I shared this entire (LONG) article on Facebook.
In addition, I shared the 3 minute "Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs" video, which inspired me to write these comments:
-----------------------------
Watch this three minute and listen to what Bill says.
His entire proposition must begin with the assumption of a singl…
In addition, I shared the 3 minute "Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs" video, which inspired me to write these comments:
-----------------------------
Watch this three minute and listen to what Bill says.
His entire proposition must begin with the assumption of a single payer for medical care and the hiring of teachers.
This obviously presumes a full-blown socialist (or communist) government.
But this makes no sense in a free world, where each individual contributes to the full extent of their abilities.
What if the person seeking $1M worth of medical treatments has worked hard all his/her life and contributed to society in ways that have "created value" from which he/she has earned a portion?
And, that person has saved all their life and has the money to buy the medical treatments?
And, by doing so, contributes further to general medical knowledge and improved skills of the doctors involved?
Is that not an overall contribution to society, rather than a burden?
How does that in any way restrict the number of teachers hired at a school, or restrict their salaries?
Why must he presume a "zero-sum" situation?
In fact, each person who (legally and ethically) succeeds in life, adds value to the world, and provides an example for others.
I shared this entire (LONG) article on Facebook.
In addition, I shared the 3 minute "Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs" video, which inspired me to write these comments:
-----------------------------
Watch this three minute and listen to what Bill says.
His entire proposition must begin with the assumption of a single payer for medical care and the hiring of teachers.
This obviously presumes a full-blown socialist (or communist) government.
But this makes no sense in a free world, where each individual contributes to the full extent of their abilities.
What if the person seeking $1M worth of medical treatments has worked hard all his/her life and contributed to society in ways that have "created value" from which he/she has earned a portion?
And, that person has saved all their life and has the money to buy the medical treatments?
And, by doing so, contributes further to general medical knowledge and improved skills of the doctors involved?
Is that not an overall contribution to society, rather than a burden?
How does that in any way restrict the number of teachers hired at a school, or restrict their salaries?
Why must he presume a "zero-sum" situation?
In fact, each person who (legally and ethically) succeeds in life, adds value to the world, and provides an example for others.