Universal Healthcare?

[manifold]

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now. To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue. My question to the members of this forum is this: Is healthcare a right? And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man. What do you think?

 

[JeffWartman]

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now. To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue. My question to the members of this forum is this: Is healthcare a right? And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man. What do you think?

To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn. They do not.

 

[MasterChief]

Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.

Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.

 

[Detmurds]

Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.

Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.

Perfectly said MC (Shipmate!)!

~Detmurds

 

[Paulie]

To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn. They do not.

You'd also have to believe that with the way government and the medical-industrial complex are in bed with each other, that somehow there would actually be a workable social healthcare system.

Sorry, but I can't possibly see that as being the case.

 

[manifold]

To believe in universal healthcare, you have to believe that someone else has a moral right to the money that I earn. They do not.

Is the money that you earn not at least partly enabled by the infrastructure and laws of civilization? Is it not just a little bit disingenuous to view the issue through such a narrow lense, almost in a vacuum even?

 

[manifold]

Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night--nobody has a universal right to have others take care of them, any more than any stranger has a universal right to take money out of your back pocket. If plumbers don't work for free, then what makes anyone believe a medical doctor should work for free.

Now if a medical doctor, out of Christian compassion or any other type of compassion, wants to help the poor by opening a free clinic--God Bless him or her--but no government should force doctors to work for the government and then ration out health care.

So in other words, you would not only tolerate, but actually champion a world in which a severly wounded accident victim could be denied emergency care simply because he is poor. According to the philosophy you've laid out, I guess you must think the poor already have it too good since this would likely never happen. Duly noted.

 

[manifold]

You'd also have to believe that with the way government and the medical-industrial complex are in bed with each other, that somehow there would actually be a workable social healthcare system.

Sorry, but I can't possibly see that as being the case.

Not the question, but thanks for your participation.

 

[JeffWartman]

Is the money that you earn not at least partly enabled by the infrastructure and laws of civilization? Is it not just a little bit disingenuous to view the issue through such a narrow lense, almost in a vacuum even?

Most of that infrastructure and "laws of civilization" are not paid for with federal income taxes to begin with, and don't need income taxes at all.

You're either a socialist, who believe they have a moral right to the money that I earn, or you're a classical liberal, who believe that only I have a moral right to the money I earn.

To suggest that a moral, just, fair and civilized society could not be achieved without an income tax is ignorant of both history and economics.

 

[mattskramer]

Every person has a universal right to take care of their own health--brush your teeth, eat balanced meals, get plenty of exercise, take a daily shower, get eight hours of sleep each night.

What if you can’t afford a toothbrush or toothpaste? What if you can’t afford food or water? What if you are struggling with 2 jobs and don’t have time to sleep 8 hours each night?

What if you are severely mentally restarted and physically handicapped and don’t know what it means to take care of yourself?

 

[JeffWartman]

What if you can’t afford a toothbrush or toothpaste? What if you can’t afford food or water? What if you are struggling with 2 jobs and don’t have time to sleep 8 hours each night?

If you are working two jobs and cannot afford a toothbrush or toothpaste, you've failed at life.

 

[midcan5]

The use of the word 'right' distorts the debate. The question should be asked how does a society benefit if health-care is universal. The answer is simple, it functions better and allows every individual more freedom to pursue their dream of occupation, business, schooling, or entrepreneurial work. It's one of those infrastructure things like transportation or security that help everyone live a better freer life.

 

[mattskramer]

If you are working two jobs and cannot afford a toothbrush or toothpaste, you've failed at life.

Is it your contention that there should be no government assisted hospitals to care for the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped – those who have no family or friends to support them and will never be self reliant or able to care for themselves? Please simply answer the question: Yes or No?

 

[JeffWartman]

Is it your contention that there should be no government assisted hospitals to care for the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped – those who have no family or friends to support them and will never be self reliant or able to care for themselves? Please simply answer the question: Yes or No?

Considering that implication is no where present in my statement, I'd say you're asking an irreleavnt question.

But I will answer -- if you believe that providing for these people can only be the function of government, you've got a lot to learn.

 

[mattskramer]

Considering that implication is no where present in my statement, I'd say you're asking an irreleavnt question.

But I will answer -- if you believe that providing for these people can only be the function of government, you've got a lot to learn.

I was originally commenting to MasterChief. If you can but in, then I can ask an irrelevant question.

You did not answer my question. Instead you “put words in my mouth” implying that I said something that I did not say. I asked if you thought that there should be no government assisted hospitals.

My question was a close-ended question. It required a “yes” or a “no” as an answer. Suggesting that I have a lot to learn is not an answer to my question.

 

[JeffWartman]

I was originally commenting to MasterChief. If you can but in, then I can ask an irrelevant question.

You quoted me, then asked the question. Are you schizophrenic or something?

You did not answer my question. Instead you “put words in my mouth” implying that I said something that I did not say. I asked if you thought that there should be no government assisted hospitals.

Society would be much better off without government run hospitals. Your implication is that poor people can only get help if it comes from the government. That is a very false assumption.

My question was a close-ended question. It required a “yes” or a “no” as an answer. Suggesting that I have a lot to learn is not an answer to my question.

No, it's obvious because you had to ask the question.

 

[manifold]

Most of that infrastructure and "laws of civilization" are not paid for with federal income taxes to begin with, and don't need income taxes at all.

You're either a socialist, who believe they have a moral right to the money that I earn, or you're a classical liberal, who believe that only I have a moral right to the money I earn.

To suggest that a moral, just, fair and civilized society could not be achieved without an income tax is ignorant of both history and economics.

I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.

The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money. You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives. Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic. To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.

 

[JeffWartman]

I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.

LOL. This isn't hard -- it's all readily available information. Roads are paid for with gasoline taxes and other user fees. Not federal income tax. Schools are paid for using local property taxes, not the federal income tax.

The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money.

Yes, but to say that without a federal income tax, we wouldn't have a civilization or property rights is painfully ignorant of history -- we didn't have an income tax until 1913. We did, however, always have property rights, protection and laws.

 

[jreeves]

The debate about universal healthcare and so forth, as we all know, has been raging for several years now. To be quite frank, I'm still undecided and conflicted about where I stand on the issue. My question to the members of this forum is this: Is healthcare a right? And by "right," I don't mean the unalienable kind endowed by the creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the kind defined by the laws of man. What do you think?

I think if we are to debate rights, we have to view this throughly. Ok, for one everyone has rights, under the preumbras of the Constitution. In other words, everyone has the right of speech, everyone has the right to bear arms, right to assemble in public places. Ok, yes no one should suffer without medical care so, I do believe in a theoretical sense you should have the right to healthcare. I mean it's a basic neccessity, healthcare. But as with other rights, they are your rights until they violate society's rights. For example you have the right of speech, but if you use that speech to encite violence then that is no longer a right of yours. Because you violated someone else's rights. Well the same could be said of universal healthcare, you have the right to healthcare, but when you violate the right's of another then that right is no longer yours. You would be taking another person's money, which is in and of itself stealing...... Governmental money is taxpayer money

 

[jreeves]

I guess it's all paid for with pixie dust then.

The bottom line fact is that if it wasn't for civilization, laws, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, you wouldn't be earning any money. You'd be too busy hunting and gathering food and trying to protect it from theives. Ignorance of this simple and obvious fact is astonishingly pandemic. To suggest that the civilization and society that affords you the opportunity to go out and make this money is owed nothing in return is mind-blowingly selfish...and decidedly ignorant.

There are tons of not for profit organizations that help the needy. I believe they could do things alot more efficiently than a government that has a 9.3 dollar defecit. This would allow the needy to recieve the help they need and still maintain the rights of the taxpayer.