Alternatively, someone who has never had a job in his life and who doesn't mind living off the system enjoys the full benefits that this man paid for. Health care, food, and housing.
That is also not viable.
Alternatively, someone who has never had a job in his life and who doesn't mind living off the system enjoys the full benefits that this man paid for. Health care, food, and housing.
That is also not viable.
By the way, I guess for ethical reasons basic universal health care is inevitable. (Even the US has rules that require giving emergency care.)
[0] I might have one, but it's doesn't matter for the argument. I'm also in favour of independent `death panels', that apply cost-benefit analysis to decide where to spend finite resources of society-provided universal health care.
There's nothing "ethical" about allowing folks who can't pay for their own health care to get it at someone else's expense.
I'm a big Nietzsche fan, but that my friend, is fucking disgusting.
This intellectual weakness desperately needs to be purged, to allow the superior ideology of compassion to thrive.
Natural selection is has done great things for life on our planet but it doesn't apply here.
If an individual has otherwise flourished in a society to the point where they can afford to have other members of a society provide them those services, then they are (despite medical appearances) apparently fairly well adapted.
The issues arise when they are not using their money to give themselves these advantages. (Perhaps it is inherited money, or perhaps it is provided by the society itself).
That's without even including the absurd amounts of private money. Just the government layouts, which don't cover close to everyone. Let that sink in.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-countr..., http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthc..., http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_1296873...
However, this is a man who put 20 years of work and taxes into the system and never got to use what he put in.
Let's think about this for a minute. When you say "put 20 years of work ... into the system" what do you mean? Was he not adequately compensated for the work he did? Is free healthcare in perpetuity assumed to be part of compensation for work that you do? Should it be?
As far as taxes, the article says he "looked into filing for disability. He applied for early Social Security." but only qualified for food stamps. I find that portion of the article to be either misleading or not complete - it doesn't say whether he actually applied for disability, or say anything about applying for the food stamps. The earliest you're eligible to receive SS benefits is age 62, so I'm not sure why (or how) a 59 year old would apply for early benefits.
Regardless, the "system" is indeed broken. However, I don't think the path to fixing it includes emotion-filled appeals about how many years of work someone has "put into the system".
The state funding some basic form of healthcare for all is civilizing, and has other benefits. Healthcare is not an incentive to do well: it does not work as an incentive at all. Those who want better healthcare pay for it even in countries where there is a basic provision.
It's perfectly possible for state healthcare provision to co-exist with private healthcare providers too.
Second, there are a whole bunch of pieces to the system that keeps this in place. Relationships between lobbyists and government. Campaign financing regulations. Gerrymandering. SCOTUS interpretation of the commerce clause. If you started fixing a few pieces like those ... one at a time over decades ... you could change a lot of things.
The middle class ignores free clinics and medicare facilities unless they become destitute or desperate.
The infrastructure is here, now. This overt dissonance will end eventually, and the US will catch up to the standard quality of life other first world nations enjoy. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Both are fiscally solid for decades, and yet are under attack by those who would profit from their demise.
Not only are we not getting closer to universal health care (or even insurance) but recent news indicates there is majority political support (note: not the majority of public) for some form of medicare/medicaid reduction.