(06-30-2017, 07:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't see the difference between this issue and any other issue that involves government funding.  There are limits on how much we can spend on things.  There are limits on how much we can spend on Medicare, or Medicaid, or responding to overdosing addicts.   There are unavoidable financial limits.  That's the point.   The person who proposed this wasn't doing it to punish addicts.  He made this proposal in order to keep the local government from going bankrupt.

Socialism is an attempt to save everyone, no matter what.  A realist recognizes limits on resources, and the fact that by attempting to save everyone, eventually, we will not be able to save anyone.

Look at the Republican health care proposal.  One of the main planks is a limit on the growth of Medicaid.  And there is no doubt that some people will die if we cut off their Medicaid.  But on the other hand, if we don't put a limit on the growth of Medicaid, eventually the government will be bankrupt and no one will get Medicaid at all.  The program will cease to exist.  There have to be limits.  And that's the point of the proposal to limit the number of responses to drug overdoses that the local government has to pay for.  It's a matter of survival for the local government finances.  They have to put a limit.