Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Every advancement carries with it a more difficult problem to solve.
Regarding SS, I'm not talking about yanking freabears's stipend, I'm talking about weaning dependence on the state. There are zero people that are around me that will die of need, regardless of compelled "charity".
The state makes weak citizens, and weak citizens make easy Pickens for the strong.
"When the Barbarians are invading, we'll be busy trying to sort out if men are women".
|
I understand the principle of this, but frankly, there are people around me who would die of need were the checks to stop coming. Maybe that just means that anyone unable to provide for themself *should* just die, be it from age or illness. I think the equation is a little different in a place where winters are cold enough that many who are homeless simply never wake up one day.
What changed my perspective was marrying someone with a chronic illness. An illness that not only did she not ask for, but was caused by criminal acts, before she was old enough to protect herself. She gets no handouts, no checks. There are no programs to help her. Before the ACA, she would not have been able to get health insurance, and she's part of the reason it's so expensive for everyone else now. Even with it, a bad flare now (in her late 20's) could ruin her credit for life.
She has one of the best work ethics of anyone I've ever met. I'll gladly be her safety net for life, should she ever need it.
I understand the argument that nobody should be compelled to take care of another. We live in socially bankrupt times, however. Few can count on safety through social contract, rather than law. But, sometimes the cost of neglecting or abandoning large parts of society can be even greater than the cost of taking care of them. And are we such a poor society that taking care of the few who are ill is unaffordable?