|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 15:19:28
Message: <4a92e7c0$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to
> voluntarily do so?
No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
duty'.
> And surely, if someone in your city is hungry and you have food in your pantry,
you're
> an awful human being, right?
Yes, and stop calling me Shirley. </airplane!>
> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for
> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?
No. But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for
Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house
when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and
can see the need.
> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)
Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference. I assume
something in-game's related?
> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive 30
> miles to go fight fires elsewhere?
If they've volunteered to do so.
> It boggles my mind that you see an obligation for volunteers to risk
> their life for you, especially if you're completely unwilling to help
> even a tiny bit. I didn't even take it as a given they'd put out the
> fire in my house when I *did* pay. That's what volunteer *means*.
The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
to bear that responsibility. If you volunteer to join the army, you
don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer.
In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
> Not paying volunteers $10 to help them buy the equipment and training
> they need to more safely risk their life while saving your
> million-dollar house is also pretty far down on the pole of being a
> decent human being, I'd say.
Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler. And a
firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by
extinguishing fires. Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something
you do after the fact. Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save
a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 15:45:26
Message: <4a92edd6$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
> duty'.
OK.
>> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)
>
> Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference. I assume
> something in-game's related?
One main character is stereotypical Ayn Rand objectionist type. He's
constantly getting on the PA saying things like "Is a farmer not entitled to
the sweat of his brow?"
> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
> to bear that responsibility.
They only volunteered to put out the fires of people who donated. Indeed,
everybody knew that, or nobody else would have donated. You even got a
sticker to put on your window to show it. :-)
> Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler. And a
> firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by
> extinguishing fires. Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something
> you do after the fact.
Not in this case. :-)
> Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save
> a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.
I'm pretty sure that's part of the law.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 16:09:41
Message: <4a92f385@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Because "we will only put out fires for those who pay us" is extortion,
> They're volunteers. How is it any more extortion than "I will only program
> computers for people who pay me"?
Compare: "I will put out fires only for white people."
Legal?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 16:57:28
Message: <4a92feb8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Compare: "I will put out fires only for white people."
> Legal?
For free, mind. As I said, refusing to volunteer to risk your life for
people who haven't donated was quite probably legal. I never heard of them
getting sued by the guy whose house burned down, for example. (And it was a
big expensive mansion, owned by someone who should have been able to cough
up $10 but preferred to think he could freeload off his neighbors.)
"White" is a protected class here.
Compare: "I will only put out fires for lawyers." Legal? You betcha.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: andrel
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:05:07
Message: <4A930083.3040707@hotmail.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-8-2009 18:38, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Because "we will only put out fires for those who pay us" is extortion,
>
> They're volunteers. How is it any more extortion than "I will only
> program computers for people who pay me"?
>
>> Also, people often die in fires. If someone dies in a fire they refused
>> to put out because they got no money from them, they let someone die on
>> purpose even though they could help.
>
> Yes. I don't think they went that far, altho I do remember hearing a
> story of them showing up at some rich cheap-bastard's house just to
> watch it burn.
> The donation request was something like $10/year or so, so it wasn't
> like a lot of money. But if you were too cheap even for that...
You probably have no idea how utterly absurd this kind of logic sounds
to me (and probably most other Europeans).
One factor may be that we live in a situation where every fire may
spread to a neighbouring house. Another is that a fire department is a
community service. Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely
hard to imagine a situation where they are paid in such a perverse way.
That simply does not fit with the image of a fire department.
It is just as inconceivable as a doctor refusing to treat a patient
untill he pays money was a few years ago. Note that that is happening
more and more here, mostly under influence of managers that were trained
by or according to the ideology of selfish bastards from an unidentified
country. Most doctors hate it but are forced to collaborate with the
enemy because if they don't even more people will remain untreated.
FYI the rule here is more or less that if something can happen in a
random way and the negative effect can exceed what you can afford, you
have to insure that. Also if the damage to society is larger if you are
not insured than if you are (typical example: health care. Somebody that
looses a leg because he is not treated in time often costs more than
someone who is treated. Both directly and indirectly because of the
things he can not do anymore that benefit society) So if you own a house
you have to insure that against fire damage. If you have work, you have
to insure against loss of your job and against physical harm that may
lead to loss of your job. Also everybody should have an insurance to
damage inflicted on others Etc. In many cases you do not even have to
take any action. Insurance is obligatory and handled via your employer
who pays the bills before handing you your money. And that is probably
just as alien to you as the inactive fireman is to me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:29:20
Message: <4a930630$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/24/09 14:19, Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to
>> voluntarily do so?
>
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
> duty'.
I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.
>> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for
>> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?
>
> No. But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for
> Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house
> when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and
> can see the need.
I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.
>> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive
>> 30 miles to go fight fires elsewhere?
>
> If they've volunteered to do so.
I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.
And they didn't volunteer to do so - that's Darren's point. They
volunteered to put out fires in *this* city. And they volunteered to put
out fires for the houses that opted in, not for all the houses in the city.
> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
> to bear that responsibility. If you volunteer to join the army, you
I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.
I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the word
"obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.
> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.
--
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:34:49
Message: <4a930779$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/24/09 16:05, andrel wrote:
> One factor may be that we live in a situation where every fire may
> spread to a neighbouring house. Another is that a fire department is a
Which is why it should be taken care of by the city. A voluntary
service is not obligated, just as you are not obligated to volunteer.
> community service. Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely
We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.
> That simply does not fit with the image of a fire department.
It's not the regular fire department. It's a volunteer one.
> It is just as inconceivable as a doctor refusing to treat a patient
> untill he pays money was a few years ago. Note that that is happening
I'm not so sure. A doctor refusing someone at his practice may be
illegal. A doctor refusing to drive across the city while not on duty to
take care of a patient - probably not as bad.
You're comparing someone who is paid with someone who isn't.
Besides, there's the whole Hippocratic oath thing.
--
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:35:07
Message: <4a93078b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:05:07 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely hard to imagine a
> situation where they are paid in such a perverse way.
It's pretty common in small towns in the US that the volunteer fire
department isn't paid at all - they have to raise funds to buy equipment.
> That simply does
> not fit with the image of a fire department. It is just as inconceivable
> as a doctor refusing to treat a patient untill he pays money was a few
> years ago.
Or indeed as is current in parts of the US. Yes, there are places where
if you can't pay, you don't get health care. Hence the current national
debate over here about this.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:39:14
Message: <4a930882$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the
> word "obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.
I still giggle whenever I remember Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys being assigned
"Volunteer duty."
>> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
>> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
>
> That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.
Yes. "Volunteering" for the army means accepting employment with them of
your own free will. But it's still employment with contracts and such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 17:41:40
Message: <4a930914@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> You probably have no idea how utterly absurd this kind of logic sounds
> to me (and probably most other Europeans).
It sounds fairly absurd to me. The idea that you wouldn't collect taxes to
fund a fire station relies on most everyone donating to maintain the
volunteer station. If most people think they're going to get fire service
even if they don't pay, the whole thing falls apart. (Indeed, it's this
"prisoner dilemma" sort of problem I think governments are most suited to
solving.)
> One factor may be that we live in a situation where every fire may
> spread to a neighbouring house.
That's probably the actual reason why they showed up, mind. :-) That and to
rescue any actual lives that might have needed rescuing. I remember the
comments were along the lines of "he can buy another house with the money he
saved not paying for fire fighters."
> Another is that a fire department is a
> community service. Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely
> hard to imagine a situation where they are paid in such a perverse way.
> That simply does not fit with the image of a fire department.
It was pretty uncommon even back when I was young, and moreso now, I think.
FWIW, we had volunteer ambulance drivers too. More than one band practice
got canceled in the middle when the director had to go drive someone to the
hospital.
> FYI the rule here is more or less that if something can happen in a
> random way and the negative effect can exceed what you can afford, you
> have to insure that.
For everything? That seems a bit much. Here, it's generally either paid with
taxes (i.e., most fire fighting, etc), required to insure against *others*
getting hurt (e.g., you have to insure your car against other peoples'
medical bills, but not against damage you cause to your own car), etc.
But if you're renting an apartment and you chose not to buy insurance on
your stuff, and the apartment complex burns down, well, that's the gamble
you took trying to save money. (Indeed, I was rather annoyed my hard-earned
money went to paying off the property of people down the road when their
apartment burned down. I could have saved a bundle on renter insurance.)
> In many cases you do not even have to
> take any action. Insurance is obligatory and handled via your employer
> who pays the bills before handing you your money. And that is probably
> just as alien to you as the inactive fireman is to me.
Not really. Here we don't call it insurance, we call it taxes, that's all.
If it actually is itemized when taken out and the money actually goes
towards the insurance more than the administration and profit thereof,
that's even better.
I have nothing against paying taxes for fire fighting, rescuing lost hikers,
paying for the phone service of people too poor to afford it, etc.
That said, requiring someone to risk their life for free when you're
unwilling to help them out before you need them seems like more of a dick
move to me than not helping the dick out when the house catches on fire.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|