Health Care and the Candidates

[Elven Sex Goddess]

The difference between having a comprehensive heath care program, of a socialist nature.  Is summed up in how people view this line.

Some realize that are government was set up to grow and change to reflect the needs of the people. So they view the line as read'

'We the people~~~'

While others, only concerned with themselves.  What they can gain, and who cares about their fellow man.  View the line as;

'Me the people~~~'

As it is not about what is good for all.  But what is good just for me.  It matters not if your born again Christian or an Scientology or an atheist.  It seems the only time that people worry about the we of society is when their on the short end of the getting fucked stick.  Other ways it is all about me me me.   

[Celestial Goblin]

Generally I don't believe in the existance of positive rights. I think the whole notion of entitlement is a bunch of socialist non-sense that is probounded by bleeding hearts

The distinction between positive and negative rights is purely theoretical.
You can frame everything both ways.
A right to healthcare is also a right to not suffer degrading conditions caused by things beyond your control.
Just the same as the right not to be beaten or mugged can be framed as a right to the time and work of a policeman.

If I'd want to be an egoistic git like you, let's try:
"Why should my tax money pay for a policeman that will save you from having your legs broken? I'm big and strong and got a gun, so I can defend myself."

Same goes with military... "Why oh why should my tax money should fund guns and missiles to keep Osama Bin Laden away? When he comes, I'll just convert to Islam. I'm a man, so I won't have to wear a burka so it's all good..."

and those who cast an envenious eye upon the possessions of those who are more clever, harder worker or simply more fortunate than they.

Envy and a desire not to suffer because of illness are the same thing for you?
Damn those people, envious of medicine, prothesthics and wheelchairs, huh?

I'm content with the government staying out of my way and leaving me to my own devices to make of my life what I will.

If that results in misfortunate for others - such is life an element of misery and imperfection has existed in the human condition for as long as the species has lasted. There is no perfect tomorrow where everyone has enough, there are no sick or diseased or anything of that nature. Its the stuff of pipe dreams, fantasies and science fiction.

Suffering cannot be eliminated completely.
But life can be made nicer, easier and safer. Read up on 19 century UK and it's unrestrained capitalism. Read up on what the results were.

Also, those who say that it's 'not worth' to make things better are those that already have it good.

Comparing a police force to health care is also hyperbole, enforcing laws is clearly a negative not positive right and as such a police force would exist in even in a state without any positive entitlements.

See above. Each 'right' and each societal thing can be given a different political spin, based on what suits the politician better.

I don't believe there *is* any right to get help. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant. What your doing Celestial isn't appealing to logic but emotion. Something bad may happen to someone I care about or myself therefore the government should save everyone?
That presumes that a) I'm incapable of adequately retaining insurance through private means - not really a problem for most capable people who've obtained education or skills training and that b) those I care about are incapable of doing the same.

So should I logically conclude that:
a) you've got no emotions or no respect for emotions
b) you only care about people who are insured
c) if you'd be poor, uninsured and unable to provide for yourself, you'd suffer without complaint?

But why Celestial should I be my brother's keeper - not even my brother's keeper but the keeper of a vast host of people I've never met?

I'm also not 'my brother's keeper'. I don't spen

Why should my tax dollars be devoted to supporting the poor health choices of people who injest all manners of illegal substances, fail to adequately maintain their bodies, have poor diets, drink, smoke and make a variety of other advised decisions? Why should their choices be subsidized by an unlimited call upon my money?

First, this is a 'strawman' argument. Only some illnesses are caused by 'poor health choices'. Most people don't choose to be ill.

There's also a touch of USA prohibition(or Victorian England) in your thinking... Rich people can use and abuse vices, but poor people should keep themselves clean and sober, huh? That's a fertile ground for puritanism a generation later...

If my labour goes to generating my wage - it should be mine to do with as I please. Beyond some common items like roadways, police and fire services and national defense should I not be free to make such arrangements as I deem fit to deal with other aspects of my life? Who are others to demand that I contribute to paying for the education of their children, their healthcare and other programs?

"I'm a travelling salesman and don't own a house, why should my money fund fire prevention for your house?"
"I'm a cross-country runner, why should my money fund roads?"
"I don't own anything worth stealing, why should my money fund police?"
"I'm Chuck Norris, why should my money fund national defense?"

Oh, and a good reason for publically funded education... Your kids will have to live with kids of other people.

A practical argument? All you've really made there is an argument for legitimizing the theft of money from people because you think the 'government can spend it better than they can'. That's really not an argument so much as an articulation of envy.

What's the deal with the word 'envy' anyway? Are you trying to argue from a religious position?

But what's more important... you know what 'theft' is? Theft is taking someone's property. And property is also not a heaven-given right that people are born with. Property is something your goverment guarantees, just like it guarantees your money are worth more than the paper they are printed on. (unless, as a libertarian, you prefer gold currency *snicker*)

As for the superior performance of a government managed system - not really. A monopoly such as exists in Canada compliment by a monopsony of unionized health care worker labour creates the most inefficient system that can occur under any economic model. There is no practical benefit to it.

There is no practical benefit to it for people who are able to afford treatment for every illness they have. So either very rich people or very healthy people.

Here's another question for you Celestial - why should you pay for health care for people who aren't even in your country legally? I all your arguments apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other person. After all they are sick and needy.

Because they're still people and I treat them in the same way I'd want to be treated... You know, emotions, those funny things that make us more than animals?

Would you be ok with denying illegal immigrants other citizen rights as well? Police, legal, fire coverage, etc?

I mean really following your arguments to their logical conclusion non-one should have any more than anyone else and we should all live in barely above third world conditions once we've redistributed everything as things like 'cars, homes and vacations don't really matter'. 

I think you got it backward. Redistributing money to fund things necessary to live like a human being does not equal redistributing *all* money equally.

Also, I didn't state that luxuries 'don't matter'. They just matter less than the basic human needs like a need to eat,drink,excrete(made impossible by some medical conditions, awful way to go) and not feel pain.
There's some scientific table called 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' that can be found on wikipedia and other places. It illustrates the difference between things that 'matter' more and less.

[Methos]

Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd. The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments. The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.

The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.

Again claiming that you can call a negative right a positive right on a whim - may work in your mind but really any one with any philosophical background is going to simply call bullshit on that. The fact you can't draw proper distinctions is a sign of your own deficient thinking as opposed to the lack of any clear difference.

Again your not really making an argument - one your attacking me for being unfeeling and uncaring as opposed to making any sort of reasoned statement as to why I should believe in some sort of socialist scheme. Your entire argument is feeling and personal slights as opposed to having any sort of logical basis so really if that's the best you have I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

Again you seem to be making points that don't address what I actually said just some niggling issue. Do I actually say that all maladies are the result of bad choices? No but many of them are and a host of others are exacerbated by them. As such the point is quite valid that in a socialist scheme I pay for the bad choices of other people - you've offered absolutely no reason why anyone should do so.

As for whether in a system where everyone pays for their own vices - sure if your responsible for your own choices and pay accordingly why should I give a tinker's damn as to whether or not someone smokes a box of cigars, drinks a fifth of gin and calls that breakfast?

"I'm a travelling salesman and don't own a house, why should my money fund fire prevention for your house?"
"I'm a cross-country runner, why should my money fund roads?"
"I don't own anything worth stealing, why should my money fund police?"
"I'm Chuck Norris, why should my money fund national defense?"

Oh, and a good reason for publically funded education... Your kids will have to live with kids of other people

That's just silliness and again it doesn't address any of the points I'm making, and its really fairly juvenile.

Oh so you don't believe in property either? Personally I believe in the bodily integrity of every person, their ownership of self and the labor that results from that. Given that their work is their own. You on the other hand through every argument have more or less stated your quite happy to tryanically subject everyone to some sort of utilitarian scheme on no better basis than "people want stuff and should have it" which is hardly a well developed idealogical position.

As for illegal immigrants as far as I'm concerned send them back where they came from. There is a reason there is a legal immigration process, it should be followed and the rule of law obeyed.

And really if your going to be all communist about health care comrade why are you attempting to stop there? Surely food is more important than health care - and given that there are millions that are hungry why should we stop at those who don't have health insurance in developed countries? Your argument's logical conclusion is we should simply take away all excess from those of us "who don't need it as badly" and give it away to the needy. There is a nigh infinite number of needy in Africa and I'm sure than need a sack of grain better than your ipod hippy.

[Elvi]

Methos,
I am not really going to get into the 'arguement' you are having, because quite frankly, it would take me all night to even start addressing your points.

I would ask you one thing though.
If you were in this country, would you turn medical treatment down because you haven't contributed to it?

(Oh and there is a very good reason why immigrents, illegal or otherwise, should be treated, even without the humanitarian side of things. One sick person, say with TB, untreated, means the potential to have many sick people. Sickness and disease doesn't check anyones status before it infects you.....)

[Celestial Goblin]

Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd.

Uh... why?
Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments.

Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

Also, people who propose privatized law enforcement and self-defense based policies don't exist just in my imagination. They're real and often put forward similar arguments to yours.

The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.

You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.

Dude, I know history.
Honest question, are you in favor of removing all, 'socialist' as you call them, rights that were given to people afterwards?
If a worker gets fired with no compensation after getting injured, that's ok too?
Is hiring kids to work ok?
You accuse me of utopianism, but where does *your* 'utopia' end?

Again claiming that you can call a negative right a positive right on a whim - may work in your mind but really any one with any philosophical background is going to simply call bullshit on that. The fact you can't draw proper distinctions is a sign of your own deficient thinking as opposed to the lack of any clear difference.

Prove it. I gave you examples.

Again your not really making an argument - one your attacking me for being unfeeling and uncaring as opposed to making any sort of reasoned statement as to why I should believe in some sort of socialist scheme. Your entire argument is feeling and personal slights as opposed to having any sort of logical basis so really if that's the best you have I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again you seem to be making points that don't address what I actually said just some niggling issue. Do I actually say that all maladies are the result of bad choices? No but many of them are and a host of others are exacerbated by them. As such the point is quite valid that in a socialist scheme I pay for the bad choices of other people - you've offered absolutely no reason why anyone should do so.

So, if some maladies are a result of bad choices and others are not, we can either...

Help people who suffered innocently while helping some who made bad choices as well.

or

Let innocent people suffer together with those who made bad choices.

Basically, you're advocating group responsibility here.

As for whether in a system where everyone pays for their own vices - sure if your responsible for your own choices and pay accordingly why should I give a tinker's damn as to whether or not someone smokes a box of cigars, drinks a fifth of gin and calls that breakfast?

Have you considered a system where abusing alcohol and such makes a person forefeit their right to free healthcare? That way the 'more fortunate' could still indulge to their hearts desire without having to tax unhealthy products.

That's just silliness and again it doesn't address any of the points I'm making, and its really fairly juvenile.

Oh so you don't believe in property either? Personally I believe in the bodily integrity of every person, their ownership of self and the labor that results from that. Given that their work is their own. You on the other hand through every argument have more or less stated your quite happy to tryanically subject everyone to some sort of utilitarian scheme on no better basis than "people want stuff and should have it" which is hardly a well developed idealogical position.

Bodily integrity, ownership of self and ones labour. Ok.
How are those more valid or a 'well developed position' than what I propose? Are they god-given rights?

Can you convince me to honour those 'rights', using logic?

(and by the way, I do believe in property. After taxes.)

As for illegal immigrants as far as I'm concerned send them back where they came from. There is a reason there is a legal immigration process, it should be followed and the rule of law obeyed.

In a hypotethical situation where an illegal immigrant is caught and they will die or suffer a permanent injury if they aren't given immidiate assistance... what would you do?

And really if your going to be all communist about health care comrade why are you attempting to stop there? Surely food is more important than health care - and given that there are millions that are hungry why should we stop at those who don't have health insurance in developed countries?

This isn't communism I'm advocating. I remember communism and it was a totally different (and wrong) beast.

But now... duh... you value your own (car/house/whatever) more than feeding hungry people? You know, one of the reasons Joseph Stalin is considered a monster on par with Hitler is not that he nationalized property, but that his nationalization program led to famine and people dying of hunger. (some say it was on purpose, but that's an unrelated topic)

Your argument's logical conclusion is we should simply take away all excess from those of us "who don't need it as badly" and give it away to the needy. There is a nigh infinite number of needy in Africa and I'm sure than need a sack of grain better than your ipod hippy.

We don't need to get rid of ipods to feed Africa, actually. To stop famine in Africa we need:
1) a stable political situation there. (NATO, UN, get to work)
2) less protectionist agricultural tariffs in developed countries. (EU, get to work)
3) help them set up the farms. (we could do it with charity alone if we tried to)
4) provide contraceptives and sexual education. (Pope, please?)

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Stats
   
   
Re: Health Care and the Candidates
« Reply #29 on: Today at 04:49:05 pm »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd.
Uh... why?
Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments.
Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

Also, people who propose privatized law enforcement and self-defense based policies don't exist just in my imagination. They're real and often put forward similar arguments to yours.

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.
You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.
Dude, I know history.
Honest question, are you in favor of removing all, 'socialist' as you call them, rights that were given to people afterwards?
If a worker gets fired with no compensation after getting injured, that's ok too?
Is hiring kids to work ok?
You accuse me of utopianism, but where does *your* 'utopia' end?

Since the two of you seem to be so keen to debate back and forth.  Drawing upon history. Perhaps a little quote straight from one of the men deemed a father of modern day capitalism.   

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies...

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

(Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X)

Note the lines that is bold.   How come most capitalists conveniently over look this or ignore such.

[Methos]

Why wouldn't I have contributed to it Elvi? I mean I'm not much for purely hypothetical contexts that lack any justification. Nor have I said their anything wrong with charity, quite the opposite really its admirable. However, I do dislike forced confiscation of other people's wealth.

Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

Try reading what I have to say and then it would be rather clear to you that its more real because its a function of self-ownership to own property. The right to the state to provide you healthcare doesn't derive from any such principle or really any that you've articulated than "I want it to." and want doesn't provide sufficient justification for much of anything.

Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

This is either extremely stupid or intellectually dishonest. How do you even propose for people to recieve government mandated health care if you don't think there is a necessity to establish some sort of orderly society to begin with? Good luck setting up a socialist wealth confiscation scheme in pure anarchy. You simply can't have an organized society with a system of laws without some sort of enforcement mechanism.

You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

Preventing others from terminating your existance by maintaining the means of self defence is not comparable to mandating everyone recieve healthcare to the point where they're 97 years old before they pass on. One is a basic vestiage of the state, the ability to preserve its continued existance. The other one is a bell and whistle which strickly speaking is not necessary. There is no reason people can't look to their health through private means, on the other hand we can't exactly contract privately for the services of an armor. Or if we did there would be no government but some sort of anarchistic status.

Prove it. I gave you examples

Not really, you insist on trying to avoid a rather clear distinction. You've offered nothing more than sophistry on the point so until you actually adress it your examples are disingenious and irrelevent.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again an ad hominem fallacy, which you seem rather fond of indulging in. Furthermore, emotional responses don't prove a point. Rather those seeking to provoke an emotional response rather than engaging in substantive argumentation generally don't have one or at best are conceding the weakness of their argument and as such are talking about 'how it makes them feel'.

So, if some maladies are a result of bad choices and others are not, we can either...

Help people who suffered innocently while helping some who made bad choices as well.

or

Let innocent people suffer together with those who made bad choices.

Basically, you're advocating group responsibility here.

Actually I'm saying everyone should be responsible for themself. Full stop.

Have you considered a system where abusing alcohol and such makes a person forefeit their right to free healthcare? That way the 'more fortunate' could still indulge to their hearts desire without having to tax unhealthy products.

Why should I consider it? I've stated I think everyone should be responsible for themself. If they make bad choices they should pay for it themself. I'm not the one wishing to take from another to benefit anyone else. Your the one engaging in that sort of authoritarianism. You can speculate on telling people what to eat and how much exercise they should have, but personally I find it creepy.

As for how ownership of self. If we don't own ourselves what value do we have? What rights could we possibly have if we do not have a right to self? Its rather fundamental. And its a rather more developed position than your right to "stuff because it would be bad if people were sick" position.

As for saying healthcare is different than food? Why isn't food more basic to survival than health care? Lots of people lack food - why if we have some huge moral responsibility to everyone in need hold anything back? You can't make one argument and say your own argument doesn't apply in almost exactly the same context. In fact people are starving its even more pressing that all our excess is taken and given to starving children that have never did anything wrong. They're not just sick - they don't have food. They wish their problems were that they just needed to see a doctor.

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well. But your quite happy to put it in charge of health care. The simple fact is the government running almost anything doesn't work very well. I completely agree, which is why I'm arguing against the government being in charge. But hey since your now willing to concede your entire argument - thanks that should save us some time.

Oh so Africa needs a more stable political situation and is partially to blame for its own problems. How is that any different than saying those without health insurance need to get their own life together, get a job and get insured so they can deal with their medical problems instead of expecting some one else to fix their life for them?

[Elvi]

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well.

Please Methos,
Could you show me where the reference to communism comes from?
I can't see it being mentioned anywhere. 

[RubySlippers]

My problem with the European Health Care Model is frankly its a matter of size of the nations involved. The United States is huge with a very eclectic population and a $10+ trillion national debt in other words the Federal Government in broke and in debt. We can't afford to even think about such large scale reforms at the Federal government level even if they were allowed under the Constitution to do so. Counties and States might be able to act on this they are traditionally in our country better at adapting and developing new programs efficiently. And some states are acting to set-up some Health Care reforms.

Lets be blunt most of your nations such as England are just financially far better off, smaller in population and have frankly more efficient governments. In our country the smaller the government and more local the more efficient it usually gets a township or city is better than a county a county better than a state and a state far better than the Federal Government.

As for what the Federal Government can do just cutting down regulations not absolutely necessary for public health would be a start such as the FDA just seeing if a drug is safe not whether it works or is better than an existing drug. The former I would argue may be justified the latter is a private matter between doctors and their patients to determine if a drug should be used or not. I could point out others such as making it hard for a foreign properly trained doctor from practicing primary care in the United States I know three Cuban doctors that can't practice in the US and are perfectly well trained for general care. They may have a poor country but do have good medical schools. That is an outrage when we are desperate for primary care physicians in this country. Little things like this could ease pressures and not cost a dime.

[Methos]

This isn't communism I'm advocating. I remember communism and it was a totally different (and wrong) beast.

But now... duh... you value your own (car/house/whatever) more than feeding hungry people? You know, one of the reasons Joseph Stalin is considered a monster on par with Hitler is not that he nationalized property, but that his nationalization program led to famine and people dying of hunger. (some say it was on purpose, but that's an unrelated topic)

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

[Celestial Goblin]

Try reading what I have to say and then it would be rather clear to you that its more real because its a function of self-ownership to own property.

You can own yourself without owning external property. Not that I'm advocating such, but it's a valid position.

The right to the state to provide you healthcare doesn't derive from any such principle or really any that you've articulated than "I want it to." and want doesn't provide sufficient justification for much of anything.

But there's still the fundamental question 'why'?
I'll repeat myself, but...
Why are rights deriving from self-ownership more valid than rights deriving from ones needs? Why is self-ownership itself a valid right?

Unless you can establish some absolute, it's impossible to say anyone has any rights at all.

Good luck convincing a hungry or ill person that property should be that absolute...

This is either extremely stupid or intellectually dishonest. How do you even propose for people to recieve government mandated health care if you don't think there is a necessity to establish some sort of orderly society to begin with? Good luck setting up a socialist wealth confiscation scheme in pure anarchy. You simply can't have an organized society with a system of laws without some sort of enforcement mechanism.

This is called the 'fish or fishbowl dillema'
I'm not advocating an abolition of society. I'm saying that if the society doesn't provide healthcare, what use is it for someone who'll die without that healthcare?

Also, again as an example (and not a position I really hold), you could theoretically have a society that provides healthcare and has a police force that enforces tax law, but does not protect people from beatings, muggings and rape. (or better yet, it prevents mugging but not rape, for example)

Preventing others from terminating your existance by maintaining the means of self defence is not comparable to mandating everyone recieve healthcare to the point where they're 97 years old before they pass on.

How about 'preventing bacteria/virii/accidents/wild animals/elements from terminating your existance by maintaining means of protection'?
As I said, every 'right' has two sides depending on where you stand.

One is a basic vestiage of the state, the ability to preserve its continued existance. The other one is a bell and whistle which strickly speaking is not necessary.

The state can preserve itself without providing you with police protection.

There is no reason people can't look to their health through private means, on the other hand we can't exactly contract privately for the services of an armor. Or if we did there would be no government but some sort of anarchistic status.

There are many people without ability to look for their health trough private means... that's the crux of this discussion.
Private police force is just as technically viable(and just as bad idea in reality) as private healthcare.

Not really, you insist on trying to avoid a rather clear distinction. You've offered nothing more than sophistry on the point so until you actually adress it your examples are disingenious and irrelevent.

I'm showing you how you apply your 'ideology' selectively to justify using services you need(police, army, fire) while refusing to pay for others. If you reject emotions and morality, sophistry and derision are the only thing you're going to get.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again an ad hominem fallacy, which you seem rather fond of indulging in. Furthermore, emotional responses don't prove a point. Rather those seeking to provoke an emotional response rather than engaging in substantive argumentation generally don't have one or at best are conceding the weakness of their argument and as such are talking about 'how it makes them feel'.

Ad hominem?
No, I honestly ask if:
you dismiss human emotions as irrevelant
you believe the level of suffering of other people to be irrevelant to the argument
you only admit arguments that point towards your own benefit

Actually I'm saying everyone should be responsible for themself. Full stop.

Even in a situation where a person is harmed by external factors they had no control over?

As for how ownership of self. If we don't own ourselves what value do we have? What rights could we possibly have if we do not have a right to self? Its rather fundamental. And its a rather more developed position than your right to "stuff because it would be bad if people were sick" position.

Right to self and right to property are two separate concepts, though.
I do agree that people should have 100% right to their own body.  The right to own objects and goods (and have the state defend that right) is another thing.

As for saying healthcare is different than food? Why isn't food more basic to survival than health care? Lots of people lack food - why if we have some huge moral responsibility to everyone in need hold anything back? You can't make one argument and say your own argument doesn't apply in almost exactly the same context. In fact people are starving its even more pressing that all our excess is taken and given to starving children that have never did anything wrong. They're not just sick - they don't have food. They wish their problems were that they just needed to see a doctor.

Yes. I'm so authoritharian that I indeed believe no one should go hungry. I'm a regular Hitler. Tough, huh?

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well. But your quite happy to put it in charge of health care. The simple fact is the government running almost anything doesn't work very well. I completely agree, which is why I'm arguing against the government being in charge. But hey since your now willing to concede your entire argument - thanks that should save us some time.

First: the problem with XX century communism was not just state ownership of everything. It's like saying that the problem with nazism was too much parades...

Second: the goverment won't automatically run things worse than private entities will, but the goverment needs to be held accountable for what it does.
This is why Soviet communism fell while 'mixed' economies of democratic countries prosper.
(can you point to any country except USA that doesn't have 'socialized' healthcare and prospers nontheless? this is a honest question, mind.)

Oh so Africa needs a more stable political situation and is partially to blame for its own problems.

It doesn't matter who is to blame for the situation in Africa. Local dictators, 17-19 century colonists, goverments of developed countries, multi-national corporations, religious leaders, random factors like geography... they all hold a part of the blame.

Which doesn't change the fact that to the best of our ability we should help, yes.

Since you care so much about self-ownership, that righ it also violated in Africa. Should we also say 'screw it'?

How is that any different than saying those without health insurance need to get their own life together, get a job and get insured so they can deal with their medical problems instead of expecting some one else to fix their life for them?

If I'd say that Africans bought their problems on themselves then it would indeed be not much different. But I didn't say that.

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

The assumption of moral responsibility for well-being(as in basic needs) of other people is not communism. It's not even a postulate  of modern democratic socialism. It's basic human decency.

[Elvi]

Why wouldn't I have contributed to it Elvi? I mean I'm not much for purely hypothetical contexts that lack any justification.

Because you would be a visitor to the country?

Not hypothetical, not without justification.
No-one, whether they are a visitor or not, is turned away in this country, when they need medical treatment.

So I will make this a clearer question.
You have come to Great Britain on holiday and you find yourself in need of medical treatment, would you accept it even though you have not contributed.
(Or are you going to do the 'oh I would have travel insurance' cop out to wiggle out of the question, because believe me, many who visit this country, either for business or pleasure do not)

Nor have I said their anything wrong with charity, quite the opposite really its admirable. However, I do dislike forced confiscation of other people's wealth.

Treatment on the national health service is NOT charity, it is paid for by US the people, for the people who need it.
We also do NOT see it as 'confiscation of wealth', we see it as contributing to the health and welfare of those in our country and it's visitors.

If you knew the history of this country as you profess you do, you will know why the national health service was set up...

[Elvi]

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

Hang on, are you telling me that anyone who believes that everyone should have access to adequate health care and food, lets even go as far as to add clothing and water, are Communists?

I would love to see/hear, from which source you get this from.....  

[Celestial Goblin]

I would love to see/hear, from which source you get this from.....  

I'll hedge my bets between Ayn Rand and the site 'FreeRepublic'.
I'll also risk a side-bet that Methos didn't spend a single day in poverty...

[kongming]

...I thought the era of "The red menace! Communism is rife! Accuse people of loyalty to Mother Russia, and that means you WIN, because communists are evil!" was over some time ago... such as "before I was even born". Seriously.

It's not communism to look after your own goddamn people. The word you're after is "humane".

[Methos]

I said the logical extension of his argument is communism. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise. He hasn't convincingly disputed it either. Given that his argument is broken down as follows
1) people need/want something
2) I think its important that they have it
3) other people have more stuff I think is less important
4)Therefore, we should take from other people to give it to the people who want something that something being health care

The same argument can be made in support of Communism, you can argue that he's only arguing for degrees of it - but its the same argument and not even a particularly well articulated version.

I'll hedge my bets between Ayn Rand and the site 'FreeRepublic'.
I'll also risk a side-bet that Methos didn't spend a single day in poverty...

Ad hominem again Celestial - you always seem to want to make this personal. If you aren't going to dispute something logically shall we simply grab a measuring tape and be done with it?

As for the origin of the arguments try John Locke and Robert Nozick.

As for why if you have a right to yourself - the answer is that if you don't your a slave. I don't believe people are slaves. The same applies if you don't have a right to result of your own activies, slavery.

If you seriously think a state can opperate without a police force your sadly mistaken. The whole notion of a state is to impose order and allow interacton within set confines. As such there needs to be an enforcement arm of the state namely the police. Its absurd to suggest any state would exist where rape and murder was ignored by the government, as that would in effect be anarchy. Clearly people can pay for their own doctors and that's not necessary to have a functioning state. Your entire comparison is absurd.

No the state doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from getting a cold. As I said you're daft if you can't grasp a basic distinction between negative and positive rights. There aren't "two sides to every coin", this is a case of "I could call your aunt your uncle but it wouldn't mean she had a set of testicles." They're two seperate things, its simply ignorant to insist there is no difference.

Even in a situation where a person is harmed by external factors they had no control over?

Yes.

This is why Soviet communism fell while 'mixed' economies of democratic countries prosper

If by prosper you mean experience aging populations, low birth rates, negative population growth and exist in an entirely unsustainable manner sure. The culture of entitlement essentially is going to defeat itself because those who believe the government is obligated to look after them, never had children to see to them in their old age which was the traditional social security system - families.

There is no reason for be compelled to help anyone. Sure its a nice and decent thing to do. Many will chose to do so voluntarily - charity is a virtue. Forcible redestribution is contemptable.

And Elvi - my experience is that foreigners pay for medical treatment in foreign countries if they are not insured. That's what I'd wind up doing if I needed it.

[Elvi]

No, you didn't say 'the logical extension of his arguement is Communism'.
If that's what you meant then I could equally say that your arguement is for Fascism, capitalism, hell..I could even argue it back around to Communism again.
You are simply using immotive words to try and score a point, especially when you are speaking to a Polish National and then you are wondering why you are getting the reaction that you are.

You have also, not answered my question and have instead side stepped it.
I asked about you and the UK, not 'foreign countries'.

[Jefepato]

I really, really want to dislike the concept of universal health care.  But then, it makes sense for more or less exactly the same broad reasons that public education makes sense, and I certainly don't think public education is a bad idea.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

[Celestial Goblin]

I said the logical extension of his argument is communism. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise. He hasn't convincingly disputed it either. Given that his argument is broken down as follows
1) people need/want something
2) I think its important that they have it
3) other people have more stuff I think is less important
4)Therefore, we should take from other people to give it to the people who want something that something being health care

Mostly yes. (though your working hard on twisting my every word to support your agenda)

To me your argument seems to boil down to:
1) right to the fruits of your labor is absolute
2) because it is

Ad hominem again Celestial - you always seem to want to make this personal. If you aren't going to dispute something logically shall we simply grab a measuring tape and be done with it?

Bullseye, huh?
If you never experienced poverty, than I don't think it's an 'ad hominem', because it's relevant to the topic. Ad hominem would occur if I'd say 'I bet you're ugly and dress funny' or something like that.

As for why if you have a right to yourself - the answer is that if you don't your a slave.

This is true.

The same applies if you don't have a right to result of your own activies, slavery.

This is bullshit, though.

If you seriously think a state can opperate without a police force your sadly mistaken. The whole notion of a state is to impose order and allow interacton within set confines. [/
As such there needs to be an enforcement arm of the state namely the police.

Not a state without a police force.
A state without the right to be protected by that police.

For example, the police enforces peace in public but does not protect anyone's house from burglars. ("why am I supposed to pay for my neighbours security?")

Its absurd to suggest any state would exist where rape and murder was ignored by the government, as that would in effect be anarchy.

Just how naive are you? Those states exist right now... Just look to the middle east or something. It's perfectly possible for a state to exist while ignoring abuse of it's citizens.

Clearly people can pay for their own doctors and that's not necessary to have a functioning state. Your entire comparison is absurd.
No the state doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from getting a cold. As I said you're daft if you can't grasp a basic distinction between negative and positive rights. There aren't "two sides to every coin", this is a case of "I could call your aunt your uncle but it wouldn't mean she had a set of testicles." They're two seperate things, its simply ignorant to insist there is no difference.

So who's all 'ad hominem' now?
I explained why the concept of 'positive' and 'negative' rights is fallacious. If you don't understand, here's a mental excersize for you.

A man is attacked by a wild animal.
Is his right not to be attacked by a wild animal a 'positive' or a 'negative' one?

In the end, I think you proven that it's not in the interest of anyone who isn't independently wealthy to vote for a libertarian party.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

My thought on this: politicians that loudly argue against public healthcare are likely not going to be good at implementing and running it.
In the same way it's not worth to put puritans in charge of sexual education or vegetarians in charge of making steaks.:)
(I know it's easier to say 'elect good politicans for the job' than to do it, though.)

[Methos]

No, you didn't say 'the logical extension of his arguement is Communism'.
If that's what you meant then I could equally say that your arguement is for Fascism, capitalism, hell..I could even argue it back around to Communism again.
You are simply using immotive words to try and score a point, especially when you are speaking to a Polish National and then you are wondering why you are getting the reaction that you are.

I certainly implied that the logical extension of his argument is communism given that I went on to note that you could say all the same things he's saying about health care but with poor people and food. I've yet to see anyone say anything that disputes Communism being the logical extrapolation of Celestial Goblin's argument.

[Hunter]

Not a state without a police force.
A state without the right to be protected by that police.

You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

[Jefepato]

My thought on this: politicians that loudly argue against public healthcare are likely not going to be good at implementing and running it.
In the same way it's not worth to put puritans in charge of sexual education or vegetarians in charge of making steaks.:)
(I know it's easier to say 'elect good politicans for the job' than to do it, though.)

And you think other politicians would be good at implementing it?

You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

Residents of Washington D.C. seem to be missing quite a lot of basic rights, lately.

[Methos]

To me your argument seems to boil down to:
1) right to the fruits of your labor is absolute
2) because it is

1) People are free
2) to be free people must own themselves
3) if you own yourself, therefore you must own your actions
4) that which derives from actions which you own is your property

That's the argument.

I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. I'm worked or borrowed to get everything I've had. I don't see why anyone else expects a free ride.

Again, the existance of law and order is necessitated by any state. There must be an enforcement mechanism to enforce that order. You're wandering off onto illogical tangents again.

The effectiveness of the police force really isn't an issue. Its not 'legal' to murder and rape in the middle east either - their justice system does seem perverse in some of its outcomes but that's neither here nor there.

You're defiance of a well established definition and distinction without any basis beyond your desire to attempt to falsely misrepresent the nature of services is generally absurd but I've already said that. If you can't deal with the terms of reference in an argument you really shouldn't be in it.

[Elvi]

I certainly implied that the logical extension of his argument is communism given that I went on to note that you could say all the same things he's saying about health care but with poor people and food. I've yet to see anyone say anything that disputes Communism being the logical extrapolation of Celestial Goblin's argument.

OK then, if that is the case, how about this?
Great Britain is a welfare state, we have a 'poverty level', where it is deemed that no-one should fall below that level.
If they do, (for whatever reason), then they are given money, (in several different ways), by the British Government.
We have unemployement benefit.
We have state Pensions.
We have sickness benefit.
We have disability benefits.
We have child benefit.

The children of those on low income, recieve free baby milk (an infact anyone can buy it at the health clinic at a cheaper price, no matter what income they have) and when the children go to school they recieve free school meals.

The elderly, ALL elderly, recieve a yearly heating allowance to ensure that they are able to keep themselves warm during the winter.

Piped water is NOT allowed to be turned off because of none payment of bills and legislation has made it extremely hard for both gas and electrical supplies to be disconnected.

We have the NHS, everyone is entitled to see a doctor/specialist/other medical practitioner at no charge. The only thing that we have to pay for, is prescription medication, (at a heavily susbsidised amount).
However, those under 16, pregnant, over 60, suffering certain specified illnesses or cannot afford to pay, also get them for free.

In this way, it ensures (or attempts to ensure), that no-one goes hungry, thirsty, unclothed, or cold and that they recieve health care as and when they need it.

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

*wanders off shaking her head*

[Celestial Goblin]

1) People are free
2) to be free people must own themselves
3) if you own yourself, therefore you must own your actions
4) that which derives from actions which you own is your property

That's the argument.

Point 4 is what I disagree with and see no basis to respect.

I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. I'm worked or borrowed to get everything I've had. I don't see why anyone else expects a free ride.

Including your entire education, begining at elementary school?
But if it would be possible for everyone to earn what you did trough honest work alone, that would definitely eliminate the need for the policies that you call 'socialist'.

Again, the existance of law and order is necessitated by any state. There must be an enforcement mechanism to enforce that order. You're wandering off onto illogical tangents again.

But definitions of 'law and order' differ from state to state.
In some places, the law says you need to give up some income to save someone's life.
In some places, the law could say that defending yourself from, say, assault is your own responsibility.

The effectiveness of the police force really isn't an issue. Its not 'legal' to murder and rape in the middle east either - their justice system does seem perverse in some of its outcomes but that's neither here nor there.

Huh huh, honour killings, huh huh, stoning, huh huh, spousal rape...
Also, a law not enforced is not a law. I hope you know that.

You're defiance of a well established definition and distinction without any basis beyond your desire to attempt to falsely misrepresent the nature of services is generally absurd but I've already said that. If you can't deal with the terms of reference in an argument you really shouldn't be in it.

I suppose that if the difference between 'positive' and 'negative' rights the way you describe them would be so obvious and clear-cut, you'd have no problem proving that, instead of refusing to adress the point...

And you think other politicians would be good at implementing it?

You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Better than Bush&co? I think they might.
Good enough to make Canada/Euro/whatever red with envy? Probably not.

Quote from: Hunter on Today at 10:01:29 pm
You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

Residents of Washington D.C. seem to be missing quite a lot of basic rights, lately.

I'm almost afraid to ask...

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

Worse, you're all slaves.