There's a big gap between someone who does something morally wrong and being an evil person. My income is not increased because I made a decision to deny someone health care. I am not profiting from making decisions to deny coverage to someone. Insurance companies do though. At least, for profit ones do.
My statement wasn't that it is wrong to profit from doing something other than provide health care. My statement is the it is wrong to profit from denying someone care. I have not denied anyone care and I have not increased my income as a result of such denial.
You appear not to understand what profit is and your statement regarding a basic understanding of economics is ironic given this. Your response would have been better without resorting to such a tactic.
Your last paragraph is disconcerting to me. There is much wrong with your position. People do things that are against their long term interests. People sometimes do things they don't want to do. People can be manipulated into doing things they regret. Humans, are by and large, not rational. Part of the purpose of a society is having share responsibilities. To share our burdens. It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing.
I was defining profit = earnings - expenses, but there is no point in getting into a semantic argument about the definition of profit. (Note that there actually is no standard definition of profit for an individual.)
Lets treat profit as income. Your income is not increased, but your potential consumption is increased every time you decide not to buy health care for someone who might benefit from it. Is this immoral? I'm guessing not.
If an insurance company denies someone care (increasing revenue) and spends the money on perks for the CEO (increasing expenses commensurately, for a net profit of $0), would that be moral?
People do things that are against their long term interests.
So your belief is that you know what is best for everyone else, and their choices should be subsumed to your opinions? Um, ok.
You previously equated doing an immoral thing with being evil. Now you equate my statement:
"It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing."
with knowing what is best for everyone else. You logic is faulty. I used the word 'sometimes' and this is an important word in the sentence I wrote. I also never used the phrasing that I know what is best. I said society. Your conclusions are not logically supported from what I've written or stated.
You make too many leaps and appear to go from one extreme to the other. There is a huge gap between "let everyone do as they please" to "I know what is best for everyone".
Comments
There's a big gap between someone who does something morally wrong and being an evil person. My income is not increased because I made a decision to deny someone health care. I am not profiting from making decisions to deny coverage to someone. Insurance companies do though. At least, for profit ones do.
My statement wasn't that it is wrong to profit from doing something other than provide health care. My statement is the it is wrong to profit from denying someone care. I have not denied anyone care and I have not increased my income as a result of such denial.
You appear not to understand what profit is and your statement regarding a basic understanding of economics is ironic given this. Your response would have been better without resorting to such a tactic.
Your last paragraph is disconcerting to me. There is much wrong with your position. People do things that are against their long term interests. People sometimes do things they don't want to do. People can be manipulated into doing things they regret. Humans, are by and large, not rational. Part of the purpose of a society is having share responsibilities. To share our burdens. It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing.
I was defining profit = earnings - expenses, but there is no point in getting into a semantic argument about the definition of profit. (Note that there actually is no standard definition of profit for an individual.)
Lets treat profit as income. Your income is not increased, but your potential consumption is increased every time you decide not to buy health care for someone who might benefit from it. Is this immoral? I'm guessing not.
If an insurance company denies someone care (increasing revenue) and spends the money on perks for the CEO (increasing expenses commensurately, for a net profit of $0), would that be moral?
People do things that are against their long term interests.
So your belief is that you know what is best for everyone else, and their choices should be subsumed to your opinions? Um, ok.
You previously equated doing an immoral thing with being evil. Now you equate my statement:
"It is sometimes advisable for society as a whole to look out for our long term interests and this is a good thing."
with knowing what is best for everyone else. You logic is faulty. I used the word 'sometimes' and this is an important word in the sentence I wrote. I also never used the phrasing that I know what is best. I said society. Your conclusions are not logically supported from what I've written or stated.
You make too many leaps and appear to go from one extreme to the other. There is a huge gap between "let everyone do as they please" to "I know what is best for everyone".