Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

My lord backpedaling within the same post now?

Huh? How? The second statement was in reference to other people who seemed to think that this was about judging some kind of "human value". I'm not doing that at all. I'm arguing that you don't judge based on value at all. You let those who can afford something afford it. Thus, those who have contributed the most to others to have "earned" the care. Instead of trying to judge someone's innate value, you let the value other people see in the labor performed earn them things of equal value.

I suspect you're missing that I'm using the word "value" in two different ways (more correctly, I'm using it one way, and others are using it a different way). There's a huge difference between saying that people pay you based on the value they place in the fruits of your labors, and attempting to assess some kind of "value" on someone's life. It's not about the person in my view. It's about what that person does for others and the value they place on that.

I guess that works if you don't feel like the government represents you. I mean misgivings aside, we are the government right? The whole democracy/republic/whatever thing? Or something?



This will surely close that gender gap as the homemakers of America flock to Romney.

Keep digging, gbaji. Keep digging.

Who can rightly determine what one requires to earn something. You are doing the exact same ******* thing. Christ, you really need Varus the only thing that cures stupidity is greater stupidity.

Um... The guy who currently owns it? Your boss decides if your labor is worth what he's paying you. And he makes this decision based on how much your labor increases the value of his business as judged by the consumers of whatever good/services are produced. They do this by comparing that value to the value they place on other things they could buy with their money elsewhere.

While it's not perfect, it is undeniably the best method to determine the relative value of things. But it has nothing to do with the "value of a human life". That's a separate, somewhat philosophical and moral question.




No. I'm not. I'm showing that there's a difference between someone earning something because everyone else around him in his society place value on what he does and that determines what he gets versus having some artificially constructed authoritarian entity just decide who gets what based on somewhat simplistic concepts like "human value". We all have "human value". It's meaningless in the context of a question of who gets something and who doesn't.


And, as I said at the beginning, while this may be viewed by some as harsh at first glance, if you stop and think about it, it's also the only truly "fair" way of doing things. Any other means effectively takes away from those who earned something and gives to someone who didn't. That's not fair, right? Life is not fair. The sooner you realize this fact and stop trying to live in a fairy tale land where the magical government can just wave a magic wand and make the whole world perfect, the better off you'll be.

So basically what you are saying is my boss assesses my productivity vs cost effectiveness and determines if I deserve to keep my job or not. Or do you mean my boss assesses my productivity vs cost effectiveness and determines if Ive earned my job.



Looks like the same thing to me, and guess what it is the same @#%^ing thing. God you are stupid. Saying someone deserves something and that someone has earned something, is the same @#%^ing thing. They are both a description of a persons perceived value. Your boss might say you earned a promotion, or you deserved a promotion. Both are synonymous with the work you have put in. (or in the present day how good of a bullsh*tter you are).

but you believe what ever you want, im not going to argue all night about the blatant hypocritical stance you are taking. Id rather laugh at your complete lack of understanding of Universal Health Care, how much it costs, and why it is so ridiculous that you (a conservative) wants to continue spending 2 times per person what the rest of the G-8 spends on Health Care per person.

Oh and it is becoming a mediocre health system, rapidly declining in world health standards.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 7:25pm by rdmcandie

He wants us to spend twice as much because the extra cost is all profit for somebody.

Assuming that she and the father of her children are bound together economically in some way (like say married), then they're considered collectively as a unit. Whomever is earning money for the couple is also earning the health care for them and their children.

We could talk about single mothers dependent on social services and whatnot, but I would argue that she hasn't "earned" anything in that case. We can argue about providing health care to her and her children as a matter of compassion, but let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.

Dunno. Maybe people have really strange definitions of the word "earned". Worth investigating, I suppose.

ITT: Gbaji wants to leave poor people to fester in their own illness, which in no way whatsoever could ever affect his own health.

So I assume the ones who can afford it, but are labeled high risk because of preexisting medical issues are worthless then?

Telling, but not surprising.



See above. People who are underemployed and can't afford health care (or can't get it due to pre-existing conditions) "deserve" to die.

I found out recently that an acquaintance died of a kidney infection. It boggles my mind that people are dying of infections in the United States in 2012 because they feel they can't assume the burden of debt incurred going to a doctor. In the end, of course, it cost all of us some amount of money greater than zero, because a friend came to check on her, found her delirious, and took her to the ER. It was too late, but you know, being a human being and all he didn't have a choice in the matter.