Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FixingLosers, Oct 21, 2012.

  1. FixingLosers

    FixingLosers New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First, I'd like to extend my gratitude toward The Real American Thinker, for being the only liberal who was man enough to take on my challenge head on:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-you-believe-how-do-you-implement-them-4.html

    Many points I could not agree more within his posts, so I shall take time refuting those beliefs of his that I find disagreeble:

    First of all, in prior threads, I iterated my accusation that liberals love hammering a wedge by the name of "government" wherever they believe to be a hole or a crack. R.A.T is no better, despite being vague about how should his ideal be implemented and by whom shall problems be addressed.


    If you believe there is a problem, the only justifiable ground that you should posit yourself on, should be where you, by your own effort, utilizing time and resources in your own possession, to tackle such problem(s).

    For fear of a foreign invasion, you would be willing to relinquish certain part of your monetary power to the government, which is a monopoly in military power. A military free-market would be extremely inefficient and disastrous. A free-market would only be free within a peaceful environment — sadly and ironically secured by an entity that is neither peaceful — nor free. I would argue that people living by the coast should pay more for defense budget than inlanders, since they enjoy more benefit brought about by their advantageous geographic position, and face more threats from on the sea. To sum up, an individual being willing to donate a proportion of his rightful possession to the government for the sake of defense is constructed strictly on his realization and awareness of how his personal benefits is subtly related to the defense matter.

    The same thing however, could not be said about food, sheltering and healthcare. First and foremost, my inaction in giving a piece of bread to a person that are starving, say in Alaska would yield no significant effect on the society as a whole, either positive or negative. It is also true with sheltering and healthcare.

    Of course, some liberals would argue, similar to the issue concerning national defense, that should people became excessively apathetic or self-centered, the society as a whole would deteriorate into a Darwinian jungle — of course, without the voluntary multual-benefiting in between or within species.

    This belief is thoroughly false. For starters, humans can only improve themselves by improving others on consensual grounds. If there is a street with no restaurant, clearly, a man living in the vicinity of this street could become rich just by opening a restaurant, while at the same time, providing catering services that benefit others. Should he became more "selfish" or "self-centered", he clearly would have to increase his profit by expanding his business while at the same time, again, extending the coverage of his services thus benefiting more people.

    In short and in conclusion, the doomsday scenario that some liberals warn us about would be anything but possible.


    Interestingly, when look at the other side of the moon — almost all those societies that employed coercive means to force charity upon people had an notorious role of playing the devil in the long course of history. This is a logical inevitability — if a government could hold people on gun points to do charitable acts, what would be stopping them from forcing people to do anything it desires?

    Now, for a liberal, comes a truly more difficult part — to what degree shall healthcare be provided? In a society with limited resources and time, who shall be given more priority when allocating the healthcare related resources? And by what standards shall these priorities be decided? Should we save a 12 year old child or a rocket scientist in his 40s when the two are at odds? How would a society be benefited if a retired automobile worker being kept alive on life support that cost the public 30,000 a day? And who shall decide when to terminate such support? And — why should we consider them eligible and qualified in making such decision?

    To put it more concisely — the quick fix that "let government do it" is not only in any logical way, easy, simple or quick NOT, but would also complicate every matter concerned exponentially beyond anyone's conceivability.

    It is more, much more complex than the infinite regress that "if god created everything, then who created god?".
     
  2. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hello, you evaluate healthcare in terms of its benefit to society, you miss the point, the point is it should be universal for humanitarian reasons not cost-benefit ones. you also list some examples that will never happen, like whether to save a 12 year old boy or whatever, that would never happen, then ask who should decide well thats very simple doctors should decide and we consider them eligibile and qualified cause theyre erm......doctors.
     
  3. stroll

    stroll New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    10,509
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought this thread is about healthcare, not the government 'fixing' things or who created god???
     
  4. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Behind the verbosity of the OP is a simple premise-the belief is that 'liberals' want to take his precious cash to help sick people. That cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted. It's a classic symptom of the 'I got mine, f*ck you' conservative mindset. Doctor's in UHC systems heal people for free because they're empathic and caring humans, and not profit-motivated bean counters for whom keeping the boss happy, and keeping their jobs is the bottom line. Americans should ask themselves why, of all civilized Western nations, universal health care, and the fundamental right to it, is so problematic for them.
     
  5. lizarddust

    lizarddust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,350
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Access to safe drinking water, shelter, education, calory intake, life expectancy, access to healthcare etc are some of the indicators of a country's development.
     
  6. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the first world everyone should have access to healthcare, in the 3rd world, unfortunately they do not.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,107
    Likes Received:
    39,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    That is no accident and leads to a self fulfilling prophesy because a healthy citizenry is a productive citizenry
     
  8. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's vague because being explicit on health care is incredibly complex (Obamacare is 3000 pages long for a reason), and there are already models all around the world which we could adopt.

    If you're going to go off on a "Government is inherently bad" rant, you have missed the basic argumentative premises. If you believe this, then there's no point in discussing the issue at all, because you've already made up your mind - "Government is inherently bad, no discussion necessary".

    Ever heard of the squeeze effect? It's essentially the sociological theory that when people are in desperate, awful situations, they grasp to desperate measures. They become more likely to steal, or kill. They become depressed. There's a whole host of issues that come along with a destitute lower class that has to worry about food and shelter. it's fairly well documented.

    Well of course, it's also not the argument being made. Yes, collective selfishness can lead to positive ends. But it also leaves people out. It ignores those who are luckless in life, and leaves them to fend for themselves. And sometimes, "fend for yourself" means "hold up a bank to be able to eat this month".

    This is a difficult question, and one that needs to be addressed. However, you seem to be missing the other side of the coin - rationing happens in our health care system as well, but in a different way. In a system like the UHC, the government has to decide how to distribute limited resources in a way that benefits society the most and is not unnecessarily cruel. In our system, the rationing is based simply on "who can pay for health care". That's not better, that's worse! Instead of having any merit-based controls in place, the system simply leaves it all up to chance. I fail to see how that could possibly be better than people actually checking that (*)(*)(*)(*).
     
  9. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is electricity a fundamental right? You (Republicans) didn't think so in the 20's. A Republican brought electricity to the White House, a Democrat brought electricity to everyone else. Look it up!

    Is safe shipping a fundamental right? Why would I want my competitor's ships to be safe on the rocks? It's bad for business! I'm not paying for this lighthouse, and yet Democrats insist on safe shipping lanes, because it's good for ALL business.

    Is clean water a fundamental right? There's no €£¥#%^* business need, in fact it depletes sale of bottles, and so is bad for business, yet Democrats insist on clean water. Someone even found a viable way to sustain it for the common people! You would never do this today with your (Republicans') sick €£¥#%^* mentality.

    Now we are saying: Natural food is a fundamental right. This is why Government EXISTS. Healthcare is a fundamental right. That's what Government is FOR. Military protection is a fundamental right. BECAUSE UNLIKE YOU, WE BUILD A GOOD SOCIETY FOR ALL, WHILE YOU BUILD A GOOD SOCIETY FOR THE €£¥#%^* TOP 1% AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE SLAVES. LOOK IT UP! BE CONSCIOUS OF YOUR €£¥#%^* POLICIES. You (Republicans) are like cave men who don't think civilization is possible, and worse you fight against others' attempts to make it. Why not focus on your own societal construction? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

    WE NEED SOME BRILLIANT PERSON TO DISCOVER HOW TO SUSTAIN IT, AND WE NEED... **IF YOU ARE NOT HELPING, ***GET OUT OF THE GOD(*)(*)(*)(*)ED €£¥#%^* WAY*****

     
  10. retiredindependant

    retiredindependant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personal Experience: Worked at some job since I was twelve. Managed at three different companys. Did the 401K thing and saved for retirement. At 61 I developed a tumer and ended up doing early retirement (social security) at 62 because I could hardly walk. Right away company insurance dropped me like a "hot potato". With CTs, MRIs, biopsies, etc. every three months my 401 and savings went down the tube real quick. No insurance and no savings equal no doctor or hospital wanting to treat you. Friend says "try the VA, you're a vet". Tried the VA and they took over my treatment. VA equals government insurance. I'm all for government insurance! If not for the VA, I'd be dead right now!
     
  11. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    well there you go, that ends the argument right there. government is good, private sector bad. some things should always stay public, and health is one of the main ones. remember and vote democrat btw.
     
  12. Gwendoline

    Gwendoline Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Rather than ponder the government holding people at gunpoint to do charitable work... the better question to ask would be why some people have such an appaling regard for their fellow man and woman. I mean, taking universal health care... by your analogy the government would be holding a gun to your head (paying a few lowly tax dollars) that would go towards saving the life of your neighbour. Christ, I can hear your umbrage from here.


    37 years of universal health care in Australia makes tripe like yours sound like it's coming from straight out of the stagnant backwater.

    Lot of selfish bastards in America.
     
  13. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,769
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you justify the claim of a right to any material value that is limited in quantity and has to be produced? What if no person chooses to produce it (or simply cannot do so)??
     
  14. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Insurance payment should be put in a secure interest account and withdrawn in equal sum if needed, or withdrawn at maturity if not used. Public tax should be used for additional insurance. The US Government would deliver lower overhead by force of will and focus on the purpose and ethics of insurance, while police could verify authenticity if they were not so busy harming the public.

    As it was, a dispicably large percentage of your and others' payments went to lavish lifestyles of a few, marketing, operations, etc., and the grossly superior insurance policies held by the rich and powerful depleted the remaining stocks. The US insurance scam is tantamount to a PONZI scheme which steals from the poor and funds the rich.

    That is why you were shafted. Do not be ashamed, my friend, for needing the insurance. THAT IS WHAT THE €£¥#%^* INSURANCE IS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE FOR. All Americans must be ashamed that their system is a failure. It is a fraud, a disgrace, and a scourge on civilization. The US Government is propping the unstable entity upward and upward and they will exclaim with incompetence during its inevitable collapse, or they will prolong the peoples' misery in their idiot republic.

    First, you should recognize it. Second, the US Government should be the leader in its own revolution, rather than the incompetent recipient of it when it happens. Either way, change is on the horizon. Because when burning the institution becomes a greater good than the institution itself, that is when the behaviour of good men becomes sour.

    The US Government has built a house of cards which cannot stand, and even the rich are seeing depleted rewards. I have told you both about the problem AND the solution. Now grow some correct brain cells. When the US Government becomes an enemy of the people, the people will be its enemy. Only through sheer incompetence and greed could they allow their society to reach that point of critical mass. Yes- They should be the leader of their own collapse and wake up the next day with a more stronger union. As it is now they are pathetic. The US politics is indistinguishable from a bandanna republic that suppresses and marginalizes all third parties and allows only a select few to stand in mock debates.

    If the US were any other nation, it would have Horse Mouth Hillary Clinton on the box criticizing its own elections and political processes. Yes- A sacred institution, yet she still finds the time to mock it, as the US has done persistently, and publicly, against the careful political facilities of foreign pride. A truly despicable republic.
     
  15. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not really. I'm highly charitable on my own and don't need a gun to my head to give poor people money. Just like I try to be smart in my charitable givings (see how much of my $$ go the poor and how much is tied up in administration and in results. Our welfare system is set up to fail because its programs do not focus on individuals but herd.

    It is not a lack of charity on my part, but a belief that individuals helping individuals will get people farther than setting up a virtual birdfeeder in a segregated part of town (on purpose) and then feeling good about yourself.

    Not really. We're a much larger nation than the experiments in health care that others have. Look at China, their universal health care only goes so far because it is unsustainable otherwise due to the populace.
     
  16. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,769
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The next question: What if you chose NOT to be charitable at all? Would the government's gun then be justified?
     
  17. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. I don't believe that theft is moral. Taking money out of someone's pockets by force to give to someone else is theft. Charity should be freely given. In the history of the world there have always been people who gave charitably--of course this was a by-product of religion which most liberals hate, but...I'm sure the secular humanists will step up to give 10% of what they have to the poor as religious people once did.
     
  18. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    people are rewarded for producing it, and if they cant then nobody gets it anyway
     
  19. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0

    charity is discriminatory though, the govt distributes according to need. if you give to charity only a certain demographic is helped, others are not. if I had enough money Id give 10% of it to charity, I dont see that a religious person of equal economic means to me could be seen to be any more generous. I have no objection to my taxes going to help the poor.
     
  20. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,769
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The claim of a right to healthcare is the claim that anyone who needs healthcare must have it. If it isn't produced, how do you secure the right in question?
     
  21. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the point youre leading to is why would anyone produce it in a socialist system but its moot, as doctors in countries with universal healthcare are very well paid. so it will always be produced. where are you gonna go now ?
     
  22. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a doctor here can earn quarter of a million per annum, funding an excellent lifestyle. the problem with obamacare is doctors in the states earn millions, and government doesnt like to overpay for stuff like that so they are going to take a hit, thats why theyre moaning so much.
     
  23. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    quarter of a million here with higher living costs in the states (university fees for example) translated into dollars would be say half a million. thats enough to live a great life, as all doctors should.
     
  24. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,769
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    No Charlie. I didn't bring socialism into this discussion and I will not do so. Theoretically any person might choose to produce or not choose to produce. If health care is a right, the securing of that right requires the person needing healthcare to have it. How will that right be secured if it isn't produced?
     
  25. Gwendoline

    Gwendoline Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have paid taxes towards universal health care all my working life. NEVER did it feel like a gun to my head, but ALWAYS a privilege and something that made me PROUD to contribute to. Universal health care is NOT a 'virtual birdfeeder'. It IS the right of every person.



    We've had universal health care for 37 years. Is that what you'd term an 'experiment' in health care?

    One of the obstacles of implementing universal health care over there is in part to human resistance / selfishness. That's what I've gleaned reading utter mean-spirited selfish crap here over the years. Gough Whitlam, our prime minister at the time, didn't ask - he just did it. Legislated universal health care in 1975. Didn't buckle to any opposition. HE KNEW IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND HE DID IT. (God bless you, Gough. 96 years of age. Inspirational Man.)

    If a nation isn't healthy, forget it. A nation that has sick people that are sick because they can't 'afford' an adequate quality of life... is a sick nation on so many levels.
     

Share This Page