Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[mystery]

in two ways.

1. the person who has the desire so high is removed.
2. others have a much stronger deterrent.

I am sure it works.

The root cause of the businessman in this case is greed. perhaps some cases that the person needs money so badly for a noble cause. I don't know of any cases like that.

The root cause of the addicts is rejection, usually in multiple areas. Looking to find comfort, unfortunately, the effects do something else.

[Belindi]

in two ways.

1. the person who has the desire so high is removed.
2. others have a much stronger deterrent.

I am sure it works.

The root cause of the businessman in this case is greed. perhaps some cases that the person needs money so badly for a noble cause. I don't know of any cases like that.

The root cause of the addicts is rejection, usually in multiple areas. Looking to find comfort, unfortunately, the effects do something else.

But your 1. and 2. are common to everyone.There is no person whose illegal, and/or immoral, and/or irrational desires do not fluctuate. There is no natural division between criminals and non-criminals.

[mystery]

in two ways.

1. the person who has the desire so high is removed.
2. others have a much stronger deterrent.

I am sure it works.

The root cause of the businessman in this case is greed. perhaps some cases that the person needs money so badly for a noble cause. I don't know of any cases like that.

The root cause of the addicts is rejection, usually in multiple areas. Looking to find comfort, unfortunately, the effects do something else.

But your 1. and 2. are common to everyone.There is no person whose illegal, and/or immoral, and/or irrational desires do not fluctuate. There is no natural division between criminals and non-criminals.

tell me more about that. Not sure I understand.

I am sure that with the proper motivation that anyone will do anything.

[Belindi]

in two ways.

1. the person who has the desire so high is removed.
2. others have a much stronger deterrent.

I am sure it works.

The root cause of the businessman in this case is greed. perhaps some cases that the person needs money so badly for a noble cause. I don't know of any cases like that.

The root cause of the addicts is rejection, usually in multiple areas. Looking to find comfort, unfortunately, the effects do something else.

But your 1. and 2. are common to everyone.There is no person whose illegal, and/or immoral, and/or irrational desires do not fluctuate. There is no natural division between criminals and non-criminals.

tell me more about that. Not sure I understand.

I am sure that with the proper motivation that anyone will do anything.

I mean that each individual's empathy strength fluctuates.

This fact makes effective legislation complicated, as to be effective legislation needs to reward all the complexity of motivating factors that increase empathy. That is to say, increase understanding between social classes by decreasing wealth differential and increasing social mobility. Increase understanding between cultural / religious communities by means of various educational enterprises.These are longer term remedies.

Immediately it is necessary to treat drug addiction by international sharing of police intelligence, together with disciplined and thoroughly trained police forces. Imprisonment should be resorted to only to protect society and prisons should be publicly owned and funded.

[mystery]

in two ways.

1. the person who has the desire so high is removed.
2. others have a much stronger deterrent.

I am sure it works.

The root cause of the businessman in this case is greed. perhaps some cases that the person needs money so badly for a noble cause. I don't know of any cases like that.

The root cause of the addicts is rejection, usually in multiple areas. Looking to find comfort, unfortunately, the effects do something else.

But your 1. and 2. are common to everyone.There is no person whose illegal, and/or immoral, and/or irrational desires do not fluctuate. There is no natural division between criminals and non-criminals.

tell me more about that. Not sure I understand.

I am sure that with the proper motivation that anyone will do anything.

I mean that each individual's empathy strength fluctuates.

This fact makes effective legislation complicated, as to be effective legislation needs to reward all the complexity of motivating factors that increase empathy. That is to say, increase understanding between social classes by decreasing wealth differential and increasing social mobility. Increase understanding between cultural / religious communities by means of various educational enterprises.These are longer term remedies.

Immediately it is necessary to treat drug addiction by international sharing of police intelligence, together with disciplined and thoroughly trained police forces. Imprisonment should be resorted to only to protect society and prisons should be publicly owned and funded.

I agree that leadership by consensus usually doesn't work.

A choice becomes should we have empathy for a person that would harm our family and give them part of our wealth for food and shelter or should we remove them. What if our family was already only with enough, would we allow our family to become sickly so that we could give to a person that has and had intentions to kill us to feed an addiction caused by a greedy businessperson?

you and I may not have such a decision, many others do.

[Belindi]

But your 1. and 2. are common to everyone.There is no person whose illegal, and/or immoral, and/or irrational desires do not fluctuate. There is no natural division between criminals and non-criminals.

tell me more about that. Not sure I understand.

I am sure that with the proper motivation that anyone will do anything.

I mean that each individual's empathy strength fluctuates.

This fact makes effective legislation complicated, as to be effective legislation needs to reward all the complexity of motivating factors that increase empathy. That is to say, increase understanding between social classes by decreasing wealth differential and increasing social mobility. Increase understanding between cultural / religious communities by means of various educational enterprises.These are longer term remedies.

Immediately it is necessary to treat drug addiction by international sharing of police intelligence, together with disciplined and thoroughly trained police forces. Imprisonment should be resorted to only to protect society and prisons should be publicly owned and funded.

I agree that leadership by consensus usually doesn't work.

A choice becomes should we have empathy for a person that would harm our family and give them part of our wealth for food and shelter or should we remove them. What if our family was already only with enough, would we allow our family to become sickly so that we could give to a person that has and had intentions to kill us to feed an addiction caused by a greedy businessperson?

you and I may not have such a decision, many others do.

To 'have empathy' does not mean to forgive or to feel loyal fellowship. Empathy is a main component of reason for without empathy you cannot predict what a man is likely to do next. You have to be able in some measure to predict human behaviour in order to diminish criminality.

BTW you cannot agree with what has not been claimed.

[mystery]

tell me more about that. Not sure I understand.

I am sure that with the proper motivation that anyone will do anything.

I mean that each individual's empathy strength fluctuates.

This fact makes effective legislation complicated, as to be effective legislation needs to reward all the complexity of motivating factors that increase empathy. That is to say, increase understanding between social classes by decreasing wealth differential and increasing social mobility. Increase understanding between cultural / religious communities by means of various educational enterprises.These are longer term remedies.

Immediately it is necessary to treat drug addiction by international sharing of police intelligence, together with disciplined and thoroughly trained police forces. Imprisonment should be resorted to only to protect society and prisons should be publicly owned and funded.

I agree that leadership by consensus usually doesn't work.

A choice becomes should we have empathy for a person that would harm our family and give them part of our wealth for food and shelter or should we remove them. What if our family was already only with enough, would we allow our family to become sickly so that we could give to a person that has and had intentions to kill us to feed an addiction caused by a greedy businessperson?

you and I may not have such a decision, many others do.

To 'have empathy' does not mean to forgive or to feel loyal fellowship. Empathy is a main component of reason for without empathy you cannot predict what a man is likely to do next. You have to be able in some measure to predict human behaviour in order to diminish criminality.

BTW you cannot agree with what has not been claimed.

Thats fair, sometimes I look for agreement by suggesting it. Often it works, no disrespect intended.

One of the missing things with a person that is strongly Narcissistic is a lack of empathy, do you think they do not have a reason? Many become very wealthy.

Narcissists are predictable.

[Belindi]

I am not a psychiatrist and don't have any clinical experience of mental disorders. However there is a difference between empathy and sympathy. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly work to become rich unless they could understand other people and predict others' behaviour to a significant extent.

To know what someone else feels(empathy)is not the same as to like feeling the same as another(sympathy). I'll take it as given that narcissists are predctable, but do they predict at all well? Since knowledge of human behaviour matters for competent predictions in any marketplace any 'narcissist' or anybody else who becomes rich not by good fortune but by their own efforts must be good at empathy.

Ideally healthcare will be run as a business by politicians and civil servants who understand social psychology or have expert advice from social psychologists i.e. empathy specialists. Without also sympathy i.e.fellow feeling and ordinary human kindness which I called sympathy a politician or businessman who has only empathy will become corrupt to some degree. With sympathy but lacking empathy a politician will not be able to take an objective view of the most effective way to spend money. A good politian needs both empathy and sympathy.

For my own part I look to the politician's background and life as lived to discover if the politician has sympathy. That is why I trust Biden not Trump. Another useful pointer to a man with sympathy is when they don't get rich from the high office of politician.

[mystery]

I am not a psychiatrist and don't have any clinical experience of mental disorders. However there is a difference between empathy and sympathy. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly work to become rich unless they could understand other people and predict others' behaviour to a significant extent.

To know what someone else feels(empathy)is not the same as to like feeling the same as another(sympathy). I'll take it as given that narcissists are predctable, but do they predict at all well? Since knowledge of human behaviour matters for competent predictions in any marketplace any 'narcissist' or anybody else who becomes rich not by good fortune but by their own efforts must be good at empathy.

Ideally healthcare will be run as a business by politicians and civil servants who understand social psychology or have expert advice from social psychologists i.e. empathy specialists. Without also sympathy i.e.fellow feeling and ordinary human kindness which I called sympathy a politician or businessman who has only empathy will become corrupt to some degree. With sympathy but lacking empathy a politician will not be able to take an objective view of the most effective way to spend money. A good politician needs both empathy and sympathy.

For my own part I look to the politician's background and life as lived to discover if the politician has sympathy. That is why I trust Biden not Trump. Another useful pointer to a man with sympathy is when they don't get rich from the high office of politician.

Your description of sympathy and empathy is good. I also am not in the mental health business. Usually, Narcs (Narcissists) are experts at emotional manipulation. People run on emotions, if we can get the upper hand emotionally it's easy to get most people to do anything. They know what the other person is feeling but do not care. Empathy for me means that I also care about the other person's pain, not just understand it.

One of the key things to get people to agree to give is a play on empathy. You and I might have strong empathy so that if someone properly explains how another is suffering we will feel like helping and therefore will do so. At the same time, the person or group that is interacting with us to get this decision to give is aware of what they are doing with us and our empathy. Narcs always target high empathy persons.

With health care, we have a lot going on with it that is not health care that is expensive. Insurance companies earning as much or more than medical professionals. It is not efficient. Hospital business managers earn more than surgeons, it's silly. I am aware of several middle-sized companies that closed USA operations because of the cost of health care for employees.

IMO, Inner confidence is required to avoid corruption. A purpose that does not require validation from others.

All of the leaders have had some strengths and some faults.
Obama got rich while in high office but if I point that out to most ppl they conclude I must be a racist.

[Sushan]

rights vs privileges.

is health care a right or a privilege?

in the most simple terms, someone must fund the Dr. and someone must produce the tools and items needed to conduct health care.

it is a question of forcing or inviting others to pay for our needs or in turn paying for the needs of others either with our permission or against our will. force by a tax that is punishable for failure to pay is unfair. we take from a productive person and give to another who is not as productive. this is bad for our survival. we punish the successful and reward the not successful.

charity is another matter and desirable.

there was a company before called https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/ that could join voluntarily to distribute the health care cost.

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the value of insurance.

As to the punished successful, would you rather be a taxed rich person or a poor person getting assistance? Trust me, the rich are doing just fine, you don't need to shed tears on their behalf.

The rich maybe paying more money to the governments as tax money. But even the poor are paying taxes too via anything that they buy, even their daily meals. So it is not a fair world for anyone.

But in my country I think the middle income people are the ones who get benefited by having a healthcare insurance because it will let them to have a superior and self-centered service from the private hhealth sector, while the rich ones can anyway afford the cost for healthcare and the totally free government health sector can provide for the poor people.

[Sushan]

rights vs privileges.

is health care a right or a privilege?

in the most simple terms, someone must fund the Dr. and someone must produce the tools and items needed to conduct health care.

it is a question of forcing or inviting others to pay for our needs or in turn paying for the needs of others either with our permission or against our will. force by a tax that is punishable for failure to pay is unfair. we take from a productive person and give to another who is not as productive. this is bad for our survival. we punish the successful and reward the not successful.

charity is another matter and desirable.

there was a company before called https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/ that could join voluntarily to distribute the health care cost.

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the value of insurance.

As to the punished successful, would you rather be a taxed rich person or a poor person getting assistance? Trust me, the rich are doing just fine, you don't need to shed tears on their behalf.

I do know about insurance. I usually only insure what I can not deal with. Health care insurance is not like that, it is a business in the middle of the process. On average paying cash for services that are priced at the real value is a better deal for both provider and buyer. In the US the cost of the medical services are much higher for equivalent service in other locations.

At one point in the US, I had to pay up to $4K per month for insurance of a family and really never went to the Dr much. At the same time, other families went to the Dr. often and did not pay anything. Objectively I don't see how that is fair. Regardless of if It was easy or difficult for me to do that, how is it equal treatment. I don't use any more public service than others when in that location, I think I use far less.

No tears at all and I would not choose to switch places, as I already made the switch when on the other side because I did not like it.

But how is the financial differential fair, it forces some to pay for others without agreement. This is similar to slavery????

BTW; I get it, just rattling the topic to see what you and others think.

Any insurance is a business IMO. It is same for healthcare as well. But I am not certain whether we are paying for others through our healthcare insurance, because these companies are not for charity. As per my knowledge they invest our money in other businesses and earn for themselves. I am not against that because no one will give us anything without a benefit, unless they are our kin. And in my country the healthcare insurances act as a pension plan as well. So at termination of the agreement you will get the remaining balance of your premiums with an interest.

[Sushan]

rights vs privileges.

is health care a right or a privilege?

in the most simple terms, someone must fund the Dr. and someone must produce the tools and items needed to conduct health care.

it is a question of forcing or inviting others to pay for our needs or in turn paying for the needs of others either with our permission or against our will. force by a tax that is punishable for failure to pay is unfair. we take from a productive person and give to another who is not as productive. this is bad for our survival. we punish the successful and reward the not successful.

charity is another matter and desirable.

there was a company before called https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/ that could join voluntarily to distribute the health care cost.

Taking from the rich and distributing it among the poor has been a popular concept from the early days, and that is why we see stories like 'Robin Hood. But, as you have said, it is unfair to punish a hard earning person and reward a possibly lazy one. But at the same time the the workers has to be paid and the healthcare systems need money to run. So what can be done is make health a charity work and controlled by the government. So government can directly fund the healthcare system without directly asking rich or the poor to pay for healthcare. Government can have its own ways of earning and a share from that can be contributed to healthcare. With that I think the right to live a healthy life will be fulfilled to both rich and the poor.

A hard-line approach would be that the person that can not buy does not receive. In truth, I have seen poor ppl stay healthy with local low-cost Dr. The need for the fancy hotel-style medical center is a cost that not everyone is entitled to. Just the same as not everyone deserves to own a 150k car, when we have busses.

It is good if the world is a fair place and everyone are treated equally despite their financial status. But the society has gone too far from that because all are humans and human love to achieve more but not to give more. The low cost doctor will be able to help with the minor illnesses. But the advance illnesses will require advance treatment options, which are almost always costly. So someone, either the patient, the government, or the insurance company, has to pay the price. And in the topic of health we cannot determine what is entitled or not to a person because the illnesses are unexpected as well as unwanted. But the rich people spending on fancy logistics is quite unnecessary, and I agree with you on that.

[Sushan]

My experience of the general practitioner is that it is a volume business, most general practitioners don't know the individual patient very well and has no time to. That's the crux of it, time is money. A farmer knows his animals but I don't suppose one can hope that a doctor/general practitioner can function that way, it just not economically feasible. Definitely a business.

With today's busy world I agree that the field of medicine has gone to that extent. Today we see lesser family physicians and more general practioners. These doctors do not remember their patients unless they are regular customers or unless they personally know them. And I do not blame that because how can we expect anyone to keep in mind all the clients that he/she meets every day, if there is no significant thing to register them in their minds? And the patients also go from one doctor to another, so how can a continous register or a follow up can be maintained?

[Sushan]

rights vs privileges.

is health care a right or a privilege?

in the most simple terms, someone must fund the Dr. and someone must produce the tools and items needed to conduct health care.

it is a question of forcing or inviting others to pay for our needs or in turn paying for the needs of others either with our permission or against our will. force by a tax that is punishable for failure to pay is unfair. we take from a productive person and give to another who is not as productive. this is bad for our survival. we punish the successful and reward the not successful.

charity is another matter and desirable.

there was a company before called https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/ that could join voluntarily to distribute the health care cost.

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the value of insurance.

As to the punished successful, would you rather be a taxed rich person or a poor person getting assistance? Trust me, the rich are doing just fine, you don't need to shed tears on their behalf.

I do know about insurance. I usually only insure what I can not deal with. Health care insurance is not like that, it is a business in the middle of the process. On average paying cash for services that are priced at the real value is a better deal for both provider and buyer. In the US the cost of the medical services are much higher for equivalent service in other locations.

At one point in the US, I had to pay up to $4K per month for insurance of a family and really never went to the Dr much. At the same time, other families went to the Dr. often and did not pay anything. Objectively I don't see how that is fair. Regardless of if It was easy or difficult for me to do that, how is it equal treatment. I don't use any more public service than others when in that location, I think I use far less.

No tears at all and I would not choose to switch places, as I already made the switch when on the other side because I did not like it.

But how is the financial differential fair, it forces some to pay for others without agreement. This is similar to slavery????

BTW; I get it, just rattling the topic to see what you and others think.

Exactly. That is the value of insurance. Since healthcare bills are the #1 reason for bankruptcy, all but the very wealthy should pay for health insurance. Once you do so, why in the world would someone hope to be in poor enough health so they can "use" the insurance they paid for? Insurance is to provide peace of mind (that you are covered), not to use the insurance (to come out ahead financially). No one hopes their home burns down when they purchase fire insurance. No one wants to total their car because they have collision coverage.

So using less services makes you a winner, not a loser.

Do we really want to live in a society where folks who can't afford healthcare are just denied care and left to die, when there is enough overall wealth to pay for it?

I think the poor being treated for free is done by the expenditures done by the government rather than any charity work done by large insurance companies. Atleast that is the scenario in my country.

But I agree to your last point. No one has to be denied of healthcare services since there is abundant money in the society which can be used for the benefit of everyone. But the issue is that money getting divided unfairly, so the rich getting the most while the poor only getting a little.

[Sushan]

Do we really want to live in a society where folks who can't afford healthcare are just denied care and left to die, when there is enough overall wealth to pay for it?

As with many things, motivation is key to success. If failure is given safety AND comfort then some of the motivation is missing for success.

I do not believe in equal rights, except for the right of opportunity. Which could be a big topic itself. So long as all ppl have the chance to improve we should not reward a lack of improvment. otherwise, we are causing the destruction of our kind.

I might need to qualify the equal thing.

If a man is born and is genetically larger and stronger than another man, he might be able to be successful in say professional sports like football. A different man might have for example an intellect and even an autistic but brilliant mind. That second man can do things the first can not probably. But both men have the chance with the law to find a place and excel. Both will fail in the other area of strength. It means no provision should be made to give them both the same job, but they both have an equal chance to invent a path.

It is the same for health care, each man should have a chance to earn good care.

I agree. Giving away things for free or giving them for the undeserved will demotivate the hard working people who actually earn for themselves and deserve to be treated better.

But I believe health and education are fundamental rights. If we ask people to earn those things their earning might not be enough to achieve the fullest requirement from both fields, and it will drastically reduce their quality of life. Though my country is poor in all other aspects, our healthcare system and education are really advance, and the literacy rate and the healthcare denominators are high because they are given totally free for all the citizens. I am not saying that has to be the case in each and every thing. But these two fields has to be kept open with free access to anyone, whether they deserve it or not.