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

[LuckyR]

People In the health care system are being treated like clients instead of patients that’s why there’s no cradle to grave care. There is no trust In the healthcare system because people are not getting adequate care. This is not just physicians but the whole medical community and the healthcare system from the insurance companies to the pharmacies to the hospitals. There are multiple examples of these instances. To say our system is broken or blame one entity is shortsighted. We don’t need an overhaul. We need to start new.

I think you are correct. People have changed too much so are the systems. It is hard to change anything and the only remaining option is to restart, which is not practically possible. With the today's competitive money-minded society, everything has got a monetary value, and healthcare is not excluded from that. Today time is money. So doctors do not have time to talk with patients or nurses do not have time to smile with patients because they are bound to see more and more patients. Otherwise their main organizations won't get the expected profits. I am not telling that all the healthcare workers are like this, but many have adopted to this system not because of anything but because they too have to live and provide for their families.

Complaining about an existing situation without a practical alternative is a waste of time and energy.

[mystery]

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.

[mystery]

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.

[popeye1945]

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.

[LuckyR]

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?

[mystery]

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.

[LuckyR]

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.

Uummm, okay. Some hear you say "earn good care" and assume earn as in money to pay for care, others feel that by being a member of society every one earns certain basic rights, including minimal health care. What are you saying?

[mystery]

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.

Uummm, okay. Some hear you say "earn good care" and assume earn as in money to pay for care, others feel that by being a member of society every one earns certain basic rights, including minimal health care. What are you saying?

exactly I don't think health care (goods and services) provided by others is a right. I believe rights have to do with no interference but disagree with any right the involves the transfer of wealth to another. Now in reality I provide much care for others, more than we are talking about in this. It is the principal of the issue that a poor person who might be such due to no motivation has the 'right' to demand.

I also do not think a human has the right to food. They do have the right to earn it in my ideas.

Often ppl think correctly that it is good for all to have free things such as healthcare. I also think it is desirable for all to have any that they wish for, I simply do not agree with using force to achieve that.

In the most simple terms, how is minimal health care achieved? Even to treat a minor condition might cost thousands in US. This means that a person receiving free health care is getting thousands in value for a minor condition treatment. They often lose the motivation to change from the position as they need to earn so much to actually have better results. The sliding scale simply takes more from someone that starts to try and improve. Ever look closely at a medical bill, the cost charged for tissue or other very small items is silly. Many or most never look at this bills because it is hidden in the insurance system.

Anything that involves taking items or efforts from another doesn't seem like a right to me.

If your not wealthy you have the right to take from those that are.

[LuckyR]

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.

Uummm, okay. Some hear you say "earn good care" and assume earn as in money to pay for care, others feel that by being a member of society every one earns certain basic rights, including minimal health care. What are you saying?

exactly I don't think health care (goods and services) provided by others is a right. I believe rights have to do with no interference but disagree with any right the involves the transfer of wealth to another. Now in reality I provide much care for others, more than we are talking about in this. It is the principal of the issue that a poor person who might be such due to no motivation has the 'right' to demand.

I also do not think a human has the right to food. They do have the right to earn it in my ideas.

Often ppl think correctly that it is good for all to have free things such as healthcare. I also think it is desirable for all to have any that they wish for, I simply do not agree with using force to achieve that.

In the most simple terms, how is minimal health care achieved? Even to treat a minor condition might cost thousands in US. This means that a person receiving free health care is getting thousands in value for a minor condition treatment. They often lose the motivation to change from the position as they need to earn so much to actually have better results. The sliding scale simply takes more from someone that starts to try and improve. Ever look closely at a medical bill, the cost charged for tissue or other very small items is silly. Many or most never look at this bills because it is hidden in the insurance system.

Anything that involves taking items or efforts from another doesn't seem like a right to me.

If your not wealthy you have the right to take from those that are.

Do me a favor and re-read the lines of your post. The reason I say that is that after scrutinizing it I don't have a clear idea of your thoughts on whether those who cannot afford food and healthcare should get them or not.

[mystery]

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.

Uummm, okay. Some hear you say "earn good care" and assume earn as in money to pay for care, others feel that by being a member of society every one earns certain basic rights, including minimal health care. What are you saying?

exactly I don't think health care (goods and services) provided by others is a right. I believe rights have to do with no interference but disagree with any right the involves the transfer of wealth to another. Now in reality I provide much care for others, more than we are talking about in this. It is the principal of the issue that a poor person who might be such due to no motivation has the 'right' to demand.

I also do not think a human has the right to food. They do have the right to earn it in my ideas.

Often ppl think correctly that it is good for all to have free things such as healthcare. I also think it is desirable for all to have any that they wish for, I simply do not agree with using force to achieve that.

In the most simple terms, how is minimal health care achieved? Even to treat a minor condition might cost thousands in US. This means that a person receiving free health care is getting thousands in value for a minor condition treatment. They often lose the motivation to change from the position as they need to earn so much to actually have better results. The sliding scale simply takes more from someone that starts to try and improve. Ever look closely at a medical bill, the cost charged for tissue or other very small items is silly. Many or most never look at this bills because it is hidden in the insurance system.

Anything that involves taking items or efforts from another doesn't seem like a right to me.

If your not wealthy you have the right to take from those that are.

Do me a favor and re-read the lines of your post. The reason I say that is that after scrutinizing it I don't have a clear idea of your thoughts on whether those who cannot afford food and healthcare should get them or not.

Hi Lucky, sure I'll summarise.

PPL should have to earn health care and food. It is not or should not be a right to get those things only due to being alive. Almost every exception case can be attended to by family or volunteer community and not have the government involved with this.

Widows and orphans should be cared for by the community as the exception. Pensions that are earned are earned and designed to help a person to manage their resources to be lifelong for those that do not choose well.

[LuckyR]

Uummm, okay. Some hear you say "earn good care" and assume earn as in money to pay for care, others feel that by being a member of society every one earns certain basic rights, including minimal health care. What are you saying?

exactly I don't think health care (goods and services) provided by others is a right. I believe rights have to do with no interference but disagree with any right the involves the transfer of wealth to another. Now in reality I provide much care for others, more than we are talking about in this. It is the principal of the issue that a poor person who might be such due to no motivation has the 'right' to demand.

I also do not think a human has the right to food. They do have the right to earn it in my ideas.

Often ppl think correctly that it is good for all to have free things such as healthcare. I also think it is desirable for all to have any that they wish for, I simply do not agree with using force to achieve that.

In the most simple terms, how is minimal health care achieved? Even to treat a minor condition might cost thousands in US. This means that a person receiving free health care is getting thousands in value for a minor condition treatment. They often lose the motivation to change from the position as they need to earn so much to actually have better results. The sliding scale simply takes more from someone that starts to try and improve. Ever look closely at a medical bill, the cost charged for tissue or other very small items is silly. Many or most never look at this bills because it is hidden in the insurance system.

Anything that involves taking items or efforts from another doesn't seem like a right to me.

If your not wealthy you have the right to take from those that are.

Do me a favor and re-read the lines of your post. The reason I say that is that after scrutinizing it I don't have a clear idea of your thoughts on whether those who cannot afford food and healthcare should get them or not.

Hi Lucky, sure I'll summarise.

PPL should have to earn health care and food. It is not or should not be a right to get those things only due to being alive. Almost every exception case can be attended to by family or volunteer community and not have the government involved with this.

Widows and orphans should be cared for by the community as the exception. Pensions that are earned are earned and designed to help a person to manage their resources to be lifelong for those that do not choose well.

So, if your parents die, you're given food, but if your parents are drug addicts who don't take care of you, that baby starves to death. Got it.

Not understanding why losing a husband's income through death qualifies for food but why losing income from unemployment due to a national economic downturn leads to starvation.

Is your pension comment addressing Social Security? The reason I ask is that at the current time only 42% of workers in the bottom quarter of wages have access to workplace pensions.

[mystery]

Hi Lucky, (sorry I messed up the quoting button).

yes Social Security in the US is IMO a decent system and part of the pension for the included members who contribute to it. Maybe some problems, but generally a good system. I also include 401 plans, personal savings, and investments. Anyone that can have/buys a car could easily save and invest if they choose. A guy named Dave Ramsey has a short course available that teaches the basic concepts that anyone could choose to do.

The drug addict's parents should already have been dealt with by the community before that baby. Drugs are a terrible problem, one of the worst. For every drug addict, there is a businessman that is corrupt that should be dealt with. Either law enforcement or in some locations the family or clan of the addict will take care of it. Failure to do that is another topic. I do not allow this problem around me, ever.

It is hard to starve in the US, in other places it happens. often Starving is really eating less fancy food but still with the internet, BMW, and designer clothes, and starbucks. Getting laid off (not fired) is a very difficult thing for a person that has spent a lifetime doing some tasks and perhaps paid well. It happened to me at one time, I know it from the inside. There are always jobs to get, might have to move, might have to sell part of the farm, might have to move the kids to public school.. that list goes on and on.

Unemployment is paid for and earned. Getting that is a right after having paid for it. After it is done, the person should have found a way forward. Perhaps not at the same high pay or luxury they had before if that skill is no longer in demand. But yes if they simply do nothing eventually they starve. For those that can not yet self insure food without employment, private employment insurance can be purchased.

[LuckyR]

Hi Lucky, (sorry I messed up the quoting button).

yes Social Security in the US is IMO a decent system and part of the pension for the included members who contribute to it. Maybe some problems, but generally a good system. I also include 401 plans, personal savings, and investments. Anyone that can have/buys a car could easily save and invest if they choose. A guy named Dave Ramsey has a short course available that teaches the basic concepts that anyone could choose to do.

The drug addict's parents should already have been dealt with by the community before that baby. Drugs are a terrible problem, one of the worst. For every drug addict, there is a businessman that is corrupt that should be dealt with. Either law enforcement or in some locations the family or clan of the addict will take care of it. Failure to do that is another topic. I do not allow this problem around me, ever.

It is hard to starve in the US, in other places it happens. often Starving is really eating less fancy food but still with the internet, BMW, and designer clothes, and starbucks. Getting laid off (not fired) is a very difficult thing for a person that has spent a lifetime doing some tasks and perhaps paid well. It happened to me at one time, I know it from the inside. There are always jobs to get, might have to move, might have to sell part of the farm, might have to move the kids to public school.. that list goes on and on.

Unemployment is paid for and earned. Getting that is a right after having paid for it. After it is done, the person should have found a way forward. Perhaps not at the same high pay or luxury they had before if that skill is no longer in demand. But yes if they simply do nothing eventually they starve. For those that can not yet self insure food without employment, private employment insurance can be purchased.

I hate to break it to you but typing the words: dealt with, is not a plan to address kids of drug addicts.

Don't get me wrong, you give good advice, but seem to have a blind spot to the fact that a percentage of folks won't take good advice. Kids of these people are the innocent victims of that fact and I, for one, do not support standing idly by when there are ample resources available to help folks. What are we saving those resources for that is a better use of them?

[mystery]

Hi Lucky, (sorry I messed up the quoting button).

yes Social Security in the US is IMO a decent system and part of the pension for the included members who contribute to it. Maybe some problems, but generally a good system. I also include 401 plans, personal savings, and investments. Anyone that can have/buys a car could easily save and invest if they choose. A guy named Dave Ramsey has a short course available that teaches the basic concepts that anyone could choose to do.

The drug addict's parents should already have been dealt with by the community before that baby. Drugs are a terrible problem, one of the worst. For every drug addict, there is a businessman that is corrupt that should be dealt with. Either law enforcement or in some locations the family or clan of the addict will take care of it. Failure to do that is another topic. I do not allow this problem around me, ever.

It is hard to starve in the US, in other places it happens. often Starving is really eating less fancy food but still with the internet, BMW, and designer clothes, and starbucks. Getting laid off (not fired) is a very difficult thing for a person that has spent a lifetime doing some tasks and perhaps paid well. It happened to me at one time, I know it from the inside. There are always jobs to get, might have to move, might have to sell part of the farm, might have to move the kids to public school.. that list goes on and on.

Unemployment is paid for and earned. Getting that is a right after having paid for it. After it is done, the person should have found a way forward. Perhaps not at the same high pay or luxury they had before if that skill is no longer in demand. But yes if they simply do nothing eventually they starve. For those that can not yet self insure food without employment, private employment insurance can be purchased.

I hate to break it to you but typing the words: dealt with, is not a plan to address kids of drug addicts.

Don't get me wrong, you give good advice, but seem to have a blind spot to the fact that a percentage of folks won't take good advice. Kids of these people are the innocent victims of that fact and I, for one, do not support standing idly by when there are ample resources available to help folks. What are we saving those resources for that is a better use of them?

cool, I respect anyone for taking care of an innocent.

I did mistype, I mean to deal with the drug addict, not the kid. my bad on that. And yes, a drug addiction is a pain all its own with root causes, another great topic. The ones getting rich from that pain need to be addressed or dealt with, and of course, they also have a root cause. The actual addict also needs to be helped or removed. When we trace these things back, the core drivers are only a few. The abuse of a child in a drug house is so bad it is not ok. Being soft on the problem allows it to continue.

I would remove the problem of the kids with drug addict parents by either removing the drugs or the parents before a baby is in the pipe. In some cases, I have personally seen the hardline on drugs make huge improvements. It is at the cost of perceived rights. I know about drugs.. it is a hell all its own. What should the rights be of a businessman that chooses to addict ppl to drugs so as to be wealthy? That money is so big that it can control entire nations.

I know my hard-line ideas are not popular in some circles, I accept that.

I think you're suggesting that it would be ok to take resources from me against my will to give to another in need. I don't agree with that. That is exactly what the current US health care system does. And to make it worse the level of financial corruption with the system is huge so that much of that taking goes to ppl that do not have a need.

If you/we and and others choose to give and help, that is really a good thing. It is very good if you choose to help. It is bad if a person is forced to help.

[LuckyR]

Hi Lucky, (sorry I messed up the quoting button).

yes Social Security in the US is IMO a decent system and part of the pension for the included members who contribute to it. Maybe some problems, but generally a good system. I also include 401 plans, personal savings, and investments. Anyone that can have/buys a car could easily save and invest if they choose. A guy named Dave Ramsey has a short course available that teaches the basic concepts that anyone could choose to do.

The drug addict's parents should already have been dealt with by the community before that baby. Drugs are a terrible problem, one of the worst. For every drug addict, there is a businessman that is corrupt that should be dealt with. Either law enforcement or in some locations the family or clan of the addict will take care of it. Failure to do that is another topic. I do not allow this problem around me, ever.

It is hard to starve in the US, in other places it happens. often Starving is really eating less fancy food but still with the internet, BMW, and designer clothes, and starbucks. Getting laid off (not fired) is a very difficult thing for a person that has spent a lifetime doing some tasks and perhaps paid well. It happened to me at one time, I know it from the inside. There are always jobs to get, might have to move, might have to sell part of the farm, might have to move the kids to public school.. that list goes on and on.

Unemployment is paid for and earned. Getting that is a right after having paid for it. After it is done, the person should have found a way forward. Perhaps not at the same high pay or luxury they had before if that skill is no longer in demand. But yes if they simply do nothing eventually they starve. For those that can not yet self insure food without employment, private employment insurance can be purchased.

I hate to break it to you but typing the words: dealt with, is not a plan to address kids of drug addicts.

Don't get me wrong, you give good advice, but seem to have a blind spot to the fact that a percentage of folks won't take good advice. Kids of these people are the innocent victims of that fact and I, for one, do not support standing idly by when there are ample resources available to help folks. What are we saving those resources for that is a better use of them?

cool, I respect anyone for taking care of an innocent.

I did mistype, I mean to deal with the drug addict, not the kid. my bad on that. And yes, a drug addiction is a pain all its own with root causes, another great topic. The ones getting rich from that pain need to be addressed or dealt with, and of course, they also have a root cause. The actual addict also needs to be helped or removed. When we trace these things back, the core drivers are only a few. The abuse of a child in a drug house is so bad it is not ok. Being soft on the problem allows it to continue.

I would remove the problem of the kids with drug addict parents by either removing the drugs or the parents before a baby is in the pipe. In some cases, I have personally seen the hardline on drugs make huge improvements. It is at the cost of perceived rights. I know about drugs.. it is a hell all its own. What should the rights be of a businessman that chooses to addict ppl to drugs so as to be wealthy? That money is so big that it can control entire nations.

I know my hard-line ideas are not popular in some circles, I accept that.

I think you're suggesting that it would be ok to take resources from me against my will to give to another in need. I don't agree with that. That is exactly what the current US health care system does. And to make it worse the level of financial corruption with the system is huge so that much of that taking goes to ppl that do not have a need.

If you/we and and others choose to give and help, that is really a good thing. It is very good if you choose to help. It is bad if a person is forced to help.

Ah so. Now I get it. You're all for poor folks getting assistance as long as you (and therefore essentially no one) don't have to pay for it. Magic fairy assistance. Something from nothing.

I wish you (and every other person) to always have higher than average wealth.