simple question

[4est_4est_Gump]

Tom, get off your high horse.

SSI is not a tax. It is an involuntary premium on a retirement plan. Additionally, it is also a Ponzi Scheme because from Day One, incoming premiums were doled out to those who had paid no premiums and now we're paying out the future premiums of our grandchildren through a simple retirement plan that simply refuses to stop growing and encompassing a lot more than ensuring that people have "some" small retirement enhancement. In short, it is bankrupt.

Educate yourself before popping off.



I would not quit work to live off of the sweat equity of my fellow human beings. In fact, I believe that for the normal grieving person, denial is the first stage...

See my comments above about doctors.



I am talking about the same thing. Who pays. What you fail to understand is the question isn't who pays, but how we pay, directly, or indirectly.

 

[Ishmael]

On top of the potential for fraud and abuse that AJ has pointed out there is one other issue involved with the premise. And that being the 12 month death sentence.

I would presume that as part of this subsidy that the patient is going to receive is the explicit notion that absolutely NOTHING will be done to either prolong the patients life nor any attempt to effect a cure. In other words only palliative care will be rendered. That in and of itself might present a problem but the bigger issue is exactly who is going to be handing down this 12 month death sentence?

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

Tom, get off your high horse.

SSI is not a tax. It is an involuntary premium on a retirement plan. Additionally, it is also a Ponzi Scheme because from Day One, incoming premiums were doled out to those who had paid no premiums and now we're paying out the future premiums of our grandchildren through a simple retirement plan that simply refuses to stop growing and encompassing a lot more than ensuring that people have "some" small retirement enhancement. In short, it is bankrupt.

Educate yourself before popping off.

Polifact: Debunking the "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" falsehood

Forbes: Social Security cannot go 'bankrupt'

Chief, YOU might want to educate yourself before popping off.

 

[cowslinger64]

On top of the potential for fraud and abuse that AJ has pointed out there is one other issue involved with the premise. And that being the 12 month death sentence.

I would presume that as part of this subsidy that the patient is going to receive is the explicit notion that absolutely NOTHING will be done to either prolong the patients life nor any attempt to effect a cure. In other words only palliative care will be rendered. That in and of itself might present a problem but the bigger issue is exactly who is going to be handing down this 12 month death sentence?

Ishmael

Bet she knows...

https://wanderingamericantravelblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/sarahpalinstoopid.jpg

 

[Disgustipated]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

What if their condition was caused by alcohol and/or drug abuse?

 

[PoppingTom]

I am talking about the same thing. Who pays. What you fail to understand is the question isn't who pays, but how we pay, directly, or indirectly.

No, I simply don't care. In the end, you pay. I could follow you on the question who is paid in the end. I can understand the mistrust in government handling. But in the end, there is a problem, and it has to be fixed, no matter who'll do it.

To deny the problem, or leave people with their problems alone though you could help - that's selfish. I wouldn't mind such persons be taxed 95%.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, I simply don't care. In the end, you pay. I could follow you on the question who is paid in the end. I can understand the mistrust in government handling. But in the end, there is a problem, and it has to be fixed, no matter who'll do it.

To deny the problem, or leave people with their problems alone though you could help - that's selfish. I wouldn't mind such persons be taxed 95%.

Because SSI was supposed to be a supplemental retirement income plan.

It is now everything but because government never stops believing that it should do more good things for us no matter what the cost or level of impoverishment that it creates. I don't trust them because they care too much about making our lives better, it gives them a sense of nobility and omniscience born of the idea that because they care, because they have concern, because they will take action on the behalf of others with the full and non-eloquent force of government that they are then acting according to a real moral code, a superior moral code that simply states that plundering for charity is legal in all of its forms and there is simply no limit to the amounts they are taking.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now, let's address "selfishness."

We give heavily to charity. Through my wife's church, she enables and performs good works. She has virtually adopted a poor minority family and showers them with gifts and goods performing services for them and trying to elevate their lives by example.

So, again, it is a slander to say that anyone who simply disagrees with your point of view is selfish and in being selfish is mean and probably not even a good person. We see a lot of that attitude at Lit from the alligator tears crowd who turns on anyone not donning sackcloth and ashes over the victims of the day who are forgotten about as soon as the next tear-jerker comes up. Meanwhile, my family is still supporting the local missionaries who actually GO TO HAITI on an ongoing annual basis to make a difference.

You seem to want to make a difference through government, we want to make a difference with our lives. If anyone were actually selfish, it would be the one whose sole action is to vote for more plundering of his fellow citizens so that he doesn't have to get personally involved and maybe get his hands dirty or part with some of his stuff.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Devotees of Ayn Rand often squeal like stuck pigs when people point out that Ayn Rand's principles are based on "selfishness". They prefer the more market-tested "objectivism".

 

[GiggLeGasm]

What if their condition was caused by alcohol and/or drug abuse?

We could argue that a great deal of chronic illness is prolonged or made worse because of lifestyle choices. It is not reasonable to presume that we understand how, or why, people choose the coping mechanisms that they do. It is also unrealistic to exclude mental health sufferers. There is too much overlap to be able to isolate the point in time when a person was presented with more than he or she could manage.

I had forgotten about the states that do permit assisted suicide in the presence of a terminal diagnosis. I have mixed feelings on this. I agree with the concept. I am not certain that I could administer the lethal dose.

 

[Lancecastor]

What happens if the person doesn't die after 12 months?

Payback?

Euthenasia?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What happens if the person doesn't die after 12 months?

Payback?

Euthenasia?

Shipped off to Canada.

 

[dolf]

What if their condition was caused by alcohol and/or drug abuse?

if it'd be cured by quitting, wouldn't rehab be a better policy?

but if someone's liver is terminal, whether they quit or not, i personally wouldn't make a distinction.

 

[RedAllan]

When my mother was diagnosed with a terminal condition, the local council, I'm referring to the UK, did a financial assessment and decided she could have a proportion of her care paid for

When the 3 month review came up some care was deemed to have to be paid for, more due to cuts in funding then any improvement in either her finances or condition.

Two months after she died I had a call from the council saying they wanted to come and due a financial review, yes, I had told them she had died, and I had paid the outstanding bill for her care.

In answer to the original question it depends on circumstances, and the rights and wrongs of means testing is a whole different debate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

if it'd be cured by quitting, wouldn't rehab be a better policy?

but if someone's liver is terminal, whether they quit or not, i personally wouldn't make a distinction.

They have to want to change.

What about other lifestyle choices? Do they enter into the calculus? In the US, in the name of savings, there are great advocates of what I would call health sin taxes on lifestyle choices such as diet (obesity), soda, salt, tobacco, ammunition...

Perhaps the burden of some people are too great a cost to society.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They have to want to change.

What about other lifestyle choices? Do they enter into the calculus? In the US, in the name of savings, there are great advocates of what I would call health sin taxes on lifestyle choices such as diet (obesity), soda, salt, tobacco, ammunition...

Perhaps the burden of some people are too great a cost to society.

And I am sure that we'll always have people like you to make the value judgment as to who is worth the cost.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict if this ever does come to pass, your "worth saving" category is gonna skew overwhelmingly white, male and conservative.

 

[butters]

When my mother was diagnosed with a terminal condition, the local council, I'm referring to the UK, did a financial assessment and decided she could have a proportion of her care paid for

When the 3 month review came up some care was deemed to have to be paid for, more due to cuts in funding then any improvement in either her finances or condition.

Two months after she died I had a call from the council saying they wanted to come and due a financial review, yes, I had told them she had died, and I had paid the outstanding bill for her care.

In answer to the original question it depends on circumstances, and the rights and wrongs of means testing is a whole different debate.

pretty much this, imo, though i was assuming from dolf's opening post that 'need' was already a given. 'from cradle to the grave'' might be a utopian aim, but it is one worth aiming for.

 

[Ishmael]

if it'd be cured by quitting, wouldn't rehab be a better policy?

but if someone's liver is terminal, whether they quit or not, i personally wouldn't make a distinction.

They have to want to change.

What about other lifestyle choices? Do they enter into the calculus? In the US, in the name of savings, there are great advocates of what I would call health sin taxes on lifestyle choices such as diet (obesity), soda, salt, tobacco, ammunition...

Perhaps the burden of some people are too great a cost to society.

There it is, you are both right. Rehab is infinitely more cost effective than incarceration or treatment of the long term effects. But the subject has to be committed to quitting. You can lead a horse to water......etc.

Ishmael

 

[bluebell]

Because SSI was supposed to be a supplemental retirement income plan.

It is now everything but because government never stops believing that it should do more good things for us no matter what the cost or level of impoverishment that it creates. I don't trust them because they care too much about making our lives better, it gives them a sense of nobility and omniscience born of the idea that because they care, because they have concern, because they will take action on the behalf of others with the full and non-eloquent force of government that they are then acting according to a real moral code, a superior moral code that simply states that plundering for charity is legal in all of its forms and there is simply no limit to the amounts they are taking.

Please explain why you do not live in some remote spot, free of all humans, government, and money. I am honestly curious, because almost everything you post seems to indicate that your life should be exactly that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Please explain why you do not live in some remote spot, free of all humans, government, and money. I am honestly curious, because almost everything you post seems to indicate that your life should be exactly that.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Frédéric Bastiat



At least you didn't say move to Somali. That is one of the standard responses, because ostensibly, I am opposed to all government because I am opposed to one vision of it. Sad little sophism.

 

[bluebell]

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Frédéric Bastiat



At least you didn't say move to Somali. That is one of the standard responses, because ostensibly, I am opposed to all government because I am opposed to one vision of it. Sad little sophism.

So you're saying you would miss the indoor plumbing. Got it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I could tell you what I am saying but it appears that you have applied a basic template here so that I would be arguing with a wall. I apologize for being so abrupt, but you've clearly made up your mind that because I do not share your view of government, I must be an anarchist. It is shallow black-and-white thinking.

 

[eyer]

If such a policy was under consideration:

First, I'd favor merciful euthanasia for every current, state-dependent worker...

...second, I'd favor compassionate euthanasia for every citizen who even might consider voting yes.

Then...

...perhaps a logical discussion about the issue could actually ensue.

 

[Saint Peter]

So you're saying you would miss the indoor plumbing. Got it.

Grump does not have indoor plumbing. Why would you rub it in he face like that?


Cruel.

 

[KUJACK]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

How can you tell if you have a year to live? It's a subjective idea. Socialism in it pure firm is unworkable and breeds sloth