Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Captain Chaos · Jul 18, 2006, 12:56 pm

It is a simple question.

Not being able to afford health care can be deadly. In Atlanta, you can get tax-payer funded health care through Grady Hospital.

But there are plenty of places where, if you don't have the money, oh well, too bad.

Is that good or bad? The benefit of not helping out poor sick people is cost savings (although this is debatable, because Emergency Departments cannot turn people away). The harm of not helping out poor sick people is that they might very well die.

So, my question is this.

If they cannot afford it, shoud we just say:

"ah, let 'em die"

If you do not wish to ignore their plight, what is the best way to help them?

Captain Chaos · Jul 18, 2006, 01:10 pm

Many folks object to social safety nets because it takes money out of their pockets. Personally, this does not offend me so much. However, a safety net that fosters dependence offends me greatly.

Would it be possible to have a safety net that does not actually cost the taxpayer a penny? In fact, could such a system function so that it actually adds wealth back to the society?

My question is, could we have relief camps, where folks who are just truly down and out can come and work to support themselves? Think of the way monasteries can be self-supporting because all those monks are working very hard for the common good of the monastery.

It is clearly possible for people to produce enough to support themselves. Given sufficient land, could a self-supporting, monastery-like, boot-camp-like, organization be functional?

It would have to provide housing for both homeless singles and homeless families.
Labor would have to be organized well enough so that the vast majority of participants' needs are met from within.
It would need to earn at least some profit, to pay for things that cannot be provided from within.
It would have to provide a means of skills training, so that folks who are able could leave the nest.
It would have to be safe.

Clearly, such a thing is possible in normal society. There are functioning communes out there now. Personally, I'd rather not live on one - but they do function.

But, would such a thing be possible as a means of serving the needs of the down-and-out population?

One point - I am not necessarily talking about a thing that is government run. It could also be private. The main point of my question is whether a self-supporting system is possible, given the population it would be serving.

Protostar · Jul 18, 2006, 01:20 pm

I think such a thing would be possible if said organizations could provide something useful such as a good/service at a reasonable price. I think you're always going to have people to slip through the cracks, because they either just don't want to work or can't because of physical/mental issues.

Protostar · Jul 18, 2006, 01:24 pm

I merged your threads Capn Chaos because they were so similar in nature.

Captain Chaos · Jul 18, 2006, 01:26 pm

OK...

I really had different thoughts for them, though.

One was about the practicality of a particular idea.

The other is an ethical question about whether we should let folks just die, rather than give them medical care.

Jul 18, 2006, 12:56 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	If someone is going to die, because they lack health care, should society intervene? It is a simple question. Not being able to afford health care can be deadly. In Atlanta, you can get tax-payer funded health care through Grady Hospital. But there are plenty of places where, if you don't have the money, oh well, too bad. Is that good or bad? The benefit of not helping out poor sick people is cost savings (although this is debatable, because Emergency Departments cannot turn people away). The harm of not helping out poor sick people is that they might very well die. So, my question is this. If they cannot afford it, shoud we just say: "ah, let 'em die" If you do not wish to ignore their plight, what is the best way to help them? Do all things with love.

Jul 18, 2006, 01:10 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	Is it possible to have a self-supporting safety net? Many folks object to social safety nets because it takes money out of their pockets. Personally, this does not offend me so much. However, a safety net that fosters dependence offends me greatly. Would it be possible to have a safety net that does not actually cost the taxpayer a penny? In fact, could such a system function so that it actually adds wealth back to the society? My question is, could we have relief camps, where folks who are just truly down and out can come and work to support themselves? Think of the way monasteries can be self-supporting because all those monks are working very hard for the common good of the monastery. It is clearly possible for people to produce enough to support themselves. Given sufficient land, could a self-supporting, monastery-like, boot-camp-like, organization be functional? It would have to provide housing for both homeless singles and homeless families. Labor would have to be organized well enough so that the vast majority of participants' needs are met from within. It would need to earn at least some profit, to pay for things that cannot be provided from within. It would have to provide a means of skills training, so that folks who are able could leave the nest. It would have to be safe. Clearly, such a thing is possible in normal society. There are functioning communes out there now. Personally, I'd rather not live on one - but they do function. But, would such a thing be possible as a means of serving the needs of the down-and-out population? One point - I am not necessarily talking about a thing that is government run. It could also be private. The main point of my question is whether a self-supporting system is possible, given the population it would be serving. Do all things with love.

Jul 18, 2006, 01:20 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Protostar Hardcore Capitalist Location: North Carolina Posts: 759	I think such a thing would be possible if said organizations could provide something useful such as a good/service at a reasonable price. I think you're always going to have people to slip through the cracks, because they either just don't want to work or can't because of physical/mental issues. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." . . . Susan B. Anthony

Jul 18, 2006, 01:24 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Protostar Hardcore Capitalist Location: North Carolina Posts: 759	I merged your threads Capn Chaos because they were so similar in nature. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." . . . Susan B. Anthony

Jul 18, 2006, 01:26 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Captain Chaos Shifting Paradigms Location: Flowery Branch, GA Posts: 3,102	OK... I really had different thoughts for them, though. One was about the practicality of a particular idea. The other is an ethical question about whether we should let folks just die, rather than give them medical care. Do all things with love.