Do you support universal healthcare?

KoS wrote: For me, animals have some rights that humans aren't entitled because they can't think for themselves. Same thing with children, the handicapped and the mentally disabled. Adults have to be responsible with their lifestyle choices. No one but yourself should be responsible for the things that you consciously choose for yourself.  One of the less spoken about arguments is the fact that almost all health-care services are based on treatment and not prevention. I would gladly pay for a health service that focuses on preventive care rather than treatments and has a fully digital chart and prescription system.

Good point, on issues like this in general I am always way way more sympathetic to children and the disabled over adults who have made stupid decisions.

Chris S wrote: And by rights an open forum does not exclude participation   Even if it was not mean't for me I responded. OK off at a tangent, sorry about that.   I sincerely hope that USA get the healthcare they all wish for.

I wasn't saying you didn't have a right to respond. I was just prefacing my response to make sure everybody knew that you weren't speaking for stonebeard. 'Tis all.

Padraic wrote: I thought all healthcare was "free" in England.

I don't know. Ask an Englishman. I was just commenting on something that I knew to be true, not something I speculated was true, and to claim that all of England has free healthcare would be a large speculation on my part.

KoS wrote: For me, animals have some rights that humans aren't entitled because they can't think for themselves. Same thing with children, the handicapped and the mentally disabled. Adults have to be responsible with their lifestyle choices. No one but yourself should be responsible for the things that you consciously choose for yourself.  One of the less spoken about arguments is the fact that almost all health-care services are based on treatment and not prevention. I would gladly pay for a health service that focuses on preventive care rather than treatments and has a fully digital chart and prescription system.

So all handicapped people and children automatically can't think for themselves?

And I'm sure we would all love to have services that prevent people from getting sick, but . . . wouldn't ya know . . . that derned thing known as sickness just doesn't announce itself very well. Trust me, if we could tax people for prevention services, we would. Unfortunately, we can't see the future, so people WILL get sick without warning.

I'm sure it would be quite convenient, though. I can see it now:

"Sir, your tax dollars must go to help this woman"

"Too bad! It's her own fault, she should've taken my money while she was well!"




Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 23:25

p0mt3 wrote: Chris S wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Your tax dollars are at times going to go towards something you don't personally subscribe to no matter how much you rant and rave about it. That's how this society works. Wouldn't you rather have your tax dollars go towards something that is at least MORALLY right? First off, only talking about "rights" here, of which I think few if any exist. They're independent of society. Taxes are necessary for a good society, as far as I can tell. But as someone doesn't have a birthright to paved streets, a police department, and public schooling, that person also does not have a right to healthcare, in my mind. Simply, a "right" to anything is iffy to me, because I'm not sure we're special enough to deserve anything purely because we exist. But we can gather around an confer if something is good enough that we should have it (freedom, life, perhaps a degree of healthcare) but calling those "unalienable rights" and so one just brings nothing meaningful to discussion, and presumes things about the universe that aren't, in my opinion. Okay, so let me ask you this . . . how consistent is your stand on this? Would you also say that animals don't have any 'rights' simply for existing? Or are you one of those people who think animals deserve rights that humans don't? Also, if you're questioning 'rights' to begin with, I do worry a little. When you say that, I have to wonder . . . would you have been one of those people back in the civil rights movement who said, "Ehh, when we talk about giving these black people 'rights', that's a bit iffy for me. Yep, I'm just not sure. What ARE 'rights', anyway, really?" Seems to me you're only thinking from your own perspective and not considering much else that goes on outside of your general area. We assume rights by the nature of our species Humans are brutal in dictating rights and only some special few have expanded on that namely, MLK, Mandela, Ghani etc Animals force their right to exist, similar functions of survival instincts perhaps?   We all know nothing else......because only the stars blink back.......       Okay, that makes sense. Unfortunately, you weren't who I was talking to, so I'm still unsure if that is what HE meant by what he said, but it certainly does clear it up for me on your perspective. So, rights only exists because they have been dictated to us for the purpose of keeping certain people down. Right? Well then . . . we should fight for these non-existent, pseudo-rights that you speak of so that we can have non-existent, pseudo universal healthcare. Regardless of where the concept of 'rights' came from, the outcome is still the same as far as I can see.

And by rights an open forum does not exclude participation

For me, animals have some rights that humans aren't entitled because they can't think for themselves.
Same thing with children, the handicapped and the mentally disabled. Adults have to be responsible with their lifestyle choices. No one but yourself should be responsible for the things that you consciously choose for yourself.  One of the less spoken about arguments is the fact that almost all health-care services are based on treatment and not prevention. I would gladly pay for a health service that focuses on preventive care rather than treatments and has a fully digital chart and prescription system.




Edited by KoS - September 03 2009 at 21:58

Chris S wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Your tax dollars are at times going to go towards something you don't personally subscribe to no matter how much you rant and rave about it. That's how this society works. Wouldn't you rather have your tax dollars go towards something that is at least MORALLY right? First off, only talking about "rights" here, of which I think few if any exist. They're independent of society. Taxes are necessary for a good society, as far as I can tell. But as someone doesn't have a birthright to paved streets, a police department, and public schooling, that person also does not have a right to healthcare, in my mind. Simply, a "right" to anything is iffy to me, because I'm not sure we're special enough to deserve anything purely because we exist. But we can gather around an confer if something is good enough that we should have it (freedom, life, perhaps a degree of healthcare) but calling those "unalienable rights" and so one just brings nothing meaningful to discussion, and presumes things about the universe that aren't, in my opinion. Okay, so let me ask you this . . . how consistent is your stand on this? Would you also say that animals don't have any 'rights' simply for existing? Or are you one of those people who think animals deserve rights that humans don't? Also, if you're questioning 'rights' to begin with, I do worry a little. When you say that, I have to wonder . . . would you have been one of those people back in the civil rights movement who said, "Ehh, when we talk about giving these black people 'rights', that's a bit iffy for me. Yep, I'm just not sure. What ARE 'rights', anyway, really?" Seems to me you're only thinking from your own perspective and not considering much else that goes on outside of your general area. We assume rights by the nature of our species Humans are brutal in dictating rights and only some special few have expanded on that namely, MLK, Mandela, Ghani etc Animals force their right to exist, similar functions of survival instincts perhaps?   We all know nothing else......because only the stars blink back.......

Okay, that makes sense. Unfortunately, you weren't who I was talking to, so I'm still unsure if that is what HE meant by what he said, but it certainly does clear it up for me on your perspective.

So, rights only exists because they have been dictated to us for the purpose of keeping certain people down. Right?

Well then . . . we should fight for these non-existent, pseudo-rights that you speak of so that we can have non-existent, pseudo universal healthcare.

Regardless of where the concept of 'rights' came from, the outcome is still the same as far as I can see.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Your tax dollars are at times going to go towards something you don't personally subscribe to no matter how much you rant and rave about it. That's how this society works. Wouldn't you rather have your tax dollars go towards something that is at least MORALLY right? First off, only talking about "rights" here, of which I think few if any exist. They're independent of society. Taxes are necessary for a good society, as far as I can tell. But as someone doesn't have a birthright to paved streets, a police department, and public schooling, that person also does not have a right to healthcare, in my mind. Simply, a "right" to anything is iffy to me, because I'm not sure we're special enough to deserve anything purely because we exist. But we can gather around an confer if something is good enough that we should have it (freedom, life, perhaps a degree of healthcare) but calling those "unalienable rights" and so one just brings nothing meaningful to discussion, and presumes things about the universe that aren't, in my opinion.

Okay, so let me ask you this . . . how consistent is your stand on this? Would you also say that animals don't have any 'rights' simply for existing? Or are you one of those people who think animals deserve rights that humans don't?

Also, if you're questioning 'rights' to begin with, I do worry a little. When you say that, I have to wonder . . . would you have been one of those people back in the civil rights movement who said, "Ehh, when we talk about giving these black people 'rights', that's a bit iffy for me. Yep, I'm just not sure. What ARE 'rights', anyway, really?" Seems to me you're only thinking from your own perspective and not considering much else that goes on outside of your general area.

Of COURSE we have rights for simply existing! What was all of that bloodshed over in the past for equal rights and whatnot if rights didn't truly exist? What, it's something we made up? Are you insane?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, in which case . . . clarify, please.


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 21:46

p0mt3 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Why aren't you supposed to agree with me on anything? I was just kidding. It just seems like you and I have very different takes on politics in general, or at least that's the vibe I have gotten, so I thought it was pretty cool that you and I agreed on something that was at least partially political in nature.

Socially, I am so liberal I would have made Ted Kennedy blush, but I am fiscally conservative, and this is one of those political issues where the two ideals sort of clash. 

rushfan4 wrote: Why aren't you supposed to agree with me on anything?

I was just kidding. It just seems like you and I have very different takes on politics in general, or at least that's the vibe I have gotten, so I thought it was pretty cool that you and I agreed on something that was at least partially political in nature.

Why aren't you supposed to agree with me on anything?

Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah, when it comes to tax dollars you can pretend your money is going to bloated defense spending and the Iraq war and I'll be more than happy for mine to help people.

Absolutely.

I mean, I don't personally like the idea of my tax dollars going towards the funding for the Iraq war which I am very much against, but I accept it to a certain degree, because that's how it works! Our taxes aren't always going to support causes that we as individuals particularly support, but I have never understood the complain of, "Oh, well, it's my money! Why should it go towards something I don't support?"

Well, maybe I'll take the people who make those arguments seriously once they provide for themselves 100%, without any government help at all. Maybe they can find a way to purify their own water, poison-control their own food, pave their own roads, be their own bosses, etc.

If they can manage to get on without anybody else's help, then and ONLY then will I actually listen to them when they start bitching about where their taxes go.