Sure would love national health careFollow

I adore you so.

Nexa

Not really. A true Darwinian point of view would be that it benefits the species to keep a wide range of genes available.

If all that's left, eventually, is the inbred rich, that's bad for the species (but good for the specie, maybe).

Lot of homeless folks on wellfare earning Nobel Prizes? Just curious...

Yes. You talk of "potential contribution". However, it's pretty clear that while they are in that condition, they are *not* contributing. And as long as they are in that condition they *will not* contribute. Thus, if you instute "universal health care", you are instituting an environment in which you keep those same people in a perpetual state of non-contribution.

I'm pretty certain that every person who's ever started from humble beginings and managed to make huge contributions to society did not do it by staying poor enough that he/she required free medical care. At some point, they stopped needing it because they went out and made something of their lives and *then* they did whatever great thing they did that contributed to society.

My suggestion is that nationalized health care removes some of the incentive for people to do that. You're arguing that some people who might have later gone on to invent some great thing would die without the health care, but I'm countering that with the argument that some who might have survived without health care and used that lack to move onwards and upwards with their lives will not do so if they have it provided for them for free.


And I'll argue that the statistical rate of "potential huge contributors" who are eliminated by having universal health care is greater then the number eliminated by not having it.



No. I just think you're only looking at one side of the issue.

To Gbaji's previous post:

Ok... so we are going to leave aside any and all moral considerations, and just do a purely economic cost/benefit anaylisis, as a kind of check that we don't let the costs blow out massively, astronomically.

A healty person can work full time and pay taxes. An unheallthy person can only work reduced hours, and a suffieciently unhealthy person can't work at all. We know that a lot of minor health problems, if left untreated, will escalate and lead to long term massive or chronic illnesses that prevent a person from working for several years, or ever again.

From a purely "Enlightened Self-Interest" point of view, I want as many people as healthy as possible, because they are able to contriblute indirectly to my own personal welfare through GDP... and directly to my own personal welfare because they are paying taxes that I directly benefit from throughout my life. Protection, justice, infrastructure, transportation, education, common amenites and landscaping, etc etc.

If "they" are healthy, "they" can work and pay taxes... taxes which incidentally also cover health costs.

If "they" are too sick to work AND arent' recieving enough in benefits to pay for the bare essentials of life, and for their own medical care, then "they" understandably will turn to crime in order to survive. It's inbuilt into human beings to do anything to preserve their own life. Humans just don't lay down and die because they can't do anyuthing to legally feed themselves.

Why don't you trust your own governments enought to eventually get it right? Why does almost every other first-world country both medically cover TWICE the number that America does, at LESS OF A TOTAL COST to GDP?

Don't tell me it's because they have smaller populations than America, because many of them have very similar population numbers. Or we could go to economic numbers per head of population, which would show exactly the same result.

You are also ignoring one of the integral parts of Darwinian science. It's the whole part of Darwinian science that explains how human culture and society got started in the first place.

AN individual that doesn't stick to rules, act co-operatively, and act generously will always gain/win/out-compete an individual that does stick to rules, does act co-operatively, and does act generously.

BUT

A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS that do stick to rules, act co-operatively, and act generously will always gain/win/out-compete a GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS who don't stick to rules, don't act co-operatively and don't act generously.


This has been known to Darwinian scientists for 150 years and applies equally to any type of animal or human.

Humans have reached such cultural, technological, social, and moral heights as they have because enough people have co-operated, been generous, and provided a material amount of the fruits of their labour to other members of the group.

Note that the generosity part is some providing fruits of labour without expecting anything being given back in return, while some who are incapable of much or any productive labour recieve care, shelter and nutrition without giving any back. The co-operative part is that most individuals fall into both the giving and receiving of fruits of labour.

Having a government make rules for group distribution, and taking charge of some parts of group distribution, is just a way of making group distribution systematic, organised, and routinely equitable and fair. In other words, it's AN EFFICIENT way for really large groups to co-operate in distributing some of the fruits of labour around the group.

Remember that ALL the individual members of a co-operative group have an evolutionary, "survival-of-the-fittest" advantage over individuals who aren't in one.

Note that I'm not advocating communism or socialism here. Of course it's desirable that humans get to have private property, and get to keep most of their own income, to spend exactly how they choose.

I'm saying that taxes and government services directly fall into the Coperative Group Always Wins Over Unco-operative Group Darwinian paradigm. There are some services that are essential to a life lived in a modern society.

Yes, free market compettition delivers a certain kind of efficiency... but it doesn't nearly cover every case scenario. It's more profitable to individuals and individual corporations NOT to serve the poor, and they rightly resent being forced into serving the poor. Therefore taxes and government services are a great way of serving the poor, (Group generosity and co-operation) as well as providing common essentail services like roads, policing and defence, to everyone at large.

Governments merely have to balance their budgets over time, ideally aiming for income to exactly cover costs. Private enterprise wants a 15% profit margin for providing the same service.

Relying totally on individual charity in a very large group to send around enough fruits of labour to everyone who needs it just doesnt' work. In a large enough population individual charity and charitable causes, are just too haphazard, random, and hit-and miss. (Of course they do a brilliant job at materially aiding some individuals. The problem is thay don't aid every individual who needs help.) Individual charities need to be exactly equivalent to govenrment services in order to fulfill the Darwinian Co-operative Group Wins Over Non co-operative group. (In any group that is larger than a tiny village, that is... in a modern nation.)

Leaving everything to free market competition economcs is also too random, haphazard and hit-and-miss to ensure a Co-operative Group.

Just look at the features of first-world/developed/western nations as opposed to third world/developing/non-western nations. The former ALL have higher taxes, higher government services and lower corruption than ANY of the latter.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2007 12:08am by Aripyanfar

lol it wuz a good post tho

Oh you'll last about three weeks here, buddy.

I'd advise getting laid.

It will put all you've undoubtedly been through in perspective. You'll realize we're all not much more then anonymous electrons zipping through a series of tubes.

I find it funny that a 12 year old dies from, literally, tooth decay, and people like gbaji and MonxDoT basically are arguing that, yep, he should have. gbaji can't seem to grasp that it was him and not the Mom, but that's par for his course. And monx makes statements like "I AM GOD - HEAR MY WORDS FOR THEY ARE THE LAW!".

Any credible right wingers want to jump in?

Going once...

I wonder what it would be like to go through life so delusional.

Oooooor I could let my cat walk across the keyboard and post the nonsense that makes more sense then the sense you try to make.

/pwnd harder than I pwnd your mother.

Which is weirder:

Gbaji and his economic Darwinism

or

MonxDot and his taxation is rape analogy?

I actually find Gbaji's ideas slightly more offensive, and methinks this is not a good sign for your argument, g-man.