Man, I wish the poor would stop whining...Follow

If you get that they are different, they why is it so hard for you to see that this is the very criteria upon which I'm treating them differently? It's why I'm ok with laws restricting my right to punch someone in the nose, but *not* ok with a law requiring that I pay for the medical costs for someone who has an injured nose. From an external point of view you could say that both prevent pain and injury, but from the viewpoint of individual rights, those are entirely different situations.

Yes and no. I have to actively pay for police to protect your safety, just as I advocate that you should have to actively pay for medical care to protect other people's health.

Your arguing that there is some great difference is difficult at best. A nuanced semantic point about when me paying for something for someone else becomes required. I'm required to pay for infrastructure for you, even if I don't use it. I'm required to pay for the protection of your property, etc.

As I've said earlier, once we make that evaluation

The argument looses all purpose.

If we make the evaluation that there's a right to healthcare, the same is true.

You want to argue something based on a premise others don't agree with, then are confused when they come back to that point.

It's silly. Sure, if we agree there's no right to healthcare, your argument makes sense. If we agree there's no right to property, it makes sense to argue against laws proscribing theft. I could really care less what the implications are of something I find to be patently false. It all stops at your premise, which I find flawed, that healthcare isn't an inherent human right.

Whatever castles you build in the air beyond that are totally irrelevant.



Edited, Apr 23rd 2008 11:16pm by Smasharoo

I would like for you to address the related issue I raised on like... page 4

Apparently, it is difficult. I thought the difference was pretty obvious, but I guess not...


For the umpteenth time, the difference is that one is protecting something you would naturally have protection for if there were no one else around to steal it, while the other is giving you some additional protection which you would not have naturally in either case.

This is why it's relevant to talk about "rights" that one has naturally, and "rights" one can only have as a member of a society. If I'm the only person around, my property rights are secured since there's no one to steal them. If we add additional people, they may take my stuff, right? So I may agree to become part of a larger society. The contract being that I lose some of my freedoms (no more running around naked with honey smeared on my body perhaps), but the society promises to protect the others (like providing police to protect my house and my body from harm from other people).


I don't have free medical care outside of a society and other people. I can only gain that as a benefit of joining a society. Thus, it's wrong to equate those two things.


I've explained this painstakingly about 5 or 6 times now, yet you still continue to insist that paying for police or military protection is the same as paying for medical care. It's not. We can talk all day about what you *believe* people ought to have, but that's a different conversation. That's a matter of looking at the benefit and comparing it to the cost and deciding if the cost is worth it. But police protection is *not* the same. A society must provide that for its citizens as a basic component of the contract each individual has with it. If a society cannot protect the citizens within, then it serves no purpose at all. It ceases to be able to fulfill any of its other promises.

Any other promises and agreements may be made, but (as I've said repeatedly) those are optional. A society does not have to provide free medical care or free public education to its citizens. It may do that. Its citizens may demand it. But it does not have to.


That's the difference. How many times do I have to explain the exact same thing?

I didn't say it "offends the universe" or any other such silliness.


I simply stated that if you want to argue the case for free medical care for all, you should do it by comparing the benefit to society for providing said service to the cost involved in paying for said service. Period. I have no problem with arguments of that form, and have stated so several times in this thread.


My problem is when someone tries to argue that if I support other rights (like free speech) that I should support free medical care, because it's a right as well...


That has been my entire disagreement through this entire thread. It's not people arguing for socialized medicine, but what arguments they use. Want to argue that the benefits of the program outweigh the costs? Great! But don't argue this by saying that free medical care is a "right" just like the right to free speech, so by not providing it I'm somehow denying people of their rights. That's a bogus argument.

Ok then you are denying them a benefit. Why would you deny such an important benefit to people in need?

Violation of your right of property is not a valid answer since in a democracy, anything that becomes a law is not a violation of your right but a social agreement. If you want to be part of that society, you need to accept the will of the majority. Nobody forces you to stay.

Saying that your right to property is different because it exist in the "natural state" is the "offend the universe" part I was talking about.

I may not. Dunno. The point is that when people argue for socialized medicine (or whatever term they choose to use), the word "benefit" is almost never used, and the word "right" almost always is. Clearly, the use of the word "right" is used specifically because it carries a stronger connotation then "benefit".


As to your specific question? The fact that I'm being required to pay for it would be one reason. The second being: "What's the next benefit that someone's going to insist we all need and that I must pay for?". That's kinda important, isn't it? If I thought for an instant that the successful implementation of full and free medical care for all would *not* be followed up with demands for free housing and free public transportation and free food and free higher education and free beer money etc etc etc... I might just say WTF and vote for it.


But you can't give me that assurance, can you? And in fact, the historical progression of such things shows a pretty strong pattern that one will follow the other. That's why I'm cautious about the whole "let's just pay for this one benefit this one time..." arguments. Because they are inherently false.



Sure. But you asked why *I* would oppose such a thing. That's why I would vote no on it. If I'm overruled, then so be it, but I certainly have a "right" to make my case and argue it to others, right? Whenever I pay taxes, my property rights are infringed. I certainly should be allowed to take that into consideration when deciding whether to support or oppose any proposed government program which I'll have to pay for with my tax dollars. And I certainly should be allowed to point out to others what the cost of that program is. It's not really "free". It's only free to a small percentage of the population who'll receive more medical treatment then they would have if they'd just purchased it directly for themselves.




Ok. Whatever. I think you're reading too much into the word "natural" in that phrase. Don't do that. It's not like I'm arguing that anything we do outside that context is "unnatural" or something. I've been very clear about what is meant by that phrase. Don't read anything else into it.


The primary point there was to observe that the cost for benefits like free medical care are the "natural rights" we have. In fact, that's the cost for all benefits of joining a society. The difference is between benefits that serve to protect the remaining rights versus ones that simply give us some new thing that we didn't have before. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, nor is it automatically a bad choice. I just think it's important that we correctly identify what the real choice is before us. By labeling things that are benefits that cost us rights as "rights", we create a false equivalence that we're giving up some of one right to gain more of another. That makes people think they're getting a fair trade. The reality is that you're trading away some of your rights to gain a benefit. You may decide it's worth it, but you should be aware that this is what's really happening...

No, I'm just not a greedy enough of a twit to put a price tag on American lives.



Silly me.

Here's the flaw in your argument fuckstick, though I know I'm better off talking to a brick wall.


Cost is your concern, then please explain to me how countries with a stronger economy can afford UHC (universal healthcare), and why countries with a weaker economy can afford UHC, and yet hold the same if not better standard of living and wages? Ironically the income between CEO and Worker is much smaller in these countries too. Perhaps it isn't that they aren't so busy sucking the collective cocks of the big business that they can actually put effective legislation and policies into place.

So this argument of cost is complete bullshit. It only costs so much here because of dickwads like you who allow pharmaceutical companies to artificially inflate the cost of drugs and medical equipment.


The numbers simply do not add up to support your argument. Period.


Tell me Gbaji, do you even know where the fuck Slovenia is? This will become relevant later.

What does France, Italy, and Japan all have in common, and how does it relate to my first question? And to my point on the benefits of UHC?

Do you hate Americans Gbaji? Is that your problem? Are you too involved in your own bullshit to see a greater good for a people? Too involved in your stupid rhetoric to see that millions of people die a year due to HMO's scamming out of covering paying customers? Are you enough of a cold-hearted ******* to not give a fuck? Is compassion illegal in the Republican business? Noticed I haven't even gotten into those who had no choice but died because they fell out of a poor ****** instead of a nice rich one. Those infants deserved to die because they were born from a poor woman right? I mean who gives a fuck right gbaji? I mean chances are only poor niggers give birth to children that die at birth, and god forbid those nigger children live for fear they might steal your precious car sterio right? Or *gasp* collect welfare one day right?

Today's Google quote of the day:


"There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in the higher."
-Victor Hugo

Because the horseback riders have made it too far up the chain under the Bush administration. They have the power now!

/shudder

Chairs or coca-cola? Beer or Minnesota Vikings? Russia or mozzarella cheese? Superman or fine china? Oh I know, how about Marlboro or Dr. Martins?

This is fun comparing things that have nothing to do with one another!


Marilyn Manson or Green Eggs and Ham? Vibrators or prosthetic limbs? Vodka or whores? Texans or space debris?

Edited, Apr 28th 2008 7:34pm by NaughtyWord