Man Uses $1m Win To Finally Visit Doctor, Gets Terminal Cancer Diagnosis, Dies

[John V]

What's wrong with chipping in to invest in the well-being of all citizens, including yourself and your loved ones, but especially those who can't at all afford to pay for medical procedures necessary for their survival and/or well-being?

Key words being "at all." I'm all for a safety net for such people. I'm pointing out that this guy doesn't seem to be in that group.

A lot of people can't afford to due to life circumstances beyond their control.

And those people should be protected. The problem is differing thoughts on what constitutes "life circumstances beyond their control."

Isn't it the Christian thing to do anyway, to care about their well-being and do what is needed to help them out? Or is it unChristian to be the Samaritan these days?

I'd say the Christian thing to do is private charity. I have monthly sponsorships of four children (2 in South America, 1 Africa, 1 China) and a local women's shelter, and then there's the one-offs, like jump-starting the blanket drive on this site. I know from doing taxes that I give more than average to charity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that;s the ticket, leave the social safety net up to grifty charlatans, what could go wrong?   Welfare isn't charity in the first place..it's the substandard care and feeding of future producers and taxpayers.

[John V]

I long ago stopped trying to reason with him. 

Rather, you never started. Memes don't count as reasoning.

And your response is not worth refuting Beta

Rather, you can't refute it. I laughed when I saw that link because I had come across it as well in my research, but discarded it when I saw that there were much more current studies available. When I post numbers from 2015 and you try to rebut with numbers from 2002, that's not reasoning with me.

---

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/numb...tudy-finds

In 2014, 52,513 Canadians travelled beyond our borders to seek medical treatment, compared with 41,838 in 2013. The numbers suggest that the Canadian health care system could not comply with the needs and demands of a substantial number of Canadian patients, according to the study.

[Amarok]

Rather, you never started. Memes don't count as reasoning.

Memes can be reasonable and my were more then so.

Rather, you can't refute it. 

Already did over and over . Your "research" does not prove shit .

I laughed when I saw that link because I had come across it as well in my research, but discarded it when I saw that there were much more current studies available.

Studies that do not refute my point. Nor make your case .Nor did you refute the study actually.

When I post numbers from 2015 and you try to rebut with numbers from 2002, that's not reasoning with me.

Once again same response . And yes i have refuted your garbage claims. 

Once again you make an ass of yourself Beta

[LadyForCamus]

I’m sorry; did Joods say that “the rest of society” is paying for her kids?  No.

Money is fungible. When she argues for publicly supported health care and ties that to child support payments, yes, she effectively is saying that the public should pay for her kids.

Or, she introduced a red herring as an emotional ploy.

Take your pick.

In your mind, Alpha, who does deserve help?   Anyone? Do you really believe that every single person who works hard will be financially comfortable and have quality, affordable healthcare?  Can you even fathom a single hypothetical scenario where a hard working person might fall on some bad circumstances beyond their control, or do you truly believe such scenarios don’t exist?  Do you believe you’re you’re immune? Furthermore, do you have evidence to support your position that the harder working a person is, the more financially secure they’ll be?  Where is this upward trajectory that you have in your mind?  Show me some data.

[Amarok]

Money is fungible. When she argues for publicly supported health care and ties that to child support payments, yes, she effectively is saying that the public should pay for her kids.

Or, she introduced a red herring as an emotional ploy.

Take your pick.

In your mind, Alpha, who does deserve help?   Anyone?  Do you really believe that every single person who works hard will be financially comfortable and have quality, affordable healthcare?  Can you even fathom a single hypothetical scenario where a hard working person might fall on some back circumstances beyond their control, or do you truly believe such scenarios don’t exist?  Furthermore, do you have evidence to support your position that the harder working a person is, the more financially secure they’ll be?  Where is this upward trajectory that you have in your mind?  Show me some data.

He will just site selectively quote it. And claim he's "updated" or did "research" and ignore damning parts that conflict with his narrative .And won't prove shit in the end.

[John V]

In your mind, Alpha, who does deserve help?   Anyone?

Sure. If we're talking about helping a part of the population, then children of poor parents, the elderly, and the disabled should get help.

Beyond financial criteria, I'd also say that people who take reasonable care of their health yet develop a serious problem deserve help more than people who engage in activities known to put their health at risk.

Alternatively, we could go to a single-payer system, which I've said that I don't oppose. But, Dems are no more eager to go their than Repubs. Dems just pay lip service to it. Well, some. Some don't even bother.

Do you really believe that every single person who works hard will be financially comfortable and have quality, affordable healthcare?

Nope.

Can you even fathom a single hypothetical scenario where a hard working person might fall on some back circumstances beyond their control,

Yep. If you're arguing for single payer, this is a valid point. In our current system, not so much.

Furthermore, do you have evidence to support your position that the harder working a person is, the more financially secure they’ll be?  Where is this upward trajectory that you have in your mind?  Show me some data.

I was speaking from my own experience, in which the people at the top have always been the hardest working. Also I didn't think it was controversial to think that, other factors being equal, a person working 60 hours a week will have more money than a person working 30 hours but I guess that math is beyond you guys. Here's some support:
https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/30/...an-others/

Research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, shows that “being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed.”

His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.

[CapnAwesome]

Alpha is there with his Perfect Solution Fallacy, I notice.

Lol, saying that the affordable care act isn't even good enough to get someone a cancer screen is not bashing on it for not being perfect!!! Not even close on this one.

[Shell B]

A skilled worker doing a 30-hour workweek will very often make more than say a laborer doing 60. There are innumerable good reasons why a person is a laborer and can’t work their way up, so don’t bother with the “if he just gets a better job” schtick.

[John V]

Here's an article from a more liberal source:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc...ca/499826/

Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”

I'm not elite, but I do OK. I worked 71 hours last week. I do that for about 13 weeks each year (tax season), and work the standard 40 for the rest of the year (although we do get good holidays and vacation in the off season). Unlike the elites, I don't enjoy doing it. It's just the price of a decent standard of living.