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
  #16  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:27 PM
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 Ah Beng I the Pikabeng View Post
Still, that means that the poor would need to pay less taxes, since the rich would probably have to may a higher proportion of their income as taxes. The problem is that it would still not be enough to satisfy the overwhelming demand that will result, especially in a country with hundreds of millions of people. Obviously, free or not, each system has its own drawbacks. A solution that keeps these drawbacks minimal would be desired, of course, but I'm not sure what system it would be...
Beng, this is not necessarily directed towards you, just that you have a convenient quote to dump my ideas into that addresses basically everything else up there.

The problem with this line of argument is that the US is the only country that does it this way, meaning that universal health care has worked for every other developed country to some extent. The amount of "overwhelming demand" is not as ridiculous as you think it is, even with an incredibly complete coverage of health care that France offers. Again, part of the scaremonger tactics is literally to blow costs up into the stratosphere so the insurance companies can make more and more profit. Yes, you know that's true: US pays the most for health care overall because they have to deal with increasing profit margins of insurance companies. A universal health care model does not have profit in mind, therefore on average would cost less for each person.

Second of all, what IS the problem with the rich paying more for health care and covering for the poor? They already pay more for health care anyway due to health care insurance and the like. Is the fact that this won't change when changing to a universal health care model really that much of a hit? Even with a hypothetical situation where the rich has to pay 100% more than they do now, would it even make a dent in their income?

The role of doctors and patients are a sacred one. It is one where both the doctor and patient must trust each other in order to find out the best prevention (totally unacknowledged in a privatized medicine model), treatment, diagnosis, etc. In addition, the trust between the patient and the doctor has important ethical implications, such as the addition of having LESS lawsuits because doctors and patients, through longer interactions, know each other better (symbiosis) than to just simply sue. The fact that the US is highest in medical lawsuits cost the US way more money than any other country. Have we ever considered that as well?

The instance that universal health care has more drawbacks than privatized medicine is preposterous. By changing the nature of medicine from commercialization and privatization to a non-profit structure would only change everybody's lives for the better, with exception to the insurance companies and doctor's wages. I will be a doctor in several years time, and I can honestly tell you that I would rather make less money than to knowingly leave someone to die just because they don't have health insurance. I'd rather take longer to pay off my debt than to withhold treatment. Yes, and those who say otherwise and are doctors are all pricks (ok, just unprofessional, unethical, and should be delicensed) for all I care. That's why I can never live in the US.

Now, outside of this blurp: is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Mitch View Post
Health care is a business, and so long as business creates money, business thrives and continues.

Point being, everyone come to Canada!
It's not in Canada, sort of. :)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-08-2009, 12:58 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

I wouldn't consider health a right. The US doesn't guarantee you property; it guarantees to the right to the pursuit of property. The ability to pay for healthcare is directly related to the property to have, so by the founding principles of the US, health isn't a right either.
__________________

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
  #18  
Old 10-08-2009, 01:16 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 wouldn't consider health a right. The US doesn't guarantee you property; it guarantees to the right to the pursuit of property. The ability to pay for healthcare is directly related to the property to have, so by the founding principles of the US, health isn't a right either.
This line of logic doesn't work simply because the lack of a guarantee of property directly correlates to the existence of abject poverty. That is, if one assumes that the fact that one can hypothetically have the right to pursuit of property, that anything with regards to property must also be regarded as such. This simply means that everything, including human rights, would literally be not a human right under this assumption. For example:

Quote:
I wouldn't consider food a right. The US doesn't guarantee you property; it guarantees to the right to the pursuit of property. The ability to pay for food is directly related to the property to have, so by the founding principles of the US, food isn't a right either.
It is absolutely true that one cannot possibly pay for food without money, which is property. Thus under the same logic you're using, all human rights would not be human rights specifically because the founding principles of the US only guarantees pursuit of human rights, but does not necessitate the actual rights itself. It is, in itself, a contradiction.

Second of all, the right to life is one fundamental right that all humans have. This is a statement that we should all agree upon. The problem with the lack of a right to health (note that this is in the form of health care, not in the form of absolute perfect health) is that it will cause a vicious cycle, causing an impingement of the right to life. That is, if one's health must deteriorate rapidly because there is no right to health, then that person also loses the right to life as well. At which point would you have to say, "this is no longer about the right to health, but about the right to life"? If that is the case, who as to pay for the "right to life," considering that the key point of all of this is that somebody has to pay?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-08-2009, 07:37 AM
Professor Geoffrey's Avatar
Professor Geoffrey Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: My laboratory.
Posts: 6,512
Send a message via AIM to Professor Geoffrey
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Health is definitely not a right, in verita. Neither is food, property, a job, a wife and two-point-five kids... As our Founding Fathers said, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now note that life is not a synonym to health. That phrase means that you have the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to pursue your goals... however, these three unalienable rights are not above US federal, state, or local law, either. These laws, although they cannot be taken away, have many rules and regulations on how you can use them. Meaning, you aren't free to kill your neighbor at will. You can't be let go to murder half a metro station after warning that you'd be there to shoot everyone up. And you can't have the right to live if you've killed another person (... in most states). The right to live was meant to express that it is a god/God-given (or nature-given, if you have no god) right to live.

This is second grade, people. What did your teachers say when you were first going into the library for the first time? You got your library card (or number), and your teacher or librarian told you the following phrase that is repeated everywhere. "This is a privilege. Not a right." You may be thinking, "Oh, it's my tax dollars that paid for that library. I have the right." Not just your tax dollars, bub. Everyone else's tax dollars, too. Even though you are automatically given the privilege at school to go to the library, you shouldn't get healthcare automatically. Sure, now, there are certain ways you can, but they don't work for normal people who have a job, and actually work to get their healthcare.

Here's a better thing to compare the healthcare to. Now, I don't care what you say. It's socialism. Hear me out first before you call me a typical conservative. There was this one study on college students. The average of all the test scores determined everyone's grade for that test.

The first test was a B. Nearly everyone studied. Nearly everyone passed.
The second test was a C. Not as many studied.
The last test, finally, was an F. No one cared. They didn't need to study, because their grade was going to be bad anyway.

... What if healthcare worked the same way? I'm not saying it will. But it probably will. Do you honestly think the (approx.) 10% of America that's unemployed is going to give them that lightbulb over their heads that they should start working? No.

Also, I've read some rather disturbing stuff on senior citizens on "planning when you want to die," and "if you become too old, and you get a disease, the government isn't treating/curing you"... etc, etc. I don't know if any of that is true (it probably is), but it is possible, and very sick.

Quote:
Second of all, the right to life is one fundamental right that all humans have. This is a statement that we should all agree upon. The problem with the lack of a right to health (note that this is in the form of health care, not in the form of absolute perfect health) is that it will cause a vicious cycle, causing an impingement of the right to life.
Where have you been the past 1.4+ million years of humanoid species? We've always been vicious about struggling to survive. And impingement of the right to life? What about murder, abortion, suicide, and disease? Those take away your right to life, because if you're dead, you have next to no rights, as we all know. Do we lock those factors all up in jail, and pretend we're invincible? Sure, we can lock up murderers and those who failed suicide attempts, however, you cannot stop successful suicides, potential murder, abortion, or disease from spreading, and going into the heads of other people. All of them can be unexpected, and there is nothing we can do about it, except maybe talk people out of abortion, or treat the disease if finances permit. Sure, doctors just won't stop treating if the patient has no money. But that's because there's almost always been "hand-out" programs that just give you money. I'd accept a hand-out, but I think I'd be a better American, let alone human, if I accepted a "hand-up."

Worst of all, abortion is a part of this "free-healthcare" system, which is one of the reasons why healthcare is so sick.
__________________
❒ SINGLE ❒ TAKEN ✔ LAPRAS RIDER
The Professor of Pokémon Elite 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-08-2009, 06:48 PM
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 A Requiem of Verities View Post
Health is definitely not a right, in verita. Neither is food, property, a job, a wife and two-point-five kids... As our Founding Fathers said, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now note that life is not a synonym to health. That phrase means that you have the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to pursue your goals...
The idea that the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is ridiculous without the right to health. The specific idea that health has heavy implications on all three of the rights should be indicative that health fast approaches food and water as essential human rights. That is, unless health is in some way guaranteed, one has no right to life, no right to liberty, and will have a higher difficulty in the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Understanding that these ideals exist, how is health not a right, when it is synonymous to all three of the premises of the declaration?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
however, these three unalienable rights are not above US federal, state, or local law, either. These laws, although they cannot be taken away, have many rules and regulations on how you can use them. Meaning, you aren't free to kill your neighbor at will. You can't be let go to murder half a metro station after warning that you'd be there to shoot everyone up. And you can't have the right to live if you've killed another person (... in most states). The right to live was meant to express that it is a god/God-given (or nature-given, if you have no god) right to live.
You missed the part where we used tax dollars to uphold the law. Name any governmental institution that does not have wealth redistribution/taxes based upon it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
This is second grade, people. What did your teachers say when you were first going into the library for the first time? You got your library card (or number), and your teacher or librarian told you the following phrase that is repeated everywhere. "This is a privilege. Not a right." You may be thinking, "Oh, it's my tax dollars that paid for that library. I have the right." Not just your tax dollars, bub. Everyone else's tax dollars, too. Even though you are automatically given the privilege at school to go to the library, you shouldn't get healthcare automatically. Sure, now, there are certain ways you can, but they don't work for normal people who have a job, and actually work to get their healthcare.
The right to health care is much more synonymous with social welfare and wealth redistribution of any kind (such as police, fire fighters, etc.), unfortunately. We clearly don't have the right to the protection under the law. We clearly don't have the right to having someone rescue us from a burning building. It's my tax dollars, and everybody else's tax dollars that actually give us the right to protection under the law and protection from fire. Why is it that we do not have the protection from disease as a right? It is not like somehow you cannot access this resource if you paid tax dollars for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Here's a better thing to compare the healthcare to. Now, I don't care what you say. It's socialism. Hear me out first before you call me a typical conservative. There was this one study on college students. The average of all the test scores determined everyone's grade for that test.

The first test was a B. Nearly everyone studied. Nearly everyone passed.
The second test was a C. Not as many studied.
The last test, finally, was an F. No one cared. They didn't need to study, because their grade was going to be bad anyway.

... What if healthcare worked the same way? I'm not saying it will. But it probably will. Do you honestly think the (approx.) 10% of America that's unemployed is going to give them that lightbulb over their heads that they should start working? No.
If universal health care is socialism, then so are all other forms of wealth redistribution: social welfare, all governmental procedures including the police, fire fighters, etc.

Also, irrelevant use of example: what you're stating here is that somehow grades are synonymous with health care programs: over the long term health care programs would deteriorate because of what? Again, only the medical field would feel the impact of lowered wages. It does not have any implications on the rest of the population. Unless you're assuming that lower wages in the medical field is synonymous to deteriorating wages and therefore deteriorating care, I can't say this is even close to being a plausible argument. In this sense, no you're wrong. Health care would not deteriorate just because it would no longer be required to care about profit margins and the like. Government cuts do that. Therefore as long as the government does not cut health care costs, it will not cause any problems in the health care system.

A more fitting demonstration of this is in Ontario during the late 90's under Mike Harris: when the health care budget was slashed down, the entire health care system also collapses with it. This is more synonymous to the college students having a cap of 49% no matter how well they try on this test. Then it deteriorates because it is no longer possible for any student to do well on the test, therefore making all of the students lose heart and not study. The cause and effect are totally different. In essence, your "what if" is completely baseless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Also, I've read some rather disturbing stuff on senior citizens on "planning when you want to die," and "if you become too old, and you get a disease, the government isn't treating/curing you"... etc, etc. I don't know if any of that is true (it probably is), but it is possible, and very sick.
Why do you think this is the case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Where have you been the past 1.4+ million years of humanoid species? We've always been vicious about struggling to survive. And impingement of the right to life? What about murder, abortion, suicide, and disease? Those take away your right to life, because if you're dead, you have next to no rights, as we all know. Do we lock those factors all up in jail, and pretend we're invincible? Sure, we can lock up murderers and those who failed suicide attempts, however, you cannot stop successful suicides, potential murder, abortion, or disease from spreading, and going into the heads of other people. All of them can be unexpected, and there is nothing we can do about it, except maybe talk people out of abortion, or treat the disease if finances permit. Sure, doctors just won't stop treating if the patient has no money. But that's because there's almost always been "hand-out" programs that just give you money. I'd accept a hand-out, but I think I'd be a better American, let alone human, if I accepted a "hand-up."
Muder/Suicide: law and police (again, wealth redistribution in order to protect the rights of life)
Abortion: dependent on whether or not one believes an embryo is a human
Disease: Right to life --> right to health

There is a heavy requirement for any given state to actually put money into wealth redistribution in order to protect the right to life. The irony of your statement is the fact that you placed disease into this category, which is part of the debate topic at hand: you just contradicted yourself in this statement.

Do you seriously believe there are hand-out programs for doctors? Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath? Do you understand pro bono work? The fact of the matter is that if a doctor treats a patient with no money, there is NO COMPENSATION outside of the patient living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Worst of all, abortion is a part of this "free-healthcare" system, which is one of the reasons why healthcare is so sick.
Thanks for your contradictions too. You are against abortions because it is against the "right to live" and yet you actually oppose the idea that women should have clean and sanitary locations to actually give birth. In addition, you are against social welfare because people don't have the right to basic necessities of life.

Health care is sick because of increasing profit margins of insurance companies, not because of free health care. The fact that free health care is nearly nonexistent and yet is very sick should tip you off as to why this is contradictory.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-08-2009, 10:08 PM
Charbok's Avatar
Charbok Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 6,907
Send a message via AIM to Charbok Send a message via MSN to Charbok Send a message via Skype™ to Charbok
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

I think we need a new meme for when someone gets owned by Kenny.

"You got Kenny'd!"
__________________
oh hi.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-08-2009, 10:52 PM
Dr Robotnik's Avatar
Dr Robotnik Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A boot
Posts: 9,070
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
You missed the part where we used tax dollars to uphold the law. Name any governmental institution that does not have wealth redistribution/taxes based upon it.
My Current Events teacher told me the other day that the U.S. Postal Service actually doesn't receive tax money, but I don't know myself.

As for the healthcare thing...eh, I can't really say I have any opinions for or against it. Although (and don't shoot me with this), I think I'd be in that li'l boat with Glenn Beck in thinking this may be a bad idea.

Can't say why, just a gut feeling I got. And I agree with Charbok; "You got Kenny'd" xD
__________________
<Image made by Neo>
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-09-2009, 01:36 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 is absolutely true that one cannot possibly pay for food without money, which is property. Thus under the same logic you're using, all human rights would not be human rights specifically because the founding principles of the US only guarantees pursuit of human rights, but does not necessitate the actual rights itself.

Second of all, the right to life is one fundamental right that all humans have. This is a statement that we should all agree upon. The problem with the lack of a right to health (note that this is in the form of health care, not in the form of absolute perfect health) is that it will cause a vicious cycle, causing an impingement of the right to life. That is, if one's health must deteriorate rapidly because there is no right to health, then that person also loses the right to life as well. At which point would you have to say, "this is no longer about the right to health, but about the right to life"? If that is the case, who as to pay for the "right to life," considering that the key point of all of this is that somebody has to pay?
You're extending the concept of the "right" to have something past what it is protected by under the law. The right to life is not the right to have as much life as you can possibly have: it is the right to not have your life forcibly taken away by another. Thus, it is illegal for one person to kill you, but it is not illegal to die.

Likewise, the law does not provide you with property. That would be Communism or Socialism. It merely protects you from having your property unfairly taken away from you, and tries to give you an equal basis upon which you can use your individual skills to obtain property.

Quote:
This line of logic doesn't work simply because the lack of a guarantee of property directly correlates to the existence of abject poverty.
And abject poverty exists. Therefore your argument is invalid. Because there indeed are those in abject poverty, and this poverty directly correlates to the lack of a guarantee of property.
__________________

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
  #24  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:16 AM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
You're extending the concept of the "right" to have something past what it is protected by under the law. The right to life is not the right to have as much life as you can possibly have: it is the right to not have your life forcibly taken away by another. Thus, it is illegal for one person to kill you, but it is not illegal to die.

I think we can agree for once.

Likewise, the law does not provide you with property. That would be Communism or Socialism. It merely protects you from having your property unfairly taken away from you, and tries to give you an equal basis upon which you can use your individual skills to obtain property.

I'd say we all agree on this, though; I think Kenny was elucidating upon a loophole in the logic you were arguing before. So far as I can inference, health is taken as an implied - if not independent - right of the constitution because of what Kenny explained up there. Even as I can't say that I know too much about the argument nor that I can argue it without any facts, I can, however, just state my opinion that the right to health is kind of a nonsensical argument. I'd say that the right to health is really within the jurisdiction of the individual. It might sound ridiculous, but some people do not want healthcare forced upon them, for whatever reason they may have (i.e., Bob Marley), and so it's really just a matter of choice. If they want it, they can have it - the only thing the U.S. government really has to do is implement a system in which healthcare is much easier to obtain than it is now. I think John Locke had the proper scope of liberties way back in the 18th century - the idea of "natural rights" simply constitutes what any living person would need to be themselves and avoid persecution. The right to health is a survivalist ideal. Not everyone wants that. (Don't hold any of this against me as confusion of facts. This is mostly opinionated.)

And abject poverty exists. Therefore your argument is invalid. Because there indeed are those in abject poverty, and this poverty directly correlates to the lack of a guarantee of property.

How does that invalidate his argument if that's what he said?
^
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:21 AM
Professor Geoffrey's Avatar
Professor Geoffrey Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: My laboratory.
Posts: 6,512
Send a message via AIM to Professor Geoffrey
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
The idea that the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is ridiculous without the right to health. The specific idea that health has heavy implications on all three of the rights should be indicative that health fast approaches food and water as essential human rights. That is, unless health is in some way guaranteed, one has no right to life, no right to liberty, and will have a higher difficulty in the pursuit of happiness.
We can't function as society if we provided everything. If we did provide everything, everything would be socialist. Socialist doesn't mean equal, by the by. In socialism, there are two class. The normal class, and then the government. And people say socialism is fair. It isn't! America is a democracy, not a socialist nation! But it's getting there.

Quote:
Understanding that these ideals exist, how is health not a right, when it is synonymous to all three of the premises of the declaration?
They didn't mean "oh, you shall not be denied healthcare". Technically, the system has always existed, except it worked through state/local government, not the federal! Just about everything federal government touches goes bad. And the reason for this is because the federal government is a high authority, and if they try to control something, they've got high power, and thus, they can control more. We don't want our government turning into a monarchy or socialist country, because that's not the way democracy works.

Quote:
The right to health care is much more synonymous with social welfare and wealth redistribution of any kind (such as police, fire fighters, etc.), unfortunately. We clearly don't have the right to the protection under the law. We clearly don't have the right to having someone rescue us from a burning building. It's my tax dollars, and everybody else's tax dollars that actually give us the right to protection under the law and protection from fire. Why is it that we do not have the protection from disease as a right? It is not like somehow you cannot access this resource if you paid tax dollars for it.
Go back in time, and ask our Founding Fathers, and see if you can find the answer. Or, you can deduce that it is because the federal government corrupts everything it touches! The Founding Fathers knew this, and supported small federal government. True, America is one, but it is like a team. Every player (state) has their own job (state/local laws), and there are rules to playing their game (federal laws).

Quote:
Also, irrelevant use of example: what you're stating here is that somehow grades are synonymous with health care programs: over the long term health care programs would deteriorate because of what? Again, only the medical field would feel the impact of lowered wages. It does not have any implications on the rest of the population. Unless you're assuming that lower wages in the medical field is synonymous to deteriorating wages and therefore deteriorating care, I can't say this is even close to being a plausible argument. In this sense, no you're wrong. Health care would not deteriorate just because it would no longer be required to care about profit margins and the like. Government cuts do that. Therefore as long as the government does not cut health care costs, it will not cause any problems in the health care system.
Grades are not an irrelevant example. What are grades but merely a measure of how well something runs? And yes; people will lack care. The biggest question is; where is all of this money coming from, anyway? Where? When we're in a fifteen trillion plus debt - the "good old days" being 400 billion - how is it possible to get the money and NOT cut health care costs. Explain that one.

Quote:
A more fitting demonstration of this is in Ontario during the late 90's under Mike Harris: when the health care budget was slashed down, the entire health care system also collapses with it. This is more synonymous to the college students having a cap of 49% no matter how well they try on this test. Then it deteriorates because it is no longer possible for any student to do well on the test, therefore making all of the students lose heart and not study. The cause and effect are totally different. In essence, your "what if" is completely baseless.
Baseless? Canada is not America. America has many good people, but everyone has their flaws. I do not hate America, but a lot of us do not care. Oh, free healthcare is available. And everyone can be a part of it! For free!

This is incorrect. Nothing is ever free. Our government has to pay for the healthcare. And who pays the government? Taxpayers. I ask again; after that, where does the money come from?

Quote:
There is a heavy requirement for any given state to actually put money into wealth redistribution in order to protect the right to life. The irony of your statement is the fact that you placed disease into this category, which is part of the debate topic at hand: you just contradicted yourself in this statement.

Do you seriously believe there are hand-out programs for doctors? Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath? Do you understand pro bono work? The fact of the matter is that if a doctor treats a patient with no money, there is NO COMPENSATION outside of the patient living.
Thanks for your contradictions too. You are against abortions because it is against the "right to live" and yet you actually oppose the idea that women should have clean and sanitary locations to actually give birth. In addition, you are against social welfare because people don't have the right to basic necessities of life.
Everyone contradicts themselves, but I'm not turning this into a psychology debate.

Right to live and right to health are relevant, but are not the same! Yes, it is contradictory to many, but this system works. But the fact that women can just go out and have their babies killed is just sick. If they want to to kill their baby, do it with your own money. I won't stop you. However, the people of America are killing their future with their money because of women who didn't want to get pregnant! Not saying the pregancies are their fault - I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate, either - but we shouldn't have to pay for abortions, on top of paying for people who will not take care of themselves. True, I'd never shut a blind eye to a homeless person, but how about one that may have stopped trying just to get help for the sake of depriving the masses?
__________________
❒ SINGLE ❒ TAKEN ✔ LAPRAS RIDER
The Professor of Pokémon Elite 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:34 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 Diarago View Post
How does that invalidate his argument if that's what he said?
Well, the way I understood it, he was saying that the government does protect the right to property because not protecting it would produce abject poverty. Maybe I interpreted it wrong.
__________________

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
  #27  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:38 AM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Universal Healthcare: Is health a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Well, the way I understood it, he was saying that the government does protect the right to property because not protecting it would produce abject poverty. Maybe I interpreted it wrong.
No problem. Pretty much, you can consider it that you and Kenny can actually agree on something here. = ]
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-09-2009, 12:46 PM
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 Charbok View Post
I think we need a new meme for when someone gets owned by Kenny.

"You got Kenny'd!"
That seems only effective when Kenny owns you in debates...

Here, however, happens to be the debate section, so... "You got Kenny'd!"

Bah, so did I... -_-
__________________
What's a "signature"?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-12-2009, 05:13 PM
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
You're extending the concept of the "right" to have something past what it is protected by under the law. The right to life is not the right to have as much life as you can possibly have: it is the right to not have your life forcibly taken away by another. Thus, it is illegal for one person to kill you, but it is not illegal to die.

Likewise, the law does not provide you with property. That would be Communism or Socialism. It merely protects you from having your property unfairly taken away from you, and tries to give you an equal basis upon which you can use your individual skills to obtain property.
How isn't health part of "the right to not have your life forcibly taken away by another"? Does it specifically state that "another" has to be a person? No, in the Universal Declaration of Rights, it specifically stated that life cannot be arbitrarily be lost. By that definition, health should be a right under the circumstance that untreated disease will cause death that can otherwise be prevented, hence this is included under the circumstance that life would not be arbitrarily be lost. The law may not be able to provide you with property, but it should be capable of preventing arbitrary death. That is, health should not be linked to property, but is ironically linked to it, just like how food should not be linked to property, but is also linked to it. The case in point here is that social welfare exists to provide people with food so they won't arbitrarily die of starvation under the law, why can't disease be the case as well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
And abject poverty exists. Therefore your argument is invalid. Because there indeed are those in abject poverty, and this poverty directly correlates to the lack of a guarantee of property.
Errrr....what? You might want to reread my post again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarago View Post
I'd say we all agree on this, though; I think Kenny was elucidating upon a loophole in the logic you were arguing before. So far as I can inference, health is taken as an implied - if not independent - right of the constitution because of what Kenny explained up there. Even as I can't say that I know too much about the argument nor that I can argue it without any facts, I can, however, just state my opinion that the right to health is kind of a nonsensical argument. I'd say that the right to health is really within the jurisdiction of the individual. It might sound ridiculous, but some people do not want healthcare forced upon them, for whatever reason they may have (i.e., Bob Marley), and so it's really just a matter of choice. If they want it, they can have it - the only thing the U.S. government really has to do is implement a system in which healthcare is much easier to obtain than it is now. I think John Locke had the proper scope of liberties way back in the 18th century - the idea of "natural rights" simply constitutes what any living person would need to be themselves and avoid persecution. The right to health is a survivalist ideal. Not everyone wants that. (Don't hold any of this against me as confusion of facts. This is mostly opinionated.)
The right to health has nothing to do with the concept of autonomy in medicine so as much as it is a concept of medical and social justice. That is, the right to health includes the fact that any rational adult who is perfectly consenting and understanding of their disease can refuse treatment, because at that point autonomy means that the person is no longer "dying arbitrarily," since they understand all consequences of their decision. This is different from medical justice, where it is a question of whether or not people who want and need treatment should be getting them whether or not they have money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
We can't function as society if we provided everything. If we did provide everything, everything would be socialist. Socialist doesn't mean equal, by the by. In socialism, there are two class. The normal class, and then the government. And people say socialism is fair. It isn't! America is a democracy, not a socialist nation! But it's getting there.

They didn't mean "oh, you shall not be denied healthcare". Technically, the system has always existed, except it worked through state/local government, not the federal! Just about everything federal government touches goes bad. And the reason for this is because the federal government is a high authority, and if they try to control something, they've got high power, and thus, they can control more. We don't want our government turning into a monarchy or socialist country, because that's not the way democracy works.
Did I, at any point, state that we should be providing everything? No, so stop stating the slippery slope argument. I am saying that health should be included with essentials such as food and water. How is it that food and water are mandated under law that it should be provided to everyone (to the very minimal in the form of food banks and social welfare), and not health? Again, lives are lost arbitrarily because of disease and other health-related concerns that went entirely untreated just because a person doesn't have money.

Tell me one thing: is America the only country with democracy? No, of course not. Is America the only country run entirely on a privatized manner (I am well aware of medicare and medicaid and how totally useless they are)? Yes. Unless you're stating that every single country outside of the US is a monarchy or socialistic country, then your ideas that universal health care equates to socialism is entirely wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Go back in time, and ask our Founding Fathers, and see if you can find the answer. Or, you can deduce that it is because the federal government corrupts everything it touches! The Founding Fathers knew this, and supported small federal government. True, America is one, but it is like a team. Every player (state) has their own job (state/local laws), and there are rules to playing their game (federal laws).
You don't need to go that far. You just need to get to Nixon, who actually thought of this way of providing health care. Case in point, health care changed in the United States when Nixon came into power, and has little to do with how it was previously run before Nixon. That is, health care became like this because Nixon needed to get rid of an expenditure in order to focus the money onto the military.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Grades are not an irrelevant example. What are grades but merely a measure of how well something runs? And yes; people will lack care. The biggest question is; where is all of this money coming from, anyway? Where? When we're in a fifteen trillion plus debt - the "good old days" being 400 billion - how is it possible to get the money and NOT cut health care costs. Explain that one.

Baseless? Canada is not America. America has many good people, but everyone has their flaws. I do not hate America, but a lot of us do not care. Oh, free healthcare is available. And everyone can be a part of it! For free!

This is incorrect. Nothing is ever free. Our government has to pay for the healthcare. And who pays the government? Taxpayers. I ask again; after that, where does the money come from?
I find it interesting that just because I separated my argument into two paragraphs, you treated them as separate entities. As I said, the idea that universal health care will always decline is entirely baseless. That is exactly what you just typed out. Universal health care will decline only under the circumstance that it becomes heavily underfunded. I seriously don't understand how you can equate your hypothetical example with the idea of changing privatized medicine to universal health care.

Second of all, the debate is about the right to health, not about the costs of health care. Again, think of how much money the insurance companies are charging you for health care. The money that goes into that can, you know, actually go into the health care system and make it "non profit." In essence, it is a simple monetary shift: from a profit-making enterprise to a non-profit organization. There will not be any requirement for additional input into the health care system if we follow by that anyway. Under this circumstance, nobody has to pay any more then they do now for health care, and instead of having a super-high profit margin the insurance companies enjoy, we have instead a highly robust system because of all of that extra cash that otherwise would have been profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Everyone contradicts themselves, but I'm not turning this into a psychology debate.
Except the contradiction is actually relevant to the topic at hand. That is, the contradiction is important in understanding why health should be a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Right to live and right to health are relevant, but are not the same! Yes, it is contradictory to many, but this system works. But the fact that women can just go out and have their babies killed is just sick. If they want to to kill their baby, do it with your own money. I won't stop you. However, the people of America are killing their future with their money because of women who didn't want to get pregnant! Not saying the pregancies are their fault - I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate, either - but we shouldn't have to pay for abortions, on top of paying for people who will not take care of themselves. True, I'd never shut a blind eye to a homeless person, but how about one that may have stopped trying just to get help for the sake of depriving the masses?
Right to life and right to health have so much in common, and should be included amongst food and water as essentials in the right to life. Period. The existence of social welfare should tip you in on that.

As I said, you chose for a girl with no way of paying for neither an abortion nor giving birth. You can only have 1 choice here: either both options are available, or neither option is available.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-12-2009, 11:14 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:
How isn't health part of "the right to not have your life forcibly taken away by another"? Does it specifically state that "another" has to be a person?
Yes it does, actually.

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.
You might argue that Wikipedia isn't wholly accurate on all subjects, but on general consensus kinds of issues, it's actually quite accurate due to the collectivist style.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
Quote:
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
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.

Also, by extension, dying because one lacks the ability to pay for healthcare is not arbitrary either. Arbitrary would be the doctor refusing you treatment for no reason except personal preference (which is a criminal act). Unless the lack of property is due to unfair and arbitrary decisions made by other people (which is also a criminal act), then the lack of ability to pay for health is not arbitrary. Hence, healthcare is not a right.

Quote:
The case in point here is that social welfare exists to provide people with food so they won't arbitrarily die of starvation under the law, why can't disease be the case as well?
Welfare has absolutely nothing to do with the right to life. Once again, protecting the right to life and protecting life itself is not one and the same, because the right to life and life is not one and the same. Social welfare is not necessary for the right to life to be protected--for most of America's history, social welfare didn't exist, but few will argue that the right to life was not protected during that time.
__________________

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 04:23 AM.


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