Sure would love national health careFollow

You asked what the benefit was of the child living. I answered it repeatedly. Then you tried to defuse my answer by talking about the mother's circumstances and how people who benefit mankind don't stay in poverty. It was a complete strawman argument because the mother isn't the point here, the child who died was the point.If you want to defend the "benefit" of the kid dying, have at it. I need a good laugh.

No. I asked what species benefit was provided by universal health care. In this particular case we can assume that had it existed, this child would have lived instead of died.

Here's the point you're not getting. You can guess that maybe this child would have gone on to become a productive member of society and perhaps even generated some great benefit. However, my question was in general, not this specific case. Statistically, the cost to provide the degree of universal health care that would have been required to save this child's life to everyone far outshadows the benefits provided by those who recieve it. To be harsh in this particular case, statistically had this child lived he likely would have cost vastly more to the nation then he would have produced. He likely would have ended up in jail, or on some other form of assistance which would have further cost us all. The likelyhood that he would have *ever* generated more total benefit to society as a whole then he cost is incredibly slim.

I'm looking at a cost to benefit analysis. Do we expend more resources helping people who are just going to cost us more down the line? Is that a sane practice? My argument is that by providing benefits at all we create a situation where some people will feel that they don't have to do anything to make their own lives better, or the lives of their children better. They assume that the government will take care of them. Thus, the rate of those needing assistance increases over time, making the problem worse. Not only do we pay the most for those who contribute the least, but over time we increase the rate of those who contribute the least.





I already have. Again. This is a harsh assessment, but statistically from a societal benefit point of view, we're better off with him having died then not. We'd have been even better off if the emergency medical care had not been available and he'd just died from the brain absesses without incuring the hundred K or so cost at all.

Harsh? Yes. True. Absolutely...


Humans as a species managed to survive for tens of thousands of years without much in the way of medical care at all. It's staggering to me that as our medical science improves, it seems like the rate of those who can't survive without it increases. IMO, that's a direct result of the process I outlined above. We stop taking care of ourselves because we assume that modern medicine will swoop in and save us. This child died of tooth decay by age 12? I understand being poor, but even the poorest person can afford a toothbrush. Simple dental hygene that requires no money at all could have saved him. Even among the most primitive humans in history, having your adult teeth rot out to that degree by age 12 is pretty amazing...


At some point you just have to accept that no matter how foolproof you try to make things, some fool will come along and proove you wrong. My suggestion is that we really shouldn't even try, since all we're doing is making people more foolish then they've ever been. Seriously. Primitive pigmies knew enough to avoid rotting their teeth out by that age. I'm sorry, but I think people need to make at least *some* effort to survive in the world. We certainly should not feel that our government should make sure even the stupidiest people (and their children) survive.

Yeah. Harsh. I know...

Statistically, his life or death probably didn't matter at all from the view of whether society prospers or not. I'd still say the slight chance that he'd amount to something ultimately beneficial for society off-sets the negligable "drag" he'd have otherwise.Holy Christ, you're an idiot. I don't even know where to begin with that statement. I'll settle for just calling you an idiot because I don't see where a reasoned retort will do any good so I might as well go for what feels the most fulfilling.

It's times like this where I'm glad that I don't really need to debate a point wth you because you've already made yourself sound pathetic enough without my help.

But you have absolutely no evidence to support this. I also love how you call his "cost" a "negligible drag". It's not negligible. And it's a hell of a lot more then he'll likely ever produce in his lifetime.

I'm presenting a very simple argument. And I know that most of you for one reason or another feel uncomfortable addressing it, or even thinking about it (but that's partly why I'm bring it up). But the reality is that some people will cost more over the course of their lives then they will produce over the course of their lives. My argument is that by creating universal health care systems (and other's, but we can stick to just this one for now), we increase that cost almost directly for those who are already producing less then they cost. I'm simply asking if this is a sane approach for a society to have?

From a purely objective point of view, this seems wrong. If you were running a sports team, would you not decide which players to keep based on a comparison of the degree to which they help the team versus the degree to which they hurt the team? It would be like insisting that we increase the salaries for the players who are the worst members of the team. Why? Because they're the worst so they need more I guess...


Obviously, I understand the humanitarian issues involved. I'm simply pointing out that our humanitarian niceness needs to be tempered with realistic assessements, or we may find ourselves living a society full of people who can't care for themselves. Worse, what happens if someday the total amount of "cost" for all the citizens ends up being more then the total benefit they're generating? Will our society not collapse under its own weight at that point?



]

Why don't you know where to begin? I've made a supposition that by creating an environment where people feel entitled to government benefits, they will increasingly fail to take basic steps to provide for themselves. This argument has been the central point I've made. That over time the rate of people dependant on the government increases as a result of these sorts of programs, and so we need to be cautious about creating or expanding them.


My comparison is very relevant. We've "advanced" our society to the point where something that wouldn't have killed anyone in a primitive society becomes fatal, not because of a failure of our medical system or knowledge, but because of a failure of the individual(s) in our society who've somehow lost the ability to care for themselves anymore.

Yes, it's totally sane. Not that what you're suggesting isn't sane, it's just not civilized. Something about a nation being judged by how it treats its poor, or something.

And what the fUck is that smell? Did someone MonxDot their pants in this thread when I wasn't looking?

That post lacked {Brackets}. Also, at least two /'s apper to have been omitted.