Our Litigious Society
-
espeir wrote:
No, but it means you should pay for it.
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)? Do you really want such a society? Are you rich? The intent of my reply was to point out that while a society may be best characterized as capitalist or socialist, any real society will be a blend of both philosophies. One may dominate but aspects of both will exist. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)?
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln? The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)?
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln? The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
So your answer to my question is "yes" (you want a society in which someone who can't afford open heart surgery but needs it is left to die).
espeir wrote:
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln?
No, it doesn’t. In fact there are laws that say that a car must be roadworthy (and therefore safe) before it is allowed on the roads. If a person, rich or poor, drives an un-roadworthy vehicle on the roads they are breaking the law. The burden of enforcing these laws does indeed rest with the government. There is also the fact that lacking a car isn't terminal. Your argument is flawed.
espeir wrote:
The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
Rubbish. Steve
-
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
-
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
I should clarify my view though: That you don't own something doesn't necessarily mean you aren't responsible for it. But a governmental system that is based on the assumption that people will normally act responsibly regarding something that does not belong directly to them is very naive.
-
The other half of the equation is the stupid judges that let this stuff happen. Lawyers want the money, so I can see that, but why oh why do the stupid judges let this happen? Jeremy Falcon
A good point. I'm not sure why you got oned for this one. I've given a 5 to balance the books (my vote didn't have much effect). Steve
-
Christian Graus wrote:
especially one who needs the web to meet girls ?
I don't think makes someone a bad person, anti-social maybe but not neccasirly bad. What happened is wrong and terrible, but these people are blaming the wrong damned thing - probably just trying to milk it for what it's worth for money. It's digusting IMO. [edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
[edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit]
I agree. We don't often agree but the point you make here seems obvious and it's hard to see why it would be oned. I've given 5 as compensation. Steve
-
The other half of the equation is the stupid judges that let this stuff happen. Lawyers want the money, so I can see that, but why oh why do the stupid judges let this happen? Jeremy Falcon
-
Can you believe the hubris of this 14 year old girl and her mother? They are suing a private business because the girl decided to go on a date with a 19 year old man and got raped. Teen, mom sue MySpace.com for $30 million, claim popular Internet site fails to protect children from adult sexual predators.[^]
I blame the mother for not keeping tabs on her daughter's web activities and for letting her go alone on a date with someone she met through the web. It's not like anyone in the Western World can be unaware of the dangers of using the web. Hope the judge throws it out and does the mother on a charge of child neglect.
-
The Article wrote:
MySpace says on a "Tips for Parents" page that users must be 14 or older. The Web site does nothing to verify the age of the user, such as requiring a driver's license or credit card number, Loewy said.
Serious quetion: how many 14 year olds in the US have driving licenses or credit cards?
The Article wrote:
To create an account, a MySpace user must list a name, an e-mail address, sex, country and date of birth. "None of this has to be true," the lawsuit said.
Doesn't lying constitute breaking their terms or service, and void any moral or legal claim you would have as a result of that lying? (although the girl was 14 in this case - I'm just asking.)
The Article wrote:
"We feel that 1 percent of that is the bare minimum that they should compensate the girl for their failure to protect her online when they knew sexual predators were on that site," he said.
Cha-Ching! Reminds me of the mother who encouraged her teenage daughters (12-14) to get pregnant and have a baby so they could claim benefits. Some people should not be licensed to breed.
Ðavid Wulff Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"If some individuals commit an act that is contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent... the individuals are." - espeir. -
I'm pretty sure it's the definition. Socialism is the dispersal of one's personal responsibility across the state.
What's the dispersal of one's personal responsibility TO the sate then? The International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London says that currently, there are 2,135,901 people incarcerated in the United States – placing the US way at the top of the world league tables, ahead of China, the Russian Federation and then Brazil. Nearly 10 per cent of America’s prison population are now serving life sentences, many of them with little chance of parole; 20 per cent have no chance of parole and know that they will leave prison only in a coffin.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Who the f*** cares? I had a bad childhood, and I know others have as well. Having a bad childhood may f*** a kid up, but the ability to harm other people stems from somewhere else - that is to say the personality/individual.
Me thinks Mr. Gaskey was being facetious. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Me thinks Mr. Gaskey was being facetious
yup Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
So your answer to my question is "yes" (you want a society in which someone who can't afford open heart surgery but needs it is left to die).
espeir wrote:
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln?
No, it doesn’t. In fact there are laws that say that a car must be roadworthy (and therefore safe) before it is allowed on the roads. If a person, rich or poor, drives an un-roadworthy vehicle on the roads they are breaking the law. The burden of enforcing these laws does indeed rest with the government. There is also the fact that lacking a car isn't terminal. Your argument is flawed.
espeir wrote:
The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
Rubbish. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
So your answer to my question is "yes" (you want a society in which someone who can't afford open heart surgery but needs it is left to die).
I didn't say that. I said anybody who actually wants to be able to afford heart surgery can. If you decide not to work and put your money in booze, cigarettes and drugs, then you don't deserve heart surgery. Insurance is about $70/month through an employer. ANYBODY in America can easily afford that. If you willingly opt out of that, then it's your own fault.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
No, it doesn’t. In fact there are laws that say that a car must be roadworthy (and therefore safe) before it is allowed on the roads. If a person, rich or poor, drives an un-roadworthy vehicle on the roads they are breaking the law. The burden of enforcing these laws does indeed rest with the government.
Roadworthy does not mean safe and never has. If all you can afford is a Hyundai Elantra (one of the unsafest on American roads), then your chances of dying in an accident are greatly increased. What about the Yugo and Corvair? Remember those? They were "roadworthy" cars.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
There is also the fact that lacking a car isn't terminal. Your argument is flawed.
Lacking a car most likely means lacking a job in most US cities. Our cities are built around the automobile. And suppose they walk to the bus stop...They probably need to cross a crosswalk or two, right? Is it therefore the burdern of the state to ensure that all crosswalks are elevated so that nobody is exposed to evil capitalist SUVs driving by? Certainly crossing a crosswalk can be terminal.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Rubbish
OK. For the record, it is your assertion that Americans cannot afford $70/month. That is the basis of your argument. That's 1.5% of the average per capita income (works out to be lower with family plans). Your argument is flawed.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
So your answer to my question is "yes" (you want a society in which someone who can't afford open heart surgery but needs it is left to die).
I didn't say that. I said anybody who actually wants to be able to afford heart surgery can. If you decide not to work and put your money in booze, cigarettes and drugs, then you don't deserve heart surgery. Insurance is about $70/month through an employer. ANYBODY in America can easily afford that. If you willingly opt out of that, then it's your own fault.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
No, it doesn’t. In fact there are laws that say that a car must be roadworthy (and therefore safe) before it is allowed on the roads. If a person, rich or poor, drives an un-roadworthy vehicle on the roads they are breaking the law. The burden of enforcing these laws does indeed rest with the government.
Roadworthy does not mean safe and never has. If all you can afford is a Hyundai Elantra (one of the unsafest on American roads), then your chances of dying in an accident are greatly increased. What about the Yugo and Corvair? Remember those? They were "roadworthy" cars.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
There is also the fact that lacking a car isn't terminal. Your argument is flawed.
Lacking a car most likely means lacking a job in most US cities. Our cities are built around the automobile. And suppose they walk to the bus stop...They probably need to cross a crosswalk or two, right? Is it therefore the burdern of the state to ensure that all crosswalks are elevated so that nobody is exposed to evil capitalist SUVs driving by? Certainly crossing a crosswalk can be terminal.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Rubbish
OK. For the record, it is your assertion that Americans cannot afford $70/month. That is the basis of your argument. That's 1.5% of the average per capita income (works out to be lower with family plans). Your argument is flawed.
In 2001 there were about 42.6 million people in the U.S. without health insurance. I'd wager that's its no lower today. That's lots of people to tell, "it's your own fault". The U.S. is the only developed country apart from South Africa that doesn't provide health care for all its citizens. It's not my argument which is flawed: it's your health care system. Steve
-
In 2001 there were about 42.6 million people in the U.S. without health insurance. I'd wager that's its no lower today. That's lots of people to tell, "it's your own fault". The U.S. is the only developed country apart from South Africa that doesn't provide health care for all its citizens. It's not my argument which is flawed: it's your health care system. Steve
Ever think that maybe those people don't want health insurance? I've considered not getting it myself since I haven't seen a doctor or taken prescription medicine in over a decade. The only reason I get it is because it's cheap and tax-deductible. Still, over the past decade I've wasted about $10,000 on it. Compounded with stock market returns, that's $16,000. Since bypass surgery costs about $25,000 (according to Google), just the money I wasted on insurance almost covers the cost of that operation...and I'm nowhere close to being old enough to need it. It would probably be smarter if I just invested the money. So not only is your argument flawed, but the whole notion of the necessity of compulsory health care is flawed as well.
-
What's the dispersal of one's personal responsibility TO the sate then? The International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London says that currently, there are 2,135,901 people incarcerated in the United States – placing the US way at the top of the world league tables, ahead of China, the Russian Federation and then Brazil. Nearly 10 per cent of America’s prison population are now serving life sentences, many of them with little chance of parole; 20 per cent have no chance of parole and know that they will leave prison only in a coffin.
When done universally, it's the exact same thing.
-
What's the dispersal of one's personal responsibility TO the sate then? The International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London says that currently, there are 2,135,901 people incarcerated in the United States – placing the US way at the top of the world league tables, ahead of China, the Russian Federation and then Brazil. Nearly 10 per cent of America’s prison population are now serving life sentences, many of them with little chance of parole; 20 per cent have no chance of parole and know that they will leave prison only in a coffin.
Oh, I know. How 'bout if instead of incarcerating them, the US should just shoot them instead. That will be less costly in the long run and then they won't be at the head of the incarceration list. :dolt: Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When no one was looking, every single American woman between the ages of 18 and 32 went out and got a tatoo just above their rumpus. [link[^]]
-
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
and ... If you operate a social club for meeting other people that allows pedophiles to meet and lure victims and you do nothing to prevent that, it's you responsibility. :tag: Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When no one was looking, every single American woman between the ages of 18 and 32 went out and got a tatoo just above their rumpus. [link[^]]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
[edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit]
I agree. We don't often agree but the point you make here seems obvious and it's hard to see why it would be oned. I've given 5 as compensation. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I agree. We don't often agree
:laugh:
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
but the point you make here seems obvious and it's hard to see why it would be oned.
Sometimes it's just amazing the length the one-voters will go through. One of my posts said nothing but "Huh?" and it got down-voted too. Pretty sad.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I've given 5 as compensation.
Thanks. I've done that myself too, when I don't think the poster deserved it. Oh well, reckon I'll never quite understand some people. Jeremy Falcon
-
A good point. I'm not sure why you got oned for this one. I've given a 5 to balance the books (my vote didn't have much effect). Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I've given a 5 to balance the books (my vote didn't have much effect).
It's the thought that counts. :-D Jeremy Falcon
-
Ever think that maybe those people don't want health insurance? I've considered not getting it myself since I haven't seen a doctor or taken prescription medicine in over a decade. The only reason I get it is because it's cheap and tax-deductible. Still, over the past decade I've wasted about $10,000 on it. Compounded with stock market returns, that's $16,000. Since bypass surgery costs about $25,000 (according to Google), just the money I wasted on insurance almost covers the cost of that operation...and I'm nowhere close to being old enough to need it. It would probably be smarter if I just invested the money. So not only is your argument flawed, but the whole notion of the necessity of compulsory health care is flawed as well.
It's also about risk tolerance. Not everyone has a high one and they want the (usually fake) protection health insurance provides them. Jeremy Falcon
