If You Get Sick, It’s Your Own Fault

A person recently told me that a lot of people die from the flu. She told me that a lot of people don’t realize that the flu can be deadly. She told me that a lot of people do not do what they should do to prepare for the flu.

She was saying this in sight of a nurse giving out free flu shots. Which was funny, because she also said that she would never get a flu shot because all you need to do to not die from the flu is to “eat healthy” and take lots of vitamins. If you eat healthy and take lots of vitamins and get the flu, your lymph nodes will swell up a little but that’s all.

I think I get it.

People who are sick did something wrong to get sick. Maybe they didn’t eat right or take enough vitamins. Or maybe they were just poor, and that’s why they got sick, but it is still their fault because they are probably poor because of some decisions they made along the way. It is not society’s responsibility to fix them or to pay for fixing them. If each person takes care of themselves, they won’t get sick and everything will be fine. If each person takes care of the land they live on, there is no need for an Environmental Protection Agency, and if each person is moderately well armed, and can thus take are of any suspicious behavior that happens in their vicinity, there is no need for a police force. If each person does not do anything stupid with matches, there is really no need for a fire department. If your house burns down, it is pretty much your own fault. Why should anyone else be paying for your protection from your own stupidity?

Those people who live in California, whose houses are burning down in the brush fires, moved to those hills knowing full well what would happen. The rest of us should not have our insurance rates go up just because they are stupid.

Addicts totally made their own decision to become addicted and then become thieves because they needed a fix. If I have to exercise my constitutional rights and shoot this addict breaking into my home, then so be it. That is not my problem.

Whenever everyone gets together and organizes some kind of thing…a service or facility or whatever, like a community center with a pool or a fire department or a homeless shelter or even a grocery store…they screw it up. Organized = corrupted. Nothing should be organized, and any kind of variation that exists between people in something they have or something they need is the result of people’s personal decisions and personal activities, and should be left the way it is.

That applies to so-called pre-existing conditions, too. If you are sick, it is pretty much your own fault, so why should an insurance company take on your problems? Do you think that is their job? Hardly.

I’m tired of people always insisting that other people should help them. By helping another person, you are always hurting them, and yourself. Halfway through helping them, they will just take the rest of your stuff and stab you in the back. Then you will have to shoot them, and then there is all that hassle when that happens. That’s what happens when you help someone. You end up having to shoot them.

Of course, there may be more than one way to look at this sort of thing …

Get the background on this video here.

P.S. The libertarian right wing logic…it slithers so easily off the tongue once you start, don’t it?

Tags: ,

12 Responses to “If You Get Sick, It’s Your Own Fault”

  1. September 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 am

    Mike Haubrich says:

    I really think that if we had all learned our lessons in Kindergarten, then no government would be necessary at all. For some of us, too old to have read “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” we can really chuck all the big books about libertarian thinking and just read it in order to learn the valuable lesson on the dangers of altruism. Sooner or later, no matter how nice you are to people, they are just going to want more.

    Diabetics are just going to want more test strips. Heart patients are just going to want more surgeries, cancer patients are just going to want more and more and more. If the emergency room isn’t good enough for them, fuck ‘em.

    Right on bro, “let the weak die” as the evolutionists say!

  2. September 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Albatross says:

    As with everything else to do with “conservatives,” the primary contributing factor is fear.

    They’re afraid of illness, so they invent arbitrary rules – rules which simply codify their existing lifestyle – that place them into the “safe” group. They eat vegetables, so they decide that eating vegetables protects them. That way they don’t have to risk a scary and painful flu shot.

    Also, since they already practice these behaviors, they assign a moral weight to them. They self-define their behavior as morally “good,” and everyone who differs as morally “bad.” Now the flu is not merely an illness, but a sign of one’s moral character. In short, the flu becomes the tool of God to punish the wicked. Now they’ve got God on their side.

    And that comes back into play when they GET the flu. Obviously they then have the flu not because they could have avoided it, but because God decided they should get it for some obscure reason in his obscure Plan.

    They have now offloaded all responsibility onto God, from themselves. They aren’t responsible for bad people getting the flu as God’s judgement. They aren’t responsible for God giving them the flu as a challenge or a means of making them stronger.

    Infuriatingly, this also extends to their children, and manifests in a twisted shift of responsibility. It goes like this: there is a small chance that inoculating their child could result in the child getting sick and dying. There is a small, but significantly larger chance, that NOT inoculating their child could result in their child getting sick and dying. However, if they inoculate their child (thus reducing its chance of illness) but the child gets sick and dies anyway, then they believe this is their fault. However, if they do NOT inoculate their child, and the child sickens and dies that’s just God’s will (or sometimes Nature).

    THIS nonsense happens ALL the time, not just in child-inoculation scenarios, but everywhere. I call it the “Ignoring Litter Syndrome.” If you walk down the street past litter without noticing it, that’s not your problem; but if you pick up a gum wrapper you thought was a dollar bill, then you’re obligated to dispose of it properly. In truth ALL the litter is your responsibility, and the difference is your perception.

    We do this with the abortion issue. Women routinely miscarry, sometimes without ever having been aware that they were pregnant. These are “natural abortions,” and the conservatives accept them as “God’s will.” But if a woman decides to have an abortion, the conservatives scream of murder. But under their philosophy, if abortion is murder, then miscarriage must be manslaughter: possibly if a woman went on bedrest immediately upon conception, that pregnancy may have continued. Conservatives reject that logical extension of their extremist ideology, because of what they perceive to be different responsibilities: one the woman’s, the other God’s, and God always gets a pass because God, in the end, is just the proxy for conservative judgement.

    Conservatives choose higher-risk, lower-responsibility options because of fear of responsibility. Like the person ignoring the litter, what they pretend they do not see they can pretend is not their responsibility. And of course, if other people are morally wrong, then there’s nothing the cowardly conservative can do to prevent God’s punishments.

    Conservatism is a philosophy of fear, and denial is their greatest comfort. The conservative is never so happy as when they believe themselves to be the helpless victims of fate, or the deserving recipients of fortune. They are responsible for everything good, and nothing bad. They are responsible for their own good health, but never for anyone’s illness.

  3. September 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Chris says:

    Nicely done!

  4. September 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Dave X says:

    It’s the problem of evil — why do bad things happen to good people? Goddidit! so they must deserve it.

    That’s one reason I’m an atheist.

  5. September 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    closetpuritan says:

    “Right on bro, “let the weak die” as the evolutionists say!”

    No they don’t. You’re thinking of the Social Darwinists.

  6. September 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Christie says:

    Wow, Albatross – that was a great comment!

  7. September 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Stephanie Zvan says:

    closetpuritan, are you really trying to fact-check a satirical piece written in the voice of people who are getting it all wrong? Damn.

  8. September 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Burt says:

    @Albatross[2]

    Very perspicacious anent “conservativism” and fear – I have been beating that drum with conservatives for years. Most every perceived “negative” assessment of any abstract ideas is due to fear. All theistic religions are based in fear, fear of pissing off God, a capricious, nasty, bad tempered entity. Why anyone would subscribe to such beliefs and worship such a concept, absent terror, makes little sense to me.

    People who are sick did something wrong to get sick.

    Why assume they are wrong because they did or didn’t do something? Maybe it was right from their standpoint. People get sick for their individual reasons whether it seems unfair or random.

    it is still their fault because they are probably poor because of some decisions they made along the way.

    Again with the pejoratively charged “fault” and its negative connotation. All people are responsible for their circumstances including both rich and poor, physically or mentally firm and infirm.

    Those people who live in California, whose houses are burning down in the brush fires, moved to those hills knowing full well what would happen.

    Anyone who is aware of the chaparral’s flammability, lack of fire roads and the future debris slides which follow when the denuded earth is saturated with water takes a calculated risk as to the suitability of settling in the area. Not to mention earthquakes, lack of potable water, and Californian mentality (although as those who live or move there are unlikely to notice that particular aspect but subconsciously align with California’s mass consciousness else they wouldn’t go there.)

    Addicts totally made their own decision to become addicted and then become thieves because they needed a fix.

    Of course they make their own decisions, who else? If addictive drugs were legal and readily available or free to the addicted, they would be less likely to rob or steal.

    any kind of variation that exists between people in something they have or something they need is the result of people’s personal decisions and personal activities, and should be left the way it is.

    People’s circumstances are the result of their decisions – that doesn’t mean that the more well off shouldn’t help out, it is in society’s interest to maintain at least a minimal standard of living for the populace.

    If you are sick, it is pretty much your own fault, so why should an insurance company take on your problems?

    Not pretty much – entirely – again it is a personal manifestation and “fault” is pejorative. Why should a for profit entity take on a losing proposition? It doesn’t make business sense unless the good will engendered more than compensates for the loss. This is why a not for profit universal health care system is needed. Even though we all are responsible for our condition it doesn’t mean we don’t need or deserve help in ameliorating whatever we perceive as undesirable circumstances.

    Of course if one believes that people are not responsible for their circumstances and are fortunate or unfortunate through random happenstance, or hapless victims through no actions of their own, this will seem callous at best. I believe we are all responsible for every iota of our existence via choices we make and can take the credit for our successes and failures equally.

  9. September 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    a daughter's mother says:

    Living in California, one expects earthquakes, fires, and mudslides, so when they happen, it’s your own fault. Living in Florida, one expects hurricaines, mosquitoes, sand burrs, gators, and poisonous snakes, so if one of those happens across your path it’s your own fault. Living in Kansas one expects tornadoes so when one blows away your house or knocks trees on your car it’s your own fault. Living in New Orleans you expect storm surges with your hurricaines so when the levies don’t hold it’s your own fault. Living in Washington you expect volcanos to become active so when one does it’s your own fault. Living in Montana one expects avalanches in winter and hungry bears in summer, so when you you encounter one it’s your own fault. Living in Minnesota one expects blizzards so when one roars through and you get frostbite or worse it’s your own fault. Living in Alaska one expects ice and darkness and bears and wolves and earthquakes and tsunamis, and anything that happens is your own fault. Ad infinitum.

    Has anybody figured out yet that this planet we live on is not hospitable? Yet somehow we persist in clinging to our own corners despite a lack of perfect safety. We glory in the incredible beauty and challenges this planet offers, struggling against the hardships and adapting the best we can, and mostly we survive and multiply, and take our enjoyment where we can. What twisted perversion of philosophy has to label “fault” when we encounter difficulties?

    This incredible machine we call our body is likewise under constant assault by things microscopic to gigantic. Should we “lose” we face consequences enough. “Fault” seldom needs to be a part of the discussion, unless one either looks at it as a learning experience – where such a thing is possible – or one seeks to remain callously uninvolved as a human being and find a way to justify it. “Fault” presumes control, and that in itself is a pretty arrogant idea, unless one is (a) God. What happened to luck and chance? “Fault” is a concept that devalues all risky behaviors, and there is a place for risk in progress and in evolution.

  10. September 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am

    Kelly says:

    @Burt:

    I believe we are all responsible for every iota of our existence via choices we make and can take the credit for our successes and failures equally.

    Huh?
    Where do genetic and congenital disorders come into play? Those do not result from any choice of the person with the disorder. They are responsible for how they deal with said disorder, but does that mean they should be condemned to poverty and disability if they can rise above both with medical assistance?

  11. September 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Burt says:

    @ADM[9]

    Has anybody figured out yet that this planet we live on is not hospitable? This planet is exceptionally hospitable – it currently supports over 2 million species and 6 billion human beings. It is we humans who are inhospitable (to each other and the planet.)

    “Fault” presumes control, and that in itself is a pretty arrogant idea, unless one is (a) God. What happened to luck and chance?

    There is no basis for luck and chance is abdication of control. Indeed fault presumes one is in control – it’s just as I noted above “fault” has a negative connotation. We perceive an event to be negative and we say it’s ours or someone’s fault. It could just as easily be perceived as positive or neutral. It is our belief systems that charge it one way or another and most negative perceptions arise out of beliefs due to fear.

    The extent to which we fear is a function of our belief systems and especially the way we believe the Universe works (each of us creates a mental construct that we call the Universe.) Given the limited set of scenarios for how the Universe can function, fear is an irrational response under most conditions. These are they along with a fear assessment for each.

    1) Nothing is in control: The Universe is a collection of energy manifestations and events occur randomly.

    Assessment: For subscribers to this hypothesis, the extent of justifiable (rather than imagined or magnified) fear becomes a statistical function of the probability of the feared event occurring. Most fears are never realized due to the low probability of occurring. If one finds oneself in a situation where there is a high probability that feared events will become manifest then be cautious at least and/or avoid such conditions if possible. This is the way fear may be managed in a dispassionate, accidental universe.

    2) Some God is in control: There is no free will (except the illusion of such bestowed by caprice) and fatalism rules.

    Assessment: The only thing to be feared is pissing off the God. The proscriptions of things that piss off God are the basis of Theistic religions. If you follow the religious canon to the best of your ability then you have nothing to fear as God will take care of you as he knows your intent. BTW If God is in control then the puppet that is you can’t behave contrary to his pleasure anyway so fear is totally irrational.

    3) Each of us is in control: By us I mean all entities from the smallest unit of consciousness to the largest gestalt.

    Assessment: This is the only way to have a totally fair and balanced (Fox News – fear monger extraordinaire) Universe. That is we are totally responsible for all that occurs in our experience. This is the way I prefer to believe the universe operates sans luck or victims – whether it does or not. This way we can equally take credit or blame for all situations that manifest in our reality and the only legitimate fear is fear of ourselves (We have met the enemy and he is us – Walt Kelly.) In this scenario fear is obviated by trust in oneself.

    4) Some combination of the above is in control: A catchall for agnostics.

    Assessment: Believe in yourself, calculate the risks and keep your head down, do not harm others, and if you believe in God, pray you don’t piss him off.

  12. September 4th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Burt says:

    @Kelly[10]

    Where do genetic and congenital disorders come into play? Those do not result from any choice of the person with the disorder. They are responsible for how they deal with said disorder, but does that mean they should be condemned to poverty and disability if they can rise above both with medical assistance?

    I believe each of us chooses our genetic potential. Congenital disorders create a drama between the parents and the child primarily (but between all parties who are involved directly or peripherally) in which each participant in the drama learns through challenges and interaction. Each participant chooses how they will deal with themselves and each other and has the opportunity to grow as an individual or not.

    No one is condemned to anything unless they believe they are. If one is poor it is because they believe they are. If one chooses to live life “disabled” it is for one’s own reasons and they provide opportunities for others to act beyond their usual mien. We live in an age in which social awareness is more developed than it ever has been. Medical science has made huge strides in its ability to compensate for the ills that we manifest.

    Just because we are each responsible for our dramas does not mean we cannot be empathetic to the dramas with which others appear to struggle. On the contrary, these dramas present us with the opportunity to be our best selves and act altruistically when we are not afraid of appearing weak or compassionate.

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline