RE: Man Uses $1m Win To Finally Visit Doctor, Gets Terminal Cancer Diagnosis, Dies
February 5, 2018 at 11:14 am
(February 5, 2018 at 10:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.
Quote:Do you really believe that every single person who works hard will be financially comfortable and have quality, affordable healthcare?
Nope.
Quote: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.
Quote: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/
Quote: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.
