Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know whether people are really advocating UHC but the healthcare system in America is definately broken. Nearly everyone who has major surgery these days are practically forced into bankruptcy.

Well, thank you for that utterly ludicrous hyperbole. No, "nearly everyone who has major surgery" is NOT "practically forced into bankruptcy". Grab your ears and pull until you hear the popping noise. That'll be your head leaving your sphincter.

The insurance industry is also too powerful in that they now tell YOU what kind of procedure, tests, surgeries that you are allowed to have.

No, they don't. They tell you which procedures they will pay for. They've always done that. ALL insurance does that. So what? You think you should pay $15 a month and get your rhinoplasty paid for, do you?

Everyone knows someone who has fallen into hard times due to medical bills that never seem to end. It's a big issue and if Obama's plan can help, he will be doing his job well.

More generalization. "Everyone" does not know someone who's gone broke from medical bills. I'm a card-carrying member of "everyone", and I don't know anyone like that.

And if you actually know anything about what Obama's plan even IS, much less what effect it will have, I'll eat my keyboard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I rather like "should" and I don't mean in the US domestic political discourse, but just by itself as a concept. "Should" isn't necessarily a slippery slope, it's a precursor to progress, makes people think. But "should" doesn't necessarily lead to "will", there is, after all, the legislative process to turn a "should" into a "will."

The problem with "should" these days is that what it leads too many people to think is that it's a synonym for "is", like I said.

And many - perhaps most - "shoulds" have no business being legislated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...

Then what is its purpose?

Let's be very clear here. Ideally, the government IS the people, acting in concert to do very specific things that they cannot do as individuals. These things include safety and law enforcement, be that local police or a national military, certain types of infrastructure, etc. The people can be said to be morally obligated to provide those things to everyone without prejudice.

Neither the government nor the people who make up that government can be said to be morally obligated to "look after" anyone. I'm your neighbor, not your mommy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think that government should, to a certain extent, redistribute resources to the needy.

There's that "should". WHY, pray tell, "should" the government do anything of the sort? Certainly not because it's codified into law anywhere that that is our government's job.

I doubt that is what Cecilie was talking about. Cecilie was arguing if, legally, the government has a responsibility to redistribute wealth. There is a difference.

Yes, there's a big difference between people thinking the world would be nifty if such-and-so happened, and actually having any real, legal imprimatur to make it that way.

I will be happy to argue the idea that the government "should" do any such thing as well as whether or not it has the legal right and power to do so, though.

I think that I am in agreement with you. Yet, if you are debating philosophy, there is no proof to what is a “right”. I might think that government has a right but where is the proof – unless you conclude that the proof is in written law. Then one must debate what the law says.

Well, again, "right" is more of a legal term than a philosophical one. I frankly don't see any philosophical argument for the idea that one can have any sort of entitlement to that which belongs to someone else, either. This is probably why our Founding Fathers, when having this very philosophical argument about what entitlements and claims people should recognize and respect in each other, didn't list anything that had to be taken from others.

 

[aztech]

Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.

 

[Gunny]

So the Government is not morally bound to look after its own people...hmm...

Then what is its purpose?

To govern. It is legally bound to look after its own people only insofar as the law directs. It is not morally bound to do anything.

 

[Gunny]

Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.

Just as easy as it is for those who are "worse off" to disregard that for the most part, those who are in a "better place" EARNED it, while demanding they be give some of what the "better off" person has earned.

In ANY other facet of life in this nation, if one takes from another something they legally own without their permission it's called theft. For some reason, the government calls it taxes and people like you try to justify it morally.

For all the accusations that the right is trying to force its morals on everyone, the left is every bit as guilty of the same. Just a different set of morals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecille....remember that in 20 years when you need help from a neighbor or the state.....it is easy, when you are in a better place to not give a crap about those worse off.

Why would I ever need my neighbor or the state to support me financially? If I need temporary financial help, I get it from those upon whom I actually have a moral and emotional claim: my family and close friends. And I don't attempt to treat it as an entitlement I can take bloodlessly through their taxes. I consider it a charitable loan, and I repay it.

Only a liberal dumbass assumes that it's a given that everyone will someday need to be a huge, sucking burden on society. And only a liberal dumbass assumes that caring about those worse off takes the form of robbing others legally through the government and giving the money away via welfare distribution.

As always, little boy, the answer is the same: grow the hell up.

 

[Diuretic]

One of my best friends is a lawyer, and I assume he's very good, since he's extremely rich and just argued a case before the US Supreme Court. He'll talk about Roe v. Wade in terms of accepted legal practice and precedents, but you can't make him discuss the actual decision on its legal merits. And you haven't seen talking around an issue until you've seen a criminal defense lawyer do it.

I have been buffeted around the ears by defence lawyers many times - sometimes they gave me mental concussion and sometimes I was able to - figuratively - stick my tongue out at them from the witness box but I never took any of them lightly. And I appreciate the sometimes outright bullshit of the law. Ask your friend about the Carriers Case (you probably know about it already) or the invention of the doctrine of continuing trespass. Better than two episodes of Seinfeld

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have been buffeted around the ears by defence lawyers many times - sometimes they gave me mental concussion and sometimes I was able to - figuratively - stick my tongue out at them from the witness box but I never took any of them lightly. And I appreciate the sometimes outright bullshit of the law. Ask your friend about the Carriers Case (you probably know about it already) or the invention of the doctrine of continuing trespass. Better than two episodes of Seinfeld

I will . . . if I can ever catch him sober. We're friends via the Society for Creative Anachronism, and one of the basic tenets of the SCA is "wherever two or three are gathered together, there shall be booze."

 

[Diuretic]

I will . . . if I can ever catch him sober. We're friends via the Society for Creative Anachronism, and one of the basic tenets of the SCA is "wherever two or three are gathered together, there shall be booze."

I'm not a joiner type...........well I wasn't...........

I've the SCA on tv reports. Do you get to pick your era of interest or is it sort of limited to a particular one where everyone joins in the era? I mean it would get a bit out of hand if some folks with a hankering for mediaeval Europe (eg me) got tangled up with some WWII buffs - be a bit like a Harry Turtledove novel minus the lizards (apologies for the arcane reference).

 

[editec]

For all the accusations that the right is trying to force its morals on everyone, the left is every bit as guilty of the same. Just a different set of morals.

Quite true.

Hence the social war we seem to find ourselves locked into, eh?

About half the nation is seeking what they believe is moral social justice that they call secular humanism

And the other half are seeking what they beleive is the moral justice that they think is ordained by GOD.

So about half of us think that it is moral for a pregant woman to abort an unwanted child, but think that woman is immoral if she has that child, but cannot afford its health care and upkeep.

And the other half believes that that pregant women is morally justified if she aborts that child, but moral when she demands health care and support for that child and herself if she doesn't abort it.

So who is more moral?

I'm not at all sure.

What I do know is that apparently the "child" is little more than a political football that both groups seem to kick around the political field.

About half the population thinks that taxing the rich to feed the poor is the moral contract of society

About the other half of the population things that not taxing the rich, and letting the poor starve is the morally correct contract of society.

I could go on, but I think you all know these things.

 

[Gunny]

Quite true.

Hence the social war we seem to find ourselves locked into, eh?

About half the nation is seeking what they believe is moral social justice that they call secular humanism

And the other half are seeking what they beleive is the moral justice that they think is ordained by GOD.

So about half of us think that it is moral for a pregant woman to abort an unwanted child, but think that woman is immoral if she has that child, but cannot afford its health care and upkeep.

And the other half believes that that pregant women is morally justified if she aborts that child, but moral when she demands health care and support for that child and herself if she doesn't abort it.

So who is more moral?

I'm not at all sure.

What I do know is that apparently the "child" is little more than a political football that both groups seem to kick around the political field.

About half the population thinks that taxing the rich to feed the poor is the moral contract of society

About the other half of the population things that not taxing the rich, and letting the poor starve is the morally correct contract of society.

I could go on, but I think you all know these things.

Can't say I agree. The half that you say seek secular humanism STILL have a basis for their morality every bit as biased as anyone who bases their morality on religion. In fact, many so called "secular humanists" find the basis or their morality in the verysame God, they've just figured out a way to paint it otherwise; while, unfairly and dishonestly painting anyone on the other side as basing their morality solely on God.

Neither example you use requires God as a basis for morality. It merely requires a respect for human life and property. A respect defined legally in the Bill of Rights.

The half that believe it moral to abort a child fool only themselves. They have to redefine human life with handy littls scientific terms in order to dehumanize and strip the identity from what is in actuality, human life.

You also attempt to subtly misrepresent the half that "let the poor starve." You might find a small percentage of that "half" that would agree with that. Rather, the half you describe want those "poor" to get out and earn their keep, not have the government redistribute it from those who DO earn it to those that sit around waiting on someone else to provide for their existence.

I'll agree the difference exists as I originally stated, but I can't say I go much for your journalism. Very subtle, I'll give you that, but you still present a biased picture.

 

[tigerbob]

The half that believe it moral to abort a child fool only themselves. They have to redefine human life with handy littls scientific terms in order to dehumanize and strip the identity from what is in actuality, human life.

That's not necessarily the case. Those who believe it is immoral to abort any child seek to establish a yardstick in support of their position by defining human life as being from the moment an egg is fertilized - a scientific term in and of itself.

 

[mattskramer]

There's that "should". WHY, pray tell, "should" the government do anything of the sort? Certainly not because it's codified into law anywhere that that is our government's job.

I cound turn the question right back at you. Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?

 

[editec]

I'll agree the difference exists as I originally stated, but I can't say I go much for your journalism. Very subtle, I'll give you that, but you still present a biased picture.

I have my biases, Guns, without a doubt.

If they appear subtle to you, that's probably because I can see some of validity in both sides of the argument.

My bias is often that I think the argument itself is framed in such a way that it insures that no solution or compromise can ever be found.

My bias is that arguments are often framed in exactly that way on purpose, too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not a joiner type...........well I wasn't...........

I've the SCA on tv reports. Do you get to pick your era of interest or is it sort of limited to a particular one where everyone joins in the era? I mean it would get a bit out of hand if some folks with a hankering for mediaeval Europe (eg me) got tangled up with some WWII buffs - be a bit like a Harry Turtledove novel minus the lizards (apologies for the arcane reference).

The area of interest for the SCA runs loosely from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Elizabethan era. It is primarily focused on Europe, but there are people who have Middle Eastern personas from then, and belly dancers are always ever-present and ever-popular. There's also a growing number of people who make a study of Asian cultures from that time period, and I've even heard of one or two people doing North American aborigines from then.

The SCA has always been centered around armored sword combat (with practice swords, because we don't want anyone dead or maimed), so that puts a natural limit on where and how it can go.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I cound turn the question right back at you. Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?

For starters, because government "help" generally isn't helpful. Second, for the government to "help" anyone, it must first hurt someone else. Contrary to what some people believe, the government does not actually generate any income of its own. All its money comes from someone else.

I can sum up both reasons in one sentence: no government has ever taxed and spent itself or its people into prosperity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I cound turn the question right back at you. Aside from legal interpretation, why should the government not help those in need?

Oh, by the way. Now that I've been gracious enough to answer your question, even though it was asked second, I trust you will do me the courtesy of answering my original question.

 

[aztech]

Why would I ever need my neighbor or the state to support me financially? If I need temporary financial help, I get it from those upon whom I actually have a moral and emotional claim: my family and close friends. And I don't attempt to treat it as an entitlement I can take bloodlessly through their taxes. I consider it a charitable loan, and I repay it.

Only a liberal dumbass assumes that it's a given that everyone will someday need to be a huge, sucking burden on society. And only a liberal dumbass assumes that caring about those worse off takes the form of robbing others legally through the government and giving the money away via welfare distribution.

As always, little boy, the answer is the same: grow the hell up.

How sad..you feel the need to belittle everyone.....that is quite pathetic really. Just because I happen to have different beliefs than you makes me a dumbass....lol....I pity you, I truly do.

You are entitled to your opinion...I have a different value set than you...I happen to fall into Obama's "Rich" category, but I remember where I came from...I remember my Dad working 3 jobs and my Mom 2...I am willing to help those less fortunate than myself, because I believe that it not always their fault that they are in the circumstances that they are and because of their situation,...it is not always within their capabilities to pick themselves up without a little help.

One of the basic differences between us is the fact that I see nothing wrong with offering that little help, where as you see them as "need to be a huge, sucking burden on society". I am not talking about people who are too lazy to get off their rear ends and fend for themselves (of which there are many and who should receive not a penny)...I am talking about people who are unable too.