by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics
Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?
Education is considered a right in most countries...
What's more importan health or education?
Can you educate yourself?
Can you perform a blood transfusion on yourself? (you can think of an easier medical procedure)
It's a wonder to me at times, how many of us who were bible trained and were on a mission to try to assist and help people in a Godly mission, have somehow become callous and heartless with regard to thier feelings for the poor and under priveleged, as if it was some sort of disease that you could catch.
OK, let's make a deal. You scan your tax return in at the end of the year, I'll scan mine in and we'll both post them on the board (minus any personal information.) I would wager money that my family contributes more to non-profit and charitable organizations than do you. (Side point--I only give money to children's charities. They are the ones that have no choice about poverty!)
That should clear up REALLY QUICKLY who it is exactly, that's callous.
Based on what you're telling me, you espouse the theory of 'giving till it hurts' really really bad! So your tax returns should reflect that you give a disproportionately HUGE portion of your income to charities. Based on what you *believe* I do, taxation alone is enough, so theoretically my tax return should show ZERO charitable gifts.
Is that ok with you?
On the subject of health care, NO I do not for one second believe this government should set up another social experiment to take care of 'everyone.'
At its core in this country, health insurance is a financial tool. The Government's record of fiscal responsibility is DISMAL if not criminal. Or were you planning to retire on Social Security?
The only program I would support is one that removes EVERY present program and replaces those with tax dollars already spent for the people who are already in a safety net program. I do not endorse safety net programs that are long-term and give the user little incentive to quickly remove themselves from the program.
I do not support giving more of my money on a non-voluntary basis to people when I can't determine for myself why those people are in that situation.
And what's really cute, is you talk as though the disabled can't take care of themselves. I want you to take a look at this page and then tell me that with a straight face.
Really cute demonstration about the Israel widows and orphans....only problem was and is, in those feudal societies women are not allowed traditional employment. Stands to reason if you're not going to let a person work for wages you have to provide something for that person's means!
In the USA, we do let widows get jobs.
The problem that I see here, many of you believe in "Entitlement"--that certain people are entitled to resources because of a label that's been slapped on them.
I don't.
There's no law that says you can't pay for health services without insurance. Doctor's visits, medicines, what not. If you get into a catastrophic financial situation, MEdiCal will even pay for your bills on a retroactive basis for 90 days.
Lisa
Protects her ASSets Class
I am for voluntary charity. I am NOT for compulsory charity.
Terry, we are not talking about charity. We are talking about national health care in which all able bodied citizens pay taxes that enable all citizens to be covered and cared for.
As has already been demonstrated within this thread, Australia does that by collecting 1 1/2 % tax from all citizens that can pay it. This is not by any definition a charity. The modest tax covers everyone: how beautiful is that?
Terry,
:Well, okay. Your dispute seems to be---not with Capitalism--but, with what people are calling Capitalism. At that point you invoke an analogy. When you invoke the analogy the argument becomes a Straw Man inadvertantly. Not your intention, surely.
"Strawman" is a nice label, but it would be nihilistic to call every analogy a strawman.
All I'm saying is that in a relatively capitalist economy (pun intended) you wouldn't make a single penny as a political or socio-economic advisor. You'd get fired the first day! There is basically no merit in discussing the "true" form of one ideology/political or economic system or another if you can't give any specific examples of how it can or has been implemented. At the ideological level they are all perfect. The rest of your reply is obvious stuff to me.
The level of your argument is just way too general to be useful:
:: COMMUNISM advertises a kind of JUSTICE that allows nobody to excel __at the expense__of the group. Which is to say: forced sharing to create equality.
:: CAPITALISM advertises: may the best man win!
From a practical perspective this choice seems rather simplistic and artificial. You can change the wording without being held responsible for what you're saying, e.g.:
"Communism advertises: Let's give everybody a chance!"
"Capitalism advertises: let's get rid of the disadvantaged"
You see? We can go on playing with the language of ideology and spouting this rubbish forever. It would be more useful if you could enumerate in bullet points how you want to implement "true" capitalism in the field of health insurance, or elsewhere. Then we'll see if it's feasible. If you can't implement your ideas, you lose, even if they are perfect in their "trueness"!
Remember that constructing socio-economic ideologies which have never been observed to work or which cannot be proven to work (because they're based on unobserved or idealized principles) is like designing airplanes which underestimate the force of gravity. They just won't take off! And it's not another strawman, it's an illustration to get my point across.
Pole
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
Would you be kind enough to indulge those of us who are very puzzled at your statement by quoting the legal document which supports your above assertion?
I always thought that this country (America, I don't know where you reside) was established originally on the idea that those who were prosperous and successful would run the government as representatives of their regions. Government service would be a kind of balancing "payback" for the prosperity these representatives had gained through their hard work and genius. It was never envisioned that there would be "career" politicians working from day 1 on a scheme to be re-elected constantly.
Having said that....
The representation idea grew and grew until women were included (reluctantly!) and then (gasp!) blacks (who at first had to hurdle the Poll Tax).
The central purpose of Government (as originally envisioned) would be a very limited thing with limited powers. What powers were established in the Constitution were counter-balanced by the Bill of Rights (to protect the citizen from this very government!). Providing for the common defense meant there would be an army to protect the nation from its enemies. Promoting the general welfare would constitute a Postal Service, highways, inspections of food for cleanliness, etc. Finally, there would be a securing of the "blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity". This meant a liberty to DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF and not have the government seize enough power and spend enough of other peoples wages to do something for you.
The Federalism of Roosevelt during the Great Depression expanded enormously the extent to which government gained control of funding for projects under the banner of "make work" for out-of-work citizens. When the country got back on its collective feet, this project did not end. It continues through today.
Our Federal Government has never invested the Social Security Funds removed from the working people so that the interest accrued would make the fund last for posterity. No! It has "borrowed" it and depleted it constantly in gross mismanagement of its purpose.
This is a fact we cannot ignore: THE MONEY SPENT BY GOVERNMENT IS TAKEN OUT OF YOUR POCKET. We are so far in debt now it is coming out of the pockets of future generations as yet unborn.
And you wish to trust this squandering, wasteful machine with taking care of you? Please rethink your position.
Terry
Rabbit wrote: "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 ยข coin.
Do you know what a "disinterested party" is? No, you don't. A disinterested party is one who does not share in the gain or loss. A judge in a courtroom is required to be disinterested in the outcome of his rulings so that a fair ruling can be made. The judge must sequester himself if he has any common ties with either party adjudicating.
So, you are confused from the very start of your animadversions!
My point is clearly over your head.
If your brother needs constant care you have an INTEREST in his welfare. If you are a health care provider you want the business of caring for people at a profit. If you are a politician you want to be re-elected and court the favor of your constituency. None of these entities I just mentioned is a "disinterested party" now are they? NO.
The disinterested party is the ideal person to consider and rule on matters of loss and gain in the long run because of the distance between them and those affected by the outcome.
Since I've challenged the socialists here who love spending other people's money to defend their position against VOLUNTARY CHARITABLE GIVING all I've seen from you is a bad-tempered Daffy Duck tirade and no supporting arguments that are rational.
I suspect this reveals the weakness of your position.
p.s. When I can't find my reading glasses my type font has to be larger so that I can see what I'm saying. Or, if I wish to emphasize a point I will make it larger. I'm not yelling at you. Do you feel bullied? You are clearly in the majority here on this subject and can take refuge in numbers. No need to cower before the mighty onslaught of 14 point font from me.
Terry
Terry:
Christina is a Brit, like myself. We have a different system of health-care and evidently different priorities for our citizens..
I think that a certain level of healthcare and sanitation is a "right", but I would have to say that as I was born under a system that had the National Health Service
That having been said, I agree with a couple of your comments. Karma is merciless, and charitable giving should be voluntary. To say otherwise would be to deny the basic meaning of the words mercy and charity.
I personally feel morally obliged to support the rights of others (notably in third world countries) to enjoy the basic healthcare and sanitation.that I believe is my "right". That's my personal ethics, though, and I don't denigrate others for holding contrary opinions.
I would also suggest that the level of healthcare that is freely provided in this country is far above that which could be called "basic". As a consequence our nationalised service is buckling under continuously increasing demands. I speak as someone who works within that sector.
Any group (governmental or otherwise) who compels you to do something is overstepping the very freedom our nation is supposed to stand for.
Does this mean then that we should dump all of the mandatory tax laws and start over? A government imposes tax on it's citizens in order to provide services/goods that promote an efficient, productive and safe environment. Taxes are paid to service our roads, to provide water and sewage, education facilities, public facilities etc. What defines the boundaries of freedom? At what point do we determine that boundary? Do we make taxes totally voluntary so that we have a society that relies only on donations? Adjusting the tax rates for every person so that health care can be provided for everyone is in essence no different than any other tax paid.
Education is considered a right in most countries...
What's more importan health or education?
Can you educate yourself?
Can you perform a blood transfusion on yourself? (you can think of an easier medical procedure)
1.Education requires a person willing and able to learn who is motivated to TRY and learn. Can the government force you to learn or learn FOR YOU? No. So, by your own feeble analogy this vicarious "solution" of yours doesn't fly. Education is a necessity and not a "right". Why? Because an uneducated person becomes a burden to themselves and to their family and, by extension--to society at large who are compelled to deal with their deficit. See a pattern here?
2.Health is a baseline necessity for a reason: without health you cannot exercise your right to life, liberty and cannot PURSUE happiness. That it is necessary to be ACTIVE in all three of these should suggest to you that healh care is not passive and a "right" at all. Education follows the recognition that there is something personally to be gained in knowing. i.e. Rational thinking for the purpose of rational acting on your own behalf to sustain and improve your life.
3.Yes! I am an autodidact. Generations of intelligent and rational people managed to educate THEMSELVES (arguably) with much better results than our compulsory education system here in the U.S. Educating yourself is self-motivated and that is why it is superior. You learn because you NEED and WANT to learn and not because you'll get a report card and a gold star. (Think about Abraham Lincoln and what he achieved.)
4.Your assertion is that I'm advocating we all become doctors and operate on ourselves. Ho ho ho. How very clever of you! You've side-stepped the issue and buried it in a straw man argument. What does that achieve?
My argument is that we each have PERSONAL responsibility or we forfeit our claim to a RIGHT insofar as we each are able. That is why people who were required to work for welfare benefits did better personally than those who previously were just handed a check for being an idle and needy recipient of the handout.
So, let us look at the profoundly disabled person, shall we, as a worse-case scenario.
Who takes care of this person and who pays for it?
Close relatives should logically be considered first. After that, religious organizations dedicated to charitable acts as a profession of faith. Third, secular organizations funded voluntarily.
Terry
Terry, we are not talking about charity. We are talking about national health care in which all able bodied citizens pay taxes that enable all citizens to be covered and cared for. As has already been demonstrated within this thread, Australia does that by collecting 1 1/2 % tax from all citizens that can pay it. This is not by any definition a charity. The modest tax covers everyone: how beautiful is that?
We ARE.
We are talking about COMPULSORY CHARITY called "national health care" and not being honest about what it is.
By reframing the issue and calling it a "right" we muddy the issue.
T.
