I had In The House - In A Heartbeat playing in my head while making this meme
sorry for the pixelation in the corner, I used a shitty website which put a watermark there
I had In The House - In A Heartbeat playing in my head while making this meme
sorry for the pixelation in the corner, I used a shitty website which put a watermark there
Wat
It makes sense if you remember that the universal healthcare system is insurance.
So if you are trying to migrate without a job but with an expensive disabillity and little money, then you are just a liabillity to the healthcare system.
And since the country is under no obligation to pay for the care, there is no reason for them to do so.
It is just basic resource management, you may not like it, but it is reality, regardless of what political system the country uses.
No. Just no. People aren’t numbers on a spreadsheet. That’s some capitalism mind rot.
In this case we are numbers on a spreadsheet, we may not like it, but all nations have limited resorces, and need to practice resource management.
This goes for both capitalism and communism.
Anything else would be to deny reality.
However different governments use different metrics to approve or deny new citizens, but all boil down to if it is worth it to the country.
There, fixed it for you.
Which everyone knows are the two only economic systems possible 🙄
Fixed it for you again. You’re really guzzling that “my masters know best” kool-aid.
The fundamental purpose of governments is to maximize the well-being of the citizens and other inhabitants. When the government’s aims are in conflict with the well-being of the people, the government has failed.
Automatically rejecting people as worthwhile based on putting them in one column or the other on a spreadsheet is a particularly grievous failure.
Well you sure do live up to your nickname, being all hippie, but why are you fighting me?
I just explained the reasons why a country would need a medical checkup of anyone moving there.
I am just an IT guy, I don’t set policy.
Because you’re not just reporting on the awful status quo. You’re mis-characterizing it as natural and inevitable rather than a serious of choices, often wrong, that we keep letting people with questionable motives make on everyone’s behalf to the benefit of those who already have too much while others suffer from not having enough.
Put another way, you’re framing blind obedience to rules that haven’t served the vast majority of people well as not just a good idea but the ONLY possibility.
You may not set policy, but whether you’re aware of it or not, you’re defending policy that needs attacking.
Sigh, the classic extremists trap, in order to be a good guy, you need to keep geeting more and more extreme.
You are basically saying that unless I am actively working toward the same goal you are, then I am a terrible person.
You mention that “when the government’s aims are in conflict with the well-being of the people, the government has failed”, that is litterarly my point!
The government has a duty of spending taxes to provide services for it’s people (citizens and people with approved residency and work permits), a migrant requesting residency and work permits is not yet part of the governments people.
You say that capitalism and communism isn’t the only economic systems, sure but no economic system in the world would be able to generate infinite resources.
Sigh, the classic Centrist trap. In order to defend your reflexive defense of the status quo, you have to pretend that anything else is “extreme” 🙄
I have said nothing of the sort. I’ve merely pointed out that you defend as inevitable that which is unnecessarily enforced. The only one making snap character judgments here is you.
True.
Also true, but people with disabilities generally tend to know someone in the country before migrating. People who are deprived by their loved ones being denied entry.
Unless we’re talking refugees, in which case it’s any country’s legal and moral duty to take them in and protect them from whatever they’re fleeing from.
Again with the strawmen. You don’t need infinite resources to care for everyone who’s in need. In the case of all but the poorest countries (which are mostly that poor because of being looted by richer countries) you just need to better distribute the ones you already have, rather than throw all the wealth and ownership at the already obscenely rich wealth hoarders.
To want a better deal for the 90% of people who aren’t rich and use resources on those that need them most rather than perpetuating the upwards transfer of wealth inherent to capitalism isn’t communism. It’s just wanting a better world for the vast majority of humanity.
So which non-capitalist country/countries allow disabled and economically inactive people to migrate there for free healthcare?
Can’t name one off the top of my head, but that’s besides the point.
My point isn’t about what IS, it’s about what COULD and SHOULD be.
The taxes people (in Australia) pay to finance public healthcare are numbers on a spreadsheet and we don’t have unlimited money.
Except people don’t move to a country expecting to not ever work… God forbid we pay for someone WhO DoEsNt DeSeRvE iT until they can get up to speed and on their feet…
We’re such assholes, especially us in the US…
You are absolutely correct, most people want to work when they can, but look at it from the government’s perspective, if they see a severely disabled person in his 50s with zero education, zero knowledge of the language wanting to migrate to the country, what they see is just an expense with few prospects of being able to contribute enough to offset the cost of treating/managing his disabillities.
He may be an absolute genious, but that is not known at the time, the government also must consider that any resources spent on this person can’t be spent on someone else.
So in this case the financial argument is clearly against accepting the person, based on the information the government has, the person should be rejected.
In a purely financial world, that would be it, but luckily we live in a world with more incentives than purely greed.
Taking in the person will generate goodwill in some parts of the world, that might be reason enough to do it, or perhaps the person has valuable information that could also be reason to let them in, perhaps this person is part of a political party in his original country that you want to remain good friends with, then this is an excellent opportunity to show support.
All of this is extermely cold and calculating, I absolutely conceede that, but a government can selldom afford to let feelings dictate policy.
Even governments showing compassion do it for their own gain, it’s good PR!
This is reality, and it is better to face it and deal with it than to fight with an immaginary entity.
There’s lots that do, and not everyone will be capable of contributing. What about a mother of two kids with autism? She can’t work, will spend all her time caring for her kids who will into ever be a burden on the system.
Every system is abused, that’s why they have limitations.
Ah, but is the cost of enforcing limitations justified by the amount of abuse that is being prevented? In a lot of cases, and in practically every case when it comes to a big government program, the answer is “no”, and we end up spending millions to prevent thousands of dollars being wasted.
Uhh no it doesn’t, why are you assuming that? How does preventing people coming in spend millions and save thousands?
Border enforcement is expensive. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on military equipment, teams of enforcement officers, detention centers, transportation infrastructure, etc all to keep people out. People who, if allowed in, would buy goods and services, pay taxes, and get jobs. The amount we spend just to find and keep out the relatively small handful of people who are capable of traveling across the world but also incapable of getting a job is far, far more than the amount it would cost society to just let those people in.
Why do you think border enforcement is expensive? Because so many people would cross (also war protection… so it’s already established infrastructure actually) that it’s a necessity. Or you know an army covertly moves in with arms since you foolishly had open borders and take over your entire country. Think past your nose.
I don’t think you realize how small a lot of European countries are, you could cross multiple in one day of travel. And why do you think so few people try? Because of the consequences.
People die even trying to flee their country, and you want to say only a handful are capable?
Yeesh give that empty head of yours a shake bud.
YES. AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD GET JOBS AND PAY TAXES AND GROW THE ECONOMY. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY WELL STUDIED AND UNDERSTOOD PHENOMENON.
PEOPLE CROSS VIA THE MEDITERRANEAN BECAUSE OTHER ROUTES ARE BLOCKED OFF TO THEM AND THE EU LITERALLY REFUSES TO SAVE BOATS IN DISTRESS.