Debates
05 Feb 09
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpA rich kid who got a conviction for driving drunk into a hedge? And whose parents (or at least, their Saudi buddies) took care of his failed business dealings? Yeah, and he was president until a few weeks ago.
What is the incentive to make responsible choices if the government cleans up every mess you make. Did you ever see a rich kid who got DUI's that mommy and daddy took care of? The government is giving people that same kind of attitude.
Healthcare is an unpredictable expense, and it's a right not a privilege. The responsibility for providing healthcare is a collective one in a humane society. There is no deterrence value in telling anyone who's not very financially comfortable that it's unsafe to have children in case they have healthcare needs.
06 Feb 09
I give up. Apparently it is too much to expect people to make responsible choices. Why don't we all have kids. I now believe that homeless people and mentally challenged (is that the pc term?) people and criminally insane people and pretty much anyone who wants to should have children. Why don't we get the prisoners together and let them have kids? The prison gaurds could raise them. Thank you for helping me to see how cruel and heartless it is to expect people to behave responsibly.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by dryhumpI agree that most people are unfit parents, however, unless you're advocating a police state I don't see how you could force people not to have children; not to mention it would cause the population to fall rapidly if you would. The "responsibility" you speak of does not add anything valuable to society and just leads to unneccesary deaths, financial costs and illness.
I give up. Apparently it is too much to expect people to make responsible choices. Why don't we all have kids. I now believe that homeless people and mentally challenged (is that the pc term?) people and criminally insane people and pretty much anyone who wants to should have children. Why don't we get the prisoners together and let them have kids? The ...[text shortened]... ou for helping me to see how cruel and heartless it is to expect people to behave responsibly.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by karnachzHealth care for all children is desirable of course, but health care is a service not a right.
Healthcare is an unpredictable expense, and it's a right not a privilege.
Let's just say little Johnny Poorboy needs a rare brain surgery that only Dr. Brown knows how to do, but Dr. Brown dies of cancer before Johnny Poorboy gets his surgery. Have little Johnny's natural human rights been violated merely by the fact that Dr. Brown no longer exists? I don't think so.
What if instead of dying of cancer, Dr. Brown just decides to quit his lucrative but stressful career and become a starving artist? Should he be coerced to do the surgery anyway so little Johnny's natural rights are not violated? What would be the most indecent here, Dr. Brown's selfish decision to let Johnny down, or society coercing Dr. Brown to do the surgery?
I say the only people truly obligated for the health care of a child are his parents. Everyone else should have a choice in the matter whether or not no1 or Candy Man Obama think their choices are decent. Decent societies don't go around coercing one person to assume the obligation of another.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyExcellent post.
Health care for all children is desirable of course, but health care is a service not a right.
Let's just say little Johnny Poorboy needs a rare brain surgery that only Dr. Brown knows how to do, but Dr. Brown dies of cancer before Johnny Poorboy gets his surgery. Have little Johnny's natural human rights been violated merely by the fact that Dr. Brown ...[text shortened]... Decent societies don't go around coercing one person to assume the obligation of another.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyDoes your exceptional case of rare brain surgery disprove the general case of children having a right to regular routine health care?
Health care for all children is desirable of course, but health care is a service not a right.
Let's just say little Johnny Poorboy needs a rare brain surgery that only Dr. Brown knows how to do, but Dr. Brown dies of cancer before Johnny Poorboy gets his surgery. Have little Johnny's natural human rights been violated merely by the fact that Dr. Brown ...[text shortened]... Decent societies don't go around coercing one person to assume the obligation of another.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyEven if you are not selfish and intellectually bankrupt, if you know that "free" market health care is more expensive than universal health care, why not opt for the latter? It's in everyone's interests except for misanthropes.
Thanks.
(Liberals call Sleepyguy selfish and intellectually bankrupt in 3...2...)
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by Rajk999Yes, I think so. How can something be a right if merely by not existing, others (doctors) can deprive you of it? When thought of this way and contrasted to true natural rights, like the right to life or the right to liberty, the "right" to health care seems absurd.
Does your exceptional case of rare brain surgery disprove the general case of children having a right to regular routine health care?
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyHow can something be a right if merely by not existing, others (lawyers, police, army, fire department) can deprive you of it?
Yes, I think so. How can something be a right if merely by not existing, others (doctors) can deprive you of it? When thought of this way and contrasted to true natural rights, like the right to life or the right to liberty, the "right" to health care seems absurd.
06 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI don't agree with those who claim health care is a "right". However, that does not change the fact that provision of aid to the sick is what a decent society does. Even the most primitive societies do what right wingers here think is "coercion" i.e. look out for the well-being of their sick. And they do it by societal consensus.
Health care for all children is desirable of course, but health care is a service not a right.
Let's just say little Johnny Poorboy needs a rare brain surgery that only Dr. Brown knows how to do, but Dr. Brown dies of cancer before Johnny Poorboy gets his surgery. Have little Johnny's natural human rights been violated merely by the fact that Dr. Brown Decent societies don't go around coercing one person to assume the obligation of another.
The right wing concept expressed in this thread that any human society can simply let its weak and/or sick die is fundamentally inhuman. It's not how social, emphatic animals act and is contrary to our natures.
Some responsibilities in a society are shared. If a society is at war, it "coerces" some members to defend it even though those members might forfeit their lives. "Coercing" members of society by "forcing" them to pay their fair share to help provide a health care system that benefits the general welfare of all members of that society doesn't shock my conscience. The Social Contract implies mutual responsibilities and burdens, not a license to be free of any and all encumbrances.
06 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyPerhaps not bankrupt, but certainly in over your head. Health care and social policy with respect to it, is something best evaluated through a complex process of economic analysis and comparative ethics -- looking at other societies as points of reference.
Thanks.
(Liberals call Sleepyguy selfish and intellectually bankrupt in 3...2...)
But then, thinking rather than mere chest thumping emotional posturing is not your strong suit -- after all, the best way to cope with your intellectual and ethical ineptitude is exactly what you are doing: showing that even though you can't distinguish yourself as a thoughful or ethical person on this issue, you can enjoy opining on it badly.
06 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think it can. I don't think having the fire department put out my fires, or the police protect me, or the army defend me, etc are rights.
How can something be a right if merely by not existing, others (lawyers, police, army, fire department) can deprive you of it?