Michael Moore, liberals and real power

[Cuchulain]

"As far as health care goes...I don't mind paying for mine but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for someone else's....I propose a new book called "I take care of myself and you take care of yourself"

Guyone has pretty much summed up the CONservative philosophy. In other words: Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

[trish]

Trish, you've got too much time on your hands.

You're welcome, guyone.

[guyone]

What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves? Do we all need 'Mommy & Daddy' wiping our collectives asses for our entire lives? When people take their own destiny into their own hands great things are accomplished.

[North_of_60]

Insurance companies lives/exists on donations from a collectivity, but they like to make people think they're taking reponsibility for themselves.

When one who paid insurance fees for 15 years can't get his money for a broken arm, he's all alone in court againt the major corporate fraud, trying to argue that this was "in fact" an "accident"...

When a collectivity collectively ask for it's money/care/etc. you shift weights in the balance.

We live in an ecology of our own making, and those that are best fit are those who cooperate and look for each other

One of the main key of evolution is definitely empathy ; when the chimps started to look into each other's eyes seeing their own selves, ...it was the first time they smiled. Preserving one another helps the human spirit in it's quest to complexity.

[Cuchulain]

guyone asks " What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves? Do we all need 'Mommy & Daddy' wiping our collectives asses for our entire lives? When people take their own destiny into their own hands great things are accomplished."

Nothing, on the face of it. But republican buzz words like "personal responsibility" and "mommy/daddy/nanny state" seem like a sneaky way of advocating social darwinism - the elimination of the sick and the weak (ie, the 'lower classes') because they are a drag on society. Progressives feel that we're all in this together and we're stronger as a group, working for the common good.

Btw, we are already paying for the health care of others by way of the VA system and Medicare. I suggested in the 'Sicko' thread in general chat that a single payer system for all, such as Medicare, would be cheaper for about 95% of us. See that thread for links.

[trish]

What's wrong with able bodied people taking responsibility for themselves?

Absoutely nothing. Taking responsibility for oneself doesn’t preclude sharing the burdens of others. Likewise there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being asked to help carry a modicum of that burden.

Now let’s look the opposites of propositions:

Is it generally right for able bodied people to take responsibility for themselves? Yes.
Is it generally right to help people in need? Of course.

So isn’t it right to expect the government to take care of those of it’s citizens who need help?

Look, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTH CARE IS PEOPLE TAKING RESPONSIBILITIY FOR THEMSELVES.

[bucatini70]

the only problem with govt sponsored health care is that in every case on the planet without exception it becomes a two tiered system (in some cases three) the govt provider is for the less well off or for routine illness whereas the the more well off will seek the higher level of care ......in no country with a social medical program in this not the case

[guyone]

Yeah I want my healthcare in the hands of a civil servant. So we go to a system where a loser in charge who denies benefits who can get fired to one where the loser in charge can't.

By the way there is nothing in the constitution about collectivism.

[trish]

The wealthy will of course always buy what they perceive to be the best: the best shoes, the best handbags, the best cars, the best education and the best doctors. This will be true whether we have a government sponsored health care system or not. So yeah, if you’re rich enough you won’t ever need to avail yourself of the public system, if there ever is one. But at least with a government sponsored system we would be taking responsibility for ourselves. Today it is the private insurance companies who are the losers in charge and who deny people the treatments their doctors recommend. Today there are Americans who have no coverage and get no care. Contrary to what you may have heard, without regulation, free markets demonstrably do not seek equitable equilibriums. Sure there’s nothing in the constitution about collectivism. I agree. There’s also nothing in the constitution about capitalism. Because nothing is said about either, it is constitutionally consistent to have a little of both.

For Bucatini70 the ONLY problem with government sponsored health care is the problem that it quickly becomes two tiered. But this is true of private heath care as well. So it cannot be used as an objection to eliminate one and select the other.

For guyone, this seems more like a moral question. guyone whines that it’s unfair to expect him to help, even in the least way, to support someone else in need. He seems to feel that if he were totally self-sufficient, he should be exempt from society’s expectations. But self-sufficiency is an illusion. We’re not each alone living on an island. Neither are we ants living in a nest. We’re somewhere in between. Should we expect people to only drive on that length of road for which they paid? When treating a patient, should the doctor only use that knowledge which was discovered by the research and experimentation paid for by that particular patient? By that reasoning not even the wealthiest could afford the knowledge to keep themselves alive. We owe our language (and along with it our ability to think), our technology, knowledge and way of life to everyone around us.

There is an additional difficulty with the notion of self-sufficiency, a moral one. I take it guyone would like to absolve us our responsibilities toward himself. He’s taking care of himself and he doesn’t expect anyone to step in even if his precautions and investments somehow fail to protect him when he falls ill. But does anyone have the moral authority to release someone else of their responsibilities?

[guyone]

Look I don't trust doctors. The bad one's let you die and the good doctors kill you. When my time comes I'm just going to bow out with dignity and grace. And I don't need anyone's help for that...