the theologians and the Darwnists have the answer God's will or survival of the fittest.noddy wrote:lets start small.
some poor bastard has a car accident and cant afford much beyond food and rent - this is not a crazy theory, the USA has ~5000 serious motor vehicle injuries a month and ~60% have no money in the bank
do we have the slippery slope to death panels, which the communist people call triage, or do we then put them in debtors prison, or should they die in the street as nature intended ?
that's the tricksy unending discussion, cause it involves all sorts of fuzzy concepts like compassion, fair, just, etc. my point is costs are never discussed as a starting point to lowering costs. more fun to moralize and insult, than it is to focus on reality.
when it is Fred deciding how to spend his own money, it is a non-issue. only get complicated when other people's money comes into play.
in the above case, if the poor bastard is old, and society" has been overcharging the "poor bastard" for years for food, clothing, housing, and energy then "society" should have put that money aside as a contingency if he gets hurt. or if the poor bastard is young, and society" plans to overcharge the "poor bastard" for the rest of his life for food, clothing, housing, and energy then, then society will get their money back.... eventually. just like in the case of Alex's motorcycle accident, or social security, "society owes him" because that's the social contract that was agreed upon.
my young Brit friends were upset about Alex's situation simply because the social contract was signed into law before they were born.
all depends upon the concept of overcharging for staples, is it already in practice, or is it an idea that one is trying to get the people to buy into?
US problem is the cartel Nonc mentioned, and like not joining a Christmas club in January, Merkins don't put the money that they are not overcharged aside for a rainy day, or use it to buy insurance.
provided of course they are not at the bottom of the economic ladder.