Is this biased reporting?

[Occhidiangela]

[right][snapback]93566[/snapback][/right]

If the lives of individuals really are of equal worth?

Who makes that assumption? I find that a hard concept to wrap my head around. My life is worth more than the life of a convicted murderer. My contributions far outweigh his in context of civil society's aims: a social framework wherein we pretty much get along. That matter of worth is subjective, not objective, in any case, and I don't think it sound to presume it to be absolute.

But where does your principle come from?

Is it derived from a Christian principle, in the sense of the worth of each person/soul being based on condition of grace, rather than its state of wealth or other material measure? Our gifts vary, and our contribution varies, and our worth varies. So, in what sense "equal?" The trauma surgeon saves lives every week. Lose one of him, and we lose a few dozen each year for lack of him. Surely his worth is above average, is it not?

Again, in what sense equal? I ask that to get you to expound on the point.

As for practical application, equality under the law strikes me as the limit of equality being manageable by rule. Now, the hard part of course, is good rules with few loopholes. Easy to say, hard to pull off.

I don't know if a purely public health care system would be more or less expensive, more or less efficient, than our present system. The key problem with the current structure, as I see it, is that the subsidy provided by large corporations has disappeared as the industrial base shrinks. An opportunity cost of a "service sector society." At present, the will for any other agency in society to replace that subsidy has not been demonstrated.

There is no free lunch. There is a cost, be it financial or opportunity cost, for any service.

Occhi