Healthcare, Charity, Philanthropy, etc.

[Mr. Blonde]

Hey dudes. I've been pretty busy getting settled in but this is a topic that a few people have thrown at me recently and I thought I would run it past you guys. I'm still kind of developing an overall thesis on the matter, so it's a bit unorganized (and parts are possibly wrong), was wondering where your thoughts lie on some issues.

This is the latest part of the transcription:


Girl: Sam, I have some questions for you. Do you think empathy is important? Why or why not? Also, do you think welfare programs, public health, and education programs are important? Why or why not?

The reason I'm asking is b/c I'm having a debate with someone who feels we should have less gov't and therefore less taxes. He's annoyed that he gives 50% of his income to the gov't. He says he shouldn't be forced to give his money away; that if he WANTS to help others, that's one thing, but being forced to, he doesn't like. He says we should save up our own money for future medical crises, and that if everything was privatized, the prices would go down, which would be better for consumers anyway. And I guess it would be up to us to check and see if the quality was good or not.

What do you say to that?


My response: Hey Beth! I think this runs in line with a question a girl I used to kindasortadate messaged me not even last week. Here's what she asked:

"I have something i'd like to get your opinion on...
Compassion.
In all your logic and sensibility I know your emotions run deep, but where do you stand with compassion, specifically for other people?
Random thought, just curious.
Hope you had a good weekend."

My reply:

Well, your question is kind of vague, but I assume that you're asking whether or not I have any qualms with the seemingly illogical thinking behind compassion for other people (charity, philanthropic work, etc.) and the observed reality that everyone should only look out for themselves.

I suppose where I stand as a secular humanist, I literally have nothing else to live for if it's not for the advancement of the human species and our home planet, so of course I think compassion has it's place and the mere fact that it exists shows that it is at least evolutionarily viable, i.e., it's done some good otherwise it would have been phased out long ago.

Now, the real question and a difficult one that a lot of people struggle with (I think) is whom to give our compassion to. I feel like because of the way we (especially in America) coddle people emotionally a lot of people could apply themselves much better so as to not need the "compassion" of others.

I am not going to give my compassionate help to just anybody, a prime example is people doing "soup kitchen" work as a form of moral masturbation. Really, you think those homeless dudes give a shit or not whether you scoop their food into a bowl for you? They could do that themselves...something that would REALLY help is volunteering time to teach life skills in classes so they can get on their own feet rather than coddling them consistently. I understand that starvation is a very real threat to a lot of people but I also feel like somebody's allowance to participate in soup kitchen meals or homeless shelters should be, say (and i don't know where this is just being paid for, this is just ideal) evaluated by some form of social worker and they should be assigned a deadline by when they should have a job and be able to at least afford 2 or 3 meals a day for themselves. That's like $5, a beggar can make that much with a hat or a can each day.

My main issue with humanitarian compassion is overseas, which is where it again becomes instinctively a "not my problem" kind of situation, but that's the nationalism of our upbringing and the primate "ingroup/outgroup" mentality in our genes, and we need to supercede that. We're all humans and in many parts of the world there is literally no one to beg from and people legitimately need help...unfortunately many NGO's are either corrupt or unable to convince volunteers to not only work for them, but to supply them with money unless a huge disaster happens, (ex: Haiti).


----Not sure if that helps much at all with your particular discussion,.

If everything was privatized, it's POSSIBLE that the prices would go down, but isn't that what pretty much happens now? Or is he calling for abolishment of insurance?

What it seems like to me is that before health insurance (and various government agencies that help provide such assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), people just died. They couldn't afford the medicine so they either resorted to crime or died. That's just how it was. At some point along the line some very smart people decided this is a pretty fucked up thing to let happen to our fellow humans, and came up with these kinds of organizations. Now we're here.

In regard to "we should all just save up our own money!", apparently this person has not had too much experience with devastating, random illnesses or accidents that are really nobodies fault. As a human with compassion for the rest of his species, is he really going to deny somebody who could be cured but simply can't afford it? Medical care is expensive, no matter which way you cut it -- the studying and expertise required by the people who practice it makes it necessarily expensive by nature. I can sympathize that he doesn't want to "give his money away", but at the same time, without government interference, who would stop (regulate) corporations (hospitals and other medical facilities) from fucking us over? Wait until a few hundred people die of bad treatment and then boycott the hospital? What if it's the only one in town? What if people decide that hospitals aren't lucrative anymore?

In the area of health, there's just too much that can go wrong because of mans inherent selfish and greedy nature. My friend posted this earlier today as well, separate issue but kind of related:

"Today 40 billionaires from the U.S. pledged to give at least 50% of their wealth to charity. Until they can no longer call themselves a billionaire, or even a millionaire, they can count on "fuck you" coming from my mouth much faster than "thank you." And journalists, maybe not celebrate a verbal promise so much until some money is actually put to use and has positive results."

"Anyone who is not jaded should become so. Anyone who has accumulated $1,000,000,000 in their lifetime, assets or however one defines it, is not deserving of anything other than public scorn. Instead of going into how bad off people are all over the world due to money being such an important part of everyday life, I'll will paint a picture of a person who thinks of money nearly every moment of every single day....or did so while they were making their fortune. While these people were making their inane amounts of money problems arose, useful competition to themselves tried to flourish, and moral qualms nagged at their conscious. These people focused on little else than a single factor of their lives. They overtook fair capitalism and turned it into a monarchy/company store/pimp economy where many people did the work and few gained the monetary (i.e. most beneficial in the non-ideal world) reward. Now they believe they are doing good by donating to charities THAT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE FROM THE VERY GREED THAT CREATED THEIR FORTUNES. I realize rants aren't often taken seriously but I refuse to let apologist statements for the piece of shit rich people in this world go unaddressed."

[Ugly Bastard]

Next time I'm rocking an adderall, I will read this.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Hey dudes. I've been pretty busy getting settled in but this is a topic that a few people have thrown at me recently and I thought I would run it past you guys. I'm still kind of developing an overall thesis on the matter, so it's a bit unorganized (and parts are possibly wrong), was wondering where your thoughts lie on some issues.

This is the latest part of the transcription:


Girl: Sam, I have some questions for you. Do you think empathy is important? Why or why not? Also, do you think welfare programs, public health, and education programs are important? Why or why not?

The reason I'm asking is b/c I'm having a debate with someone who feels we should have less gov't and therefore less taxes. He's annoyed that he gives 50% of his income to the gov't. He says he shouldn't be forced to give his money away; that if he WANTS to help others, that's one thing, but being forced to, he doesn't like. He says we should save up our own money for future medical crises, and that if everything was privatized, the prices would go down, which would be better for consumers anyway. And I guess it would be up to us to check and see if the quality was good or not.

What do you say to that?


My response: Hey Beth! I think this runs in line with a question a girl I used to kindasortadate messaged me not even last week. Here's what she asked:

"I have something i'd like to get your opinion on...
Compassion.
In all your logic and sensibility I know your emotions run deep, but where do you stand with compassion, specifically for other people?
Random thought, just curious.
Hope you had a good weekend."

My reply:

Well, your question is kind of vague, but I assume that you're asking whether or not I have any qualms with the seemingly illogical thinking behind compassion for other people (charity, philanthropic work, etc.) and the observed reality that everyone should only look out for themselves.

I suppose where I stand as a secular humanist, I literally have nothing else to live for if it's not for the advancement of the human species and our home planet, so of course I think compassion has it's place and the mere fact that it exists shows that it is at least evolutionarily viable, i.e., it's done some good otherwise it would have been phased out long ago.

Now, the real question and a difficult one that a lot of people struggle with (I think) is whom to give our compassion to. I feel like because of the way we (especially in America) coddle people emotionally a lot of people could apply themselves much better so as to not need the "compassion" of others.

I am not going to give my compassionate help to just anybody, a prime example is people doing "soup kitchen" work as a form of moral masturbation. Really, you think those homeless dudes give a shit or not whether you scoop their food into a bowl for you? They could do that themselves...something that would REALLY help is volunteering time to teach life skills in classes so they can get on their own feet rather than coddling them consistently. I understand that starvation is a very real threat to a lot of people but I also feel like somebody's allowance to participate in soup kitchen meals or homeless shelters should be, say (and i don't know where this is just being paid for, this is just ideal) evaluated by some form of social worker and they should be assigned a deadline by when they should have a job and be able to at least afford 2 or 3 meals a day for themselves. That's like $5, a beggar can make that much with a hat or a can each day.

My main issue with humanitarian compassion is overseas, which is where it again becomes instinctively a "not my problem" kind of situation, but that's the nationalism of our upbringing and the primate "ingroup/outgroup" mentality in our genes, and we need to supercede that. We're all humans and in many parts of the world there is literally no one to beg from and people legitimately need help...unfortunately many NGO's are either corrupt or unable to convince volunteers to not only work for them, but to supply them with money unless a huge disaster happens, (ex: Haiti).


----Not sure if that helps much at all with your particular discussion,.

If everything was privatized, it's POSSIBLE that the prices would go down, but isn't that what pretty much happens now? Or is he calling for abolishment of insurance?

What it seems like to me is that before health insurance (and various government agencies that help provide such assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), people just died. They couldn't afford the medicine so they either resorted to crime or died. That's just how it was. At some point along the line some very smart people decided this is a pretty fucked up thing to let happen to our fellow humans, and came up with these kinds of organizations. Now we're here.

In regard to "we should all just save up our own money!", apparently this person has not had too much experience with devastating, random illnesses or accidents that are really nobodies fault. As a human with compassion for the rest of his species, is he really going to deny somebody who could be cured but simply can't afford it? Medical care is expensive, no matter which way you cut it -- the studying and expertise required by the people who practice it makes it necessarily expensive by nature. I can sympathize that he doesn't want to "give his money away", but at the same time, without government interference, who would stop (regulate) corporations (hospitals and other medical facilities) from fucking us over? Wait until a few hundred people die of bad treatment and then boycott the hospital? What if it's the only one in town? What if people decide that hospitals aren't lucrative anymore?

In the area of health, there's just too much that can go wrong because of mans inherent selfish and greedy nature. My friend posted this earlier today as well, separate issue but kind of related:

"Today 40 billionaires from the U.S. pledged to give at least 50% of their wealth to charity. Until they can no longer call themselves a billionaire, or even a millionaire, they can count on "fuck you" coming from my mouth much faster than "thank you." And journalists, maybe not celebrate a verbal promise so much until some money is actually put to use and has positive results."

"Anyone who is not jaded should become so. Anyone who has accumulated $1,000,000,000 in their lifetime, assets or however one defines it, is not deserving of anything other than public scorn. Instead of going into how bad off people are all over the world due to money being such an important part of everyday life, I'll will paint a picture of a person who thinks of money nearly every moment of every single day....or did so while they were making their fortune. While these people were making their inane amounts of money problems arose, useful competition to themselves tried to flourish, and moral qualms nagged at their conscious. These people focused on little else than a single factor of their lives. They overtook fair capitalism and turned it into a monarchy/company store/pimp economy where many people did the work and few gained the monetary (i.e. most beneficial in the non-ideal world) reward. Now they believe they are doing good by donating to charities THAT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE FROM THE VERY GREED THAT CREATED THEIR FORTUNES. I realize rants aren't often taken seriously but I refuse to let apologist statements for the piece of shit rich people in this world go unaddressed."

Very thoughtful and elaborate post Mr. Blonde. You should gather together all of you ideas and outlook on things and write a book that no one will care about or read.

[Mr. Blonde]

Hey man, I gotta occupy my time somehow, and i'm not satisfied with endless trolling and q-tipping cats in heat.

[zebrazebrazebraSHAFT]

I firmly believe its wrong to take, with force, fairly earned money from any human being to benefit another human, regardless of their inequalities. I think philanthropy is the number 1 most important thing humans can have, but I don't think any dictator or government should be in charge of judging inequality on behalf of the masses.

As far as health care goes, there are many ways it can be made affordable without making it public. Government regulation on the industry has caused the problems we see with it today. For example, let people buy across state lines, that would encourage competition. Also, make it easier to become a doctor, or at least, give lesser medical professionals more treatment permissions, let consumers be the judge of who's a good doctor and who isn't. I'm not denying that a public option would work, I think it would. But I don't think its the fairest, or most moral option. Keep it simple, keep it fair.