On 10/13/2013 09:29 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 8:11 PM, Shay wrote:
>> On 10/12/2013 11:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the world is full of stupidity, and, yes, maybe YOU could improve
>> some of it if you had infinite, incorruptible power at your disposal.
>> But this is a fantasy, and no amount of problem-pointing-out makes it
>> any less of a fantasy.
>>
>>   -Shay
>>
> And, your solution is to "not" help people that need it, because, well,
> that would "force" doctors to do something they wouldn't otherwise.

Where did I say I wouldn't help? I told you how I would (and have) 
helped, both the real-life and king-for-a-day versions. I've probably 
given thousands to MS-research over the years.

> There are reason emergency rooms "must", under the law, be forced to
> provide care to anyone that comes in, and why its that way in every
> single damn civilized country.

Guess ours is not a "civilized country," because only hospitals who 
accept federal funds are "forced to provide care for anyone that comes in."

> Unfortunately, it is still legal to take a mother with medical problems,
> which can kill her, as well as her child, and force her to ride in an
> ambulance, or other transportation, to some place hundreds of miles
> away, for ***immediate*** treatment, which the hospital won't give,
> because they are religious, <snip>
>
> So, at least your principle that they shouldn't be "forced" to do things
> counts, for some shit that ends up killing people (and hell yes, it does
> kill people).

To some, a human life is a human life. This is not necessarily a 
Christian Belief. Anton LaVey was anti-abortion.

In a majority of US states, killing another person's fetus /is/ murder. 
I cannot agree with *forcing* an institution to perform this act.

Besides, there are many, many life-preserving measures we don't even 
consider forcing hospitals to take, from cell-phone provision to arms 
reduction.

> I have heard the same asinine argument made, over and over again, by
> "libertarians" arguing that laws prohibiting businesses from telling
> people with the wrong color skin, or political affiliation, or what ever
> other BS they use, should be a allowed,

It's not that these discriminations should be allowed. It's that no 
Constitutional authority exists to pass laws against them. Libertarians 
assume, and history assures, the majority (government) will capriciously 
exercise any power they are given. Minority rights *require* limitations 
on the power of the majority.

"Good laws" and "bad laws" are temporary. Authority, once given, is 
usually "forever" (or until an unfortunate, bloody revolution).

> All of which, again, misses the point, entirely, that its only a damn
> problem if <snip>
>
> If not for the lies of people that have, even before social security
> existed, have been fighting to kill government services, the rule would
> be, "It is better that one person cheat the system, than that someone
> else die of starvation." Corrupt or not, hundreds of thousands of people
> would be dead without it.

Likewise, totalitarianism is only a problem when we start housing 25% of 
the world's prison population and killing literally millions with 
high-tech weaponry and seizing property for economic health and building 
with Predator drones and ...

oh, wait.

> And, that has got to be the most fucked up thing of all. You could walk
> in with a suit case full of hundred dollar bills, in need of nothing
> more than a cast for a sprained ankle, and some of that "corruption" you
> are so worried about, makes it illegal, in some cases/states, to treat
> them ***at all***, without also producing an insurance card. Why?
> Because it cuts out the profits of the insurance companies, and worse,
> anyone with that kind of money must be, by definition, able to afford
> it, or, possibly a drug dealer, criminal, terrorist, or some other
> "unwanted" that doesn't, by the logic of some of the idiots out there
> (and, often the same ones apposed to universal health care, and other
> social programs), not **deserving** of help.

Yeah, mandating insurance is pretty fucked up. Isn't it?

>
> There is the "corruption" you need to be worrying about, not the
> mythical "freeloader" that might be using your dime to get a damn
> bandaid.

Not worried about this. Have you read *any* of my posts. Or, do you 
think I just made up the "millions of dead" thing to keep a few quarters 
in my pocket?

> Its almost as though, if we really helped people, instead of shitting
> all over them, while giving them free money, they might become
> productive citizens... Nah...

Citizenship is what I want for them, but not citizenship in a Plutocracy.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message