1) Are resources finite, Ian, or aren't they? And I don't just mean money. You mock the notion that they are finite, so I assume you believe them to be unlimited?
They aren't nearly as limited as people make them out to be, but all people can think about is "what will this cost me in tax dollars?" They always look at it through personal loss rather than through the need at hand. Of course they are finite, but should that make the care we offer finite too? Is there a limit to the level we should go to help people? "Sorry dying druggie, but you've gone too far. We're gonna let you die because of your risky behavior." Can we actually bring ourselves to do that? Finite resources cannot justify finite medical care and attention, not just urgent care, but yes, even prescriptions, check ups, and help.
2) You say that one cannot determine the level of responsibility an individual has to their sickness. Is that a fact?
Frankly, it doesn't make a ding-dong difference whether the person is responsible or not. If they need help they should get it. If it's hard, it's still necessary. If they're a person then they should get help. Is that so hard to grasp? Is that level of compassion so hard to realize?
3) You believe that every available resource should be expended on every available person at every available moment, no questions asked? How does our country go about accomplishing this? And this will solve our health care problems?
A fair question, but they have to be divided. YES, every resource should be expended on every person at any moment, no questions asked--if they need it they should get it. That is a solid principle.
How? That is a more reasonable question, and that seems to be the crux of your position. I don't know how, and I want to know, but that cannot be tied to the issue of who gets help or who deserves it. The fact that it is a challenging issue DOES NOT ALTER the fact that
they should get help. The
how of "how do we help them" has no place in the
what--that they need help. We've got to give it to them.
4) Do you honestly think I have a vendetta against poor people, Ian? I mean, come on... Do you think any of us do?
We know you're no monster, but there is so much that is not being recognized, especially when we use that label "poor people." It's so vast a term, and the majority of them are good people. We speak of them like they're the refuse of society sometimes.
And finally, do you even care to discuss these things anyway? You rarely answer my questions...you just drop another blanket statement about how awful (and utterly void of reason) we are.
Who is this
we? Those on your "side" of the issue?
That's probably not the most persuasive tactic. I'd suggest a return to the fundamentals of discussion, which includes both listening and responding in turn to what others say. Just a thought.
It's not a matter of persuasion, it's a matter of making matters clear. You can feel as you will, but for my part this isn't just nice feelings and kind wishes. It's a matter of how things are and need to be. More important than the "fundamentals of discussion" (a great book title by the way) is making issues clear so that they can be understood. Sometimes those "fundamentals" impede our capacity to assert ourselves. We've got to be forthright if we want to make a change.
. I guess I already addressed what Angela talked about and Edward's point that Angela quoted. I think we're all in agreement that everyone should be treated the same, despite what others are telling me that I believe. I have never stated that I give different care to people based on race, socioeconomic status, etc. I feel like we're beating a dead horse or something. I'm going to bed!