Health Care for Everyone

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Okay, maybe I spotted your argument. "Life...is the reason." So prolonging life is the motive behind all actions. Even if we make it complicated, with our consciouness and abstract thinking, our philosophy and our manmade constructs of math, the ultimate origin of all action is the need to stay alive.

Is that your perspective?

If it is, I'm going to have to write back and argue with some of it.

To live. But life can be seen on different levels. People have to die. Everything must die. But we can decide what is a justifiable reason to die. There are times when dying for your country is valid. There are times when sacrificing ones life for another is considered good and noble. Suicide may even be justifiable. Each case has to be evaluated on it's own. If man X looses his job and his insurance and his kid develops leukemia, that man should be able to get what he needs for his kid. And these things are provided, even if not enough. There is nothing about that opinion that automatically implies government involvement.

I have evaluated and decided that letting man X's kid die is cruel. And I can't rationalize cruelty as a necessity of a free society. Even still, cruelty will happen. But changing that when possible is, to me, worth while.

The mindset that assumes the government must provide everything is bitter and wary of life. It mistrusts necessity and wants to put it all off on someone else, always and unconditionally living with an illusion of security. But whether this is wrong or not does not affect the simple need to help those who need it. And you don't even have to justify it the way I do. How it's justified is unimportant. How it's accomplished is more important.

 

[westside]

If man X looses his job and his insurance and his kid develops leukemia, that man should be able to get what he needs for his kid.

Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. That no matter what, if a man can't pay for it, his child should still get treatment. Don't you think it matters how he lost his job or insurance? Or how much treatment costs? Or how many others need to be treated and can't pay for it?

I have evaluated and decided that letting man X's kid die is cruel. And I can't rationalize cruelty as a necessity of a free society.

I don't follow your jump from the kid's death to cruely as a necessity. It's your opinion that letting the kid die is cruel, and I'm sure lots of people would agree with that. Who's letting the kid die, though? Isn't it his father, for not providing for his kid? Why is it society who's letting the kid die? I would say that a father not providing insurance for his kid is cruel. But I still don't see how an example of cruelty makes it a necessity in free society.

Even still, cruelty will happen. But changing that when possible is, to me, worth while.

So you donate to charity, right? To prevent cruelty? I think that's great, and I totally agree that the government shouldn't provide everything. Charity is a great way for people to help others who can't help themselves. And it's voluntary, which is key.

But that's why I don't agree with your "should" statement, about how the man "should" be able to get treatment for his kid. Should implies something involuntary. If the man should be able to get treatment for the kid, that treatment should be available for him, and all others like him, no matter what, like a right. So then if people didn't voluntarily give to charities, where does the treatment come from? If he should have it, who provides it?

 

[westside]

Basically, I don't think anyone "should" get anything (like cancer treatment) from anyone else. I think it's great when they can get it, when others freely give it, or when they sell or buy it, but I don't think anyone "should" get it, automatically, or unconditionally.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. That no matter what, if a man can't pay for it, his child should still get treatment. Don't you think it matters how he lost his job or insurance? Or how much treatment costs? Or how many others need to be treated and can't pay for it?

I thought mentioning he had lost his job would suffice. Laid off is what I was thinking. But it's more important to you than it is to me. I doubt a charity would wnat to know that.

I don't follow your jump from the kid's death to cruely as a necessity. It's your opinion that letting the kid die is cruel, and I'm sure lots of people would agree with that. Who's letting the kid die, though? Isn't it his father, for not providing for his kid? Why is it society who's letting the kid die? I would say that a father not providing insurance for his kid is cruel. But I still don't see how an example of cruelty makes it a necessity in free society.

Sometimes people have control snatched away from them. Bad things happen to good people.

So you donate to charity, right? To prevent cruelty? I think that's great, and I totally agree that the government shouldn't provide everything. Charity is a great way for people to help others who can't help themselves. And it's voluntary, which is key.

But that's why I don't agree with your "should" statement, about how the man "should" be able to get treatment for his kid. Should implies something involuntary. If the man should be able to get treatment for the kid, that treatment should be available for him, and all others like him, no matter what, like a right. So then if people didn't voluntarily give to charities, where does the treatment come from? If he should have it, who provides it?

So then substitute "I think he should". Who provides it? People who think like me.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Basically, I don't think anyone "should" get anything (like cancer treatment) from anyone else. I think it's great when they can get it, when others freely give it, or when they sell or buy it, but I don't think anyone "should" get it, automatically, or unconditionally.

This difference is insignificant to me and I think it's simply splitting hairs, mincing words, etc. Saying "should" opens the door to all kinds of things I don't mean. Fine.

 

[Danoff]

So you're not saying that other people should be forced to pay for it.

 

[milefile]

Right.

 

[Danoff]

So you're saying that people should not be forced to pay for it?

 

[milefile]

So you're not saying that other people should be forced to pay for it.

So you're saying that people should not be forced to pay for it?

Is it just me or do these two questions have the same meaning? And did I not answer the first one?

 

[Danoff]

those questions do not have the same meaning. You did answer the first one but not the second.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
those questions do not have the same meaning. You did answer the first one but not the second.

Yes they do. Read them again. They are the same question with the word "not" in two different places. In the first case the word "not" refers to "forced". In the second case it refers to "saying". However you are asking if I am saying something about being forced, which makes placement of the modifying word "not" unimportant. They are the same question. Although the later is better form.

 

[Danoff]

LOL

So you're not saying that other people should be forced to pay for it.
So you're saying that people should not be forced to pay for it?

The first statement says that you're not saying something. The second statement asks if something different IS what you're saying.

There is, of course, a difference between not saying something and saying something.

You might not be saying that people should be forced to pay for something, and at the same time, not believe that people should be not forced to pay for something.

It's a minor subtlety and one that you're not likely to fall in between, but I thought I'd cover my bases.

I'll try to illustrate.

Someone might not advocate that people be forced to pay for universal health care. They might not be willing to say that it is right. But at the same time, they might not be willing to say that it is wrong.

They might simply say that it is right in some cases and wrong in others. In which case they would not say (in an unqualified sense) that people should be forced to pay for universal health care... but they would also not say (without qualification) that people should not be forced to pay for universal health care.


Clear as mud?


I can say that I do not believe that god necessarily does exist, and at the same time say that I do not believe that god necessarily does not exist.

 

[milefile]

Well then that could be accomplished in one question using a word like "unequivocally" or something. But I catch your drift.

 

[Danoff]

So what do you think?

Should people be unequivocally forced to contribute to a universal health care system?

 

[milefile]

I still think I've answered this more than once already, but no.

 

[Danoff]

If man X looses his job and his insurance and his kid develops leukemia, that man should be able to get what he needs for his kid.

How does he (necessarily) get it if no one is forced to provide it? He might get it if no one is forced to provide it, but not necessarily.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
He might get it if no one is forced to provide it, but not necessarily.

That's right. But I addressed my use of the word "should" in a post above.

This difference is insignificant to me and I think it's simply splitting hairs, mincing words, etc. Saying "should" opens the door to all kinds of things I don't mean. Fine.

By "should" I mean, more accurately, I would prefer. Simple.

 

[Danoff]

I also prefer that he receives the help.

 

[Danoff]

Well then that could be accomplished in one question using a word like "unequivocally" or something.

I maintain that it requires two questions if the in-the-middle case is to be differentiated.

 

[Danoff]

So without someone to argue that universal health care is a good thing. This thread is going to die.

 

[Danoff]

I guess nobody wants universal health care, or at least doesn't want to talk about it.

It's too bad, too, because this was a fun topic.

 

[milefile]

I will definitely not be voting democrat for this very reason. Universal Heath care is one of the only things they talk about. The democratic party should really be called the half-assed socialist party. Or socialists without teeth.

 

[Danoff]

If they're gonna be socialists, go all the way huh?

I just amazes me how people actually think that they are entitled to health care. I don't see how you can be entitled to anything that you don't automatically have when you're born.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by danoff
If they're gonna be socialists, go all the way huh?

I just amazes me how people actually think that they are entitled to health care. I don't see how you can be entitled to anything that you don't automatically have when you're born.

Not entitled? That really sucks. I coulda sworn that if I was dealt a ****ty hand in life that I was entitled to all sorts of free benifits at the expence of the hard working lower-middle-class mans' tax dollars...........

 

[keeno_uk]

the Uk has something Like this and its called the NHS or national health system. which has been totally crap from since I was born and every polition is saying they will fix it but they don't

 

[Red Eye Racer]

I believe Canada has it and it works well,.. but has probably been discussed already and I'm not reading 7 pages of health care talk.

 

[Danoff]

The irony is that the vast majority of the 7 pages is not about health care at all.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think the canada thing has been talked about yet. Is it really working well over there?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by danoff
I don't think the canada thing has been talked about yet. Is it really working well over there?

Canada has a good thing going,... but it's opposite of what I believe is the right thing. In Canada (candians please speak up as I could easilly be mis-guided) taxes rule. The average citizen has apporx 66% of their income taxed (if memory serves), but they get free health care and other benifits. It works great if you dont mind sharing everything with everyone. I'm opposite,.... I say no taxes and f-ya if you cant make it on your own. Either way, we inthe USA are stuck right in the middle,... and thats the worst place to be IMO.

 

[milefile]

America is the least socialistic democracy. I saw somewhere on these forums recently the statement: "Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive." That might be true. But capitalism and socialism are.