View Single Post
Old 11-03-2013, 11:52 PM   #53
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

When you say "our" do you mean that everybody has the same "conscience"? That we all march to the same drummer? You are free to demand things because of your conscience, but not mine. I do not say that to be callous nor that my conscience is different than yours. In general, individual ethics, moralities, matters of conscience, differ in large, diverse societies. In them, there will be no consensus, much less unanimity, on how to achieve a perfect safety net--that is, if those societies are based on free association and liberty. Totalitarian societies are a different matter. Nor does government have a conscience. At least according to my understanding of conscience being the recognition of right and wrong in respect to one's own conduct. Asking government to replace conscience is a negation of conscience. Only private entities comprised of like minded individuals, or even just single individuals, can act on matters of conscience.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

If you choose to live in a collectivist, totalitarian type of society it can see to it that you are relieved of those burdens--that is if it agrees with your conscience--that is, it replaces your conscience with its mandates. It will control the things which you could not possibly control--as well as those you could.

If on the other hand you choose to live in a society of free wills in free association, coercing everyone into the same patterns of conscience is not possible, nor desirable. You are required to find your way out of situations you could not avoid. Even to seek or accept the help of those who are sympathetic to your plight.

Now, splitting an atom, is not analogous to finding a way out of your plight, nor concerned with escaping plights. It can lead to ways that make your plights easier. But its intensions are to discover realities not to escape them. Its solution requires curiosity rather than conscience.


"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

I sincerely hope that their child was cured. Not just because of the terrible financial cost they bore, but far more importantly because who they love is with them, which is indescribably greater than that cost. But here's a catch about their not possibly being able to avoid what happened to their daughter--there is a way of avoiding the cost without asking the rest of us to be coerced into donating. Don't by a "decent" insurance policy, buy the absolutely best available--if such one exists that covers all possible medical catastrophes. If such a one doesn't exist, how could a few extra tax bucks confiscated from all of us make one come to be? Or must we be satisfied that gold Cadillac government mandated policies will cover this with a few extra bucks per person?

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.
I don't know if "we" can do a little better. I'm sure philanthropic donors could. Voluntary free hospitals could. Pro-bono services by other hospitals in rare cases. Various children's charities, even ones for specific diseases such as leukemia and cancer. There is something called Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Program that's sponsored by individual states. Connecticut had such a House Bill 5498 proposed in 2008. I don't know if it was passed. Massachusetts and New Jersey have versions of it. Even other local and state government assistance and regulations where such is closer to the people to approve at ballot boxes. But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

Last edited by detbuch; 11-04-2013 at 01:20 AM..
detbuch is offline