• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?


  • Total voters
    91
the healthier a society is, the more efficient & prosperous it is, the richer everyone is.

that's why considering healthcare a right....ends up benefiting us all.

Costing us more money doesn't benefit us at all.
 
the healthier a society is, the more efficient & prosperous it is, the richer everyone is.

that's why considering healthcare a right....ends up benefiting us all.

Oh so we had to become healthy before we could become prosperous, I would think it is the other way around.
 
Everyone should have the right to proper medical care.

Everyone should have the right to the services of another?

A house is just as much needed as health care. So should everyone have the right to have a house built for them? Clothing is also just as needed.

The only thing you should have a right to, is what you can personally provide for.
 
This is Stockholm Syndrome. You're saying people should be grateful for their hostage takers. It's a strategic choice since it makes you look good, but it's not ethical.

You're also saying that all parts of society are equally causal. Would you save two people who are hanging off a cliff equally even if one influenced your life more?

Um, what are you talking about? Hostage takers?

They are, after a fashion. Even the weak ones who can't provide for themselves bring out an important aspect of society. We are better as a people, and more ethical in general, the more we take care of the weak ones. Societies that care the least are the worst to live in.

In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.

Again, you're enslaving supply to demand. Not only is potential limited, but potential takes commitment to be fulfilled.

I'm not sure why you would even consider saving people who don't personally commit to your potential's fulfillment.

Again, what are you talking about?

If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.

Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.
 
Everyone should have the right to the services of another?

A house is just as much needed as health care. So should everyone have the right to have a house built for them? Clothing is also just as needed....

no, adequate SHELTER is just as needed as healthcare.

this could be in a house...or a dormatory.
 
how does a healthier, more productive, and more efficient society end up costing us more?

if anything, it will end up costing us LESS.

Well, I could be wrong here, I don't think health care is free. Therefore, SOMEONE has to pay for it (at least) eventually.
 
Wow, that is so not how I view things. I'd rather take responsibility for myself rather than concern myself with what everyone else should do to make "my life possible".
Smoke didn't say anything about not taking responsibility for yourself nor did she say that you should concern yourself with what everyone else should do to make your life possible.

She talked about a society that makes life possible for people which coexists with personal responsibility. Whether you like it or not, when you are a member of society, a bunch of people are making your life possible. That's an undeniable truth. Opinion comes into this depending on how much you think everyone should contribute to the lives of their fellow citizens. I think everyone should contribute to healthcare for themselves and their fellow citizens and there's absolutely no reason why that can't coexist with personal responsibility.
 
Um, what are you talking about? Hostage takers?

They are, after a fashion. Even the weak ones who can't provide for themselves bring out an important aspect of society. We are better as a people, and more ethical in general, the more we take care of the weak ones. Societies that care the least are the worst to live in.

This explains why we have to respect people. It doesn't explain why we have to go out of our way to save people.

Theoretically speaking, you could be permanently enslaved by people constantly hanging off a cliff. Now, your entire life is spent saving them, and you're never entitled to live your own time or exercise your own energy or attention.

By the same token, weak ones would be expected to save people hanging off a cliff, even if they couldn't afford to do so without falling off themselves.

In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.

No... that's prejudiced. You should have to exert equal simultaneous effort saving both.

Again, what are you talking about?

If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.

Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.

No, that's coercion.

Nobody asks to be born into society. Therefore, we are all hostages. A hostage is not obligated to so much as lift a finger for one's hostage takers.

Your statement sounds politically correct, but that's just because you're making an appeal to cohesion (people living together), not an appeal to foundations (people making individual decisions).

Unfortunately, cohesion doesn't exist without foundations, so that's an argument by stolen concept.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that is so not how I view things. I'd rather take responsibility for myself rather than concern myself with what everyone else should do to make "my life possible".

She never said anything about not taking responsibility for your well being. But the fact that we won the freaking birth lottery by being born in America is not something we should take for granted, and we must realize that the reason our lives are so great compared to the rest of the world is that our society is stable, and that we have one of the best forms of government.
 
yes, we all pay for it.

but we would all pay less, if we all had health insurance.

If more people are getting something that costs money, how do we pay less? Is this a "it'll pay off in the end" kind of things?
 
If more people are getting something that costs money, how do we pay less? Is this a "it'll pay off in the end" kind of things?

because anyone who has ever gone to an ER knows that our ER costs are significantly inflated inorder to compensate for the costs of folks who have NO health insurance and get treated by the ER anyways.
 
Need I say more?

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "inalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments
 
Smoke didn't say anything about not taking responsibility for yourself nor did she say that you should concern yourself with what everyone else should do to make your life possible.

She talked about a society that makes life possible for people which coexists with personal responsibility. Whether you like it or not, when you are a member of society, a bunch of people are making your life possible. That's an undeniable truth. Opinion comes into this depending on how much you think everyone should contribute to the lives of their fellow citizens. I think everyone should contribute to healthcare for themselves and their fellow citizens and there's absolutely no reason why that can't coexist with personal responsibility.

Contribute, I agree, but who wants to help people when the governemnt is already taxing the crap out of you for these purposes, I dont have to mention that were in this situation because of government involvement.
 
because anyone who has ever gone to an ER knows that our ER costs are significantly inflated inorder to compensate for the costs of folks who have NO health insurance and get treated by the ER anyways.

And these costs will be shifted how? It'll still cost money for people to go to the ER. If I'm not mistaken, the burden is placed on the wealthiest Americans. If they wanna go to the ER, they gotta pay.
 
This explains why we have to respect people. It doesn't explain why we have to go out of our way to save people.

Theoretically speaking, you could be permanently enslaved by people constantly hanging off a cliff. Now, your entire life is spent saving them, and you're never entitled to live your own time or exercise your own energy or attention.

By the same token, weak ones would be expected to save people hanging off a cliff, even if they couldn't afford to do so without falling off themselves.

I guess that depends on whether you think a self-referential life is worth living. I don't, and neither do most other people. I don't see the point in living if I am not interacting with other people. I'm a human - a social creature - and my life loses all its meaning if it is not spent predominantly in interacting with others. What is the point of existing in a vacuum? I can sit in my apartment and potter about all day long until everything about my environment is perfect, and it will still be lacking.



No... that's prejudiced. You should have to exert equal simultaneous effort saving both.

I am not strong enough to save both. If I tried, both would die, and probably, so would I. What is the point of that? That would be a waste of my energy, and result in a 3-fold larger loss of life. That's stupid.

No, that's coercion.

Nobody asks to be born into society. Therefore, we are all hostages. A hostage is not obligated to so much as lift a finger for one's hostage takers.

Your statement sounds politically correct, but that's just because you're making an appeal to cohesion (people living together), not an appeal to foundations (people making individual decisions).

Unfortunately, cohesion doesn't exist without foundations, so that's an argument by stolen concept.

You always have the option of killing yourself. And I believe very fervently in assisted suicide for virtually any reason, because of exactly the point you've made: none of us get to choose to be here, or under what circumstances. And I think it is wrong to force people to kill themselves in messy or ineffective ways, subjecting their loved ones to more pain than necessary, or causing them to continue living with the damage. I think it should be quick and painless and relatively easy.

I do not believe in coercion in the least. If you want to check out, I'd love to help make that easier for you. If you want to stay and contribute, I will contribute back.
 
She never said anything about not taking responsibility for your well being. But the fact that we won the freaking birth lottery by being born in America is not something we should take for granted, and we must realize that the reason our lives are so great compared to the rest of the world is that our society is stable, and that we have one of the best forms of government.

And I attribute all those good things more to notions of indvidualism, liberty from the government as much as possible, as well as a free market and the benefits of capitalism.
 
Last edited:
And I attribute all those good things more to notions of indvidualism, liberty from the government as much as possible, as well as a free market and the benefits of capitalism.

Did you mean to quote me, X?
 
Is it the embodiment of conservatives and republicans to draw back a couple hundred years? It's the 21st century folks.
 
And these costs will be shifted how? It'll still cost money for people to go to the ER. If I'm not mistaken, the burden is placed on the wealthiest Americans. If they wanna go to the ER, they gotta pay.

if everyone who goes to the ER has health-insurance, the ER will always get their money...won't have to eat any more unpaid bills...and therefore lower EVERYBODIES ER bills.

got it?
 
Imo health care for all is part of Social Justice. The problem is that Social Justice isn't part of the Social Contract as far as I'm concerned. If the left wants to make Social Justice part of the Social Contract it is necessary to amend the Social Contract imo. Unless a new bargain is struck there really isn't any hope for social peace.

I know that Liberals don't want to believe this. So it's the responsiblity of conservatives and the school of hard knocks to prove to liberals that this is true.
 
Is it the embodiment of conservatives and republicans to draw back a couple hundred years? It's the 21st century folks.

I know. You'd think people would understand respecting the autonomy of personhood is fundamental to civilization, but apparently, some people are still stuck on "might makes right" collectivist power politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom