Healthcare--a right or not?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by WAN, Feb 23, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People always think taking your money to pay for them is a good idea
     
  2. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not necessarily. Government can mandate insurance companies to provide essential healthcare cover to everyone at a set rate, with optional "enchancements" at extra cost. Several European countries operate such systems. Nobody is "enslaved" that's silly drama.
     
  3. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Accomplished relatively easily through a Medicare buy in. This could be done by direct payments as well rather than a tax increase. It would also lower the cost of existing Medicare by including younger healthier people in that group.

    - - - Updated - - -

    My son has Obamacare ...you want to take that FROM him...
     
  4. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Without some means of giving and enforcing a right, there are no rights.
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where are you given the right to free speech?
     
  6. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Other than legal rights, or 'might makes right', what other rights are there?
     
  7. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unless our gov't, via society wants/needs, gives us other rights.
     
  8. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You're abusing language and everyone knows it. Obamacare is a program that takes money by force from people who earned it and spends it on people who did not.

    Obamacare == taking

    not Obamacare == not taking

    No longer giving people stolen (*)(*)(*)(*) is not to "take from" them.
     
  9. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    of course they can. if a majority belives in x, we can treat x as the average, or mean, or whatever your want to call it. A de facto standard anyways, closest we'll get to an objective one. What we certainly can't do, is claim that some magical holy book, or god forbid myserious natural rights, is the objective standard.

    objectively? by what standard? Tell me which standard this is, and prove to me that it is objective. otherwise what you're saying is just nonsense...

    yes, i basically just "feel", same as you, except that I don't lie to myself by believing in made-up natural rights. This might be a hard truth for you to accept, hence why you cling to the illusion of natural rights, just like people cling to religion.

    It's really that simple... No, life may not have any real goal, gods may not exist, morals are all relative, my consciousness is just happenstance from evolution.. The universe nor nature cares for me or any humans, life is without purpose because the very notion of "purpose" is inherently human... My choices are to despair and wallow in misery, or to just accept reality as I understand it. Even if life has no purpose, I might as well make my own purpose. Even if my and everyone else's consciousness and feelings is just the result of chemical processes or whatever, I might aswell enjoy myself. Even if morals are all relative, I might as well act according to my own, because why not? seriously why not? If they're all the same I might as well use my own, right? That's seriously how I view things. Maybe you're the kind of person who would despair when realising these nihilistic truths... so you can keep clining to you illusions if it makes you feel any better. The truth is nihilism, but there is a proper way to react to it, and an unproper way. Those who can't handle it keep their heads in the sand.

    there are shared moral values, but those are definitely not "natural rights". if you look at the world today, at history... you can see some common values. But seriously, is natural rights what you see? if that was the case, why have most humans most of the time lived under systems contrary to natural rights? Because there's nothing natural or default about natural rights, that's why. It's a notion that was thought up during the enlightenment. It's artificial, not natural. "natural" morality, by which is mean our common sense of right and wrong derived from our evolution, is more like socialism. In the small hunter gatherer groups we lived in for most of our history, do you think they gave a crap about respecting your property rights? No, group used what group needed. Do you think you had freedom in the modern sense? No, you did what you needed to do for the group.

    you see this reflected in modern society btw... that's why people support the idea that e.g. rich should pay more in taxes. It's that old naturarally evolved sense that everyone should contribute to the group..

    this is why i think principles like the ones you hold are so bad. There's no way for such an arrangement to exist. Someone has to pay the taxes, and that person might not like it. We must prioritise what is worse: people dying or people paying taxes... Simple put, there is a certain amount of "bad" in the world, and we can't change that amount, we can just re-arrange it, so that instead of people dying, people pay taxes. We must find the most tolerable compromise. But people like you don't understand compromise. You imagine there is a "solution" in which everyone is happy...

    The nazis were justifying their actions to common human morality. NOT to natural law. Natural law does not mean what you think it does. You are not talking about natural laws. stop calling it natural laws. it is confusing.

    I don't know. How long do you think we should wait before we let fellow citizens die in the streets, when we have the means to save them?
    if it's a large enough group it's not called bullying anymore.
    of course. charity is inneffective, and therefore stupid. People's lives depend on it, so why should we entrust it to charity? Look at africa.. thousand of children depend on charity.. and they die. You are asking me wheter I think it's justified to coerce people in order to save lives? yes of course I do. Only a fool would say otherwise... but go ahead, tell me about how your position is morally superior. Tell me you'd rather people die preventable deaths, as long as we don't fooorce (evil word!!) people. because everyone knows paying taxes is worse than death.

    you can have a right to a safety net, which includes healthcare? I don't see how this is so confusing. As has been said, rights come with limits and restrictions... I don't think anyone is arguing that people should have a right to get ANY kind of healthcare for free. Certain healthcare. certain situations. Limits and restrictions.
     
  10. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Babies have a right not to be tortured to death for fun on the moon, or do you think there's nothing wrong with torturing babies to death for fun on the moon?
     
  11. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope you don't. But if the hungry person has a bigger gun, they will just take it from you.
    A world or anarchy.
     
  12. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    they have a legal right for that, and that legal right is backed up by might. That's it.
     
  13. WAN

    WAN Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,428
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I agree with most of what you said except this part. I don't think anybody (or any government) can force me to save lives. This comes very close to those Good Samaritan laws, which some people disagree with.
     
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Glad you agree.
     
  15. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The constitution, and the gov't allows it or takes it away. At least in the USA.
    There are countries that don't grant free speech, so those citizens don't have it. Per the gov't.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No problem.
    But I also don't want live live in a society of anarchy and might makes right.
    So I prefer a civil type gov't, where a republic of representatives grants the citizens their rights, deemed important by society.
     
  16. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it's not really about forcing you to do good either, it's more for practical reasons... Even if people wanted to donate to charity, it would simply be a much better system if everyone was simple forced. Why? because it gives us reliability, regularity, makes it more fair that everyone contributes.. The coordination problems with millions of people donating, in order to help yet more millions who need help.. are enormous. You need some kind of organisation for that, and everyone's lives will just run smoother if they all know that they have to pay x dollars per month, and will recieve y dollars etc. regularity, reliability... Those things are often overlooked.
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cite the text from the Constitution that -grants- the right to free speech.

    Any government that forces people to provide others with the means to exercise their rights is nothing more than "might makes right" by popular vote.
     
  18. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granted by whom or what?
    Are you going to go all over the world to ensure your right you want to bestow upon them?
     
  19. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Law does not define rights. Law does not grant rights.
    Law can restrict rights. Law can punish those who have infringed on your right
     
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And in the end, that's the only right's this world has. Might makes right. What other rights are there?

    - - - Updated - - -

    What rights would you be referring to?
     
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just said:

    But I also don't want live live in a society of anarchy and might makes right.

    So... might makes right is OK by you so long as there isn't anarchy?
     
  22. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually you and your son expect us to pay for him.
    Putting an end to his taking from us, is not taking from him.
    Sorry Charlie
     
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed:

    United States v. Cruikshank
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
     
  24. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it is not a right but it is nice to have if your country wants to do it.
     
  25. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. That's just the hard fact. There are no rights but for might makes right. Unless you can give us one or two. And if you can, who enforces your rights you think we all have?

    That's why I prefer society, usually the gov't, to enforce certain rights.

    It is better, IMO, for there to be legal rights granted by society, than each individual person granting their own rights but might.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page