Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[CorpMediaSux]

There's no good reason to implement slavery.
You agree, right?

I agree with that statement. You've yet to demonstrate how compulsory taxation is the equivalent of slavery. You asserting it does not make it so.

And MY point was that we have the right to choose to NOT give to charity, a statement made in response to your question as to why she HAVE to be forced. Were you going to address that point, or should I assume your question was sufficiently answered?

Yes, charity is not the issue here. The stabilty of American society, however, is.
None of this in any way defeats my point.

Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is, necessarily, slavery.

Fine, but all you've done is reduce the meaning and impact of the term slavery NOT linked taxation with the horrendous history of African American chattel bondage or other forms of violently coerced labor or sexual slavery. If you insist on characterizing taxation as slavery then this argument

There's no good reason to implement slavery

No longer become true. There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.

So, you agree that any such legislation is Unconstitutional.
Why should anyone support unconstitutional laws?

Because we do so everyday? Because the constitution was written over two hundred years ago and could not have anticipated the terms and conditions of modern lifestyle. Because no set of law or regulation is inflexible, permanent, inalterable and rigid.

 

[Bern80]

If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is?

We don't have subsidized healthcare now. To very little extent anyway. Is the economy collapsing and just didnt' hear about it?

The correction M14 made to my statement is correct. We have the right to a lot of things. I'm not sold yet that healthcare is one of them, but regardless haveing a right to exercise something is different from forceing someone to provide you with the ability to exercise it.

I think you two have gotten have the beaten path a little as well or the point of the discussion. M14 asked you once. Why should one be forced to pay for another's healthcare?

I am not oppossed to the government helping those that need help via taxation. I am oppossed to the government forcing me to pay for the costs of something (that also have to pay for, for myself btw) that someone is capable of providing for themselves. It goes back to my central argument as to how you create a strong, motivated, productive society? Do you do that be teaching people that all of their needs will be provided for with little responsibility or effort on their own part? Or do you get people to understand that we are by in large able to self determine and no one should be made to provide for you what you are capable of providing for yourself?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with that statement.

So, you will also agree that your "greater good" argument fails, should the slavery argument be shown sound.

Yes, charity is not the issue here.

According to you, it is-- there isnlt enough of it, whcih sis why we need to force people to be 'charitable'. You asked why. I told you.

Fine, but all you've done is reduce the meaning and impact of the term slavery...

So you agree -- forcing people to provide others with the means to exercise their rights IS slavery.
You also agreed, above, that the "benefit of the greater good" is NOT a reason support slavery.

So then -- what IS your argument for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights?

Because we do so everyday?

I see -- ignoring the Constitution is OK, because we do it every day.
What argument then is there that we should not also just ognore the Establishment Clause, and mingler Chruch and State?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

So, you will also agree that your "greater good" argument fails, should the slavery argument be shown sound.

Sure, but you haven't done that. You've only called taxation slavery, not demonstrated how taxation has anything in common with human chattel slavery. I addressed this above.

So you agree -- forcing people to provide others with the means to exercise their rights IS slavery.

You also agreed, above, that the "benefit of the greater good" is NOT a reason support slavery.

You haven't caught me in any contradiction. I believe I was quite clear on this issue. I will accept your characterization of taxation as "slavery." But that doesn't do anything to make taxation more or less moral or justified. Before you jump with glee and say "so you don't think slavery is immoral" re-read my preceeding post. I've already dealt with the rhetorical game you are attempting to play with the term "slavery." You need to either address my argument or stop attempting to use that word to prove anything.

So then -- what IS your argument for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights?

Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system. My arguments here are limited to that issue. You want to speak in generalities because thats easier than actually engaging with the healthcare crisis in this nation.

I see -- ignoring the Constitution is OK, because we do it every day.
What argument then is there that we should not also just ognore the Establishment Clause, and mingler Chruch and State?

There's a distinction between eliminating amendments to the constitution (which has been done and no one died) and allowing the government to act outside of the limits of the constitution, particularly when those limits are historically antiquated. Society does progress, no matter how you'd like to ignore it.

 

[Bern80]

Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system. My arguments here are limited to that issue. You want to speak in generalities because thats easier than actually engaging with the healthcare crisis in this nation.

And what you said isn't a generality?

I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system.

Because that is such a general statement it could mean a lot of things. But since you use the word 'provide' we have to assume that you mean at little to no cost. Since you don't elaborate on 'people' we have to assume you mean everyone. So how do you propose we provide everyone with free healthcare? More importantly why? Why is your healthcare my problem on top of haveing to worry about my own?

You keep saying we 'ought' to do this or that, but you need to answer the why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure, but you haven't done that. You've only called taxation slavery

No, I equated forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights to slavery. YOU agreed to that, and so I dont need to prove it.

I will accept your characterization of [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights] to slavery as "slavery."

See? You, as corrected to reflect what I actually said, agree with me.

And so, since you agree that:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is slavery;
-"The greater good" is not a justification for slavery;
We're back to the original question:
Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Well you are the one engaging in a "rights" dialogue, not me. I think we should provide people with a sustainable healthcare system.

Yes -- you support slavery. That much is clear.
The OBVIOUS question is: why?

And you didnt address this issue:
If ignoring the Constitution is OK, because 'we do it every day', what argument then is there that we should not also just ignore the Establishment Clause, and mingle Chruch and State?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Bern80,

Actually I thought I laid out a scenario above for what would happen to the U.S. economy if we had no subsidized healthcare.

As for how nationalized healthcare should further progress. I think a number of things have to happen. First there have to be some government sponsored measures to lower the cost of healthcare both in terms of prescription drugs AND the cost of doctors visits.
1. There needs to be a substantial limitation on ad space for prescription medicine. There is ZERO need for them and the fact that these kinds of commercials are on every station, no matter the time slot suggests the industry is spending TONS of money, raising the cost of the drugs.
2. Generics need to be more readily available
3. Malpractice insurance needs serious regulation. Doctors with clean records should not have to pay the increasingly exorbitant rates.
And yes, at some point, profit needs to be capped. Healthcare as an industry can't function on the same scale as others, it's about human life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bern80,
Actually I thought I laid out a scenario above for what would happen to the U.S. economy if we had no subsidized healthcare.

Didnt you agree that this is a "greater good" scenario, and that the "greater good" doesnt justify slavery?

1. There needs to be a substantial limitation on ad space for prescription medicine. There is ZERO need for them and the fact that these kinds of commercials are on every station, no matter the time slot suggests the industry is spending TONS of money, raising the cost of the drugs.

Free Speech, anyone?

2. Generics need to be more readily available

Free market. Supply and demand.

3. Malpractice insurance needs serious regulation. Doctors with clean records should not have to pay the increasingly exorbitant rates.

Wow. I agree with you there.

And yes, at some point, profit needs to be capped.

Profit is already capped -- it's a function of supply and demand, as modified by business practices. There's no need of the government to limit how much anyone can make.

Healthcare as an industry can't function on the same scale as others, it's about human life.

Wow. I can think of a ZILLION ways to change this to say the same thing about some other industry, which you will then disagree with...

 

[CorpMediaSux]

No, I equated forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights to slavery. YOU agreed to that, and so I dont need to prove it.

Fine, then prove slavery is wrong and in doing so if you use ANY examples that involve human bondage you will prove that MY argument is correct. You are trying to justify your ideas about taxation on the backs of enslaved people, offensive, disgusting and dishonest. I've addressed this and you have yet to really respond.

BTW, only respond to my posts if you will respond to my whole paragraph. Your consistent attempt to take portions of my writing and respond only to them is also dishonest. You are not responding to my argument, only strawmen. I will only debate with someone willing to actually debate, not engage in rhetorical silliness.

And so, since you agree that:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is slavery;
-"The greater good" is not a justification for slavery;
We're back to the original question:
Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Answered above more than once and you know it. I am going to repeat my earlier posts on this issue until you actually respond to my argument. You have yet to do so.

Don't expect a response from me until you address THE ENTIRETY of the next paragraph:

There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine, then prove slavery is wrong...

You need me to prove slavery is wrong?
Really?

Look, you agreed to my points:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery;
-The "greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.

NOW you're going to try to get around this by arguing that slavery isnt immoral?

There are very good reasons for [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right to healthcare] (I've laid them out, you've ignored them).

These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
You, yourself, shot these arguments down.

If you choose to rhetorically call [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] slavery, so be it. That is your characterization.

One you agreed to.

It does nothing to make [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] more or less moral or more or less justified

And that's what I'm waiting for -- your justification for supporting the esnlavement of others, other than the one you agreed was invalid.

What is your justification for forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights, given that you have already agreed 'greater good' arguments are invalid?

 

[Bern80]

Corp you have to answer the question 'why' yourself.

WHY should I be required to pay the healthcare costs of someone that is capable of paying for themesleves?

WHY is it good to teach a society that it can be dependent on government and have all of it's needs supplied for them?

Those are very basic questions to this point that you have avoided.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Questions for you:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?
-Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them.

I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare". BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare"

The words "health care" arent found anywhere in Article I Section 8.

BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.

And enslave people in order to do it?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
You need me to prove slavery is wrong?
Really?

Look, you agreed to my points:
-Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery;
-The "greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.

NOW you're going to try to get around this by arguing that slavery isnt immoral?

Don't expect a response from me until you address THE ENTIRETY of the next paragraph:
Quote:
There are very good reasons for compulsory taxation surrounding healthcare (I've laid them out, you've ignored them). If you choose to rhetorically call that taxation slavery, so be it. That is your characterization. It does nothing to make taxation more or less moral or more or less justified. African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.

 

[Bern80]

I was thinking article 1 section 8, but I guess that would be a slippery slope leading to unnecessary taxation for the means of "welfare". BUT I think as a nation that cares so much about human life, that we would get up in arms over death penalty, abortion, and assisted suicide, that it would only make sense that we guarantee the best medical care for our sick or injured.

But there in lies the problem in your thinking. You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal. You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human? I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it. I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.

We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

WHY should I be required to pay the healthcare costs of someone that is capable of paying for themesleves?

I don't think you should. I would suggest that society has a responsibility for those UNABLE to pay for it themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are very good reasons for [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right to healthcare] (I've laid them out, you've ignored them).

These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
You, yourself, shot these arguments down.

Quote:
If you choose to rhetorically call [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] slavery, so be it. That is your characterization.

One you agreed to.

Quote:
It does nothing to make [forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their right] more or less moral or more or less justified

And that's what I'm waiting for -- your justification for supporting the esnlavement of others, other than the one you agreed was invalid.

African American chattel slavery isn't horrific because of the WORD slavery, it was horrific because of what it did to enslaved people and how people were treated in that system. Thats why I say your attempt to link taxation to slavery is cheap and offensive on your part.

None of this has any relevance, given that you already agreed that forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery.

It doesnt matter who else has been enslaved, or how, or how bad it was -- what matters is that YOU advocate enslaving people so that others may directly benefit.

And you have YET to justify that enslavement, and you yourself have admitted that your "greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.

So, stop trying to avoid the issue, and provide legitimate justification for your position FOR the eslavement of people so that others can have health care.

 

[Bern80]

I don't think you should. I would suggest that society has a responsibility for those UNABLE to pay for it themselves.

Agreed. However believe it or not, we have many policies in place that allow for just that. Social Security for example. Plus most states do have some sort of state sponsored medical coverage that is quite inexpenisve.

Which is why I originally asked why the dems feel this need to completely overhall the system. On the surface not only do they want to provide for those unable, but seem to want to force the able to go with their plan as well.

I am generally leary of two things:

1) government involvement in anything.

2) any program that shifts the responsibilty of things you should be responsible for to someone else.

There just seems to be a theme with the left that thinks it has this obligation to make people's lives as risk/pain/inconveniece free as possible. I realy don't think they are doing society a big favor by doing that. In fact I think's it's disservice. How are we suppossed to learn from bad experiences, become motivated and learn if there is no incentive to do any of those things?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Do you live in a society or a landmass populated by individuals?

Both, what's your point?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

M14 Shooter
None of this has any relevance, given that you already agreed that forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery. It doesnt matter who else has been enslaved, or how, or how bad it was -- what matters is that YOU advocate enslaving people so that others may directly benefit.

Actually it's entirely relevant, which is why I suspect I had to pull a little brat attack for you even to respond. Your desire to say that taxation is like slavery or enslavement is DIRECTLY linked to the actual history of real people who have been enslaved. Your ability to act faux shocked and appalled at my saying "prove to me slavery is wrong" is because we ALL know the history of slavery, we know what it did to people and we know how horrible it was, therefore you shouldnt have to explain why slavery is bad to anyone. HOWEVER, taxation is no where NEAR even the most minor forms of actual human enslavement that give the term "slavery" its negative connotations. Saying so is an act of historical violence that erase the actual experience of enslaved people and replaces it with your modern financial gripings and inconvenience. It's ridiculous and offensive for you to act like taxation is like slavery.

You have attempted to play a rhetorical game that attempts to make me look like I'm callous and think slavery is insignificant. In fact it is YOU who sees slavery as insignificant by invoking it during a discussion about healthcare and taxation. Again, please do not expect a response from me on THIS aspect of the argument without responding to my entire paragraphs. It may help you to copy the whole paragraph and not break it down into sentences so your answering the holistic position rather than segments of it.

These are the "greater good" arguments you put up.
You then agreed that "the greater good" is NOT a justification for slavery.
You, yourself, shot these arguments down.

Let me be clear so there is no confusion.
1. There is no greater good justification for chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is a very specific institution.
2. There ARE greater good justifications for compulsory taxation.
Please let me know if there are any further misunderstandings

Bern 80
Agreed. However believe it or not, we have many policies in place that allow for just that. Social Security for example. Plus most states do have some sort of state sponsored medical coverage that is quite inexpenisve.

Social security does not provide enough money to pay for healthcare costs in this day and age. States vary wildly on their health care coverage and the administration of those plans is often a complete and utter nightmare. There's a reason why politicians are spouting rhetoric about this. Intelligent or not, they are piquing a keen interest of the American people. Public healthcare currently fails, it needs fixed.