No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Asher]

Asher, healthcare's not a public good. While you're at it, why not provide free homes and free food to everyone? I mean you provide healthcare--WHY NOT? That would be socialism, or at least a pretty strong step in that direction.

I don't care if it's a public good.

Economically, a healthy society is a productive society.

But public health care isn't an economic argument (though it is demonstrably more efficient, monetarily). It's a moral one.

Again, not something I expect you or most Americans to understand. You guys haven't grown enough as people yet. Still stuck in the 1800s mentality. We're lucky you've moved on from slave ownership to simply abusing illegal immigrants.

[Asher]

The main problem I have, HC, is Americans' tendency to boil things down to money instead of people. It's clearly misguided.

Not only is your country insanely in debt and running obscene deficits, you also don't even have the basic necessities other countries do, like public healthcare for your populace. And your taxes aren't even that much lower (as I stated in another thread, I have the exact same tax rate in Calgary as I would if I lived in the US at ~36%). I just don't need to pay for obscenely expensive health insurance on top of it (or have my employer pay for it, which, in real terms, DOES impact their ability to provide me salary).

So what's the difference here? The countries are both reasonably safe and secure -- if anything, the US is more likely to be a target for terrorist attacks.
Canada has a great public healthcare system that every citizen has access to, the US doesn't.
The real-world tax rates are comparable for most people.

Seems to me like of the two countries, one of them has figured out something the other is still struggling with.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why provide free air? If they charge us for land, why not charge us for the air we breathe too?

Are you seriously asking this? If so, use your brain for 30 seconds.

[Kuciwalker]

But public health care isn't an economic argument (though it is demonstrably more efficient, monetarily). It's a moral one.

The fact that you think these are distinct things - that somehow economic reasoning isn't applicable to morality, or that morality isn't an input to economics - is why you consistently fail to articulate coherent positions on the subject.

[Asher]

The fact that you think these are distinct things - that somehow economic reasoning isn't applicable to morality, or that morality isn't an input to economics - is why you consistently fail to articulate coherent positions on the subject.

Economics and morality are distinct things. The fact that you think they aren't is precisely why you consistently fail to articulate a reasonable position on the subject.

I'm not at all surprised the concept of morality is incoherent to an actuary. You get paid to not think about morality. To look at the numbers.

Of course some morality can be impacted by economics and vice versa, but they remain distinct. I don't think you understand this argument, not because it's incoherent but because you have yet to mature as a person.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher, at what point in history did it become the Canadian government's moral obligation to provide universal healthcare? How do you determine this date?

[Kuciwalker]

Economics and morality are distinct things. The fact that you think they aren't is precisely why you consistently fail to articulate a reasonable position on the subject.

Cute, but unless you're willing to completely abandon any semblance of "greatest good for the greatest number" and run away to "this is right because I say so", every significant moral calculation is an economic one.

[KrazyHorse]

Why provide free air? If they charge us for land, why not charge us for the air we breathe too?

That is essentially what pollution permits do...

[Asher]

Asher, at what point in history did it become the Canadian government's moral obligation to provide universal healthcare? How do you determine this date?

You have a rather sick view of morality. You are again trying to boil this down to a discrete phenomenon. I'm not surprised, but it is highly annoying. Honestly, what kind of idiot thinks there's a specific date at which morality changed? Stop wasting my time.

[Asher]

Cute, but unless you're willing to completely abandon any semblance of "greatest good for the greatest number" and run away to "this is right because I say so", every significant moral calculation is an economic one.

You are being disturbingly stupid and inhumane right now. Your job will destroy you.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher, is there some maximum amount of money the Canadian government should spend on medical care for a single person, or is it obligated to spend $1bn to save one person? If there is a maximum, how do you calculate it?

edit: I don't need a precise number from you, just a very general idea of how you think they should make such a decision - or an affirmation that they should spend as much money as necessary

[Kuciwalker]

You have a rather sick view of morality. You are again trying to boil this down to a discrete phenomenon. I'm not surprised, but it is highly annoying. Honestly, what kind of idiot thinks there's a specific date at which morality changed? Stop wasting my time.

I don't want a specific date, just a general idea. Under what conditions does this happen? Roughly how wealthy does the country have to be?

[Asher]

Asher, is there some maximum amount of money the Canadian government should spend on medical care for a single person, or is it obligated to spend $1bn to save one person? If there is a maximum, how do you calculate it?

Why are you being so stupid?

My position is morality and economics are distinct, yet here you are asking me to define morality economically again.

Are you just incapable of comprehending that they are actually distinct? Right and wrong is independent of economic feasibility. It is not always possible to do the moral thing due to economic limitations, if that is the stupid point you are trying to make, but that does not make morality an economic concept. Honestly, what the ****.

[Asher]

I don't want a specific date, just a general idea. Under what conditions does this happen? Roughly how wealthy does the country have to be?

Seriously, seriously, seriously...WTF is wrong with you?

You keep asking me to define morality in economic terms. Do you even understand that?

[Kuciwalker]

But the Canadian government has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend. It's economically feasible, and you can probably always find a case where spending 10x as much money would measurably improve odds of survival. So, in those cases, should the government always do it?