Why America can't have nice things...

[Deleted member 1391]

You're arguing semantics.

I would like to point out how hilarious it is, that you think a "right" to healthcare already somehow exists, when a "right" to food doesn't even exist.

Our government (Ireland) provides the money required to buy food should you be unable to afford to pay for it yourself.

Our government also provides universally free healthcare, regardless of the type of illness or injury, or the medication required to you.

If you are unable to travel somewhere in this country due to your own physical disabilities, you are provided with the means to.

And if you actually do believe that every person in the world doesn't have a right to live a quality of life that ensures their health and safety... well, then, I really don't know what to say to you, to be honest.

 

[Shai Gar]

Ben, you'd agree with my Rights, then.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

There is nothing that the world is obligated to give -- likewise, I don't believe that healthcare is necessarily a right. I think it would be better if we could provide healthcare to all that need it, but in reality, that's a VERY idealistic and faulty principle.

The healthcare has to come from somewhere. And thus, it has to be earned. We have to weigh the negatives against the positives -- just picketing that we need it is very short-sighted and somewhat self-centered; yeah, it's great to love people and hope for the best for everyone, but it's totally irresponsible to do that without considering what the consequences for the act could be.

 

[BenW]

You're arguing semantics.

Not at all.
The definition of what is a right is an extremely important concept.

If I have a right to healthcare, do I have a right to quality landscaping service, professional massage, or entertainement?

Our government (Ireland) provides the money required to buy food should you be unable to afford to pay for it yourself.

Taxpayers would provide it, actually.

It sounds more likely to me that the government subsidizes certain foods, rather than gives money to people.
Either way, do you have a source? I couldn't find anything on google.
I don't doubt you, I would just like to read about it.

And if you actually do believe that every person in the world don't have a right to live a quality of life that ensures their health and safety... well, then, I really don't know what to say to you, to be honest.

I believe everyone in the world should have the opportunity and freedom to gain the quality of life that ensures their health and safety.

I also believe that people's private property and earnings are theirs alone.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

You're arguing semantics.


Our government (Ireland) provides the money required to buy food should you be unable to afford to pay for it yourself.

Our government also provides universally free healthcare, regardless of the type of illness or injury, or the medication required to you.

If you are unable to travel somewhere in this country due to your own physical disabilities, you are provided with the means to.

And if you actually do believe that every person in the world doesn't have a right to live a quality of life that ensures their health and safety... well, then, I really don't know what to say to you, to be honest.

Ireland is much smaller than the US; trying to organize governmental programs on the federal level in the United States for things like that is very difficult, especially from scratch. Plus, in many ways, by doing that we are going against our base economic philosophy -- capitalism -- which requires a lot of consideration before the changes can be made.

Healthcare should be readily available, but sometimes it's not as easy as that. In reality, healthcare isn't free, and therefore can't just be given out, at least not as the system is at the moment.

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

That they do.

Not being able to afford something doesn't equate to not having the freedom to buy it.

semantics, and you know it

Hm. In order to give people the freedom to go anywhere in the world they wanted would require the cooperation of every government on Earth, which would be no small accomplishment.
And, bricking up my door would also damage my property, which is an active violation of my rights.

to continue this ever strained analogy I'll now give you the freedom to travel anywhere within your own nation but build a 20 foot impenetrable wall circling your property

 

[BenW]

semantics, and you know it

Nope, not even close.

I have a "right" to make everyone else wear orange socks.
Disprove me.

to continue this ever strained analogy I'll now give you the freedom to travel anywhere within your own nation but build a 20 foot impenetrable wall circling your property

Yeah, my reply was a facetious implication that it was a stupid analogy to begin with.

Not giving people money is not the same thing as preventing them from buying things.

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

Not at all.
The definition of what is a right is an extremely important concept.

If I have a right to healthcare, do I have a right to quality landscaping service, professional massage, or entertainement?

no you don't have a right to landscaping, massages or entertainment because you have a choice as to whether you require those services or not, it is a very simple distinction that you are ignoring

Taxpayers would provide it, actually.

It sounds more likely to me that the government subsidizes certain foods, rather than gives money to people.
Either way, do you have a source? I couldn't find anything on google.
I don't doubt you, I would just like to read about it.

the government (using tax payers money) determine what the minimum amount a person can live on (based on number of dependents etc) and then provides welfare to those that don't have that amount, there are other training programs in the UK as well that help you gain the skills to provide that amount for yourself from a job

I believe everyone in the world should have the opportunity and freedom to gain the quality of life that ensures their health and safety.

I also believe that people's private property and earnings are theirs alone.

but their private property and earnings are only available due to the society they live in, an entrepreneur can't earn a bean without citizens to earn from, and the conditions the rest of society creates allows them to earn money and hence it is only FAIR that they pay according to their means.

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

Nope, not even close.

I have a "right" to make everyone else wear orange socks.
Disprove me.

other people wearing orange socks is not a requirement for your continued survival nor does it impact on your ability to make a positive contribution to society, therefore it is not a right

 

[bamf]

Comparing the UK's and Ireland's systems to the US is detrimental.

The population difference alone is huge, not to mention the vast differences in government styles and the ways the governments are set up.

Apples and pears are two very different fruits...

 

[BenW]

no you don't have a right to landscaping, massages or entertainment because you have a choice as to whether you require those services or not, it is a very simple distinction that you are ignoring

I can only "require" healthcare, but not any other goods or services?
You'll definitely have to explain that distinction to me.

the government (using tax payers money) determine what the minimum amount a person can live on (based on number of dependents etc) and then provides welfare to those that don't have that amount, there are other training programs in the UK as well that help you gain the skills to provide that amount for yourself from a job

How many people would pay taxes, if they had the choice, free of coercion?

The ends never justify the means.

but their private property and earnings are only available due to the society they live in, an entrepreneur can't earn a bean without citizens to earn from, and the conditions the rest of society creates allows them to earn money and hence it is only FAIR that they pay according to their means.

The only people entrepreneurs owe anything to are their employees and creditors.

other people wearing orange socks is not a requirement for your continued survival nor does it impact on your ability to make a positive contribution to society, therefore it is not a right

What makes my continued survival a right?
Or my ability to contribute positively to society, for that matter.

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

Not giving people money is not the same thing as preventing them from buying things.

but the effect is the same, they can't get access to the 'thing', if that thing is the care to allow them to continue living then society has the moral obligation to provide it.

 

[bamf]

but the effect is the same, they can't get access to the 'thing', if that thing is the care to allow them to continue living then society has the moral obligation to provide it.

Really now?

Society is morally obligated?

 

[BenW]

but the effect is the same, they can't get access to the 'thing', if that thing is the care to allow them to continue living then society has the moral obligation to provide it.

The effect is not the same. Not giving something to them is completely passive, preventing them from getting it is completely active.
However, I do believe that people have some form of "obligation" to provide it to them.
But, only by means of compassion, rather than force, if at all.

 

[arbygil]

Comparing the UK's and Ireland's systems to the US is detrimental.

The population difference alone is huge, not to mention the vast differences in government styles and the ways the governments are set up.

Apples and pears are two very different fruits...

That is one of the major issues, that's true; we're the third largest population group on earth, next to India and China. They're the only ones we can statistically compare ourselves to.

On the other hand, individual states govern...I dunno. I think we need decent health care - national health care - but there's not an easy way to get it. It *will* be expensive. But I think it's more expensive not to have it in the long run. My mother's generation has no more social security, and they're the ones who will need the most health care (the most that our nation has ever seen). The baby boomers are living longer and some take care of themselves...others don't. If they're depending on their kids to take care of them, well, I'm not sure if we have the money for it.

I know my Mom. Her main reason for not visiting hospitals or having adequate medical care is expense. She refuses to use it. She has medicare but she refuses to go, believing that if she gets sick she gets sick...and she'll manage herself until she's dead.

I don't know if free health care will change her mind, but it might make the fight to make her see a doctor an easier one. I worry about her.

 

[bamf]

That is one of the major issues, that's true; we're the third largest population group on earth, next to India and China. They're the only ones we can statistically compare ourselves to.

On the other hand, individual states govern...I dunno. I think we need decent health care - national health care - but there's not an easy way to get it. It *will* be expensive. But I think it's more expensive not to have it in the long run. My mother's generation has no more social security, and they're the ones who will need the most health care (the most that our nation has ever seen). The baby boomers are living longer and some take care of themselves...others don't. If they're depending on their kids to take care of them, well, I'm not sure if we have the money for it.

I know my Mom. Her main reason for not visiting hospitals or having adequate medical care is expense. She refuses to use it. She has medicare but she refuses to go, believing that if she gets sick she gets sick...and she'll manage herself until she's dead.

I don't know if free health care will change her mind, but it might make the fight to make her see a doctor an easier one. I worry about her.

I'm with you, I think something needs to be done and I think some form of national health care (I just grow tired of people making connections to governments and populations so vastly different than our own).

There's a lot of questions that need to be answered I think. What type of procedures does it cover? And will there be exceptions made on a personal case? If so, who and how are these exceptions made. Does it cover mental health, not just physical, and if so, to what extent etc... etc...

I also don't like it when people refer to it as "free" because it most definitely is not. The government doesn't have money. The people (who are the government) have money and the burden of this lies on them. While I am for some sort of national health care, I admit that it is in no way free.

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

I can only "require" healthcare, but not any other goods or services?
You'll definitely have to explain that distinction to me.

you need to have a tumour removed, you need to be protected from crime, you need to have fires put out, you need to be protected from your nations enemies.

you want your garden landscaping, you want a massage, you want to be entertained.

How many people would pay taxes, if they had the choice, free of coercion?

The ends never justify the means.

if people were properly educated about the alternatives to paying taxes, or if they experienced the alternative, then everyone would pay taxes apart from the very select few who could afford their own private armies

'the ends never justify the means' - a single parent being able to feed themselves and their child isn't justification for those who can afford to pay tax doing so? If that genuinely is your position then you are a reprehensible human being

The only people entrepreneurs owe anything to are their employees and creditors.

they exist within a society which creates the conditions for them to behave in such a manner, they owe the opportunity to be an entrepreneur to society

What makes my continued survival a right?
Or my ability to contribute positively to society, for that matter.

I have already explained what I consider a right to be, if you don't consider those things to be rights then we differ on a fundamental moral level.

from your own declaration of independance:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[bamf]

If that genuinely is your position then you are a reprehensible human being

Maybe in your opinion but I'm sure he doesn't see himself that way. So who's right?

or is it simply name calling and ignoring the debate?

 

[errrrrrrrrrm]

The effect is not the same. Not giving something to them is completely passive, preventing them from getting it is completely active.

do you understand what 'effect' means?

The 'effect' is the inability to access health care, passive and active are descriptions of the cause.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

One of the big problems, in my opinion: although many people do take care of themselves, there is a large number of people who really don't.

Why should we be obligated to take on the burden of caring extensively for someone when they will not take responsibility to care for themselves? When is it a societal obligation to take care of those who won't even put an effort to give back?

In other words, those who have health problems due to their unwillingness to put real effort into losing weight or stopping smoking or things of the like...well, I don't like the fact that a very good chunk of the healthcare will probably be going to them