But don't expect us to pay for it,

Post Reply New Topic

..."because it's elective." On elective surgery to repair an aortic aneurysm (emphases on the word elective added):

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/6/880.full

What are people doing making us send all our money for elective procedures!

Glam, I say, glam!

Of course, people always forget: elective means only that the procedure can be scheduled ahead of time, not that it's not necessary.

The same is true for sex reassignment surgery in certain patients.

That's beside the point. Elective or no, everyone is responsible for their own medical needs.

Including newborns with congenital defects, right? Those lazy babies just lying around whining all day!

Of course not. As soon as they're born, I figure they're in debt. We can take them out to be raised in a Company Town, where they'll be taken real good care of (at expense) while they work in the coal mines to pay for their own birth.

Remember not too long ago when the liberals only wanted basic healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense. Now it's the full range of trans-gender care, abortions, and all contraceptives to name a few?
In essence, they have moved the goalposts halfway into the next county.

I'd just like to praise American liberals for finally getting their act together.

Transition-related care is medically necessary in some cases, but is often out of reach of those who need it. It should definitely be covered.

I hope I'm not spoiling anything by pointing out that this thread is going to go exactly the same way as every other thread arguing that taxpayers should pay for gender reassignment surgery; i.e. beneficii is going to make a human rights claim and compare other "mandatory" surgeries, and Raptor is going to point out that it isn't life or death, and then the details are going to get picked apart until everyone is angry.
Hopefully that saves everyone some time.

Come to think of it, just about all of beneficii's threads are trans related.
Never before have there been so many threads, if any, on this particular subject.

Life or death is a little bit too spartan even for a hate filled conservaive like me BUT a line has to be drawn somewhere. I'd be willing to allow someone's sight to be restored or a kidney for someone that's on dialysis and similar cases but that's as far as I go with spending other people's money. I'll never buy depression, regardless of the cause, as life threatening enough to dig into the public's pocket. That's coming from someone who's family is no stranger to the effects of depression.

The bread and butter of PPR existence.


Nah, we'll probably go the long route with all the anger and emotional gymnastics.

^Then you have never seen anyone severely depressed.

/\ Whatever, but my stand on this won't get any more charitable than it is which is already pretty charitable for a hateful conservative thug.

Many Americans seem easily conned into thinking that when the government pays for something -- it is not the citizens paying for it. So, just tell them you don't expect them to pay for it, you'd be fine with the government taking care of the cost

I don't think that using the guns of the State forcibly to take money from A, and give (some of) it to B, qualifies as "charity" at all. Charity is voluntary.

That isn't really what I meant by "charitable".....

I think talking about the "guns of the state" to enforce taxation is a bit overstated. But even so, if taxation wasn't enforced you could say bye bye to fire and police protection, as well as the military. Are you willing to forgo any of that for the sake of the ideology that government shouldn't have the right to compel people to part with some of their money for the greater good?

It's a statement of fact. If you refuse to pay taxes, eventually men with guns will come by to take you away and lock you in a cage. Facts don't go away if we decline to name them in clear terms.



Actually, many people have written on how such services could be financed non-coercively in a free society. "Coercive taxes, or no police and no military" is a false alternative. Historically, whenever government does not fulfill such functions, people quickly organize to carry them out privately. This shows that they are something which many people actually want and are willing to pay for.

You do know that there was no federal income tax before 1913? (Excepting a period during and following the Civil War.) And yet there were police, law courts, the army, the navy.




It's another false alternative. And the government does not have that right any more than an individual does. Do you think it would be proper if you walked up to someone you think is wealthy, took some of his money at gunpoint ? an amount arbitrarily determined by you ? and distributed some of that money to causes you arbitrarily deem deserving, keeping most for yourself? No? Then how is it different if there are ten of you, or a million of you? People in groups do not magically gain rights they lacked as individuals.