[dnautics]

Fine. But government is required to treat all people alike. I think this is a reasonable requirement, given that you cannot 'opt out' of government. If you want to set up a private universal health care charity fund, I would happily cut a recurring check to help your cause, assuming some basic transparency and accountability. At least, if you mess up your charity and start, say, embezzling funds, I can opt out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[nknighthb]

Your misunderstanding of the equal protection clause has no basis in reality. The government is absolutely allowed to treat different situations differently. There is no legally recognized interpretation of the constitution -- none -- that would require the government to give person A a treatment inappropriate for A just because it gave person B the same treatment which was appropriate for B.

[dnautics]

of course, the government SHOULDN'T give person A an inappropriate treatment just because it's what it would give to person B. Becuase that would be stupid. But what does it give person A? Perhaps it can offer person A nothing. Then, how is that fair and equal?

that's exactly why the only solution is the null solution.

Bottom line: we need to live in a society where people actually help each other and actually show compassion, not create rediculous byzantine bureaucracies that marginally help the rich and politically well-connected that are an empty simulacrum of compassion.

[nknighthb]

It is fair and equal under the law because the government is offering what it can to whom it can. If there is no treatment for person A, there's no requirement -- legal, moral, or ethical -- that one be given.

The "null solution" is absurd. It simply provides that the rich get treatment and the poor do not. That would be "fair and equal" only to a barbarian.

[dnautics]

>It simply provides that the rich get treatment and the poor do not

You're projecting. If you were rich, would you help pay for the healthcare of the poor? Because I'm very much poor, and I give two hours a week towards helping feed people who are sick.

[nknighthb]

I already do help pay for the healthcare of the poor (as well as the not-so-poor over 65, and your father's VA care, by the way, as well as my grandfather's VA care). By any reasonable global standard, I am, in fact, rich. By American standards I am decidedly upper-middle-class. I make several times the median personal income in the United States. In fact, my 2012 taxes exceeded the US median personal income. I have excellent healthcare, a growing portfolio, and my only debt is a modest low-interest mortgage on an older but well-built house I bought last year and have already done substantial renovation on.

My taxes are too low. They should be increased. I regularly vote as such, as well as making campaign contributions to candidates and causes that would result in my taxes going up. I also make donations to charitable health care organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Doctors Without Borders.

Any more insulting questions?

[dnautics]

Without getting into the fact that, yes, worldwide I'm certainly not "poor"...

Don't you see how what you say is a problem? Most of the ways you listed where you are "helping" are involuntary and inefficient. When I go out and help, I'm actually putting food directly in the hands of the people who are hungry. I won't say the org. I work for is perfect, but there is a far closer to 1-1 yield on the fruits of my effort. Because it's personal, it also makes me feel good. I think I'm less inclined to think, "well, gee, there's some welfare queen living off of my dole". There's accountability. If the welfare system screws up, there's a chain of unelected bureaucrats that are only held accountable to narcissistic fools who are elected based on unrelated wedge issues like abortion. If my volunteer organization screws up, then the donors stop giving and find other places for their money to help (without sounding too capitalistic about it, there are indeed competing orgs that could fill its shoes on a dime).

You're trying to vote to make the burden on other people greater, which will create a bigger bureaucracy, which will in all likelihood be more inefficient. Why not, instead of taxing people more, work harder to create a society that just does more efficient things to help? It's hard, because getting people to be BETTER people is not easy. But it's way worth it.

Yeah, there are problems in our country, like a kleptocratic upper class, but you don't think there might be better solutions that actually address that problem than the bludgeoney "tax 'em more!!1" - which, ultimately is based in the ugly emotion of envy?