patrick.net

AdHominem says

elliemae says

and the program saves money. It’s just rampant with fraud.

isn’t that an a contradictory statement?

No.

says

The primary role of government is law enforcement, punishing evil, protecting our borders and citizens from without and pursuit of liberty, life and happiness.

It's pretty hard to pursue life and happiness when you are dying of cancer... So, I'd say keeping citizens healthy is a role for government.

tatupu70 says

It’s pretty hard to pursue life and happiness when you are dying of cancer… So, I’d say keeping citizens healthy is a role for government.

Some people would define happiness by having a big screen TV. Should the government provide that for its citizens?

RayAmerica says

Some people would define happiness by having a big screen TV. Should the government provide that for its citizens?

So, in your mind owning a big screen TV is the same as being alive?

tatupu70 says

So, in your mind owning a big screen TV is the same as being alive?

Read very, very slow. I suggest one word at a time. I said "some people" would define happiness by having a big screen. Meaning, that there are people out there that think the government is the provider for all their wants and needs. Furthermore, the actual quote is "life, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness." Taking your logic to the next step (and there will always be another step), a person that has a toothache can't "pursue" happiness because they are in pain. Should the government step in and take care of their toothache ... or headache ... or whatever? And what about the money that is removed via taxation from producers in order to help these people pursue their happiness? Is that infringing on their liberty?

OK--

I read it VERY slowly. But, I still come to the same conclusion. So, what you're saying is you have to find where to draw the line, right? I guess I'd say that keeping its citizens alive does not cross the line. Buying them a big screen does.

It would actually reduce costs for the country as a whole. Lost productivity costs would outweigh the extra health care costs...

What about people that are obese? Should we all take care of the fatties of the country that can't stop eating Big Macs, greasy French fries and ice cream? Or those that have lung cancer that just happened to have smoked for the last 30 years? Where does the list end?

Should we pay for people who lack compassion and believe that they're better than many other people, while claiming to be a victim of the system? Angry people who yell A LOT on interweb forums? Where does the list end?

elliemae says

Angry people who yell A LOT on interweb forums? Where does the list end?

You can count on me. I think you should be covered.

RayAmerica says

What about people that are obese? Should we all take care of the fatties of the country that can’t stop eating Big Macs, greasy French fries and ice cream? Or those that have lung cancer that just happened to have smoked for the last 30 years? Where does the list end?

It doesn't end. You cover everyone. And along with that you develop incentives/penalties to help people eat healthier and stop smoking.

tatupu70 says

It doesn’t end. You cover everyone. And along with that you develop incentives/penalties to help people eat healthier and stop smoking.

So you favor rewards/penalties re: lifestyle choices?

Yes--we already have this.