bbauska wrote:Envious? Hardly.
I am arguing for EQUALITY. All men are created equal. It says that in our founding documents.
While the Declaration of Independence is important, it is not binding, and was clearly superceded by the Constitution.
Besides, I don't believe for one moment you actually would agree with the likes of me about the definition of equality. All men may be 'created' equal, but they are clearly not all equal all of their lives.
If some get support from the government, it should be available for everyone. To pick one economic strata over another is wrong and discriminatory.
If I get your logic correct, you are saying that financial support for the poor should be withdrawn, because the rich cannot get it.
Discrimination comes in two forms - unfair discrimination and fair discrimination. Unfair discrimination would be where you take into account factors that are not related to the issue or if you were to prejudice a decision. So, making a racial distinction would be unfair on a question of whether someone gets financial support.
But, if you have means-tested benefits, and someone who has more means does not qualify, that is indeed discrimination, but it's also due process.
As too being too well off, hardly. I am debt free because I am austere with my finances. I am not rich by any US Standard.
By well off, I meant not poor. That's not the same as being rich.
I don't see what luck had to do with my decisions. It was my decision to pay for 4 years of employment disability insurance at my job at that time. It was my decision to work for 20 years in the military and be away from my family for the benefits of a later lifestyle.
I mentioned not just 'luck', but the decisions of others. For example, you talk about your decision to work in the military for 20 years. Surely there was a corresponding decision (or set of decision) which led to the US military employing you for that period. That includes the decision made to fund the military to the extent that it is, paid for by a load of other taxpayers. They didn't all get a 20-year career out of it - is that 'fair' by your definition?
At one point you say it is 'My own decisions' and in the next sentence you mention that there was assistance/support from family and church. Again, that wasn't you then, was it?
And the influence of 'luck' is all over the place. The place and time of your birth, who your parents are, whoever paid for your early years care and education, I don't think these were all down to you - at least not at the time. Some of it is just luck, some of it is down to the behaviour of others.
It was my decision to pay the entire ambulance bill and have a crappy Christmas because we did not have the money to pay it all at once.
Envious? Puhleeze.
Responsible? Definitely.
Lucky? Not at all.
Ok. So because you had a 'crappy Christmas' you think it would be better if more people had the same thing happen to them (being charged for ambulance costs). All the clever decisions you made to be insured, and you didn't choose a policy that covered ambulance costs? Was that an oversight on your part, was it a limitation in the offered policies, was it legal fiat demanding that you can't insure against the cost in any possible way?
There was perhaps another reaction to the 'crappy Christmas' that resulted from the cost. Perhaps you could have figured "hey, if it can happen to me, frugal, responsible, self-reliant me, it could happen to other people too, and maybe they aren't as able as I am to be so self-reliant".
Let's for a moment consider a family just like yours except with a less frugal Brad. Not-Brad may well be at fault for not setting up the same provision. He may well end up with big debts for medical expenses. Maybe there would have had to have been tough choices made about the care that the three situations led to. Now, for Not-Brad, we can say well, that's fair enough. Unlike you, he didn't provide for himself, so if his spinal problems led to extra hardship that's his look out.
But Mrs Not-Brad and her caesarean? I guess we can fault her for marrying a spendthrift and not a responsible guy like you, but it seems a bit harsh.
And little Not-Brad jr? Well, the baby was just born. He didn't have anything to do with Not-Brad's decisions, did he? So why should he have to be subject to inferior care because of that? If Not-Brad decides that he can't afford the same level of care as your insurance provided for your child, and as a result the hypothetical chap has a worse start in life than your kid, who suffers? Not the guy making the decisions.
Now, please don't think I'm making any personal attacks here. I know full well that you try your best for your family. I know that if a relative or a fellow churchmember had the same problem you'd do just as they did for you in your hour of need.
I just think that you are not opening your mind to consider that not everyone had the same chances and opportunities in life that you did.
Even your current livelihood is likely to rely not simply on your own efforts and genius. If you are selling something, you depend on buyers (and on competitors not outdoing you). What happens to the wider economy will affect your business.