|
|
|
|
|
|
by cgmorton
5008 days ago
|
|
|
This argues equally well for completely supporting the family indefinitely for any reason. The only difference between paying medical bills and paying for the whole lifestyle is a matter of cost, and medical bills can be really expensive. Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity? |
|
|
But actually it maybe be true that in some cases it is more beneficial overall to the society to just support the family for a while if say the breadwinner breaks a leg. That is better than a bankruptcy, loss of house, loss of job.
> Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?
It doesn't because this has to be applied to a certain degree. Absolutely no safety net is not good, but it is not possible of feasible to just hand out money either.