The Doctor Meets the Bioethicist

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

Nope, as stated I am OK with helping to pay the costs of emergency healthcare. Sure the kid is probably a moron but we all do stupid crap as kids and may grow into a fruitful member of society and it is in our interest to offer emergency care for folks regardless if they have the money or not. This unfortunately means two criminals shoot each other and need critical care then yes it is covered, hey the system doesn’t work perfectly. Now take that backyard wrestling summummabitch and let him drink his sodey pop by the liter every day, have no job, milk off the welfare system to survive and 30 years later he develops type 2 diabetes and can’t pay for the expensive drug treatments?? Yep, tough titty.[/quote]

Hey man I’m all for a sugar tax.
[/quote]

Of course you are.

[quote]
But now I’ll hear all about how thats a violation of rights and its trying to control people and everything. I disagree though. Shit food = health problems, right? So the people eating shit food are costing everyone else money (either through unpaid hospital bills or insurance costs). If we put a tax on the companies that make shit food, and a tax for buying the shit foot, we can use that money for the healthcare costs… or people will just buy less shit food because its more expensive now.

Alternately, we can raise food standards and ban HFCS and trans fats. I think that would be “tough love”.[/quote]

Alternatively we could end corn subsidies that are paid for with, gasp taxes, which would make HFCS automatically more expensive.

Now ending a tax entirely instead of taxing something at both ends might be a tad radical, but eh, there, I said it.

62

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

Nope, as stated I am OK with helping to pay the costs of emergency healthcare. Sure the kid is probably a moron but we all do stupid crap as kids and may grow into a fruitful member of society and it is in our interest to offer emergency care for folks regardless if they have the money or not. This unfortunately means two criminals shoot each other and need critical care then yes it is covered, hey the system doesn’t work perfectly. Now take that backyard wrestling summummabitch and let him drink his sodey pop by the liter every day, have no job, milk off the welfare system to survive and 30 years later he develops type 2 diabetes and can’t pay for the expensive drug treatments?? Yep, tough titty.[/quote]

Hey man I’m all for a sugar tax.
[/quote]

Of course you are.

That’s a very good idea. :slight_smile:

63

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do you believe taxes for having other services provided to everyone are equally a violation of taxpayers rights?[/quote]

I believe the only thing that should be funded through taxation are programs that directly protect the individual rights of US citizens. No one is stopping people that want to see more funds go to specific programs from donating their own money to these programs.

There are some other programs I myself might support, given this was the basis of the taxing structure, but no I do not believe the government should be the tool for people to force their moral beliefs or agendas on others.

Once you start using the tax system for anything else you give the government and other people too much control over your actions. You no longer have rights because you are a person, but because they let you have them. That is a very dangerous situation.

I will give you an example:

I know someone who is director for a school district, we just moved into the district because I like his policies and ideas. Rather than force the property owners to bear the burden of funding the school he keeps the taxes low by engaging the school in quasi free market enterprises. They have land so they have big fair their, they use it for different events to bring in money. They involve local non-profit and for profit businesses to help raise money and in turn use that money to help support the schools. He has a very radical idea, but much of the school board is democratic and will not go along.

He wants to set up the board as though the school were a corporation and taxes seen as sharehold. The board members’ votes would represent the share of the taxes coming from the gov’t. But everyone who paid school income tax would also be given a share proportional to the amount of taxes they paid. If you have an interest in the school’s decisions you can donate more to gain more share’s and possibly have a larger influence in the school’s decision. He was talking about this in a meeting and a local pharmaceutical company thought it was great innovattive idea, they donated for new science areas, books, new technology. It freed up other parts of the budget for improvements in the gym and things like that.

Creating a more voluntary interaction means you get to actually put your efforts into something you support. Gives greater return on investment and better results for the community and society.

64

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

If you have an interest in the school’s decisions you can donate more to gain more share’s and possibly have a larger influence in the school’s decision. [/quote]

That sounds kinda dangerous to me. I dont think a person or group should be able to buy the schools decisions… are we talking about things like what books/textbooks to use/keep in the library?

65

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

If you have an interest in the school’s decisions you can donate more to gain more share’s and possibly have a larger influence in the school’s decision. [/quote]

That sounds kinda dangerous to me. I dont think a person or group should be able to buy the schools decisions… are we talking about things like what books/textbooks to use/keep in the library?

[/quote]

How is it any more dangerous than what is currently done, the government provides the money they make the decisions on books, subjects and attendance laws, some of which strip parents and students of rights. Why should the local communities money be used to teach ideas they don’t agree with.

But aside from that, no the state decides curriculum in PA. Decisions with respect to Bargaining union contracts, raising property taxes, things like that.

66

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Why should the local communities money be used to teach ideas they don’t agree with.

[/quote]

Because “what the local community agrees with” is not a valid criterion for what schools should teach.

67

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Why should the local communities money be used to teach ideas they don’t agree with.

[/quote]

Because “what the local community agrees with” is not a valid criterion for what schools should teach. [/quote]

And “whoever has taken control of the state capitol” is?

68

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Why should the local communities money be used to teach ideas they don’t agree with.

[/quote]

Because “what the local community agrees with” is not a valid criterion for what schools should teach. [/quote]

What is valid criteria? and through what methodology do you validate this criteria selection? Is there an orthogonal method, statistical support for the claim.

By allowing the government to choose you are allowing a small skewed representation of the population dictate what the youth learns, even if it completely contradicts what the parents want them to learn, or what the community being forced to support it under threat of life and property, does not support. Talk about morally bankrupt.

And yes it is threat of life an property because if they do not pay school property tax they will take their home.

So then why should the community be forced to fund it? Why should conservatives be forced to fund the progressive indoctrination and manipulation of the youth. That is absurd.

I don’t believe I should be able to force you to fund someone to teach my viewpoint in your community, why do you feel you should.

Why should we have to teach what california or texas votes, they are major formers of text books.

This permeates everything supported by the government. Using governmental force removes choice and individual right from every program which it controls.