I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay
The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided
The doctorís other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received
The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received
There are far better choices than allowing the Government to make us all dependent wards of the state; the fact that you REFUSE to acknowledge this and REFUSE to attempt to comprehend arguments supporting other options doesn't make your case more credible.
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.
What makes your "natural rights" trump social or human rights (AKA the right to health care)?
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority. ..Wikepedia
O.K. be that way!Yea, I should just leave because you don't know what rights are.
And yet the supreme court has never found medicare/medicaid to be unconstitutional.I'm not concerned with popular sentiment. People are mostly stupid, and the Founders understood this, which is why they despised direct democracy / majority rule and instituted a representative republic. The tyranny of the majority is no less immoral than the tyranny of a few.
We are not talking about mass murder!!Simply because the majority wants to do something doesn't make it right; that's the only point he was trying to communicate, but I understand your insistence on ignoring that point, since it grossly undermines your argument.
I assume that everyone engaged in this debate would rather A) Never pay any taxes for any purpose other than defense and B) never die of a curable illness for lack of money.
The most difficult dilemmas in the world (and in relationships, I might add) arise from the friction between rights- positives if you will. Two positive outcomes which cannot be simultaneously achieved and are therefore in conflict. Generally, they are never definitely resolved. The only alternative to peaceful choice made via the will of the majority is combat. How else do you resolve such conflicts?
Again, why do you argue as if there are only TWO options; the status quo or Government interventionism? This is a fallacy and false argument and can only be interpreted as a hyper partisan effort to support Liberal Democrats who wish to create a dependent class of citizens.
"Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.
Why should health care be an exception?
How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?"
We have been discussing two options, fundamental philosophical underpinnings, you might say.
On the other hand, if we have an agreement on the statement "It's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy," we have a premise on which to debate health care, and how to achieve those goals. And I'd be happy to discuss the economics and practicality of various health care systems, but every time someone shrieks "ZOMG THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!11" they are not making a logical argument.
Nope, I'm merely trying to find a premise which we both share. Have I found one? Or do you disagree with the premise that it's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy?Originally Posted by Harshaw
When you decide to make LOGICAL arguments instead of arguments based on your own personal morality (which you automatically expect me to adopt), then we can debate the issue more intelligently.Originally Posted by Harshaw
Last edited by Kandahar; 09-22-09 at 02:36 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I am constantly fascinated with the argument that people are dying BECAUSE they donít have Government provided healthcare while ignoring ACTUAL cases of people dying because the care they needed was not available to them because of Government provided healthcare.
But I am not surprised when people who promote the absurd notion that we only have TWO choices in the world and attempt to suggest that ONLY the Government can provide for its citizens and the citizens are incapable of providing for themselves.
It is almost as asinine as President Obama and his staffers trying to claim that it is REPUBLICANS who are preventing them from getting their way in this debate or that REPUBLICANS don't have a plan or are the party of NO.