I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

the sayer of so wrote:

You have no right to anything unless you pay for it. Period.

This was one of your better lines amoung many. Are you truly this dense to believe this? I get it, you are conservative and don't like the current bill. There are actually plenty of coherant logical arguments you could make in favor of your position. Try one of those. But, I am willing to bet your friends on the right who love to champion "God given rights" would call you out on the pure stupidity of this one. Hell, go through the Bill of Rights which one do yOu pay for? Please don't try to pretend you were speaking metaphorically when you say "unless you pay for it".

danno wrote:

the sayer of so wrote:

You have no right to anything unless you pay for it. Period.

This was one of your better lines amoung many. Are you truly this dense to believe this? I get it, you are conservative and don't like the current bill. There are actually plenty of coherant logical arguments you could make in favor of your position. Try one of those. But, I am willing to bet your friends on the right who love to champion "God given rights" would call you out on the pure stupidity of this one. Hell, go through the Bill of Rights which one do yOu pay for? Please don't try to pretend you were speaking metaphorically when you say "unless you pay for it".

You're right, there are several important exceptions to paying for something as a prerequisite for having a right to it. You can also produce it yourself, or someone else can freely give it to you as a gift. You also have a right to your life, which you obviously don't pay for.

"You also have a right to your life, which you obviously don't pay for."

And health has nothing to do with life? There's a correlation between life expectancy and health insurance, isn't there?

In the US, the Constitution, as amended by the bill of rights, and interpreted by the US Sup Ct, sets forth the rights of US citizens. As it now stands, there is no constitutional right to health care, unless you are a prisoner. So, then, you have to ask yourself, what kind of screwed up country gives prisoners the right to health care, but not law abiding citizens?

Keith, go for a run.

sayer of so wrote:

One has the right to keep his own property, but not to take anyone else's regardless of whether "society" votes in favor of such.

.

In an extremely primitive state I would agree with you, however, in our society we do pay taxes (taking of your property). Are you against any taxation? I, like you, oppose plenty of things paid for by tax money. However I would not believe my rights are being trampled because I don't agree w/ a certain expenditure.

The system that works the best is Canadian-style single payer. 3% administrative costs, 12% GDP spending, 82% of the citizens under the system are satisfied with their coverage, 100% of the citizens are covered cradle to grave, 0 people go bankrupt every year because they can't pay their bills, doctors operate under a true meritocracy... the best doctors earn the most through reputation, not because their patients are required to go to them because they are "in-network"

US system: 25% administrative costs, 19% of GDP spending (and rising), less than 45% customer approval of the system, 50 million uninsured and another 40 under-insured. 45k die each year through lack of coverage. 800,000 go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills. Insurance companies dictate what kind of treatment you can get, who you can go to, and can still refuse to pay, or drop you for virtually any reason. Doctors are hamstrung and cannot treat their patients based on need, rather they must treat according to what makes the insurance companies the most money.

SINGLE PAYER NOW.

www.singlepayeraction.org

we've "socialized" public education, libraries, post offices, fire departments, police departments, public works departments.... it's time we do the same for the health of our people.

OP - so long as you are 1.) rich enough 2.) not Christian, 3. don't claim to have compassion for others, and 4.) don't ever expect others to have compassion for you... then your viewpoint is entirely valid and frankly sensible. The private health option is without a doubt the BEST option for rich people who do not care about others. For me personally, I would not care how much someone had "thrown their life away" (hard to judge when someone is born into a single-parent family with a crack addict for a mother), I still would not be able to look at a sick child (or adult) and tell them that they better start writing a will. If you can, then you are NOT a hypocrite and you are merely pursuing what is the best path for you financially. Good on you.

clever, never wrote:

"You also have a right to your life, which you obviously don't pay for."

And health has nothing to do with life? There's a correlation between life expectancy and health insurance, isn't there?

You have a right to your life, but not the means needed to sustain it.

Superiority Complex wrote:

OP - so long as you are 1.) rich enough 2.) not Christian, 3. don't claim to have compassion for others, and 4.) don't ever expect others to have compassion for you... then your viewpoint is entirely valid and frankly sensible. The private health option is without a doubt the BEST option for rich people who do not care about others. For me personally, I would not care how much someone had "thrown their life away" (hard to judge when someone is born into a single-parent family with a crack addict for a mother), I still would not be able to look at a sick child (or adult) and tell them that they better start writing a will. If you can, then you are NOT a hypocrite and you are merely pursuing what is the best path for you financially. Good on you.

1. you don't have to be rich to afford healthcare

2. I'm definitely not christian

3. "Compassion" is too broad a term. It is possible to care about others without going so far as to believe that healthcare is a right. You can still think it terrible that some people don't have access to healthcare, and you can still wish them the best. Just because you don't believe that healthcare is a right doesn't mean you are totally indifferent to the welfare of others.

4. I don't expect others to pay for my healthcare.

Superiority Complex wrote:

OP - so long as you are 1.) rich enough 2.) not Christian, 3. don't claim to have compassion for others, and 4.) don't ever expect others to have compassion for you... then your viewpoint is entirely valid and frankly sensible. The private health option is without a doubt the BEST option for rich people who do not care about others. For me personally, I would not care how much someone had "thrown their life away" (hard to judge when someone is born into a single-parent family with a crack addict for a mother), I still would not be able to look at a sick child (or adult) and tell them that they better start writing a will. If you can, then you are NOT a hypocrite and you are merely pursuing what is the best path for you financially. Good on you.

Miss the point much? He wasn't posting on what is the best plan. He was not saying that it might not be financially optimal to provide public healthcare. He was simply saying you do not have a RIGHT to that healthcare and that, as such, it is nonsensical to argue on the topic using that as the basis of your argument.

1. You're right... you don't have to be rich... so long as you never get sick. Are you really old enough to know how much healthcare costs these days?? Try asking a senior citizen or someone who was unfortunate enough to be born (or later inflicted) with a "pre-existing" health condition.

2. I would have been worried if you did say you are a Christian - it is hard to reconcile Christian beliefs with your stance.

3. If you think it is "terrible" that people don't have health care, wish them the best, and then protest when the government wants to provide a HUMANE standard of life to a child, a vet, or anyone else... then that is NOT compassionate (by any definition). If you are worried about over-taxation... there are plenty of other areas we should be cutting.

4. You don't expect others to pay for your healthcare because you can afford it. What if you couldn't? Or what if you were hit by a bus and the only pedestrian didn't want to waste their cell phone minutes on calling the ambulance (that you are lucky enough to have an insurance company to pay for).

i just think the whole principle of private health care is fraudulent and fundamentally unfair to the masses. they jack up premiums on a commodity they know you will not have the guts to relinquish. the whole argument that private competition lowers prices is not true when it comes to vital commodities such as health insurance. these health care comapanies are making mad bank on you people in the states.... its just so funny to watch you all be played like this. hahahhaha.... stupid americans!

Superiority Complex wrote:

1. You're right... you don't have to be rich... so long as you never get sick. Are you really old enough to know how much healthcare costs these days?? Try asking a senior citizen or someone who was unfortunate enough to be born (or later inflicted) with a "pre-existing" health condition.

1. Most people have access to healthcare despite not being rich. I am neither rich nor healthy and I have healthcare through the medical school I attend.

2. You basically admit that altruism is based on religion. this should give rational people strong cause to question its merits.

3. I don't know what the hell "compassion" means to you, but supporting the welfare state is not a prerequisite for caring about others. One does not have any obligation to care about others anyway.

4. If I could't afford healthcare I would accept reality and not change my position just to gain a benefit.

What part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't you understand??

1. Most people have access to healthcare despite not being rich. I am neither rich nor healthy and I have healthcare through the medical school I attend.

MOST PEOPLE? I SUPPOSE 51% IS TECHNICALLY MOST, BUT IS THAT ENOUGH? I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE ONE OF THOSE "POOR, IMPOVERISHED MEDICAL STUDENTS." LET ME GUESS... MOTHER OR FATHER IS A DOCTOR TOO? OF COURSE, YOU GOT THERE ENTIRELY ON YOUR OWN MERIT THOUGH... AND WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME NO MATTER WHO YOUR PARENTS WERE?

2. You basically admit that altruism is based on religion. this should give rational people strong cause to question its merits.

JUST TO SUMMARIZE - YOU ARE SAYING ALATRUISM IS A BAD THING? IRONICALLY, THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST. I.E. YOUR POSITION IS GREAT IF YOU ARE A RICH PERSON WHO IS NOT COMPASSIONATE.

3. I don't know what the hell "compassion" means to you, but supporting the welfare state is not a prerequisite for caring about others. One does not have any obligation to care about others anyway.

I THINK I JUST GAVE YOU A FAIRLY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF COMPASSION. IF YOU ARE COLD ENOUGH TO LOOK AT SOMEONE WHO IS DYING AND DENY THEM HEALTHCARE COVERAGE (OR BANKRUPT THEIR FAMILY AFTER GIVING IT TO THEM) THEN YOU ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE.

4. If I could't afford healthcare I would accept reality and not change my position just to gain a benefit.

BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY I AM BUYING THAT CRAP. IF YOU HAD A CHILD DYING OF CANCER YOU WOULD NOT JUST SIT BACK AND ACCEPT THAT YOUR BABY DESERVES TO DIE B/C THAT IS "REALITY" IN ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

[/quote]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT YOU SHOULD HAVE SAVE YOUR (PARENTS) TUITION MONEY AND GONE OUT TO SEE THE WORLD. I DON'T MEAN A ROUND THE WORLD BACKPACKING TRIP WITH YOUR FRAT BROTHERS I MEAN TAKING THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND OTHER PERSPECTIVES AND VALUES. I AM SURE I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT YOU ARE IN MEDICAL SCHOOL, BUT I WASN'T. FRANKLY I FIND IT DISGUSTING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GREATER APPRECIATION FOR THE BLESSINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN YOUR LIFE. GET A GRIP ON WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT IN LIFE BEFORE YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE OTHER PEOPLE TREAT YOU THE SAME WAY YOU TREAT THEM.

Why don't you go ahead and define "compassion" while you are here. There is nothing quite as fun as watching someone who thinks they are intelligent dig their self into a hole. I'm guessing it is something like "doing something for someone else when you know that the reward you will receive will exceed the effort expended"? I mean... you wouldn't want to be "altruistic" after all?!

A right is a concept which applies only to human action and not to material goods or services. In the simplest terms possible, one has the right to any course of action that does not violate the person or property of someone else. One has the right to keep his own property, but not to take anyone else's regardless of whether "society" votes in favor of such.

"Privilege" does not apply here. A privilege is something allowed to you by someone who doesn't have to allow it. When your parents give you money for an allowance, that's a privilege. Trading your own money for goods and services is not privilege.[/quote]

Dude, since when did you have a right to anything, your life, your property or healthcare. The primary function of society is to grant rights to its' members whatever they decide them to be. The concept of a right to property is just as valid as a right to health care. If a society's people decide that health care is more important of a right than allowing selfish idiots to hoard the nations resources then there is have every right, within society, to make it so.

Even in our "great" unflawed constitution the govenment has every right to tax and create programs to do whatever it feels is necessary to preserve the general welfare of our country (1st of the enumerated rights of congress if you are too lazy to even read our consitution).

Your decision to claim that one right is much more imporant than others is seriously incorrect and solely an individual opinion. It is also one of the primary flaws of your fraud savior Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. It is always the decision of society as a whole as to what are the most important rights that should be granted; so far, you are lucky that hoarding has to some degree been hallowed, but it looks like times are changing so too bad for you and every other self absorbed idiot.

Please read some more books or at the least stop dreaming of the ladies and think for a bit while you are out on your runs.

(2.2/10)

You are context dropping. Remember that we were debating over whether one must be rich to afford healthcare in the US. If most people are not rich, and most people can afford access to healthcare in the US, as is the case, then one need not be rich to get healthcare here.

FYI, neither of my parents are doctors. I come from a wildly irrational and absuive family whom I have totally disowned and hope never to see again. I did get here on my own whether you like it or not.

Yes, altruism is a bad thing. Altruism is an imposed duty to serve others and is totally incompatible with compassion.

Opposing universal healthcare is not equivalent to dening healthcare coverage to dying people, nor is it equivalent to bankrupting them.

I'm being perfectly honest. I would accept mine or my child's death before I betrayed principle and chose to exist as a parasite. I would not say that any child deserves to die, but I would accept that nature occasionaly takes some children's lives and that the parents have nobody to blame but themselves for failing to provide for their children.

You are dumb.