Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics

Terry

said many times many ways
karma is a bi*ch
those that show no mercy will have their judgment without mercy

I would be very interested in hearing your definition of MERCY.
JUDGEMENT imples JUSTICE.
Ask yourself where is the Justice in being born blind or lame or acquiring a wasting illness through no fault of your own. The very nature of our existence on this planet screams UNFAIRNESS is everywhere!
JUSTICE is getting what you DESERVE as a result of what you have done.
Were there a god of this universe who is able to be fair and whom we'd define as "good"-----there would be be some awful dissonance between what we see in his creation and his unused powers to set it justly aright.
The chaos of nature is also in the impulse to surive fighting against the unfair reality of everyday living.
MERCY, then is------what exactly?
t.
Satanus

Terry
You claim that capitalism suits man\s nature the best. Yet, you recognise that some still naturally come to the aide of the unfortunate. Does this not show that not all people have the same nature? If there are significant portions of society w natures that differ from your ideal, does that not show that there should be multiple or a mix of systems in place? In other words, since there is more than one size, there should not be a one size fits all system? W a world/national multieconomy, the robber baron capitalists could rip and tear in the high finance arenas, while the lesser lights could play in the sand boxes w their specialities.
S
Terry

Terry, I don't know what to say except that I'm very, very glad you're not in the position to legislate any of your ideas.

You only say that because you don't understand a thing I've said!
"Legislate your ideas" is what I'm against!!
Any group (governmental or otherwise) who compels you to do something is overstepping the very freedom our nation is supposed to stand for.
Let me make myself as clear as humanly possible:
I am for voluntary charity. I am NOT for compulsory charity.
How much clearer can I state it?
Using the law, legislation, the taxes to remove money from our paycheck and then spend (WASTE!) it on various causes by bureaucratic mismangement is a disgusting thing to me.
How many families of the 9/11 disaster who were ENTITLED to funds actually received those funds without resorting to a lawsuit against the government and the various charitable organizations? NONE!
Charities like to HOLD ON to the money so that the interest paid by the banks will accrue!
They drag their feet on paying out. They delay delay delay.
The hurricane victims of Katrina----how many of them do you think will receive the money earmarked for them? What percent? My son-in-law works for FEMA and he has a degree in Social Work. He is disgusted by the mismanagement, the runaround, the redtap, the waste, the fraud and the incompetence of the government in helping anybody.
No----I am not for legislating my ideas, thank you.
But, neither do I want incompetent do-gooders taking away my money and bungling it into waste and fraud under the guise of HELPING somebody.
Charity is best left at the local level for volunteers and religious groups.
T.
Terry

Terry
You claim that capitalism suits man\s nature the best. Yet, you recognise that some still naturally come to the aide of the unfortunate. Does this not show that not all people have the same nature? If there are significant portions of society w natures that differ from your ideal, does that not show that there should be multiple or a mix of systems in place? In other words, since there is more than one size, there should not be a one size fits all system? W a world/national multieconomy, the robber baron capitalists could rip and tear in the high finance arenas, while the lesser lights could play in the sand boxes w their specialities.

All humans have human nature. How humans treat each other is the question. Why help your fellow man under compulsion? Does being forced to do something make you more charitable; does it improve you feeling of love for the unfortunate? Or, does seeing the waste and failure of charitable organizations not make you less inclined to give?
People who are allowed to choose how they spend their money are also free to prosper. If they prosper they are also free to help somebody else prosper by giving them an opportunity. We went from an agrarian society in the Feudal ages where the liege lord granted a subsistence living to his peasant farmers---to the greatest economy in the world where any man of talent, ability and hard work could make his own fortune under capitalism where you are allowed to control what you own.
When Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor they were a feudal society of peasants and overlords. Women were mere chattel. Japan lost the war and the US converted their entire system into a mirror of our own. Under the system of personal achievement, opportunity and self-advancement in Japan since the war their economy boomed over and over again.
What has all of this got to do with our topic of "right or privilege"? Plenty!
The person who is allowed opportunity is quite different from the person who is not, or, who is forced to do something he would not personally choose. This is especially so when it comes to helping others charitably.
America may be the most giving country on earth in times of disaster. Even low-income people pour money voluntarily into helping strangers all over the world in times of earthquake, tidal wave or war.
This being the case I contend it is UNNECESSARY to compel anybody to give money and then a third party (often incompetently and remotely) decide to whom it will go and how.
That is all I'm saying.
T.
Rabbit
Terry,
As smart as you are and I mean that genuinely...on this subject, on this thread, imo, "you can't see the forest, because of the trees."
What's your solution ? You haven't come up with anything tangible. Just, blah, blah, "trees are in the way, I can't see." Survival of the fittest is fine for animals on their own. But, when thinking people enter the picture with values, it changes the picture and all the rules, too. For instance people (some of us) are concerned about the plight of 'endangered species' of animals and plants. We humans can change the rules of "Survival", because we can assign a value...a worth to these animals, etc. I don't want to see whales or any other species become extinct in my world. Left to their own they have no chance of survival -- they WILL die without our help !
So, some people realize that even plants and animal, even insects are important. They have value, not to everyone of course. There are people who would not care if whales, wolves, grizzly bears or Snail Darters (little fish) all died today, because , as they reason, are not worth any attention or funds to keep them alive.
I assign 'worth' to people who cannot fend for themselves -- what else is morally right ??? Using "Survival of the fittest" people like me with epilepsy or my Dad with heart problems or DantheMans 41 y/o autistic brother and every other disabled person should just be allowed to die off -- what use are they anyway ?
Note: I won't die from seizures, but, if they are not kept under control, I will lose my drivers license. Now if that happens...my business of 25 years will collapse, I will be unable to care for my wife who is legally blind in both eyes (Social Security has denied her claim) then, we will both qualify for public assitance once we lose our 'paid for' house, etc. Under your "No safety net" proposal -- we would die of starvation soon. Btw, I could stay home and draw public assistance if I wanted to -- epilepsy is classified as a Disability.
To LDH: I think, in your modest ivory tower (on this subject & only on this thread, not generally)...you are simply out of touch with reality. Not yours or your family, although "time & unseen occurrence befall us all," you are not connected to the reality of other people. Your theory of "poor planning" is at the least laughable and at the most could be a dangerous idea, because, your attitude can keep laws from being passed that will help people not as fortunate as you.
To Terry & LDH: You're both smart people, I hate 'general blanket' type accusations or attitudes, so I try not to dole them out myself. That is why I hope you realize I'm not condemning you. But, your ideas on this subject are dangerous. As long as it is possible to help others we should and our governments should reflect that same attitude. The fact that many do have health care for their citizens as a 'right' -- all over the world -- makes me see that our government has a lot to learn, a lot of room for improvement.
Otherwise this attitude takes over:
fa·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f
n.
1. The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.
2. Acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable.
Rabbit
Terry

What's your solution ? You haven't come up with anything tangible. Just, blah, blah, "trees are in the way, I can't see." Survival of the fittest is fine for animals on their own. But, when thinking people enter the picture with values, it changes the picture and all the rules, too. For instance people (some of us) are concerned about the plight of 'endangered species' of animals and plants. We humans can change the rules of "Survival", because we can assign a value...a worth to these animals, etc. I don't want to see whales or any other species become extinct in my world. Left to their own they have no chance of survival -- they WILL die without our help !

What is my "solution"??
You automatically cling to a premise without establishing it!
How have you (or anybody else) demonstrated that the nature of human reality contains a "solution" to the unfairness of chaos in nature itself?
Each of us only survives for a relatively short time before death overtakes us. The usual "solution" to that is resorting to supernatural rescue beliefs. In other words: we wish for rescue and simply believe in it.
That is no solution. Death is a certainty because it is the nature of human reality.
What we are discussing here is HEALTH CARE: a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE. But, the discussion turned away from that a long time ago without even bothering to define its terms carefully.
What is a RIGHT?
A right is a moral principle which concerns itself with man's freedom of action in a social context. A person has the right to their own life. For this to mean anything at all it has to include the person's ability to self-sustain by self-generated action. If this is not so, the person's life is entirely dependant on the goodwill (or not) of others.
A right is always connected to ACTION and not state-of-being. The pursuit of happiness requires action and not merely attitude, for example.
A Right to Health Care is an absurdity on the face of it. There is no life on earth that isn't tied by nature to survival through effort. Tranferring the EFFORT to another person is what THIS DISCUSSION is all about!
Those whom we love and value are people we wish to sustain and aid because we are tied to them by the value we hold which their life represents. But, to a disinterested party? Life for the sake of life at the expense of strangers is a far cry from a RIGHT.
In short: if you don't own yourself (in the sense of being able to take the necessary actions to sustain your life) your value is only an "imputed" value in the context of nature at large. Your RIGHT TO LIFE is suspended because you cannot seize the opportunity to defend that right by actions which gurantee your continued existence.
Native Americans (once called "Indians") had a policy of self-sustaining existence. If you were old or sick and you could not fend for yourself---you went off to die. It was nobody's RIGHT to be cared for at the expense of others.
This was purely a practical matter based on surival in nature by a nomadic society. If magic failed (religious bullshit rituals) you were on your own.
Where does the PRIVILEGE come from to be cared for?
The answer to this is the ALTRUISM we've been taught since the idiot Immanuel Kant began influencing generations of philosophers and professors who spread this notion of "duty" that the Nazis took advantage of. But, that is another discussion altogether.
NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT to the life they cannot themselves sustain unless a volunteer caretaker steps up and takes on the responsiblity.
Voluntary charity is the "solution" or as close as you will get.
T.
Confession

Terry, I just wanted you to know I'm with you on this. (Lest this become a "gang up on Terry" thread.)
I really think the question is: What do you think government is? What really do you think it should be? And in answering this question are you willing to take into consideration the lessons of history?
I understand what it means to care for people. To be compassionate. I think you'd find me an unabashedly caring and compassionate person. As Terry has brought out, there is nothing wrong (and everything right) about "people helping people." The difference between what we're talking about and the type of Socialism many here favor is that we have noted these lessons of history. Anytime "government" gets involved it gets bigger. And anytime government gets bigger, it very definitely becomes more corrupt--and citizens lose freedoms.
I would not be surprised if this country eventually moved to socialized medicine. In fact (as I wrote before) I'd even be willing to vote for it--if we could take a frenzied machete to the repulsive government waste already in existence. But what next? I mean, people here are already saying things like, "Well, if garbage pick-up and the fire department are provided for by the government, then why not healthcare?!" In a generation or two, people will be saying, "Well, if healthcare is provided by the government, then why not groceries? People are starving! And why should they go without food?! And if they're going to provide groceries, why not housing? Is there any reason why some doctor or lawyer should live in a 12 room home, and not a nail technician?"
Yeah, I know... You don't think anyone will start saying that, right? Give it time. Give it time.
Do you think that all of the horrifically oppressive kingdoms of old began as such? I think you'll find they often didn't. Sometimes it was just a matter of people wanting what's best for everyone. "If we could just take more control of things, THEN people would be better off. We'll control the distribution of goods and services, and everyone will have what they need!"
But things rarely work as planned when government grows. And the inevitable corruption becomes a factor. If you could see an exhaustive list of the ways your tax dollars are being spent, I assure you that a great deal of you would want to vomit. It's positively disgusting, but when government grows, politicians and their associates become opportunists. Like any businessperson, they begin to discover a number of ways to "expand" their government/business. Doesn't it make them sound caring when they tell you they want to "give" you things? Aren't they just wonderful, compassionate human beings?
Michigan's Governer Jennifer Granholm (a fairly cool Democrat as Liberals go) was in the position to make large state government cuts a few years ago. I thought what she did was pretty great (and telling.) She held public forums throughout the state, explaining the situation to citizens, and hearing complaints that various individuals had about certain proposed cuts that would affect them. Every time one of them stood up, with a heart full of compassion about how there should not be any such cuts to their cause, she would ask them a simple question?
"Okay, thank you. Now where is it that you suggest we do make the cuts?"
To a person, they were sputtering and taken aback. "Well, that's not my job!" "I don't know!" They only wanted what they wanted--and didn't want to take any measure of responsibility for suggesting what might be curtailed.
It's a monster, friends. And you want to make it bigger. Please be careful.
prophecor

Balance in light of the scriptures is what is required, that is for those who even believe in scripture. I am not in defense of those who would come to be wastrels and indolent individuals, choosing not to work when there is ample opportunity for them to do so, as well as to make good from the labour of thier own hands, it's a gift from God. Ecclesiastes 2:24 With a man there is nothing better [than] that he should eat and indeed drink and cause his soul to see good because of his hard work. This too I have seen, even I, that this is from the hand of the [true] God. Even at that, with the astronomical cost of health care in this industrialised western civilisation, its becoming more and more out of reach for the common man. Those who can least afford it are the ones who can not continue to effectively continue living without it. Many of the union strikes, like those which happened recently in New York and Philadelphia have health care as a primary issue. The struggles that are going on at General Motors has caused thier CEO's to more carefully map out and reorganise the way they administer the funds they dole out for coverage for thier workers. For America to continue to not make health care available, except for those at the top and bottom portion of the economic spectrum is going to eventually tell on itself in the early demise of many who are now babyboomers and are entering into that age of retirement, as well as those in the middle of the economic spectrum who just can't afford health coverage, or thier employers don't offer it as a service. You try to turn a reasonable analogy of God's example of dignified treatment of the poor and disadvantaged in the OT, into a trite argument about who was actually required to pick up the gleanings from the fruits of those who had. You miss the point entirely or you merely choose to ignore it. Either way, it is about paying attention to the example of what was made available. A provision by God in order to assist those who were not so well to do. As far as the NT is concerned, balance with regard to assiting others in thier journey thru life goes well described below Galatians 6:2-5 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving his own mind. 4 But let each one prove what his own work is, and then he will have cause for exultation in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. Balance and reasonableness. Other countries have saw the need for doing so, why are we so smart that we couldn't find the room to do likewise? It's all about the money. One of the most oppulent and wealthiest of countries on the planet. But your life only exist as far as your dollar will carry you. Greed and the ability for you to feed the multi-billion dollar mega-corporations. It's gonna' tell on you, America. It's voice will not continue to be ignored.
Her Ladyship

Health care is a right for the citizens of all Western countries. When we vote our leaders into power, we actually negotiate a social contract. This social contract assumes that those in power will care for us during times of need. We are led to assume that we will be picked up if we fall. The social contract that democratic societies will care for the sick and elderly is implicit in all the democracies in the Western World. If we live in a democracy then health care is an automatic right to be expected.
Christina
XX
Rabbit

Those whom we love and value are people we wish to sustain and aid because we are tied to them by the value we hold which their life represents. But, to a disinterested party? Life for the sake of life at the expense of strangers is a far cry from a RIGHT.
"a disinterested party?" That would be you, Terry. I'll bet you never flip a penny into a Savation Army pot either. That's called being selfish -- if you can afford to donate that 1 ¢ coin.
In short: if you don't own yourself (in the sense of being able to take the necessary actions to sustain your life) your value is only an "imputed" value in the context of nature at large. Your RIGHT TO LIFE is suspended because you cannot seize the opportunity to defend that right by actions which gurantee your continued existence.
Try and tell that to Dan's brother, asshole. (That's a first for me on this board) Hell, you can probably talk him to death.
Native Americans (once called "Indians") had a policy of self-sustaining existence. If you were old or sick and you could not fend for yourself---you went off to die. It was nobody's RIGHT to be cared for at the expense of others.
I thought they were an endangered species and we let them die off ?
Oh, would it hurt for you to stop yelling ?
Rabbit

Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?

Share this