Toothache leads to boys death

Flyingdebris said:
2 & 3 Are you kidding me? CA politicians practically bend over backwards to keep illegals happy for fear of displeasing latino voting groups.
Click to expand...

Example

Now, ill admit that this woman is an imbecile but this goes to show you how much of an impact it has on politics and our "politicians".
 
dude no, its not about trying to wriggle out of arguments, its about not wanting to argue back and forth on the same points over and over and over ad infinitum. I really hate quotes wars, they seem more an exercise in patience than meaningful discourse.

also in retrospect i see that I write like an idiot when i let the internet get all serious businessy to me.

At any rate.

My problems with the illegal mexican immigrant situation are not because of race and of course does not apply to every single mexican legal or otherwise, but to the whole situation...and a just little bit of cultural rivalry.

This is a situation where you've got droves of complete strangers crossing the border simply by the virtue of "they can." Where as other illegal immigrants from other parts of the world tend to only show up as a mild trickle, and usually not enough to make a significant impact. As such they do not pose the same logistical problem.

thats what it boils down to really. A massive logistical problem, mixed with a ever growing culture of entitlement, and topped off with politicians who don't know wtf they are doing.

now of course some of this is purely empirical based on comparison between my living in LA and Miami, both of which are large multicultural metropoli. The former packed with mexicans, the later packed with cubans. I grew up in miami and while it wasn't perfect, things were normally okay. There wasn't racial tension so tight you could walk on it, people weren't protesting the lastest talking head's choice of words every week. Upon further examination, i believe i simply don't like LA.
 
Yeah, these things happen in a country with 300 million+ people.


Anyway, nothing (save for education, perhaps) should be free. Not even healthcare. It should be done in some way that does not drain from society, but rather has the subject return the debt when he/she is capable. Maybe like payments over a certain period.
 
15357 said:
Yeah, these things happen in a country with 300 million+ people.


Anyway, nothing (save for education, perhaps) should be free. Not even healthcare. It should be done in some way that does not drain from society, but rather has the subject return the debt when he/she is capable. Maybe like payments over a certain period.
Click to expand...
I would disagree, I say make everything 'free' to those who pay the state in labor.
 
Which is how many people?
Why should manual labour be glorified, anyone can do it, that's why it's low paid.
 
15357 said:
Anyway, nothing (save for education, perhaps) should be free. Not even healthcare. It should be done in some way that does not drain from society, but rather has the subject return the debt when he/she is capable. Maybe like payments over a certain period.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that, mainly because a person's worth is a very difficult thing to calculate. Were a person to fall ill, the medical expenses might amount to over a million dollars (some of this, of course, would be expenditures for multiple people applied to only one, but whatever). What if this person is not able to work off the debt? Are you able to live a decent life AND pay off a debt of over a million dollars? So if an individual had no chance of paying off the debt, would they get the treatment in the first place? Essentially, you seem to be arguing that one person's life has a certain amount of worth, and if that worth is too little, that person is not entitled to the right of life.

In my opinion, no individual is a drain on society. Society should be responsible for all of it's members, regardless of how sick or incapable they may be. Society exists for the benifit of it's members, the members do not exist for the benifit of the society. Without members, there would be no society. The entire point of having a society is to protect the weakest members of said society.

Regarding a person's worth, you cannot determine what that person will accomplish with their life, nor can you determine what their children will accomplish with their lives. Even if saving one person's life is unrepayed by that person, the effect on others of seeing that the weakest amongst them are helped can be worth much more.
 
15357 said:
Anyway, nothing (save for education, perhaps) should be free. Not even healthcare. It should be done in some way that does not drain from society, but rather has the subject return the debt when he/she is capable. Maybe like payments over a certain period.
Click to expand...

you are being completely unrealistic ..how would you pay when you're on your deathbed? will the debt transfer over to your kids/relatives? it literally costs 10's of thousands of dollars even for the most routine of treatments. Any major illeness/accident can rack up costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars ..you'd turn us all into either a nation of deplorable healthcare or a nation whose citizens are crippled by overwelming debt that accumulates generation after generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top