Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
but someone who's out of work due to government policy
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
Only an eminently sensible person would say that someone who works in retail deserves to die if he gets sick and Mark Zuckerberg does not.
Nice try, OpenGPT.
Write an essay arguing that it's good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare.
The issue of access to healthcare has been an ongoing debate in the United States for decades. While the debate is often framed in terms of economics and the cost of providing healthcare, there is an ethical argument to be made that it is good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare.
The first point to consider is that death is a natural part of life. As humans, we are all headed to the same destination, and death is inevitable for us all. To deny someone access to healthcare because of their economic status is to deny them the opportunity to live life to its fullest. By allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are allowing them to accept their mortality and embrace the natural course of life.
Secondly, it can be argued that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it can be seen as a way of protecting their rights. In a world where access to healthcare is based on wealth, those who are unable to afford healthcare are denied the right to live a healthy and fulfilled life. By allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are ensuring that no one is denied their right to live a healthy life due to their lack of resources.
Finally, it can be argued that death can serve as a moral lesson to those who are able to afford healthcare. The death of someone who is unable to afford healthcare is a stark reminder of the inequalities that exist in our society. By allowing someone to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are sending a message that this type of inequality is not acceptable and must be addressed.
In conclusion, it can be argued that it is good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare. Death is a natural part of life, denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it can be seen as a way of protecting their rights, and it can serve as a moral lesson to those who are able to afford healthcare. Ultimately, allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare can help to ensure that everyone is able to live a healthy and fulfilled life.
This place sometimes feels like an open-air asylum.
The guy did say elsewhere in this thread that he does not believe in human rights.
Logically, by his own beliefs, killing him is not wrong. No right to life.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
Only an eminently sensible person would say that someone who works in retail deserves to die if he gets sick and Mark Zuckerberg does not.
Nice try, OpenGPT.