Stop expecting others to take care of you.

[Post-Unity Terra]

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.

I don't think you quite understand that it is paid for, just not at the point of delivery or whatever you want to call it.

[Hydesland]

I thought you were talking about all insurance companies, not just health insurance.

people avoid getting basic care until their problems get out of control

And what do you expect the health insurance companies to do about that? They don't control peoples lives.

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.

In what sense do health insurance companies focus on response?

denying coverage when it would impact their profit margins.

Any individual denial of coverage would usually have an infinitesimal impact on overall profit so there would be no motive to deny an individual service and risk a court case, any denial of coverage that does happen would likely be not covered in the contract in the first place. Competition prevents the companies from selling rubbish services that only cover certain procedures and medicines, unless they are at a significantly reduced cost (or there is a cartel going on, which isn't what the majority free market supporters want, hence anti-trust laws).

[Fartsniffage]

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.

Not a great arguement against Hidderun, he's already indicated in this thead that the military, along with other services, should be privatised.

[Duetopia]

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.

Life works that way among strangers. It doesn't work that way among those we love. Which is precisely why Rand's philosophy got it wrong. She never knew real love. But among those who are civil to each other, it does work. And those who love each other do not need pre-arranged agreement because humans derive joy from pleasing those they love (so no compensation is needed -- that joy is payment enough).

But to address your question, since the Constitution is an implied contract, the moment you interact with other human beings, you immediately enjoy the privileges granted by this contract. This is because the consent to the contract is implied in you being in the country. The volitional choice of non-consent can be exercised by either leaving the country or by not interacting in any manner whatsoever with other "law-abiding" denizens. Because any interaction with the "law-abiding" is done under the expectation of civility -- expectation which is specified through the social contract. That is the interaction itself constitutes volitional acceptance of the contract. Once everyone is aware of it (by being educated in civics), this expectation is justified.

As for the inevitable question "why can't we treat everyone with love?" Because love is fickle. And expecting anyone to be obligated to love anyone else is a form of coercion.

[Treznor]

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?

"Lazy people" is a strawman argument that has no basis in reality. The number of genuinely "lazy" people taking advantage of welfare systems is so small as to be negligible. For the amount of money it costs to support them, we could buy a single bomber.

The whole idea of contributions to society is that shared costs mean reduced burdens. We have at least a hundred million people working and contributing, and an equally small percentage of them reap the majority of the benefits of that productivity. Having everyone contribute to the benefit of each other according to their ability to pay (yes, that means progressive taxation) means everyone gets the minimum of essentials for a tax burden they never truly notice. The only people bitching about that tax burden are nitpickers who resent every penny they're required to give up in exchange for the benefits society provides to them.

There is no such thing as a purely "self-made" individual. Some people work harder than others, and some people are more naturally talented than others. Being able to take advantage of that hard work or natural talent requires the support of the society they live in, or it's like sowing seeds on rocks: you waste material where it does no good. People who argue everyone should be allowed to rise or fall on their own merits deny the role of society in providing the opportunity to benefit from those merits.

[Barringtonia]

Not a great arguement against Hidderun, he's already indicated in this thead that the military, along with other services, should be privatised.

That's good, my daddy, who's forefathers happened on a large diamond mine, will leave his money to me, and I will group with my other rich friends to invade Hiddenrun and execute him as he does bother me so,

[North Suran]

Not a great arguement against Hidderun, he's already indicated in this thead that the military, along with other services, should be privatised.

I just thought to myself: "Who could possibly be so overly-idealistic and ignorant to advocate such an absurd argument?"

Then I remembered that Hiddenrun has a picture of Ronald Reagan as his flag.

[Farnhamia]

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?

Psst ... Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

PRWORA proposed TANF as AFDC’s replacement. The Congressional findings in PRWORA highlighted dependency, out-of-wedlock birth, and intergenerational poverty as the main contributors to a faulty system.[9] In instituting a block grant program, PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill's primary requirements and effects included:

- Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
- Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
- Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
- Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted briefer limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers.

The legislation also greatly limited funds available for unmarried parents under 18, and restricted any funding to immigrants (legal or illegal).[3] Some state programs emphasized a shift towards work with names such as "Wisconsin Works" and "WorkFirst". Between 1997 and 2000, enormous numbers of the poor have left or been terminated from the program, with a national drop of 53% in total recipients

TANF is "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families".

So, you know, welfare has been reformed. There will always be people who game the system. In a country as large as this, that's to be expected. Why, I imagine that Hiddenrun games the tax system as much as he can to keep from contributing his hard-earned money to the support of worthless non-contributors. "Welfare Queens" and such make great "film at eleven" during the ratings sweeps. They're the exception, not the rule.

[Ourobora]

Hiddenrun, please tell me exactly what should be done by Mr. Black, so as to be fully prepared for the worst.



He studies with 16 contact hours a week, which require an additional 48 hours non-contact study. That's a total of 64 hours.
He has a total of 168 hours in the week, like everyone else. Including travel time, this leaves him 100 hours. Taking out 8 hours for sleep each night, that's 56 hours.
He has one job which pays $90 for 6 hours work each week.
Another which pays $18.52/hr, and can get 4 hours each week.
Another which pays $12.91/hr, and can get 12 hours a week.

This leaves him about 20 hours in a week (I've subtracted travel times to and from work)

This is a total pay of approximately $290/week after tax.
Rent is $155/week, bringing him down to $126.
Rental insurance is $5/week; private health insurance is $30; transport is $15/week; medication is $14/week. Groceries are $50/week.
This leaves $12.
Multiplied by 52, that's a grand saving of $624 a year.

Given he may be able to get extra shifts during the university holiday periods, as some staff take breaks, we'll make it $1000.


I just can't see him being able to afford medication that his insurance doesn't cover after $300/year when he gets sick.

Given he is studying and working, that makes him a useful and productive citizen in my eyes. I have no problem helping him to avoid bankruptcy.
Heck, I go further than that, and am happy to reward him for studying to become an even more useful and productive member of society!

[North Suran]

-snip-

I'd get rid of that.

Someone once got banned for three days for jokingly stating that Parthenon's entire State should be liquidised to eliminate crime, after the latter claimed that it was okay to target housing and crops during war.

[Fartsniffage]

Not a great arguement against Hidderun, he's already indicated in this thead that the military, along with other services, should be privatised.

That's good, my daddy, who's forefathers happened on a large diamond mine, will leave his money to me, and I will group with my other rich friends to invade Hiddenrun and execute him as he does bother me so,

I'd be careful if I were you. He'll have planned for that, just like everything else in his life, and his plans can never possibly go wrong.

[Czardas]

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.

Do you not know how the NHS works?

I mean, you don't get treatment for free. You have to pay an 11% (or thereabouts) tax. Essentially, the government is using your own money to provide you with treatment, the same way insurance companies use the premiums you have been paying them to provide you with treatment as well.

Where's the conflict?

[Hiddenrun]

Going into debt to get an education assumes that you can pay it off before the interest snowballs to impossible levels. If you break a leg, or come down with a debilitating disease, you're dead.

Do you really not understand anything about loans? Honestly, the number of you who seem completely and utterly clueless when it comes to insurance absolutely astounds me. At first I thought you were just going out of your way to ignore reality, but it actually seems like you really don't know a thing about it.

If you go in and get a bank loan to study, if you go in to get a credit card, a line of credit, or any other such financial tool, you will be offered various forms of insurance. If you aren't, you need to bank elsewhere. You can opt out of this insurance. Many people do, because they're too cheap to pay the premiums. However, the premiums themselves are not exorbitant.

Kinds of coverage you can get include interest free periods (at varying lengths) after the end of your studies to allow you time to find a job. You can get medical coverage, or job loss coverage. You can get insurance that covers your family in case of death, etc. Many people resent the monthly fee for this coverage, but the alternative is certainly not worth the risk. If you aren't honestly looking into this sort of thing, you need to be doing so. And if you don't understand the coverage, ask and ask and ask again until it is crystal clear.

Yes. You haven't planned for it. If you come down with leukemia, or some other fatal disease that your insurance company weasels out of, you're screwed. And while you could retain a lawyer on contingency, the insurance firm simply has to stall long enough, and they certainly can with their much greater access to legal resources, for you to drop dead after you've exhausted your resources to treat the disease. Or rather simpler, the insurance firm goes bust, having put significant investments in Fanny and Mae pre-economic crash.

You failed to plan for absolute worse case scenario. And so if it comes to pass, you deserve to die, just the way you advocated.

You need to stop making foolish assumptions about me. I understand my coverage very well, and I know how to deal with insurance companies. I have multiple coverage in case of accident, loss of job, or death. In order for me to arrive at the end you've wished for me, more than 8 separate insurance companies would have to breach their insurance contracts, and I would have to pretend to not know how to take them to court.

Also, this comes awfully close to flaming, don't you think?

And so if it comes to pass, you deserve to die, just the way you advocated.

[Ravea]

Because when you've worked in a low paying job until you're 40 (and have managed somewhere to live, food each week, to pay the bills - the basics) and learn you've got MS, and can no longer preform your job properly, so they lay you off, therefore you no longer have your employer provided health insurance. And no job. So you spend your savings getting the medication you need to function to find a job. Funnily enough, they're hard to come by at the moment!

What do you suggest Ms. Green does now?

I could care less. Sounds like that's Ms. Green's problem.

I can give you a thousand sob stories. Are you going to give money to each sad sack who has a sob story for you?

You can go ahead. Life is full of risk, and hard times. That's reality. If you can't handle it, well that's your problem too.

What would Jesus do?

(I can't believe I'm using this argument.)

[Hiddenrun]

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

Yes, you yourself are completely innocent of that, little Miss Rainbows and unicorns.

[Barringtonia]

Life works that way among strangers. It doesn't work that way among those we love. Which is precisely why Rand's philosophy got it wrong. She never knew real love. But among those who are civil to each other, it does work. And those who love each other do not need pre-arranged agreement because humans derive joy from pleasing those they love (so no compensation is needed -- that joy is payment enough).

But to address your question, since the Constitution is an implied contract, the moment you interact with other human beings, you immediately enjoy the privileges granted by this contract. This is because the consent to the contract is implied in you being in the country. The volitional choice of non-consent can be exercised by either leaving the country or by not interacting in any manner whatsoever with other "law-abiding" denizens. Because any interaction with the "law-abiding" is done under the expectation of civility -- expectation which is specified through the social contract. That is the interaction itself constitutes volitional acceptance of the contract. Once everyone is aware of it (by being educated in civics), this expectation is justified.

As for the inevitable question "why can't we treat everyone with love?" Because love is fickle. And expecting anyone to be obligated to love anyone else is a form of coercion.

Ammm... thank you for the considered post,

Given an equal birth, then I would allow for choice of love to determine the society one wants to live in, given equal resources in land as well.

Yet where both birth and land are unequal, then one's choice of love is coerced as well, in that sense I strive for a society that aims for equality, despite aiming to work in balance with efficiency, but taking priority.

[Farnhamia]

Not a great arguement against Hidderun, he's already indicated in this thead that the military, along with other services, should be privatised.

That's good, my daddy, who's forefathers happened on a large diamond mine, will leave his money to me, and I will group with my other rich friends to invade Hiddenrun and execute him as he does bother me so,

I'd be careful if I were you. He'll have planned for that, just like everything else in his life, and his plans can never possibly go wrong.

Until that cell somewhere in his body or in the body of one of his people goes "Yeah, baby, parrr-TAY!!!!" and the resulting medical bills suck down all that lovely wealth and flush his lovely plans down the toilet in the two-room apartment he ends up in. Pity.

[Allied Governments]

Limited Resources to cover Unlimited want never ends well.

[Farnhamia]

Limited Resources to cover Unlimited want never ends well.

Nice one-liner. What does that mean?

[Aelosia]

"Lazy people" is a strawman argument that has no basis in reality. The number of genuinely "lazy" people taking advantage of welfare systems is so small as to be negligible. For the amount of money it costs to support them, we could buy a single bomber.

And even then, with a heavily working, and heavily progressive society, said lazy people, that are a considerable minor group in your society, would eventually strive to integrate into the system and stop their dependancy, reducing their number even further.

The whole idea of contributions to society is that shared costs mean reduced burdens. We have at least a hundred million people working and contributing, and an equally small percentage of them reap the majority of the benefits of that productivity. Having everyone contribute to the benefit of each other according to their ability to pay (yes, that means progressive taxation) means everyone gets the minimum of essentials for a tax burden they never truly notice. The only people bitching about that tax burden are nitpickers who resent every penny they're required to give up in exchange for the benefits society provides to them.

While taxes may be bigger for those with higher income, those with higher income will suffer the reduction of cash by taxes less than anyone else, given their ability to increase their cash flow, to make additional investments, and by their total coverage of basic necessities. Having to renounce to another yatch in Saint Tropez is significatively less problematic than to renounce to dinner 3 days a week.

There is no such thing as a purely "self-made" individual. Some people work harder than others, and some people are more naturally talented than others. Being able to take advantage of that hard work or natural talent requires the support of the society they live in, or it's like sowing seeds on rocks: you waste material where it does no good. People who argue everyone should be allowed to rise or fall on their own merits deny the role of society in providing the opportunity to benefit from those merits.

Plus, we have inheritance, and created opportunities. I had access to education, and to a lot of facilities and opportunities that were negated to others given their background, place of birth and family status. There is no "self made" men/women because the play field is not levelled to begin with. Noone is equal at birth in the world we live in.

[Allied Governments]

Limited Resources to cover Unlimited want never ends well.

Nice one-liner. What does that mean?

Trying to satisfy everyone's needs doesn't necessarily help the economy, where we could allocate the resources to people who are either more useful, efficient, or productive. There is after all only so much money or food to go around.

[Barringtonia]

-snip-

I'd get rid of that.

Someone once got banned for three days for jokingly stating that Parthenon's entire State should be liquidised to eliminate crime, after the latter claimed that it was okay to target housing and crops during war.

I'm happy to be judged by Mods, and accept what they judge,

I'd be careful if I were you. He'll have planned for that, just like everything else in his life, and his plans can never possibly go wrong.

They never do in fiction,

[Czardas]

-snip-

I'd get rid of that.

Someone once got banned for three days for jokingly stating that Parthenon's entire State should be liquidised to eliminate crime, after the latter claimed that it was okay to target housing and crops during war.

That's because Parthenon reported it to the mods (despite the obvious humorous intent), counting on the fact that the mods have lives and can't generally be bothered to read the entire thread to gain context unless someone really complains.

[Sennianus]

It's not just the whining about needing socialized medicine, it's the entire sense of entitlement that people seem to have. It should be very simple. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it. Period. If someone wants to get it for you, great. I don't happen to care about you at all, and I resent greatly the belief that I should somehow pay for you to access anything you can't get on your own.

Where do you think this notion came from? This lack of self-sufficiency? Are children being too coddled by their parents? Is it wider social conditioning, top down? For those of you living on the public teat, what makes you think you should be doing so?

Break your leg, get cancer, and have your kidney's removed... Next, you will fall down a stairs and break your neck, making your crippled. None of these are your fault, but you lose your job and don't have enough money to afford medical care.

Is it fair you should be left out to die because you didn't have private insurance, and can't afford the medical care needed for you to lead a (reasonably active, productive) life?

[North Suran]

Also, this comes awfully close to flaming, don't you think?

-snip-

This comes awfully close to using Mods as weapons, don't you think?

Non-Aligned States is merely pointing out that your argument is essentially cutting people off and letting them die.