Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 10-13-2009, 06:31 AM
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng's Avatar
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 4)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: What's a "location"?
Posts: 4,065
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Definition of arbitrary:

Quote:
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
4. Not limited by law; despotic
Only people can have whims or impulses. Only people can have individual judgement or preference. Only people can make up courts or be judges. Only people can act despotically. Arbitrarily by definition refers to the actions of people. For this reason, disease is not part of the "Right to Life", because disease is not arbitrary.
And you forget to add the "chance" part? Which really, constitutes more of the argument than many think. Unless there is another definition of "chance"...?
__________________
What's a "signature"?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-14-2009, 12:32 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
It was interesting that you dedicated an entire post on one point I made, while basically not responding to anything else I said. I took that as a complement.

Yeah, we definitely needed to agree upon that the Universal Declaration was indeed a standard of measure for human rights before I can actually state the article. :-/
I wasn't just responding to it though, I was expanding on the point made by responding to yours to make my own point.

Well, I personally find it to be overkill, and some of the things on it are somewhat ridiculous--"right to a nationality", for instance. Moreover, only 48 countries actually ratified it, which isn't even close to a majority of nations at the time. So while I won't go so far as to say as it's not valid, its validity is certainly not without doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarago View Post
Point is, groups can gravitate toward either of two different kinds of extremes, but there isn't necessarily any middle ground. I'd argue that this in and of itself incorporates logos, pathos, as well as ethos in coming to a solution. Supreme Court cases can even be swayed by emotion in their decision making - in Lawrence v. Texas, part of the written decision questioned why we (and all of Western civilization) previously had anti-sodomy laws based on the claim that it was "evil".
Yes, Supreme Court cases can be swayed by emotion. But the point is, they shouldn't be. Justice is supposed to be blind--it shouldn't care where you come from, what your situation is, or what your sob story is. However, judges are still people, and are as such, imperfect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ah Beng I the Pikabeng View Post
And you forget to add the "chance" part? Which really, constitutes more of the argument than many think. Unless there is another definition of "chance"...?
If you're a theist, then chance is up to God. If you're an atheist, then chance has no cause. Either way, you can't punish for chance, no more than I can punish a pair of dice for rolling a 7. Hence, chance is irrelevant when discussing actions to be taken against people due to decisions.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-14-2009, 04:31 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
I wasn't just responding to it though, I was expanding on the point made by responding to yours to make my own point.
Isn't it bad debate to assume that by counteracting one point, you can somehow counter every other point I make?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Well, I personally find it to be overkill, and some of the things on it are somewhat ridiculous--"right to a nationality", for instance. Moreover, only 48 countries actually ratified it, which isn't even close to a majority of nations at the time. So while I won't go so far as to say as it's not valid, its validity is certainly not without doubt.
However overkill it was, the fact that health is heavily entwined with many different aspects of the declaration itself means that it's very difficult to actually deny it either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
If you're a theist, then chance is up to God. If you're an atheist, then chance has no cause. Either way, you can't punish for chance, no more than I can punish a pair of dice for rolling a 7. Hence, chance is irrelevant when discussing actions to be taken against people due to decisions.
Chance isn't punishable, but it is within the realm of disease. The point he was stating is the fact that chance exists as part of arbitrary, noting that a person randomly getting a disease shouldn't be punished for doing so. That is, a person catching the deadly flu should have a way to get medicine to get better.

It's pretty much the same idea as SARS: people died almost arbitrarily simply because they were in the vicinity of the infected.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-14-2009, 11:29 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Isn't it bad debate to assume that by counteracting one point, you can somehow counter every other point I make?
It would... if I were countering your argument as a whole. But I'm neutral on the subject of whether health is a right or not. I just merely wanted to point out the wrongness of equating the right to life with the right to health.



Quote:
However overkill it was, the fact that health is heavily entwined with many different aspects of the declaration itself means that it's very difficult to actually deny it either.
Yes, within the declaration itself that is, but my point is that whether the declaration itself is valid or not is debatable. Moreover, the presence of the right to health as number 25 on a list of 30 obviously means that it wasn't nearly as important as some of the other rights to the people who wrote it.


Quote:
Chance isn't punishable, but it is within the realm of disease. The point he was stating is the fact that chance exists as part of arbitrary, noting that a person randomly getting a disease shouldn't be punished for doing so. That is, a person catching the deadly flu should have a way to get medicine to get better.
But it should be noted that, if you were to treat the right to health the same way as you do the right to pursuit property or the right to life, that the government will only rarely reimburse the victim for that which was lost. In the case of property, it only occurs if it's convenient; in the case of life, not at all. Property is usually restored by civil cases, which are usually not a fulfillment of those rights, while criminal cases only punish the offender. And since you can't exactly punish chance or whatever the circumstances behind the disease unless those circumstances were set in motion by deliberate, malicious intent... well, treating the right to health like the other "primary" natural rights obviously is not possible.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-16-2009, 04:06 PM
Snow Fairy Sugar's Avatar
Snow Fairy Sugar Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of the Blue Roses
Posts: 5,865
Send a message via AIM to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via MSN to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via Yahoo to Snow Fairy Sugar
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
But it should be noted that, if you were to treat the right to health the same way as you do the right to pursuit property or the right to life, that the government will only rarely reimburse the victim for that which was lost.
If you're talking about the ramifications of medical/legal cases, there can be times when the patient/deceased family/their next of kin can file malpractice cases against the doctors and gain a huge payout.

I'll add more later, still have to read most of the thread, but not much time. *Grumble*
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-21-2009, 01:10 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
But it should be noted that, if you were to treat the right to health the same way as you do the right to pursuit property or the right to life, that the government will only rarely reimburse the victim for that which was lost. In the case of property, it only occurs if it's convenient; in the case of life, not at all. Property is usually restored by civil cases, which are usually not a fulfillment of those rights, while criminal cases only punish the offender. And since you can't exactly punish chance or whatever the circumstances behind the disease unless those circumstances were set in motion by deliberate, malicious intent... well, treating the right to health like the other "primary" natural rights obviously is not possible.
At which point did I state the the right to health equates right to property? The right to health does not guarantee good health, the right to health guarantees potentiality of treatment for a better overall standard of health. Therefore, there is no such thing as "reimbursing" a victim when health care is free: it is under the autonomous decision of the person to actually seek treatment. If one does seek treatment, that person is already "reimbursed" for the loss of health, regardless of the outcome of treatment. I never equate right to health with right to good health for this specific reason. They are not the same, which is what you are assuming in the beginning.

I'll give you an example. Annual flu shots are given for free to the elderly in Canada. Due to this instance if the elderly does not take the flu shot, it is under that person's autonomy to do so. Should the elderly person actually die from the flu, there is no possible legal procedure under the right to health or the right to life pretenses: that elderly person autonomously decided not to take the flu shot. Even under the circumstance that the elderly does take the flu shot and still dies from the flu, this does not change. In either case the person has had his or her right to health fulfilled.

Right to life is decided by food and water: does that mean that one is capable for punishing those responsible for placing millions of people into abject poverty in the first place? In essence, are you justifying the lack of a fulfillment of right to health because there is a lack of a fulfillment of the right to life?

The irony of your statement is that by including free health care, you are punishing chance should the disease come up by chance. In addition to this, by stopping the root of infection, one would also destroy instances of deliberate spread of that disease after the initial infection, which by definition become a non-chance infection due to roots of infection. Why do you think we can track diseases if infection by itself is left to chance?

Basically, unlike right to property and some aspects of right to life, the legal system is close to useless, specifically because it is not required to be under legal jurisdiction to be fulfilled. Equating right to property or even something like murder to right to health is literally equating apples to oranges.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-25-2009, 06:55 AM
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng's Avatar
Ah Beng I the Pikabeng Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 4)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: What's a "location"?
Posts: 4,065
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Almost forgot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.
Definition of particularly:
Quote:
1. in a particular or to an exceptional degree; especially: He read it with particularly great interest.
2. in a particular manner; specifically; individually.
3. in detail; minutely.
Quote:
1. To a great degree; especially: I particularly like the brown shoes.
2. With particular reference or emphasis; individually or specifically: "Everyone has a moment in history which belongs particularly to him" (John Knowles).
3. With regard to particulars; in detail.
In no way does Wikipedia describe right to life as a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live only in the sense that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. In fact, if it did, the word "particularly" wouldn't appear at all. It's just that there's more emphasis on humans having the right not to be killed by other humans.
__________________
What's a "signature"?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-04-2009, 06:51 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Came across this video, which may seem pretty informal, but I think it brings up some really good points and definitely doesn't look like it was acted out (in terms of when they spoke to medical personnel at these clinics). Even though I would love to see someone from Canada actually verify these claims (Kenny?), the thought of this alone is pretty disturbing. But really, I hope most of this isn't true, because no one in America has the time to spend 2-10 hours waiting for treatment. I think most people would either attempt to do whatever they could at home with a first aid kit, or forget about it entirely, endure the pain, and just hope it heals on its own without problems. How stupid is that though?

If there's any hope of sanity left in congress, they'll suddenly snap to attention and not pass a bill that's 1,017 pages of material that might as well be written in Swahili.

-From Naturalnews.com:

Quote:
• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
And it doesn't take a genius to guess that a "similar plan" very likely won't be available.

Quote:
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
As if we need reasons for employers to provide even less benefits for their current employees...

Quote:
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Just like that video? That sure is a pretty scary thought.

Quote:
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Sounds to me like we're losing yet another part of our freedom. I would like to think I know what I need for my own health more than what a commissioner thinks I need.

Quote:
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Then why bother being a citizen? Why should illegal immigrants get free healthcare if they're not paying taxes?

Quote:
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
You know, I think I would actually prefer to have my privacy violated by getting video taped while in the shower than to allow that. I can handle my own payments, thank you. I'm not stupid.

Quote:
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Just in case you were thinking there was a way to avoid these stupid rules...

Quote:
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
Thus, giving us less choices in the matter.

Quote:
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
If they can't speak the language, that's too bad. Everyone else who immigrated to America had to learn English, they can do the same or go back home. I'm tried of the government pampering people that break the law.

Quote:
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Brilliant. Kickbacks anyone?

Quote:
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Because another loss of choice is what Americans have always wanted.

Quote:
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Thus, undoing all of the hard trust-busting work Roosevelt did many years ago.

Quote:
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
And we all know just how well the government pays employees, right? Ridiculous.

Quote:
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
Great job at stabbing the principle of freedom yet again.

"Hope" and "Change" is destroying America. Hate to say it, but an Obama nation really is an abomination (sadly ironic pun intended).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-04-2009, 11:00 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Oh Neooooo....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
The debate here should be focused on whether or not universal healthcare is a right for all.
Wanna complain about Universal Healthcare, go make a different thread. Also, it's worth noting that that's the House bill. The Baucus Bill is much more tame (and nowhere near as long), and even though the left keeps calling it a cop out I've been reading through it and it still accomplishes a lot of what needs to be done towards health care reform.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-04-2009, 11:15 PM
Aksyel's Avatar
Aksyel Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Mitch View Post
Point being, everyone come to Canada!
Quoted for the truth.

Health is a right that everyone should have. Without universal health care, you're basically saying, "Because of the choices your made in life, you get to die."

: D

And I laugh at people against big governments, the most successful governments are big governments.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:47 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Pikachu View Post
Came across this video, which may seem pretty informal, but I think it brings up some really good points and definitely doesn't look like it was acted out (in terms of when they spoke to medical personnel at these clinics). Even though I would love to see someone from Canada actually verify these claims (Kenny?), the thought of this alone is pretty disturbing. But really, I hope most of this isn't true, because no one in America has the time to spend 2-10 hours waiting for treatment. I think most people would either attempt to do whatever they could at home with a first aid kit, or forget about it entirely, endure the pain, and just hope it heals on its own without problems. How stupid is that though?
I didn't watch the video, but if it is complaining about the most common complaints, then yes it is true. Long wait times are common, but NOT because of what you think it is. It's not that universal health care was the problem, it is the lack of funding for universal health care that's the problem. Case in point, all of these problems began to happen mid to late 90's because of government budget cuts (by large percentages) by the Harris government. A second casualty to this was the education system, where heavy budget cuts caused a major condensation of the curriculum, weakening university prospects who are in the new curriculum. The problem is that it's difficult to put funding back into these systems when your government is incompetent. Don't take everything at face value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Thus, undoing all of the hard trust-busting work Roosevelt did many years ago.
I don't have much time to read through most of your comments, even if this has nothing to do with health as a right or not, but I will tell you that Roosevelt is the man who proposed universal health care in the first place. The second Bill of Rights clearly dictated that all of those who are recognized by the state should have universal health care regardless of income. Obama trying to realize this health care system is actually realizing what Roosevelt failed to do in 1944. Insurance companies are actually the exact opposite of what Roosevelt tried to do.

Again, as I already said in the first place: universal health care cost way less money than your current health care system. This is a fact. There is no other country that spends 16% of their GDP on health care. Not even France, which is widely regarded as the best health care in the world.

If Roosevelt didn't die in the first place, the second Bill of Rights could have come to being, and you guys wouldn't have to have this mess of a health care system in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

On the cost issue, Kenny, I think that's more a problem with American in general than our health system specifically. There's basically no major program in America that is efficient. Programs like Medicare and Social Security have been horribly mismanaged, and little is being done to fix it. I seriously doubt government-run health care would be ANY more competent that our current system. Probably the opposite.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com