Today, “better access” really means “easier looting”

One illustration of what a politician does that I used to do in my government classes is to ask the class who needs $5? Then I'd ask who has $5? Then I'd ask one of those who has $5 to give it to me so I can give it to one of the "needy" ones. No one cooperated.

Then I'd say well if I had the power to take $5 and give it to one of those who says he or she needs it, say because a majority of you voted me that power after I told you some needed it, I'd have then demanded that you all chip in to pay me to do that and all should be grateful I did it for you. Never got past the first part. They all thought my proposition was absurd.

What a great exercise. Makes me think of the "Forgotten Man" . . .

very true eagle - socialism/communism always sounds great - till it is YOUR money and wealth being 'shifted'.

Right on Del.

That is a good example eagle...

As I was reading it I was double thinking (which is why I'm scatter brained:) talking to some of my grand kids in my mind passing this info on to them as it came in :)
Thanks for that Eagle.
& John thanks for the article. You know all of us that put this land in debt need to tone down a living to a different level. We need to accept less help from medicare and even a cut in our SSA. If we don't, we won't get our debt down to where it should be.
It's kind of scary but i only got 300$ child support for 9 of us & I signed up for Bible college. God got us through it with lots of fun and no fear. He'll do it for all that call out to Him.
You're right too Dell.
I would sure change the school system and expectation of the kids and parents. Completely rework the system using High schools seniors, jr colleges, big colleges, pull in different specialties where the schools can give them basics and then they can work for a teeny bit of money while the workers train them. And the kids can save their money to pay their trainer for the work he put into them. I think we need to put the schools to work for US. We hire them. We pay them. We'll tell them what results we want. I think it would be exciting.

Thank you for your thoughts Glome!

Yes and no as far as access is concerned because it also says, "A coming to, or near approach; admittance; admission; accessibility.

So it is also an admittance to something. If I say I want to increase access to the movie theatre, it doesn't only mean I wish for more to approach the theatre. Increasing access also means I want more people to be able to gain admittance to the theatre. It doesn't necessarily mean that I am precluding the people who already have admittance or access to the theatre, but I just want to increase the access.

Now, I understand that they probably do mean transfer in several instances, but I don't think you can say that everytime a politician uses the phrase "increasing access, it's the new definition they all have to mean transfer because some people do know what the word means and use it as it is meant.

It could be just "to have." We want this group to have jobs, healthcare, anything. In some cases they do mean we want some to have those things at the expense of others in which case it would mean transfer, but some people just mean they want to add to the existing people who have it more people to have whatever it is.

You make some great points Sue. I think the caveat is "politicians" using the words, not people in general. People in general hear “access” and think “removing obstacles” but not so much that the obstacle removed extend to actually not having to earn whatever it is being sought.

Does that help?

Well, once again, I know what you meant, John, but politicians are also people, though I realize that's difficult to fathom much of the time. :) So, when I said people, you could also substitute politician for that word. So, yes, if it is a transfer any of them are talking about when using the term "increasing access," I would think that they also mean a transfer that has not been earned, though I think that politicians who would use it in such a way are pretty obviously thinking that way from other things they say about the issue. I wouldn't use it as the sole criterion for determing that's what they mean if they use the term, though.

Sure, I agree with that. I believe the underlying point is for people to pay attention to what they really mean. Some could actually mean access and not leeching or transferring of wealth. As long as people think before they judge, it's all good.

The politician is probably lying anyway, no matter what is said. What the politician says to his big money "backers" (actually puppet masters) is quite different from what is allowed to be heard by the public.

Roger that Larry.

i believe politicians count on people not having time to think about the meanings john.

look at thge "affordable Care Act" - it actually is about government forced and subsidied care, and the goal is to destroy the private insurance industry, so only the governemtn program is left.

then there is no NEED to discuss universal, single payer, socialized medicine - there will be nothing else available.

Exactly right Del. Thinking is tough and a rare commodity today.

rofl .................... well and it does take time john.

i know in my own kids, all of them are in school either getting a degree or continuing ed - and between that, jobs, significant others - they barely have time to eat or sleep and socialize any at all..................its a shame but -

I'll sleep when I am dead . . .

have felt thaqt way myself - today as i have grown older and sicker - i tend to believe i should sleep when i can (naps included) cause gawd knows when i will be able to fall asleep again! lol

How are you feeling BTW Del? Better since the operation?

john i am deeply impressed and honored that you remember! Thank you.

tho it was a procedure more than an true 'surgery' - small incision in my groin, snaked a tube up thru into and back out of my heart, then a tiny camera to look around - a tiny ummmm - "thing" to squirt dye in for better pictures - more discovery type - tho they saw a 50%, which they call minor (?) blockage in one shoulder, and decided while they were there to use a baloon to stratch the artery .....

very wierd stuff to me, amazing they can do it all - but wanted to kck the guys patootie that did it - didnt tell me abojut that wierd heat from the dye beforehand - and certainly did NOT warn me about the pain when they stretched the artery - which since they didnt plan on it, i didnt get any 'bug juice' .............. after it started he made a comment about slight discomfort" - if i had not been afraid to move, i would have grabbed his dangler and shown him the difference tween slight discomfort and 'kill-me-now' pain.

they went thru a long list of side effects that i should no longer have from the procedure - tho i never had any of them to start with sooooooooo.

they did decide i need a surgery on corotid. but i have a couple molars that should come out, and they wont do it till 3 weeks after that - the molars havnt bothered me a bit, been that way for a decade, and i was hoping to just wait till they fell out - but have to have the dentist yank em - then go have the corotid done.

still i guess not a big surgery - as i describe it - tiny incision in my neck - open the artery - and yank the crap out with some pliers - then sew me back up probly put a boot in it (a stent). probly be the middle of may .............

and i have none of the symptoms of the blockage there - dont really expect to feel any different after that heals either - just increase my odds of havin meds kill me before the blockage can lol,

Well, you're a brave Man; and make light if you will, but I think we all know that it is most-likely a bit more intense and dangerous than you let on, Del.

You're a good Man; stay strong, do what they tell you when you think it sounds right, and tell them to go to Hell when you don't.

thank you much mark john.

i dont see it as 'making light' so much as that i dont have a lot of choices.

and based on the lack of options - i have to trust Him to guide their hands, and make things better.


one thing that has altered a bit how i view things - i was told that without meds, i would be dead in 6 months - and with them, due to their side-effects, i would have 10 or MAYBE 15 years - that was 22 years ago.

i have trusted in Him all this time, and i figger he doesnt want me up there yet - sooooo.

and believe me - i have told more than one in 22 years to go to hell lolol.

i know me, know my body, know my ailments, know my reactions to meds. and my doctors understand that - all 4 of em - and they all respect my info and experience of living with and managing my health.

i am incredibly blessed - for no obvious reasons, but i will take it :-)

I agree with Mark-John and I am happy you are doing well.

A friend of mine, who was only 40 at the time, had a similar operation and then eventually they had to do open hear surgery on him. At 40! He is well now than goodness, but a huge Obama supporter. I've told him that he is lucky the issue didn't arise well into the socialist utopia he fights so hard to be in existence. He might have been dead before they got around to doing the surgery.

Yes, John...it's a good job he didn't wait till he was in his 50's!

If this continues, People have no idea what's coming...

Del, you know what you're doing. :)

Are you able to enjoy Meat, or are you under some rather stringent dietary guidelines?

thanks guys.

no restrictive diet.

and there is no absolute certainty, that is nto caused by the meds i MUST take to stay alive literally. without them, every muscle in my body starts to disintergrate, including the muscles that are the heart and diaphram - i read 9 out of 10 doctors recommend you keep those particular muscles??? (why do they always include kavorkian in those surveys?)

i have already been on a 'heart healthy' diet for a decade, because my wife has to be on it, not much more i can do anyway.

John,
one of my arguments AGAINST obamacare, is with all the tests it took to determine my disease, i would have been cut off, and died 22 years ago.

Something even more interesting is the etymology of the word "access".........

It originates from an old 14th-century French word that meant "an attack of fever or the onslaught of an illness"........

Check it out for yourself.........

LOL, I believe you!

Oh my. I can't imagine how it morphed into today's meaning. Interesting BERF.

I have been saying this, if a politian says that they are going to increase spending example: give welfare a million dollars, you can rest assured that they took this money from say, social security medicare to increase the welfare... They rob Peter to pay Paul and we have to really research them as they speak with a double tongue...

Exactly right Vickey!

You know, there is a real disconnect between President Obama and all the incidental people that come and go in his life. In the last SoftUnion address he listed all these new endeavors he's putting in place that will cost
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
without giving a thought to the fact that WE might remember WE are in terrible debt. Gave his sweet little personal smile to all of us and left the stage assuming all his little people were placated. Eh!

You are so right and a good post... Hope everyone learns something from this...

Thank you so much Vickey!

Access. Yes, indeedy, who didn't want everyone to have access to affordable health care. :) Sure didn't think that having access meant that the rest of us had to suffer so that a few could have access.

Exactly right. Everyone wants "access" of course, the question is how can this be done best and and in line with American values? Answer those and you have "access".

I think you are right here. When access is "better" for some, usually it is worse for others, since there is only so much to have access "to". This often means preference, not improving ability to have; or automatic, instead of earned or deserved.

Thank you Char. As I said to Marilyn, everyone wants better access for people, that doesn't necessarily correlate to "free".

John, that is a triumphant word they came up with isn't it? We're going to provide access to high paying jobs for all of you. And everyone leave believing they're going to get a high paying job :) Of course it will be too late when they realize what he said.
I think you should write to Mitt Romney and suggest he have his staff tear apart every promise President Obama is making. They're so used to living with his way of couching everything in words of vague meaning they may not even notice it any more. Good job!

Thank you Glome! I'm not a fan of Mitt either . . .

".... just about anything – health care, medications, education or whatever, they do not really mean "access," they mean "transfer." In other words, they want to take from one person for the benefit of themselves and/or some special interest."

Indeed, health care, education are "transfers". However they are far from a loss for who provides the "information" (which means changing the form of both the provider and the recipient. This to the benefit of BOTH.

Prometheus, when providing the "fire" (knowledge) to man-kind was not losing anything, to the contrary.

Then he has been punished by Zeus and this created the fear of "castration" some people are scared of since the very beginning of man-kind.

On another hand, such fear for being punished by Zeus - nowadays God father - have set up the several Judeo-Christians churches and their religions. As well as the Bible, the Torah or the Koran, in their capacity as monotheistic religions, took profit of that fear to establish their power.

The wealth of our modern Nations are set on Research and Development. For it they DO NEED healthy and educated people.

Denying such capacity to learn and to change to the individuals shows a fear of losing power. The loss of knowledge, due to either religious, either financial reasons, is very fast effective nowadays and far more harmful than what we expected just about 5 decades ago.

Low wages in India, China, Brasil and , in general, to what was the called "lesser developed countries" promoted since then job outsourcing, together with huge transfer of technologies with - now acknowledged - a huge slow down of R&D in the developed countries while large corporations enhanced their profits.

The feedback of it is that the emerging countries are enjoying a much faster development than our.

The question is: Will we accept that the fear of "castration" make us slaves?

Gilbert, just because someone does not feel it is appropriate for society to force people to transfer their property to other people based upon that other person's needs, does not mean they are denying them any capacity to learn or get healthy. All they are doing is denying someone the ability to steal, which should be denied in any moral society.

In fact, people with my view point most often feel, as I do, that people should help others. It is good for the soul and what comes around goes around. But should does not mean must or else. This is the difference.

I get you and see your confusion. A confusion which sees its origin in a non-applicable criteria: "... just because someone does not feel it is appropriate for society to force people to transfer their property to other people based upon that other person's needs, does not mean they are denying them any capacity to learn or get healthy."

The sentence shows that:
1. You don't want the society to be involved.
2. You don't deny them any capacity to get healthy or be educated.

But, as you are not racist, sexist or any ...ist whatsoever, the question is:

How will you educate or provide health to anyone without involving any subjectivity of yours? How will you avoid making any difference between a child and an adult?

I don't see any other way than through taxes and government if any "...ism" is to be avoided.

On top of it, a private person will soon end his "pot" and would not be in a position to share it in conformity to the required needs. This is precisely the purpose of taxes plus other needs as security, infrastructures, etc.

This is not exactly a "transfer of funds" and much less a steal as in a way or another this will return to you and help you. However, it could impede what we saw was anyway happening when Katrina: people from one parish refusing help to people of another one.

The problem you are showing is that you want to MIX into the TAX (to make it short) MORALITY and therefore you are already including a criteria where there should be no.

Is it better to build a bridge between to areas or to oblige the people going from one to another lose time and quite a lot of gas?

Is it better to build a wall compelling people to spend hours finding the "official" door or is it better to help the working people?

Is it better to show our strength or is it better to turn the other cheek?

Is it better to have non educated employees or to pay in advance for their education?

Shall we decide in front which employees will be educated? Which will be the criiteria: Christian, Baptist, Jew, Muslim, skin color, ability to wear a tatoo?

Shall we decide which of us will be healthy enough as to breed?

John, you may be a very good person, plenty of morality to share, plenty of goodwill, a perfect reproductive man you will still chose the women you would like to breed with. This is inherent to HB. And you may want to just stay with one woman, this is your personal choice. No one else. But then your reproductive role will not be accomplished as you have not "helped" all the othe women disregarding their beliefs, age, shape, skin color, real hair color and even smell!

It is always far difficult to satisfy everyone, his own father included (LOL)

How will you educate or provide health to anyone without involving any subjectivity of yours? How will you avoid making any difference between a child and an adult? I don't see any other way than through taxes and government if any "...ism" is to be avoided.

This is such a great illustration as to why statists believe as they do. You really believe that the only way for people to get help is by way of forcing people to help? Free societies are also the most generous. The US, being the freest that has ever existed in history, gives more to charity and those in need than the next four most generous combined. And we do it on our own accord, most others their government does the donating Gilbert.

Regarding Katrina, the fact is that Wal-Mart voluntarily sent truckloads of supplies to help and guess who turned them away? Yep, the government (FEMA).

Cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.html
Quote: “When Wal-Mart sent three trailer trucks loaded with water, FEMA officials turned them away, he said. Agency workers prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the parish's emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA, Mr. Broussard said.”

The problem you are showing is that you want to MIX into the TAX (to make it short) MORALITY and therefore you are already including a criteria where there should be no.

. . . a rational morality.

Is it better to build a bridge between to areas or to oblige the people going from one to another lose time and quite a lot of gas?

Better to build a bridge. Infrastructure is necessary for the government to execute on its only responsibility: the protection of equal rights.

Is it better to build a wall compelling people to spend hours finding the "official" door or is it better to help the working people?

As long as you are not compelling people to help Gilbert.

Is it better to show our strength or is it better to turn the other cheek?

Show strength.

Is it better to have non educated employees or to pay in advance for their education?

Yes, better for people to earn their keep than think life is a free ride.

Shall we decide in front which employees will be educated? Which will be the criiteria: Christian, Baptist, Jew, Muslim, skin color, ability to wear a tatoo?

No.

Shall we decide which of us will be healthy enough as to breed?

No.

John, you may be a very good person, plenty of morality to share, plenty of goodwill, a perfect reproductive man you will still chose the women you would like to breed with

Umm, thanks.

Beside the fact that the last letters of some lines are illegible, your statements cannot be supported: Wal-Mart did its best for Katrina and this was far insufficient, etc. How much did you donated to the kid who, last year needed hear replacement ... if ever you heard of him? How much did you donated to my neighbor who is in the hospital now for a full month?

And:

Is it better to have non educated employees or to pay in advance for their education?

Yes, better for people to earn their keep than think life is a free ride.

What kind of answer is this? It seems that you prefer to deal with UNEDUCATED people because they are cheaper and in no way they will be able to make any saving. So YOU GO FOR SLAVERY disregarding the service quality and the ability to perform. This was one of the reason for starting the Civil War. So you didn't grasp the problem.

Better said, you can't grasp it because of your paranoia. Because, for you, what your neighbor has, you don't have it. Just envy! Noting else.

My comments are crystal clear Gilbert, maybe you should read them again. Wal-Mart was turned away by the government. Truckloads of supplies told to go away. Government was insufficient, people's generosity was enormous. You are completely and utterly wrong Gilbert.

It seems that you prefer to deal with UNEDUCATED people

Just because people are getting a handout doesn't mean they can't earn their way. You really think very little and are more than willing to demean your neighbor, Gilbert.

Allowing people to be free to live their lives as they see fit is the opposite of slavery. You are the only one advocating for slavery, Gilbert.

How am I paranoid?

How am I envious? I am not the one looking to take from those who have more, you are. LOL, you are a cartoon Gilbert.

I may be a cartoon ... but I have experience. So, I am an experienced cartoon who knows that neither the FEMA neither GWB have been able to organize themselves after Katrina.

And the cartoon I am, recognizes that wages flirting with the minimum living standard do not allow people to make savings. Where lies the difference with enslaving them? Just the fact that they can switch from eating potatoes to sweet potatoes and cook them themselves ... if you provided them the means?

Or the fact that sick they will be dependent from your personal charity ... or die?

And if ever they would like to improve their own education, provided you give them time for it, they would turn "Kapo" on proxy of yours?

A democracy in which you keep deciding what's "convenient" to them?

Yes , then YOU will enjoy democracy... however. as far as they are concerned you are the "petit pere des peuples" (Father of little people) as Stalin was.

Gilbert, do you believe Darwin was right?

IS right? For sure as the tests on mice, flies, mosquitoes and other fast reproducing animals and insects confirm.

So you believe in nature that a species survives by way of the strongest thriving and the weak not thriving. Why then do you advocate for forcing everyone to accommodate those who cannot even provide the basics to survive? Don't you see a bit of a contraction here Gilbert?

Now before you go on your tirade about how I want people to just die in the streets or whatever overly emotional response you are firing up to give - I do believe people should help other people. Should is the key word, I don't think people should be forced to help other people, as you do.

Before any kind of deduction as far as any law is concerned, you should better know what and how Darwin law works.

Then you will be able, maybe, to make any kind of deduction.

Provided Darwin's law is not based on the strongest thriving, I suggest you to come back when you will figure out how it works.

LOL, didn't you make some claim to being a scientist Gilbert?? From Science Clarified "Ideas related to intraspecific competition influenced the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in developing his theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Intraspecific competition is an important regulator of population size and can make the species as a whole more fit by ensuring that only the hardiest individuals survive."

Wrong again Gilbert.

Quite wrong YOU are. Any way I tried to open the link but is not working.

However, in my very great goodness towards you, and although I am not always in agreement with him - he's a creationist, I'm not -, I suggest you to refer to Theodosius Dobzhansky, who died not even 40 years ago and wrote a book quite easy to read about evolution: The American Biology Teacher (1973)

Read it and return before trying to build a whole system out of any reality.

The link works, you have too much time on your hands Gilbert.

Yes the link works for me now. Thanks. I will read this but I don't believe tha biology and evolution can be on just one page.

It seems to me that there is confusion among evolution (which is far more adaptation than strength) and development.

From the unicellular to the man, the evolution needed and its not finish, many changes of the very same elements in the DNA-RNA. These changes are not a consequence of strength but of adaptation to a particular environment. The apex, the man is the only specie able to adapt itself to any e.nvironment

I've found this link> http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rammohan_Shukla/

I even cited the quote for you Gilbert that makes the point.

I YOU feel so ... no discussion.

But it is not so: this is just confusing selection and evolution. Not Darwin's idea.

But this is in fact the way Churchmen found to raise confusion. Far more easier to grasp and far more convenient for you to understand ... I agree.

Seriouly Gilbert???

From Berkeley.edu

"Natural selection: The basics Darwin's most famous idea, natural selection, explains much of the diversity of life. Learn how it works, explore examples, and find out how to avoid misconceptions.
This article is located within Evolution 101."

Sorry, I'm the newbie here and a Canadian to boot, but who pays for your elementary and high schools in the U.S.? If you can transfer money to educate, can you not transfer money to heal? Granted, politicians should say what they mean and not pretend that socialized medicine is anything but a transfer. However, transferring funds to ensure the health of a country's citizens isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? Universal healthcare in Canada may not be as universal as we would like, and it certainly has its down sides. Still, it provides everyone with access to services. And I believe "access" in that last sentence is as defined in any dictionary.

Hey Angelique,

Thank you for your comments and insights. Your point that "politicians should say what they mean and not pretend that socialized medicine is anything but a transfer." So that point is fairly moot.

I think the essence of your comments above is, is a transfer of costs from one group to another the best way to provide health care to as many people as possible?

No. This article explains:

Massachusetts pediatric mental health care provider shortage - the real cause and effect

I am looking forward to your response Angelique!

Take care,
John

Hi John,

The article was very thought-provoking. I guess it all comes down to the two very different philosophies held by our respective countries. The U.S. prefers less government, and relies on the private sector to provide services in accordance with market principles. Is it wise to care for ones citizens according to a market model? That is obviously for all of you to decide.

In Canada, we have much more government involvement, and our healthcare system is needs-based, not market-based. In spite of its pitfalls, socialized medicine allows us to care for all of our citizens--young and old, rich and poor. We vote for politicians who believe in ensuring our basic right to healthcare, even if it means more taxes. Politicians who talk about a two-tiered system, with both private and socialized medicine, or those who speak of privatizing the entire system, are quickly shunned.

Again, I stress the fact that government-run healthcare is imperfect. For example, we currently have a shortage of general practitioners in Quebec, because many have moved to Ontario, where the government pays its doctors more. This is similar to your example of the shortage of child mental healthcare professionals in Massachusetts. But with a bit of imagination and innovation, we have found workarounds, and Quebecers are being well cared for.

Do I think our way is right and your way is wrong? No. That would be very close-minded of me. But do I believe your citizens could benefit from better access to healthcare? I very much do. And so I ask again, if your tax money can fund education for the young, can it not also fund healthcare for all?

Regards,
Angelique

Hi Angelique,

Thank you so much for reading the article and your comments. I’d like to address your points one by one below:

I guess it all comes down to the two very different philosophies held by our respective countries.

I think it more has to do with principle than philosophy, or better stated the principle of the philosophy. Who makes us the market? Buildings and machines or people? People of course. People who have rights just the same as everyone else who is not in the market. In fact, and of course, those people who comprise the market are the same people who comprise families and friends.

So the question is, do those people have the same rights as everyone else? In a collectivist model like that in Canada, the answer is in fact no. An artist or accountant can demand as much as he or she can in the open market for their mind and their efforts, yet a doctor or nurse cannot. So, on a matter of principle, those who live and advocate for a collectivist society in fact advocate for inequality under the law. Any society that treats people differently under the law is an immoral society.

We vote for politicians who believe in ensuring our basic right to healthcare, even if it means more taxes.

Angelique, what is health care? Is it the x-ray machines, the buildings, and the computers, or is it the people who administer it? Obviously it is the people. By saying you have a “basic right to healthcare” is to say you have a basic right to those people’s lives. This is wrong and the same morally as to say you have the right to a person’s life due to their race or gender.

I stress the fact that government-run healthcare is imperfect

It is a wonderful thing that you are such an honest person Angelique. So rare today. Think about it, America is the only modern society that has the most market based health care system and it is the best in the world.

Do I think our way is right and your way is wrong?

I must confess that I do think the free market (free people) way is right and the ownership of a person’s life, mind, and efforts because of need is wrong.

if your tax money can fund education for the young, can it not also fund healthcare for all?

This is equally as wrong for the same reasons as stated above in regard to health care.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments Angelique. I hope you will continue to discuss this.

Take care,
John

I forgot to mention that I work as a freelancer and have many health issues, so I don't have health insurance from an employer and I cannot get private health insurance. Was I leeching when I had a pulmonary embolus that nearly killed me and severe complications that put me at great risk and I stayed in hospital until it was safe to go home?

If the people who paid for your operation due to your negligence in getting insurance, the answer to your question is yes. How could it not be Angelique?

Sorry, John, I should have been more specific. I wasn't negligent in getting insurance. I applied on several occasions and was turned down. I am considered uninsurable. However, I have paid into the government healthcare system since I first started working at the age of 15, and continue to do so. Private insurance companies won't subsidize my care; the taxes I paid over the years do. And I am proud to say that my tax dollars also pay to care for others who are uninsurable for whatever reason. I don't consider them leeches, just fellow citizens who need a helping hand.

If you pay into a system you should reap the benefits of it. But those that do not pay into it are leeches. I know you do not feel they are, but in reality this is the case.

John, do you feel that there are no acceptable circumstances under which those who, through no fault of their own, lack jobs/insurance/what-have-you necessary to make the 'free market' work for them? No circumstances under which having money is not the prerequisite for sufficient care to survive?

I understand that underpinnings behind the philosophy and they, like all philosophical underpinnings, have merit. The key is that any implication of universality, either in deed or in person, is specious. It's the core weakness of Marxism, too. Asserting that the proletariat is inherently more noble than the aristocracy is, by definition, self-defeating. If you assert that wealth can only be earned by hard work, you neglect all of the varying ways that one can 'game' that system and acquire wealth through means other than hard work. Arguing that the holding of money entitles one to goods or services over one who does not hold money implies that the one who does not hold money has somehow chosen the lack.

Most poor people do not choose to be poor. It's not a lifestyle they want, regardless of whatever one-offs or sensational stories we've seen of late. Most poor people want to work hard and make a better life for their children. Does that mean there aren't free-loaders? No. Does that mean that the free-loaders are a minority? I think so.

Poor people aren't trying to 'get over' by getting some kind of assistance with medical care. They're hoping that their children will live long enough to never need it. The vast majority of people who need and use Federal assistance work and work hard at crappy jobs that don't pay enough for them to make ends meet. They're not choosing to be leeches. We (the middle class and above) are making them so through policy decisions that leave them with insufficient education and high-enough paying jobs within that educational framework to make enough money to better themselves generationally (as our grandparents did).

Hey Ajatasutra,

John, do you feel that there are no acceptable circumstances under which those who, through no fault of their own, lack jobs/insurance/what-have-you necessary to make the 'free market' work for them?

This question does not make any sense. Sure there are acceptable circumstances, but to imply that because life is difficult and bad things happen therefore we are not equal under the law or that need is a mortgage on another person’s life or property is wrong.

No circumstances under which having money is not the prerequisite for sufficient care to survive?

Money is just a measure of value. People can barter, use gold, silver, or simply exchange work for services or products. The prerequisites are a desire to live a responsible and productive life in order to survive. To answer THAT question, no, there is no circumstance in which the lack of these traits means anyone owes anyone anything.

If you assert that wealth can only be earned by hard work, you neglect all of the varying ways that one can 'game' that system and acquire wealth through means other than hard work.

Wealth can be earned by a number of means, not just hard work. But it can’t be acquired by laziness and irresponsibility.

Those who “game the system” illegally should be prosecuted by government. That is government’s role in society, to ensure we are all equal under the law.

Arguing that the holding of money entitles one to goods or services over one who does not hold money implies that the one who does not hold money has somehow chosen the lack./

This makes no sense, can you restate it?

Does that mean there aren't free-loaders? No.

No, it certainly does not. Not until they demand the unearned, then they are freeloaders.

It does not matter what people want or what they choose, the point is what is right and what is wrong. People’s needs are not a mortgage on other people’s property. People need help, they should ask for it and we *should* help them. We *should* help them, not be forced to help them because people like you think it is okay to coerce people and impose YOUR value system on others.