Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan
How is not providing public funding for anything "restricting" and maintaining divisions? As long as everyone is treated equally under the law then whatever advancements they make to their own personal happiness is up to them. Remember that I said I really don't understand the collectivist point of view, you assert that its better if everyone has these services but don't say why? It would be better if I had a million dollars but does that justify me robbing a bank for it?
|
Surely you are not arguing that everyone is actually treated equally in the USA? Even under the law?
A simple example would be the many cases where black people have been given a far more severe penalty for the same offence than white people have received.
It is all well and good to argue from a "philosophical" view point based on a utopian ideal where everyone is actually treated equally. The reality is far different to this though.
I believe when it comes to the health and welfare of human beings we should deal with reality.
As for giving reasons why, many reasons why have been given throughout the thread. Eg: healthy people are more productive thereby benefiting society more, healthy people cost less in emergency medical care thereby lessening the cost over all to all participants in the health care system, common decency to put the welfare of your comman man above your own hip pocket just to name a few.
Finally, I will ask again, if it is ok for any government(federal, state or local) to provide socialised police, fire brigades, defence forces, education, sanitation etc etc etc then why would it not be ok to provide health care? Or are you arguing that each individual be required to fund their own private services for the above?
Cheers,
PKFFW