04 Jun '11 18:27>
Originally posted by normbenignIn an economy with 9+% unemployment, employment itself is an improvement for many poor people.
I don't believe that minimum wage or sub minimum wage employees can afford most of the desirable things in life. That is the motivation for them to improve themselves. If government supplies all the wants and desires, the what is the incentive to improve?
Bear in mind that wants, and needs are unlimited, but resources are not. Some manner of rationing happens regardless of the system employed in distribution of services.
So let's expand on the hypothetical waiter's story. Let's say he started his job a year ago, after spending months surviving on unemployment benefits; in other words, he was happy to have this job at all. The restaurant owner can't afford to provide health care insurance, and then all of the sudden, last month the waiter scrounged up enough to get a physical and discovered while at the doctor's office that he had brain cancer.
Does the government not have any responsibility to provide basic medical care? Or should the man be forced to "improve himself" by magially finding a 6-figure-salary job that can give him enough revenue to purchase insurance (assuming they'll cover the pre-existing condition)?
I don't doubt for a second that people will take advantage of any sort of universal health care system; I know several people who take advantage of government funding of health care as it is now. But I would argue that the moral good gained outweighs the moral bad incurred.
If you disagree, fine, but tell me, what should happen to the waiter?