Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UnDeath
and the problem lies in the fact that many are content to settle for the bare minimum, yet are fully capable to achieve more on their own. This takes recources that the government could use on the truely needy. The system probably looks a lot more efficient on paper, and would work better if people chose to take responsibility for themselves.
|
Okay, I've seen this argument too much. I think I'll address it again.
Regardless of people's potential, you must realize that most will never meet it. If the lazy bastards of the world support this, the more the merrier.
However, you must realize that we need those lazy bastards. If everyone actually realized their potential, we would have no one to fix the fast-food, no one to clean the toilets, no one to do the jobs that many of us despise. Love em' or hate em', they are necessary.
And once again, I must ask the question: If you would get your own healthcare for less regardless, would you really care whether or not those lazy bastards also benefitted?
You see, the idea is to make everyone happy. The only people whom this would hurt are the extremely rich - people like Bill Gates, to whom a 2% tax increase is millions of dollars. But even they could not complain too much, because after all, with all the money they have would it make a difference?
As for taking recources, no it doesn't. If this were to occur, obviously taxes would be increased to compensate. So it really only benefits them since they will have better healthcare.