Free Universal Healthcare

Now that is a good question that presents a problem to the entire idea.

Originally posted by chithappens
How is that not the analogy to draw? This is about money or as they like to put it "resources."

- Bardock

You do realize that does not change that this is about money?

Originally posted by chithappens
You do realize that does not change that this is about money?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Is it an imperative that poor people will be worse off if an objectivist society realizes itself?

I would almost have to think so

while we might think, as rational individuals, that it is not in the best interests of an individual to pay people at a wage that they cannot afford to live on, or to not treat their employees properly, we have to understand that the world is not inhabited by rational people.

Again I will say that I am very much a "Randian" when it comes to the morallity of the state, so you are pretty much asking me to adopt a stance against what I really believe. My ideal is a very limited check on the economy to make sure that the bottom doesn't fall off, I am not in favor of the state "control" of anything.

Originally posted by inimalist
I would almost have to think so

while we might think, as rational individuals, that it is not in the best interests of an individual to pay people at a wage that they cannot afford to live on, or to not treat their employees properly, we have to understand that the world is not inhabited by rational people.

Again I will say that I am very much a "Randian" when it comes to the morallity of the state, so you are pretty much asking me to adopt a stance against what I really believe. My ideal is a very limited check on the economy to make sure that the bottom doesn't fall off, I am not in favor of the state "control" of anything.

I am thinking like you, just that I think a National Health care system might be an immense kick in a Randian system.

-B42

Originally posted by inimalist
I would almost have to think so

while we might think, as rational individuals, that it is not in the best interests of an individual to pay people at a wage that they cannot afford to live on, or to not treat their employees properly, we have to understand that the world is not inhabited by rational people.

Again I will say that I am very much a "Randian" when it comes to the morallity of the state, so you are pretty much asking me to adopt a stance against what I really believe. My ideal is a very limited check on the economy to make sure that the bottom doesn't fall off, I am not in favor of the state "control" of anything.

Originally posted by Sanctuary
I am thinking like you, just that I think a National Health care system might be an immense kick in the nuts of a Randian system.

-B42

Originally posted by Sanctuary
I am thinking like you, just that I think a National Health care system might be an immense kick in a Randian system.

-B42

I agree

I am no economist, so I can't really come up with anything other than speculation, but I would say either a system of price regulation or vouchers might work, or honestly just saying something like everyone making less than 35000 gets it free. (Or something more complex than that so that people couldn't just make $1 and get a 700 000 benefit or whatever).

I don't know, I'm sure this says more about my biases in dealing with political issues. Poverty seems like such a retarded thing for our society to be suffering from, and it is causing really noticable problems, not in the economy, but in the overall standard of living for people. I don't know, there isn't an easy fix, but making sure that people aren't making life or death choices based on finances seems to sit right for me, I think it really does help lessen the effect of poverty on society, but of course I might be just as idealic as I criticized Objectivism of being.

Originally posted by Sanctuary
No, of course not. The analogy is just not fair because it is about different things.

Th-that's how analogies work.