Will Charity Increase With Less Government?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2013, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2013 02:36 PM by median.)
Will Charity Increase With Less Government?
I was watching this college professor debate (which took place near where I live) and wondered about this topic. See here:






Now, I know these types of debates can get heated but I'd like to get facts/sound data to support either side. Under a libertarian type system (where for example only privately funded healthcare existed) would charitable organizations take care of a greater number of sick/disabled people who are currently relying upon tax funded assistance? What good reason is there for thinking "hands off" economics is a better model than a mixed (middle road) economy? Again, please provide evidence for either side of this question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Will Charity Increase With Less Government?
Singapore.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 06:39 AM
RE: Will Charity Increase With Less Government?
During the 2012 Presidential debates Ron Paul argued that before the government took over health care, poor people had MORE access to good medical care than they do today. He claimed that back then the system worked like this: a poor person went to a charity hospital where caring doctors gave him the best care possible and sent him home with no obligations.

THEN, the government decided poor people have the right to order any doctor of their choosing to provide medical care regardless of his ability to pay. BUT, the government doesn't regulate what the doctor can charge. So now the system is a poor person goes into any hospital of his choosing and effectively orders the doctors to provide him care against their will or else face police action, the doctors give him the bare minimum care that is considered 'life saving' so they don't lose their license, and then send him with a bill that is often 10x higher than what they would have charged wealthier people who had insurance, and send the bill to aggressive debt collectors who garnish his wages and ruin his credit report, making it difficult to get a job, or buy a car, and very often forcing him into filing bankruptcy, leaving him in a bad state for 7 years.

For favoring the old system, Ron Paul was called barbaric and lacking compassion for the poor. This was especially laughable considering that his profession before politics was.... a doctor in a charity hospital working for $3/hour and providing free medical care to thousands of poor people.

Naturally all the charity hospitals are now gone. Remember that at one time those hospitals with religious names (like St. Vincent's) were charity hospitals providing care for the poor. But once all doctors were forced to provide "charity" against their will, the concept of charity disappeared and they're all now very much for profit hospitals that rape poor people who come in without insurance.

Politifact said of this: "We couldn’t prove a negative -- that "there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care" during that era.". But that shows a lack of scientific understanding. Of course you can prove a negative if the thing you're looking for will consistently result in a certain reaction. How else do doctors test for conditions and say "the results came back negative"?! Liberals had been campaigning for decades for government-funded medical programs. If there were people dying in the street without medical care, obviously the liberals would talked about it and you'd find op-ed's and other articles about it. The fact that there are none tends to prove what Ron Paul said that people were getting care.

Further, you can see the bias in the article since they disparage the concept of 'charity', condemning how poor people back then had to rely on charity. Well what is charity? Is it not when people who have more redistribute their wealth to help those who have less? Is not the current progressive tax system exactly the same, except that it's done by force? Note that they don't disparage charity because it didn't work; they don't dispute that there may have been an even greater redistribution of wealth under a charitable system. They disparage the concept of charity purely because it's a peaceful, voluntary system, and, being the club-wielding Neanderthals they are, rather than asking if the peaceful system is working or if force is even needed, they just pick up their clubs and immediately use force. Whatever the problem, the solution is always force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: