Do people on the Right want the "less fortunate" to suffer and/or die?

That's such a well thought out argument. I think I have changed my mind. Actually, on second thought, nope. You're just trolling.

 

That sounds very vague, and judgmental. You do things that aint too healthy. When you get ill, do you want follks blaming you, for all the things ADULTS usually do?

 

Yes, yes, yes! Let them die and decrease the surplus population!

Sorry, it's my Ebenezer Scrooge coming out.

We on the right do not want the less fortunate to suffer and die. At the same time, we do not want the less fortunate to become dependents of the state, particularly if they are young enough to have children who will repeat the pattern rather than becoming self-sufficient contributing members of society. Welfare was originally designed for the support of war widows and orphans, a noble and worthy idea. What ended up happening was women coming to depend on the state for their and their children's support instead of men, a terrible and despicable situation that leads to complete societal breakdown. But trying to end this situation just gets screams of woe from the left, "You don't care about the poor, you just want them to die!" No, we want them to get off welfare. We want them to stop engaging in behaviors (single motherhood) that lead to terrible outcomes, like poverty, drug abuse, gangs, rampant crime, etc. Women need men to stay out of poverty. Men need women to keep from being worthless dregs of society. Children need mothers to feel cared for. Children need fathers to learn self-discipline. Marriage works. Welfare doesn't.

 

Get your damn ass to the SS office, and ask about REGULAR disability, FEDERAL. Part of SS regular. You paid all your working life, for it too. You will spend years doing so, so GET IN GEAR.

Talk to a lawyer, and just pay it from the start, it is not much more to have them at the beginning. Consider whether you want SSDI as it takes generally as long to qualify, but wont eat your settlement.

FAlse pride is STUPID. This is what the program is intended for. And, you might be able to qualify for MEDI MEDI. Due to colostomy bag type illness.

 

I second the talk to a lawyer advice. The general rule for SS disability is to always deny the first claim and then make you take it up with an administrative law judge. Then you pretty much have to get a lawyer. I did one myself once, won the case, but that's not always how it happens.

 

There are limits. Coming down with the flu due to a series of late nights, no problem. But I would not treat any obesity or drug/smoking/alcohol related illness or injury.

If we don't demand that people take better care of themselves, they won't. A huge percentage of modern First World humans are lazy and childish, and will always take the path of least resistance. They are a terrible drain on resources which are desperately needed elsewhere.

 

I think that's fair. I do support social safety bets, but I think they are extensively abused.

 

NO. I do not believe for a moment that the 'right' wants people to suffer or die. The word for those people is 'sadist' and that is not an ideology. There is however a wide spectrum in the level of empathy/ sympathy they may have, for the suffering like any other population, and there will be a small subset of RWers, who's empathy level may change depending on race, or ethnicity or religion ( the bigots). We also have to distinguish between what people say, and what they feel, and what they do. We have some RW posters that would rather have all their molars pulled ,than be caught showing the rest of us any sign of ideological weakness. They are so into the 'game', the competition or shocking the rest of us that their PF image is much harsher, than they will be. They enjoy coming across as heartless.

There are others that appear to be indifferent to suffering, because they are so ideologically invested in selling their libertarian/ conservative view, that they never get around to expressing anything else, including their concrete ideas on how to alleviate it. They are so busy using the code words and cliches ( 'liberty', 'freedom from govt intrusion' and 'co-dependence' etc) They forget to sell simple charity that they do believe or be abundantly clear when they do think a governmental response is approprieat or work to distinguish themselves for more radical views. They do not write posts that encourage an active vibrate proactive outreach of help and support outside of govt or offer ideas on how those systems and institutions should be improved upon. Those posts are not written ,unless they are a slam on how liberals don't give or care. they do not make clear that they understand that there are people that will never be able to 'work' at jobs sufficient to feel clothe, house and provide medical care. They expect the rest of us to know it. Again its that partisan spin that interferes with them being perceived as the empathetic and caring people they are.

I don't think how people post, really tells us a lot about how people behave in the face of real suffering or poverty.

 

Uh. Yes. People need to he responsible for themselves. This collectivist mentality you have is directly contrary to the very concept of individual liberty.

Do you have an excuse for everybody and every situation they can dream up about their situation being somebody else's fault?

 

A collectivist doesn't think they can secure a free lunch .. that would be the ardent capitalist.

 

Right wingers called Michelle Obama a fascist, for having an organic garden, and demand that ketchup is again a vegetable. And you are talking about LIFESTYLE demands by right wingers. Hahahahaha. IT don't get any better.

 

Who will be the head Nope NAZI? You? You personally will decide to kill folks with deprivation?

 

Do people on the Right want the "less fortunate" to suffer and/or die?
A question for anyone on the Left: Do you think that the Right wants the less fortunate to suffer and/or die?

Have we not answered this question enough in 238 posts?

Yes! The Right wants the less fortunate to suffer and die. As this thread should do.

 

Nobody actually likes paying taxes. That's why progressive taxation is so popular. The idea is that other people will pay more taxes, so sucks to be them.

2) is not true. There really are people who don't deserve the situation that they're in. The problem isn't a lack of empathy, but rather understanding that the solution is not government. I came of age in the bay area which had a problem with homelessness. Now some 3 decades later, they have an even worse problem with homelessness, despite spending all that time talking about how they're tackling the problem of homelessness.

You guys need to understand that government is not always the solution, and can actually be the problem.

 

This is a voluntary choice to pool risk with others. Completely voluntary and nothing says one needs to do so.

This is a state interference with free exchange. There is no legitimate reason for you to be on the hook for my emergent medical costs. Such a rule should be abolished.

 

Nobody gave a **** about her having "an organic garden". What the hell is an inorganic garden, anyway?

No, what we didn't want is that stupid **** thinking she knows enough about anything to tell us what our kids should eat. She's a moron, same as her husband.

That bitch needed to shut the hell up, and she just couldn't do it. So we gave her what for, and her idiot husband, as well.

 

LOL. Good question.

 

Likely not your kids .....but we need somebody to tell most peoples kids how to eat as most kids parents obviously are not giving proper eating advice. While I am all for live and let live I can't help but think some bleeding-heart Democrat will think I need to provide health care for the little fat turds.

 

That's where we disagree. Sorry, but government is a very specific tool only useful for certain functions. For most things, politicians are not necessary. One of those unnecessary jobs is elected morons telling people what they need to eat.

As for the fat little turds, I'm guessing there's some idiot politician that's responsible. Food stamp idiots, health idiots, people who don't have a clue idiots.

Sorry, but politicians are essentially idiots. They are tasked with keeping the barbarians at the gates. Democracy allows the mob to rule us, but a democracy is a stupid unthinking herd of illiterate morons all trying to vote for their head moron.

Having their head moron tell me what I should feed my children is one of those lines in the sand. Sorry moron, but you need to shut the hell up! You're an idiot, your children are idiots, and everything that has ever sprung out of you herpes infested loins are necessarily going to be idiots. Stop polluting the human race with your infestation!!!!!!

That's what I think of politicians.

 

There's no such rule. Hospitals do it because they have to to stay solvent. And hospitals cannot turn anyone away. There IS a rule for that. So while there's no right to health care, there is a duty to provide health care to anyone who needs it. That duty has even been extended to health care professionals in their cars. If they see an accident, they are required to stop and offer medical assistance.

 

I get you point. I was just suggesting that "someone", not necessarily government keep kids from getting fat. Not that I care if people want to eat themselves to death but somewhere along the trail of corn syrup and saturated fat there will be a stop at a medical facility and you and I will end up paying.

I don't even like children unless they barbecued.

 

Yeah.. yeah I think they do

 

This is a state interference with free exchange. There is no legitimate reason for you to be on the hook for my emergent medical costs. Such a rule should be abolished.

 

I don't see how this relates to the general government. I presume you live in one of the several states, no?

 

Right...you can either get health insurance or you can go without and be a leech....which one are you?