|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
This is viewing things from the standpoint of those with sufficient
money to consider how they wish to spend it. Naturally rich people
want to keep their money and not share it with others, unless they
have a compassionate heart.
I saw a documentary about Sears Robuck. One of the things they did
was sell houses, kits of all you'd need to build your own home.
The guy who ran Sears, one of the co-founders (not Sears), during
the depression was by then very wealthy, and he saw that people
were losing their homes. He personally helped customers to hold
on to their homes by laying out millions. The man had a heart.
Now, lawyers are trained to think from both sides of an issue.
They have students assigned to take position A or position B,
regardless of how they personally view things. It trains you to
see what are the best and the worst arguments, for sure, but
it also helps you to see that the other side does have an
arguable position, and that affects the heart, if you happen to
have one.
So, if one looks at the "freedom" of those without money, the
picture alters, does it not? There is no discussion of whether or
not they will buy this or that. So the rich person's argument
ignores that reality.
What about the middle class? Until recently, they mostly had
insurance, but Wall St. got all the money, frankly, and
nearly destroyed the economy of the world, which is still
reeling as a result of those guys having total freedom to do
whatever they wanted with their money and ours, and now
30 million or so Americans have absolutely no health insurance,
and people are sick and unable to get help until they run
out of money almost completely, which eventually they do
if they don't die first.
This is a moral issue, not just economic, of course, because
a country that allots bonuses to CEOs in the millions year after
year, sometimes quarter after quarter, and is worried that
the poor fellows might be overtaxed, surely can figure out
an equal concern that millions of Americans lack the basics
of life and construct a method to get those 30 million middle
class Americans some help. Get them jobs, you say? Please
do, but a lot of them have jobs that pay so little they still can't
afford insurance and others are too sick and besides there
aren't currently enough jobs to give everybody one. They
outsourced all the jobs to India and Pakistan, etc., leaving
the middle class hanging in the air. That is, in fact,
part of why so many don't have insurance any more.
And it will be cheaper than what is currently happening, where
those of us who do have insurance end up paying for the
30 million anyway when they show up in hospital emergency
rooms.
So the psychiatrist is saying that it's good for Americans to
not have to care about anybody but themselves and to
be totally lacking in empathy for people who are suffering. And that
of course is the exact opposite of the famous saying that there
is more happiness in giving than receiving. There are studies
that have shown that this is true, by the way, so his
concern about our personalities if we have to give a little
for the greater good is ridiculously wrong, but even if it
were true, in MA, where they have exactly this system, costs
actually went down. That's the point. That this is a clever way
to deal with cost shifting, so that the costs go down for those
currently paying. So he is not thinking clearly about the
big picture, I don't think.
I'm trying to be kind and not blast him out of the water,
so to speak, verbally. But I despise what he wrote. The
America I know has always cared about others. From the
days of the Pilgrims, neighbors helped each other. That's
what barn bulding was about. ANd during harvests, everyone
helped if the man of the farm was too sick to do it, because
everyone understood the suffering that family would
experience without a helping hand. Why would it be
damaging for all of us to use the government to handle
a really big problem that none of us individually can
solve? What else is government for?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Having read PJ's long argument, I'll simply point to Darwinism.
We are SOCIAL animals. That is we CARE for each other. Why? Because it is in our
SELFISH BEST INTEREST to do so.
I'm currently unemployed :-( I have a sick wife. I have a disabled grandchild.
Okay, I'm struggling on benefits but getting by, but I contributed heavily for
most of working life to the system for precisely this eventuality. And having
married late in life and acquired two stepdaughters, I've actually paid very
heavily for the privilege of being looked after by the state (single Brits pay
far more than their fair share of tax ...).
The thing that gets me is when people rip off the system, but the reality at
present is that the administrators are ripping it off pretty badly. Two changes
I would like to see ... :-)
1. Get rid of the insanity of marginal tax rates on the POOR calculated in the
hundreds of percent. If I'm on benefits, allow me to pay tax on my income at the
same rate as the richest in society. Then ignore that income when calculating
what I'm entitled to. (For the benefit of furriners, I currently get about
£60/week to look after my wife. I'm allowed to earn £100. If I earn £101, that
extra £1 will REDUCE my income from £160/pw to £101/pw. STUPID!)
Change the rules so that you can't claim unemployment benefits until you've
contributed to the system for, say, two years. Okay, this means what do we do
about all those youngsters who can't get a job? Simple. Get the TA, RAFVR and
RNVR to take on any and all applicants and give them a job of sorts. "Make
Work", probably, but so what! Square bashing, military bands, trades of
various sorts, etc etc. And poorly paid, yes, so what. That way, youngsters have
an *incentive* to look for something, and if they don't they at least have to
work for their benefits. And they can be trained. Don't send them to war,
though, because it is a form of conscription. (What about those who can't work?
Well if the Reserves reject them as "unfit" it turns into a medical
matter, and fine, give people medical benefits. My grand-daughter might need
that.)
And lastly, make the system a lot simpler! :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
