|
What everyone does is not equally valuable in the real world. Never has been, never will be. That is fantasy stuff.
We'd like to think everyone contributed equally in their own way, but they don't. That is the whole point of incentives, higher salaries, etc.
There is a huge difference between how much effort people put forth. Human nature is what it is.
Folks that studied hard, worked their butt off, put in extra hours in the evenings or weekend getting better at their skill, etc, are probably contributing a whole lot more than the guy who is 34 years old, living in his parents basement and playing video games.
No one is saying the slacker shouldn't get health care, everyone agrees that one way or the other we end up paying for that person anyway and that doing the math just makes it obvious that some form of universal/single payer system will be more humane and save money. The problem is, we sure as heck don't want universal health care providing an excuse to create more people that don't produce anything of value. I mean, the system is expensive and for it to work we all need to contribute to it.
"Taking a walk" or just "creating art" is NOT as deserving of rewards as someone who produces something with their time that society values monetarily. Yes, I am for providing them basic health care and a minimum level of services to they don't starve or freeze to death, but we absolutely do NOT want to be encouraging such behavior. Who is going to pay for these services if more and more people take the attitude that they can just do whatever the heck they want, irregardless of how much society values it? If more and more people won't chose jobs/careers that earn a decent salary, how will we finance this universal health care?
People need to chose a career that society places some value on so they can earn a living. Period. If an artist can't make money selling their work or their time, then they need to relegate their art to hobby status and go get a job that they can actually make money at.
|