Do you support universal healthcare?

Finnforest wrote: Alex: Yeah, sorry, I sometimes forget some of you guys are younger than I think you are!  We'll make it soft drinks then!!     Nuthin' wrong with that!

That works.

p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Re: socialized medicine and "rights" It makes no sense to me to see people defend such a thing as socialized medicine as an inherent "right." No one ever likes to discuss the philosophy behind things. Does it make sense that someone has the right to a portion of what someone else earns to pay for ailments, no matter where they com from?. Simply, health care is not an inherent right, in my mind, let alone universal health care. It may be a good platform for a society, but people get bogged down with loaded language. I'm not asking to drive in someone else's car or live in someone else's house. I'm asking to be able to keep myself alive without being rich. Is that really so hard for people to grasp? So you're saying it isn't a right for everybody to have the equal chance of staying healthy and alive? You're sick.

No one can possibly have an equal chance of staying healthy or alive. A lot of it is genetic and uncontrollable. I'm saying no one has a stake in my earnings by rights. It seems nonsensical to say so. If there were a natural forest that anyone could enter and that would cure their sicknesses, everyone of course should have an equal opportunity to enter it. It wouldn't be only for those who could pay a fee to enter. But that's not where universal health care comes from, does it? It all costs something to someone. I just find the concept of a "right to something" murky and beside the point.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Re: socialized medicine and "rights" It makes no sense to me to see people defend such a thing as socialized medicine as an inherent "right." No one ever likes to discuss the philosophy behind things. Does it make sense that someone has the right to a portion of what someone else earns to pay for ailments, no matter where they com from?. Simply, health care is not an inherent right, in my mind, let alone universal health care. It may be a good platform for a society, but people get bogged down with loaded language. I'm not asking to drive in someone else's car or live in someone else's house. I'm asking to be able to keep myself alive without being rich. Is that really so hard for people to grasp? So you're saying it isn't a right for everybody to have the equal chance of staying healthy and alive? You're sick. No one can possibly have an equal chance of staying healthy or alive. A lot of it is genetic and uncontrollable. I'm saying no one has a stake in my earnings by rights. It seems nonsensical to say so. If there were a natural forest that anyone could enter and that would cure their sicknesses, everyone of course should have an equal opportunity to enter it. It wouldn't be only for those who could pay a fee to enter. But that's not where universal health care comes from, does it? It all costs something to someone. I just find the concept of a "right to something" murky and beside the point.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I personally wouldn't care if my tax money went to helping other people. I don't consider it as somebody else having a 'stake in my earnings'.

Now if somebody argued that everybody else had the 'right' to make love to my wife, bathe in my shower, sleep in my bed, watch my tv, etc. Then I would consider it as such. But no one is saying that.

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?

Or is it merely the 'principal of the thing' that bothers you, despite all the people it could help?


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 21:25

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.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 03 2009 at 21:28

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.

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

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.

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. 

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

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.