I worked for was going out of business, since the economic downturn meant we simply weren't getting enough new clients to stay afloat. I've applied for several hundred jobs since then. I haven't been hired for any of them, largely because I'm overeducated for most of them.

But sure, keep telling yourself that everyone who's unemployed is just stupid and lazy. Keep pretending it could never happen to you. If you think it hard enough, maybe you can magically make it true.

Silly, you should have picked a job that you couldn't possibly get laid off from in any kind of financial crisis whatsoever. Don't you know how to predict the future?

I know, my lack of magical psychic powers clearly proves that I am, in fact, stupid and lazy! I mean, heck, I'm so stupid that I think people can't always find another job within three months, even though Hiddenrun informs me that they always can, just based on piddling little facts like "I haven't been able to" and "I know lots of other people who also haven't been able to." Next I'll probably start arguing that the Earth continues to be round, even if Hiddenrun tells me it's flat - I'm just stupid like that.

[Hiddenrun]

I think this is where the two sides (right vs left) begin to talk past each other. I can't speak for everyone else (and I only consider myself a member of the 'right' in the economic sense) but I don't think the complaint is so much that people shouldn't "help other humans out," I think it has more to do with the fact that we're often forced to do so. Charity and compassion are fine; coming around to my house and saying "Hey these guys are in trouble and oh by the way help them out or I'll throw you in a f'ing cage" is moral cannibalism.

Precisely, and thank you for wording it better than I've been able to. I've stated again and again that I freely contribute to the well being of others, but my detractors here keep harping on the idea of me hoarding my money and thinking only of myself. I have no problem with charity, but I do take issue with being forced into it. It is no longer charity when it is compelled.

Hiddenrun, don't bother arguing with Free Soviets; it's pretty much pointless. He's a "Prove it" broken-record who insists on things he himself generally fails to provide; the fact that objects must be worked for and goals attained by labor everywhere else in nature means nothing to him. The (economic) left wants to have it both ways: humans are both "enlightened" beings above the brutish requirements of nature, and "animals" who cannot be expected to be responsible with their own money/resources. He doesn't believe that people shouldn't have things they "can't afford," because, I suspect, he either doesn't believe in money or because he thinks human beings are entitled to certain resources on no greater virtue than their existence.

Thanks. I've seen the 'prove it' statement in other threads and saw that it really went nowhere, so chose not to bother.

[Czardas]

I seriously don't understand why humans ought not to help other humans out. This whole "dependency" thing is not the case for the vast majority...

I think this is where the two sides (right vs left) begin to talk past each other. I can't speak for everyone else (and I only consider myself a member of the 'right' in the economic sense) but I don't think the complaint is so much that people shouldn't "help other humans out," I think it has more to do with the fact that we're often forced to do so. Charity and compassion are fine; coming around to my house and saying "Hey these guys are in trouble and oh by the way help them out or I'll throw you in a f'ing cage" is moral cannibalism.

Can you show that people are able and willing to give as much in charity as is provided by government welfare programs?

If you can't, it seems to me that this line of reasoning is not really relevant, as the logical conclusion of your policies is less helping of others regardless of whether you think charity is nice or not.

I suspect you already know the answer to this question...

But at any rate, being as said government programs are inefficient and/or easily abused, I would argue that attaining precise financial parity between the two is not necessary. Charities tend to have a more direct interface with actual poor people, whereas the government programs are (by necessity) a lot more monolithic. I have a cousin who isn't marrying the father of her child not because she doesn't love him, but because she gets more benefits from the state as a single mother than she would earn in tax breaks for being married. My own brother has been on unemployment for almost a year now and has spent the wide majority of his money on weed and comics.

Government-run programs are (in a country like this at least) simply too easy to abuse. It's not so much the amount, as it is what's done with it. I think the actual, genuine "need" (in this country at least) is probably far less than most people think it is, and I would guess that private charities (pound for pound) address it more directly than social welfare subsidies. Not because the government is OMG EBIL, just that they have more ground to cover.

The main reason I support social welfare is simply because society has decided it's necessary, and there are situations which concern the nation as a whole, being beyond individual responsibility. Nonetheless, the programs obviously do need to be cut down -- in fact, we could cut almost all government welfare programs and replace them with government subsidies to charity organizations -- which I'm sure no one is disputing.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

If you are working class and you get an unexpected and costly illness, there is simply no way you are not going to be fianically ruined by it.

Say a guy and his wife with highschool eduation work 40 hours a week, make 800$ a week between the two of them, and their goddamn 4 year old has leukemia. The treatments run into the hundreds of thousands and the kid dies anyways.

Thats some serious hardship that they could never have predicted or have been prepared for. Their insurance companies refuse to pay for it and they spend the rest of their lives working off interest on their debt.

Seems like their could be a more elegant arrangement then that.

then you go to your neighbors you go to your church you organize a walk-a-thon if you have to. people will help you but the government should not.

What if everyone in the neighborhood is in the same situation? Since you know, that hurricane just killed half of them and left the rest bankrupt like yourself?

Or say a terrorist vaporized your city with a nuclear weapon? Shit out of luck because you didn't have nuclear terrorism insurance? You think a walk-a-thon would be an ideal solution to rebuilding your city?

Somethings might require more intervention then charity and family members. History has shown that sometimes the government has to intervene to make sure its population doesn't fall into ruin and poverty.

You see... this is where you God and religion hating secular progressives fail. You have put your faith and trust in your Government. You rely on Government to bail you out of bad situations.

You refuse to acknowledge God and his ability to help you. I have received WAY more help from my Church welfare system than I have received from my Govmt welfare system. My Church welfare is contributed to voluntarily. How many of you SP's have turned to religion when times are tough, rather than the goverment?

If my entire city was vaporized, and I managed to survive, and I managed to be able to leave, I would take my Church suggested 72 hour kit and start walking until I got to an area what wasnt vaporized and I would head to a Church in that area and get help.

[Hiddenrun]

Sure, I ticked 'safe' on my private insurance funds, instead they took that money and invested it in extremely dodgy, based on thin air, investments,

Can I sue them?

No I can't, the value of my investments may go up and down despite the fact that I ticked safe and they just manipulated what 'safe' meant.

Sounds like you should take more of an interest in how your funds are invested.

The problem with people with your kind of attitude is that you don't think you need to do any work when it comes to your own financial well being. It take research, and leg work to find insurance or investment plans that do what you need them to do. Do you just go to the doctor and accept his diagnosis with no questions, no follow up? If you do, I pity you for that as well. No one is going to care about you the way you yourself will, and in the end, it's up to you to educate yourself on issues that directly impact you, and advocate for yourself when things aren't making sense.

[Hiddenrun]

Just to clear this up, not going into to much argument, have you seen Sicko?

Yes. I've also read the various refutations of Moore's manipulative, and in many cases outright false, arguments. Not that I expected more from him. Do you have a point?

[The RSU]

If you want something, then find the means to acquire it yourself. It's fairly simple. Even the worst paying job in America will allow you to eat, clothe yourself in the most basic of ways and access some sort of shelter. If you desire goods or services beyond that, then work harder.

That's akin to telling blind people: "It's your fault you can't see anything; you should be trying harder!"

There are a whole lot of factors surrounding unemployment other than 'laziness'; lack of employment available, not qualified enough to gain higher employment, et cetera.

To proclaim that people who live under the poverty line should simply "work harder" if they are struggling to gain the barest minimum of basic necessities is just elitist, close-minded and ignorant.

[Barringtonia]

Sure, I ticked 'safe' on my private insurance funds, instead they took that money and invested it in extremely dodgy, based on thin air, investments,

Can I sue them?

No I can't, the value of my investments may go up and down despite the fact that I ticked safe and they just manipulated what 'safe' meant.

Sounds like you should take more of an interest in how your funds are invested.

The problem with people with your kind of attitude is that you don't think you need to do any work when it comes to your own financial well being. It take research, and leg work to find insurance or investment plans that do what you need them to do. Do you just go to the doctor and accept his diagnosis with no questions, no follow up? If you do, I pity you for that as well. No one is going to care about you the way you yourself will, and in the end, it's up to you to educate yourself on issues that directly impact you, and advocate for yourself when things aren't making sense.

Really?

Did I choose to turn low-grade vehicles into Triple AAA rated investment funds? When I sat down and ticked 'safe' investments, did I actually, unwittingly, tick 'do what the hell you want'? And if it was unwitting, and if it was not spelled out that the term 'safe' was very much at the discretion of the investment firm, how much am I expected to understand this?

Plenty of good people did what you wanted, did not rely on public pensions and invested in private insurance, only to see those savings blown out of the water by firms who simply took their money and converted it into short-term bonuses.

Was that in the fine print?

Your dream world does not account for huge power imbalances between the fortunate and the less fortunate, which is a reality.

All of this is moot, you live in a land where the people voted against your vision of life, with the small amount of value left in my funds, I shall endeavour to buy you a small violin.

[Hiddenrun]

Yes, because people who are going through a crisis are going to have all the resources and stability they need to sue multi-billion dollar corporates for breach of contract. That makes perfect sense.

If the claim is big enough, get a lawyer who works on contingency.

You pay lawyers for piece of mind, and for their expertise. If you don't wish to do that, by all means, try to tackle the issue yourself.

A better solution is to research the issue, choose a good company, and understand how your contract works.

If that sounds too much like hard work, then your refusal to engage in it tells me something about your overall work ethic.

Ah ha ha, how am I going to afford a lawyer equal to that of a multi-billion dollar insurance company,

I suggest you look up the definition of contingency.

Honestly, you aren't even trying to do anything but whine pointlessly.

[Treznor]

If you want something, then find the means to acquire it yourself. It's fairly simple. Even the worst paying job in America will allow you to eat, clothe yourself in the most basic of ways and access some sort of shelter. If you desire goods or services beyond that, then work harder.

That's akin to telling blind people: "It's your fault you can't see anything; you should be trying harder!"

There are a whole lot of factors surrounding unemployment other than 'laziness'; lack of employment available, not qualified enough to gain higher employment, et cetera.

To proclaim that people who live under the poverty line should simply "work harder" if they are struggling to gain the barest minimum of basic necessities is just elitist, close-minded and ignorant.

Hell, it's not even people living under the poverty line that are struggling. The entire middle class is trying to come to grips with medical costs they can't afford any longer, even with two and three incomes. That's not a matter of laziness, either.

[Niicha]

Sure, I ticked 'safe' on my private insurance funds, instead they took that money and invested it in extremely dodgy, based on thin air, investments,

Can I sue them?

No I can't, the value of my investments may go up and down despite the fact that I ticked safe and they just manipulated what 'safe' meant.

Sounds like you should take more of an interest in how your funds are invested.

The problem with people with your kind of attitude is that you don't think you need to do any work when it comes to your own financial well being. It take research, and leg work to find insurance or investment plans that do what you need them to do. Do you just go to the doctor and accept his diagnosis with no questions, no follow up? If you do, I pity you for that as well. No one is going to care about you the way you yourself will, and in the end, it's up to you to educate yourself on issues that directly impact you, and advocate for yourself when things aren't making sense.

From your views on economic issues, I assume you also feel the same on civil liberty issues I.E. The government should stay out of of ones private affairs. Which means decriminalization of narcotics, repeals on sodomy laws, the ability for gays to marry, those issues.
I just want to be sure you're not a one trick pony.

Edit: Omitted a word

[Hiddenrun]

Finally, someone who has at least half a brain on NS.

I'd be careful with statements like this, people might consider them trolling.

If that sounds too much like hard work, then your refusal to engage in it tells me something about your overall work ethic.

I'd be careful with these, too. Seems kinda bait-y to me. So far this thread has been doing alright, let's not ruin that.

Fair enough, apologies.

[Aelosia]

Just to clear this up, not going into to much argument, have you seen Sicko?

Yes. I've also read the various refutations of Moore's manipulative, and in many cases outright false, arguments. Not that I expected more from him. Do you have a point?

Yet do you realize that in your country, many people have complained about the state of the health care system, specially during the last years, and that maybe an effort could be made to equal certain conditions for everyone in order to level the living play field where it is more important, namely health?

That perhaps centralized healthcare is going to fix some issues, while private medicine remains as an alternative, perhaps forcing it to be competitive with the public secotr and as such improving most of its infrastructure and attention capabilities?

While afraid of an slippery slope, I have to highlight that taking the approach of "charity only" is mostly a dangerous proposition, specially when taking to the extreme?

[Chrobalta]

Welfare needs to be reformed to get the lazy people out of it and so it can be used for the people who need it. Healthcare should be for anybody who wants it. Nobody should have to suffer because a few people whine about where their tax dollars go. Newsflash, you don't get to choose what your tax dollars go to. Maybe I don't like the waste in the military, should I expect everybody to protect themselves now?

[Virtud Tierra]

You see... this is where you God and religion hating secular progressives fail. You have put your faith and trust in your Government. You rely on Government to bail you out of bad situations.

You refuse to acknowledge God and his ability to help you. I have received WAY more help from my Church welfare system than I have received from my Govmt welfare system. My Church welfare is contributed to voluntarily. How many of you SP's have turned to religion when times are tough, rather than the goverment?

If my entire city was vaporized, and I managed to survive, and I managed to be able to leave, I would take my Church suggested 72 hour kit and start walking until I got to an area what wasnt vaporized and I would head to a Church in that area and get help.

Now, I won't shit on churches and the relief they provide. I've filled my stomach on plenty of Adventist food bank handouts. However, I don't think private charities and God can solve everything.

Consider Hurricane Katrina. The government sent in FEMA, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, volunteers, violated the habeas corpus and sent in the Army reserves and even the goddamn Mexican Army was sent to provide relief. It was still a goddamn fiasco.

God put that city several meters underwater and didn't seem to help out too much on the aftermath. I got to say I'd rather invest in the government so they can deal with disaster rather then hope someone feels sorry for me and helps me along.

[Barringtonia]

I suggest you look up the definition of contingency.

Honestly, you aren't even trying to do anything but whine pointlessly.

You're aren't trying to do anything aside from adhere to your dream world without accepting reality,

It's easy to just make statements,

[Hiddenrun]

So you're arguing in favour of an NHS now.

Absolutely not.

Unless of course, human life isn't considered to be "the bare basics". Getting a boob job and other petty desires that only a doctor can give are more than the bare basics (in more ways than one ), and for that reason they are NOT paid for by the NHS. But treating a broken leg or something worse is on the NHS.

You should pay for the treatment for your broken leg, or any other treatment you receive. If you've planned, you have health insurance that handles these sorts of things, just like if you've planned, you have insurance that pays for an ambulance if necessary.

[Barringtonia]

Maybe I don't like the waste in the military, should I expect everybody to protect themselves now?

Good point, I have a gun, why should I pay to protect other people?

What do the people of New York concern me, they chose to live there, they can live, or not, with the consequences.

[Czardas]

You see... this is where you God and religion hating secular progressives fail. You have put your faith and trust in your Government. You rely on Government to bail you out of bad situations.

Government's job is to run the nation and make sure things work. Religion's job is to determine how you should behave. Where it comes to thorny questions of ethics, I'll rely on religion; when you need someone to enforce the common good, I'll look for government.

You refuse to acknowledge God and his ability to help you. I have received WAY more help from my Church welfare system than I have received from my Govmt welfare system. My Church welfare is contributed to voluntarily. How many of you SP's have turned to religion when times are tough, rather than the goverment?

None, since secular progressives are by their very definition non-religious.

If my entire city was vaporized, and I managed to survive, and I managed to be able to leave, I would take my Church suggested 72 hour kit and start walking until I got to an area what wasnt vaporized and I would head to a Church in that area and get help.

Depending on how powerful the nuclear weapon was, you might have to walk for an awfully long time -- days or weeks, potentially. And most of the churches you would pass would be empty and deserted, full of diseased corpses and soon-to-be-corpses. By the time you reached one that was far enough upwind of the blast to avoid massive radiation sickness; (a) it would already be full of other people like you who needed help, and (b) its resources in helping you rebuild your house, find a job, etc. would be rather limited.