Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
meadandale
ParticipantIt’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?
Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.
Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.
In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.
More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.
And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.
ParticipantIt’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?
Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.
Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.
In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.
More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.
And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.
ParticipantIt’s funny. Everyone wants free education and free healthcare; when’s the last time you REALLY appreciated something you got for free?
Free education? Who cares if you don’t study or get crappy grades? You’re not paying for it. No parent’s can nag you to do better in school or they’ll cut off their funding. There’s no incentive to accel. I know that when I was paying my tuition in grad school that I paid a hell of a lot more attention in class than when I was in school as an undergrad and was getting loans and grants. Something about having to sit down and write those multi-thousand dollar checks shocks you into reality. I wanted my fricken money’s worth.
Similarly, since I am paying for my own health insurance now (full freight) and have a high deductible health plan to qualify for an HSA, I pay the whole nut on doctors visits, not some $10 copay. As such, I don’t waste my time and money (as well as the doctor’s) going to see him if I have a cold or flu…unless it degenerates into something more serious or doesn’t go away within a week or two. If he prescribes something that won’t help me get better faster or is solely for ‘pain’ or something else, I have to weigh whether I can live with the pain until I’m better or if it is worth $50 for the prescription because I’ll be paying for the whole thing.
In other words, when you are spending your own money, you tend to be a little more discriminating than when you are either a) spending someone else’s money or b) getting something for free.
More than anything, I feel that people need to have some ‘skin in the game’ with regards to these things or they’ll typically abuse them.
And, frankly, if you can afford to have a flat screen tv, $100 sneakers and $200 jeans, you can usually afford to buy health insurance, if that’s your priority. I see way too many people complaining that they can’t afford health insurance; it’s not that they can’t afford it, it’s that they’d just rather spend the money on other things. Yeah, me too. I’d rather spend my money on other things than paying for your health insurance because you have different priorities.
Participant[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
Participant[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
Participant[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
Participant[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
Participant[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
ParticipantSo you are Tom Costas?
ParticipantSo you are Tom Costas?
ParticipantSo you are Tom Costas?
ParticipantSo you are Tom Costas?
ParticipantSo you are Tom Costas?
ParticipantLOL, your name isn’t Tom Costas by any chance? You sound just like a guy I used to work with. Is “the man” still keeping you down?
-
AuthorPosts
