90sgamer said:
Thank you for the reply. It would seem that your position is based on an emotional response to the visual presence of homeless and mentally ill (how do homeless fit into this topic? They seem unrelated). You touch on a more practical concern regarding lost productivity as well. I must disagree with the emotional component and the claim of lost productivity.
Emotions have no place in legislation, especially legislation as broad an expensive as a national mental health care plan. Emotional responses are meant to guide your immediate survival, but are not a sound basis for long term planning.
Lost productivity is regarded as a slippery argument to make because it applies to so many things. Abortion: you can't abort fetuses because you might be killing off what could be a contributing adult. Death Penalty: many criminals are highly intelligent. We should focus on rehabilitation, pardons, then allow them to be contributing members of society. Immigration: We should let whoever comes into the country be a citizen, find work and pay taxes. Who knows how many immigrants will be intelligent and productive? Public education: Every citizen should receive free or subsidized higher education. Many people who are too poor to afford enrolling in a university have a very high potential. Welfare: People could be contributing adults if we just eased the burden of their existence to such a degree that instead of working two jobs they can work just one, while going to school part time. We'll pay for school too, as noted above. Health Insurance: So many people die a year or are unable to be productive because of illness. Of those that die, some were or could have been productive. Therefore, we should foot the bill for all or most medical expenses.
Obviously we have to draw the line at where "lost potential" is no longer a valid reason to do things, otherwise you'll be footing the bill for every else's education, kids, healthcare, mental care, and supplemental income. I propose we never accept that argument. It's largely hypothetical, which makes a cost-benefit analysis (ratio of dollars spent to productivity gained from treated individuals) impossible.
In response to your edit: just because there is currently a law that mandates health care does not make subsequent discussion of the subject "not matter." Laws change frequently.
I realy should point out that the conclusion drawn here is plain wrong. Everything you mention in that 3rd paragraph exists, its called a welfare state. Turns out that 'footing the bill' for base requirements to live and develop pays off, suprise suprise.
I live in the Netherlands, here if I lose an arm, go crazy, lose my job, or become unable to pay for my food and house, I can get help instead of ending up dead or homeless. That stuff is normal around here, we are willing to pay taxes for that safety. America is a 3rd world country by comparison.
Your later post reveals you are a libertarion. I do not understand you people. You are obsessed with producing wealth, regardless of where that wealth goes. What is your 'benefit to society', if its not for people to live good lives? So your tiny minority of rich people can get even richer? So your military can get even bigger? So you can buy that nice boat you want, to go with the other 12 boats?
Study the world around you, free market is not a magic force of god that automaticaly regulates everything. Beyond a certain point, one which the US is way past, increase in market freedom only serves to make rich people even richer. Its is unfettered, undefendable greed.
