They receive government support (though not that much by percentage) and are a drop in the bucket.

I'm sure they get some government money, but most of their funding comes from donors.

Interesting to note that a large portion of their budget goes to research, and they still treat patients for free who need it. That's incredible!!

Will do some more research, but seems like a great organization to give to.

Not sure if you guys donate to charity or just use the government to make others donate, BUT, at no additional cost to you, check out the Amazon smile program, if you order from Amazon a lot - they donate I think 1% of every purchase to the charity of your choice.

You're right Tsao. Everyone in the 21st century is getting plenty of health care. Check out the wheel chair.

Yeah, when 30% of people's money is blown in taxes, and half of that goes to blowing up the middle east, it's Ron Paul's fault that there are homeless people. Adds up, makes sense, you're right.

Given the donations to the charity that runs that hospital will be tax deductible the government is making a pretty significant contribution to it.

They're hitting him not on the cost but the hypocrisy of how they hit Obama. It's not really my style but I'm not one to deny another's catharsis.

I give more than I can afford to because I'm broke.



This is where all the money is and, owning the government, more and more of it will go their way. That way is hardly part of the libertarian ideology, but Libertarians are their stooges at this point.

Well I'll be goddamned, a libertarian paradise.

There was one candidate, at least before the conventions, who didn't want to blow up the middle east and would have reduced the number of people living on the streets and it wasn't Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

This so very rarely is mentioned because people secretly hate their children.

At least, that's my rough hypothesis currently under construction in the laboratory.

LOL charity-based healthcare. The Libertarian tendencies die hard.

Essentially what you just said. I literally can't with you guys - you're too much.

I think this should be expanded upon.

Ethical Egoism, which states that one should only follow their own self interest, and should only help others if it personally benefits them, and also states that altruism is a terrible thing, it rampant upon Libertarians, and Conservatives. i.e., the Ayn Randians of the U.S.

Why would right wingers give poor people charity when it doesn't financially benefit them? It's antithetical to their ethos. This is why this approach is nonsense.

****ing god damn Ron Paul, using his contacts in the DNC to prop up Clinton, and prop up Donald Trump. Did you know he was even discussing how to use Bernie Sander's religious beliefs to further aid Clinton, with the DNC, too!? He's just the god damn worst!

Nope! You've just changed the wording a bit! See, I bolded the word that you added in to suit your argument, that doesn't belong.

I can give to others, charitably, without it being in my "financial" interest, and it can still be in my 'self-interest', meaning, it makes me feel good to do it. I do it voluntarily, because I am satisfied by doing it.

Yes, personal feelings of satisfaction can be a motivator behind the drive to only pursue one's self interest. But money is a great evil, and it can easily sway people to go against their own personal sense of morality.

So if you told me an Ethical Egoist would probably hold the door open for someone, because it made them personally feel good, I'd agree that that could likely happen. But if you told me an Ethical Egoist would pay for someone's $30,000 dollar surgery, because it made them feel good, I would argue that the almighty dollar would almost certainly Trump their personal feelings.

You know the whole Ayn Rand "Capitalism is the only moral system of economics" shtick? The almighty dollar is God. And since health care is so expensive, providing charity in these regards is a whole lot of denying God. So I would argue that for people like this, "personal self interest" is usually limited solely to financial interest.

And I say this as someone who used to be an Ethical Egoist.

Charity-based basic income is an idea worth investigating imho

Enslaving the elite of the world is an idea worth investigating, in my honest opinion. Enslave the richest, and most powerful in the world, take all their money, and use it to elevate the poor. That's what I'm about these days.

If Trump ended up as a panhandler, I think I could find it in my heart to give him a few bucks for a Happy Meal®.

West Virginia sues drug distributors over opioid epidemic

What happened to all the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY these red states are always preaching to us about? Do these addicts not have access to the same bootstraps as the rest of us?

I shared Trolly's bemusement that the "taxes = theft" crowd would be supportive the of greatest redistributive scheme ever proposed. When I went through my Libertarian phase they were all about ending Social Security and Medicare as they considered such programs unconstitutional.

How can there be such a thing as charity-based universal basic income?

It'll be just as awesome as a charity-based national healthcare system.

Note: I'm not actually being serious about this.

Sorry, I'm officially Mad About a Breakup and forgetting that irony exists. Carry on.

Courts rule that police dog maulings are the equivalent of a stop and frisk


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._dog_maul.html