Debates
05 Feb 09
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignNo, because in several countries with universal health care it is both cheaper and of higher quality. Denying the facts is not an argument.
Bogus! It is cheaper because it is "free"? It isn't free, the costs are not seen by the user, nor are they properly accounted for.
Everywhere Universal Health care is the policy, there are severe shortages, long waits, rationing, and outright denial of services.
No competition always results in higher costs. Always results in shortages. It is economic reality.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignIn that case, since you are not an anarchist, you think theft is alright.
Not always. Theft can be justified, and even voted on and made totally legal. Theft is a moral term, not a legal one. Taking what isn't yours by force is morally "theft".
Did you read the post you answered?
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignThe US may be in debt, but can still easily afford universal health care if it wants to.
The "richest country in the world" is $10 billion in debt. The wealth spoken of is the personal wealth of individuals, not of the nation.
There is no morality in claiming a right to the wealth of others based on the needs of another.
That is the same as saying because I'm hungry, and I see you leaving the grocery store with three cart loads of food ...[text shortened]... ed.
Asking the government to do the stealing for you makes no difference in the morality.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignYour worship of a discredited economic dogma makes your posts more suitable for the Spirituality forum. As I have pointed out numerous times (to no credible response from you), the amassing of wealth in any society is only possible if the society sets up ground rules allowing such. The claim that providing a safety net is "Marxism" shows either a profound ignorance of what that economic system is or is a blatantly dishonest bit of propaganda. Your extremist position that anything not based on laissez faire will inevitably lead to our slavery is a joke.
Apparently a hot topic, given the large number of posts.
Whose obligation is it to provide for children? Is his statement an indictment of our society prior to the advent of medicaid?
The argument cannot be whether or not to care for children, but rather who ought to do it. Far too many responsibilities and rights of individuals and parents are n ...[text shortened]... ical system, and ultimately of the entire free Society of America. It is Marxism on the march.
Yes, the President's statement was an indictment of our society for not providing for the health care of our most vulnerable citizens in the past. And a well-deserved one.
I might agree (in general) with the idea that too many responsibilities of individuals and parents are now in the hands of the government. But I do not agree that the free market is an adequate provider of health care. Demand is simply too inelastic for such a "commodity". And there is very little point to having a society at all if individuals in it do not receive adequate health care; how can rights be secured if your very life is insecure based on nothing more than the fact that your income is low? I know of no society, even the most primitive, that doesn't care for its sick.
You've yet to make an actual argument as to why a society should leave sick children to the vagaries of the market. Please actually tell us why such a cruel result is socially desirable. Try to avoid your usual propaganda and focus on the question raised.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignRidiculous. The wealthy have consented to the system of government in the US. Their wealth is a byproduct of the economic rules and regulations imposed by the US government. The government, by democratic majority rule, may tax them at whatever level society decides is just. They have no valid moral argument that this is unjust.
The "richest country in the world" is $10 billion in debt. The wealth spoken of is the personal wealth of individuals, not of the nation.
There is no morality in claiming a right to the wealth of others based on the needs of another.
That is the same as saying because I'm hungry, and I see you leaving the grocery store with three cart loads of food ...[text shortened]... ed.
Asking the government to do the stealing for you makes no difference in the morality.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignA society should ensure that its members get the necessities of life. If the economic system is not providing them for all members, then measures must be taken to correct this. As I said, the purpose of government is to secure our Natural Rights and people who die for lack of adequate health care or starve or freeze to death haven't had their Natural Rights secured very well.
If health care should be free, then why not food, housing and clothing? They cost a lot of money too. And so no one is left out, why not free broadband, cable tv, and a flat screen and blu ray player for all working families?
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by normbenignAll members of society are the responsibility of society. You need to brush up on Social Contract theory.
I don't think anyone is arguing people should give up their children. Perhaps they should have made better decisions in the past, but they are where they are.
There are lots of options. Work harder, work smarter, shop better, lose the luxuries.
The point is that the children are their responsibility, not that of society in general, or more specifi ...[text shortened]... responsibility with a permanent entitlement that will not go away, and will undoubtedly expand.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderhospitals or any health care providers have no obligation to arrange a "payment plan" and many won't.
You stubbornly refuse to admit the reality that there are parents working who can't afford to. Your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance; hospitals or any health care providers have no obligation to arrange a "payment plan" and many won't. The natural consequence of your position is that millions of children will get inadequate or no health care. Y ...[text shortened]... to tradeoffs or negotiation – health care for our children is one of those obligations.
What if we just passed a law that said hospitals and health care providers have to treat anyone who walks through the door? That seems like one way of arranging universal health care.
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you not being a little ridiculous, yes I think you are.
Ridiculous. The wealthy have consented to the system of government in the US. Their wealth is a byproduct of the economic rules and regulations imposed by the US government. The government, by democratic majority rule, may tax them at whatever level society decides is just. They have no valid moral argument that this is unjust.
"The wealthy have consented to the system of government in the US."
The test of your ridiculous assertion would be to make it voluntary. Are there businesses that provide health plans above and beyond thatyrequired by law?
These businesses must now fund the staff of their competitors?
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by WajomaHow exactly would you make government "voluntary"?
Are you not being a little ridiculous, yes I think you are.
"The wealthy have consented to the system of government in the US."
The test of your ridiculous assertion would be to make it voluntary. Are there businesses that provide health plans above and beyond thatyrequired by law?
These businesses must now fund the staff of their competitors?
07 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe right to life means that others may not violate that right, not that others must provide the means to life.
A society should ensure that its members get the necessities of life. If the economic system is not providing them for all members, then measures must be taken to correct this. As I said, the purpose of government is to secure our Natural Rights and people who die for lack of adequate health care or starve or freeze to death haven't had their Natural Rights secured very well.
A right is "the sovereignty to act".