....Even in Europe the poor clamor to come to America. Why would they do that if it is really so horrible here and so kind there?
And from a philosophical point, let's look at something like healthcare. Should everyone get the same? ...That's obviously not kind. We are telling a sick man who has the resources to save himself that he must die and he is not allowed. ...
....If you think that everyone should have healthcare but you aren't out there spending your money to buy healthcare for people then you're just a hypocrite...
Where does that actually happen?
I fund other people's healthcare through taxes and I don't grudge a penny of it because the service will be there if I or mine need it.Taxes are the cheapest and most efficient way of providing care because they remove the middlemen skimming a profit and they get economies of scale.My taxes get spent on quite a few things I am not happy about but healthcare and education are not among them.
It would have to if we really want to make it fair doesn't it. At some point there is a maximum level that we can afford to give to everyone. That post wasn't a statement of how things are. It's a philosophical question. Would you tell the rich man that he can't spend his money to get a cure so that it is fair to the poor man.Or do you tell the poor man that the rich man can have access to a cure that he can't have because of money. You can't have it both ways. Either it's fair for everyone or the rich man can afford something that the poor man can't. So which man do you give the bad news to?
Treatments are evaluated on their cost benefit. The benefit being the amount of extra life with a reasonable quality that the treatment brings. If the treatment brings little benefit or is excessively costly for the amount of benefit then it will not be available free to the patient. If the patient wants to spend their money on the treatment that is up to them, just like you can buy lottery tickets.
Given that there have been such huge improvements in productivity since (say) the year 1900 why doesn't everyone work a 3-day week? Just as much would be done as was done in 1900 - more probably.
The more you consume the more you produce.
The richer you are the more you consume.
OK, so you've chosen that the poor man gets a basic level and the rich man can have what he can afford. So the next question becomes, who gets to decide. Who decides when saving the poor man is worth it or not? Who determines how much money one year of the poor man's life is worth? I'm sure it is worth a lot more to the poor man himself than it is to anyone else. What is it based on? Who draws the line?
I find it interesting that even with all the "meanness" and "unkindness" that you say America shows to the poor, the poor people from all over the world are clamoring to get here.
But I see people right now in America that have gone from homeless on the street to multimillionaire CEO in one lifetime.
And poor in the USA can still be much better than poor elsewhere.
Most millionaires get rich on the backs of the ordinary working man (or woman - perhaps especially low-paid women)
Really who is meaner, the one who has but doesn't give or the one who doesn't participate but demands from those who do?