Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?
|
Of course all individuals aren't equally beneficial to society, but one of the core principles of our social contract is that we aren't going to kill you or let you die simply because you are injured, weak, or otherwise helpless*
*Ideally
To do otherwise would be anarchy. Our constitution and the political philosophy that underpins it guarantees the same rights to the weak as it does the strong. It's reasonable to take care of the weak because even strong people often experience a period of weakness or vulnerability when they must rely on others, and not letting them die is a net positive for society.
For example, when we enacted Medicare and Social Security in the 1930's, the US decided we would rather not be left to die if we find ourselves elderly and low on resources, sometimes through no fault of our own (A market implosion for example, Great Depression). We figured it was reasonable that we should protect the old, and expect the same protection when we are old. It's still an extremely popular (if mismanaged and poorly executed) idea, and neither party can touch medicare or social security without sinking their career.
Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (Germany, Japan, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, etc) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?
|
I don't know if you thought this was a thought provoking question or something, but it's just a ridiculous, simplistic way to try and frame the issue of socialized medicine.