By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
Screamapillar said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Such a response is wholly unfounded. You just assume that the system would not be properly funded, for one. Two, it is the role of the state to provide goods for which the free market is an inefficient provider, health care being a *huge* thing here. Third, different countries use different systems, and not all of them (indeed, not many of them) involve the government seizing direct control or totally monopolizing the system (just mostly monopolizing it. The United Kingdom still has a small private health system that the very rich can take advantage of). In many countries, it's simply a matter of the government distributing funds to a system that otherwise looks much like our own, just that the bill ultimately comes from the top. In Japan, everyone pays into national health insurance (including anyone on a visa more than 90 days), and they pay according to their income, and get deductibles set according to their income. The wealthy pay more into the system, and are on the hook for more when they get care, but everyone is guaranteed to get it, which is simply justice.


Forgive me, but it seems as though that is an incentive to not be a successful person.  As in, a disincentive to obtain a career with a higher-paying job in order to obtain "free" health insurance, but at the same time, not have to work very hard for it.  Thus, it leaves the door open for the more industrious to feel "Why am I bothering to work so hard when other's are getting health insurance for doing far less?", even though most are more capable than that?

Let me be absolutely clear.  I am a compassionate person, it seems like you are as well, I just feel very strongly that your philosophy of how this all should be handled is going to create more problems than it's going to solve.  I think in general, that welfare programs, and programs like Social Security and Medicare, are a disincentive to save for retirement, and a disincentive to budget enough money from your own salary to pay for your medical bills.  I don't think it's fair to expect someone to pay for someone else who was, for the most part, less careful about making good life choices and exercising good judgement.

Because we're only talking about the essentials of life as far as income goes. In the welfare state I would advocate, the poorest would get full nutrition, healthcare, shelter, education, and the minimum in clothing, but these are not really the ingredients for a fulfilling life on the whole. If you want a house, a good car, the leisure to watch movies or read books or surf the internet or video games or what have you, you still have to work.

Some people aren't going to work, and are going to exercise poor judgment and yet expect someone to cover for their mistakes, but even they deserve the basics, but how many people are going to be satisfied with the basics? Wealth and success are their own incentives beyond mere survival.

The problem with your theory is it is completely false and assumes that those in charge of the distribution are altruistic and benevolent. We know this is patently false. The welfare state can only be paid for by plunder. The plunder of those who seek to be able to afford things like video games, a good car leisure time etc. etc. In fact leisure time is even harder to come by when you do actually work. The welfare state is the antihesis to freedom and liberty. It indentures one group to another with NO origin of debt. Save for some mythical Social Contract that apparently we all sign at birth if we are not aborted within that welfare sate. Besides what happens when the takers out number the givers?

Welfare is the worst form of slavery and has done nothing but destroy the lives of those unfortunate enough to have to rely on it. Look at the destruction of the Back family it has wrought. Welfare is a way to garner power through the inevitable voting blocks formed by those who have come to rely on the government dole. Promise the world, deliver misery and the people will come crawling back for more. It also pits the haves against the supposed have nots. It robs people of the sense of dignity and accomplishment of earning something. It encourages envy on all sides. Don't believe me? Look around. Doe s our society not seem even more divided these days as our welfare state has grown even larger?

Not to mention the frivolous misuse of welafre benefits to purchase things like video games and luxury items those very funds were never meant to purchase. Well then you say we need laws to prevent that. We sure do but then what has happened to ours and your freedom to live as you like? And who is to say these new laws meant to prevent welfare recipients from buying these things can even be enforced. Ever seen what happens with food stamp fraud? Even EBT cards can't stop it.

If you wish to know why I believe I know what I am talking about? It's because I grew up on welfare and I am one of the lucky and fortunate people who actually got away from the cycle of poverty induced by the welfare state. The county I lived in San Bernardino recently went bankrupt and not just in money... It was one of those areas of the country where a large percentage of the population were receiving welfare benefits.

My mother and both of my brothers are still living there with dead end jobs (when they can get one) absentee from their children (so their baby momma's can collect those checks and food stamps) and are either using drugs or drinking heavily. Why? because they never knew any better. Because the environment of the welfare state sucked them in and stole their drive and their sense of self worth.... How can you feel worthy of something when you never earn it?

 

Sorry bud but you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.