- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
A question that may or may not have been asked already is: why do they have to have health care?
How can anyone justify taking from one to give to another? How can the state obligate me to pay to take care of someone else? That is not a right. That is a theft, a taking, a plundering of one citizen by the state on behalf of another.You can't make health care a right without specifying HOW MUCH health care. You can make it a right but only include aspirin and band-aids, or you can say that everyone is entitled to the same level of care that the richest rich people get, or you can specify something in between.
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.How can you justify taking from one to give to another? How can the state obligate me to pay to take care of someone else? That is not a right. That is a theft, a taking, a plundering of one citizen by the state on behalf of another.
I have a right to defend my life and my property that is inherent in my being. No state is just that would steal from me in order to give something to someone else. If you want something work for it.
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
No one has a right to health care.So you don't think people have a right to health care? That seems contrary to your job.
No one has a right to health care.
Not at all. I was not addressing it to you. You already understand. I do hope that some others may finally "get it." But I have my doubts.You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
So you don't think people have a right to health care? That seems contrary to your job.
Based on your feedback I changed several words to make it clear that you were not the target of my post. Thank you for your swift feedback. I think it is a better post now.You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
Then you are a thief.That's your opinion. I disagree.
Then you are a thief.
If there is a right then who is obligated? And what is the moral precept that you follow where plunder is acceptable to you? If theft is good what about rape? Murder? Or do you draw the line at theft?
Every productive/employed person in the country is selling a good or a service. You only have a right to those goods and services once you've paid for them. I have a right to offer to pay you for your services, and I only have a right to receive your services if you accept my offer and we've agreed to the terms of a purchase.
Contract Law for Beginners here.
The very reason the health care industry is so messed up and so astronomically expensive is that there is no contracting between providers and patients. Doc says "you should get this done." Patient says "Mkay, doc." Then the procedure happens and the bill is sent off to a far distant land for processing. If it somehow ends up back in the patient's mailbox, he protests. That's how removed we are from the price discipline that suppresses costs in every other market. As customers of this industry, we clearly expect to get all the health care we need when we need it, and virtually never expect to have to pay for it.
Ever ask a doctor what a test or procedure or medication he's recommending actually costs? I do every time I go and it exasperates them. They never know. It seems like many patients never ask. Think about that for a second. The person offering a service doesn't know what his service costs, and neither does the person buying it. It should baffle no one that health care has become expensive.
Then you are a thief.
If there is a right then who is obligated? And what is the moral precept that you follow where plunder is acceptable to you? If theft is good what about rape? Murder? Or do you draw the line at theft?
What is sad is that you actually believe that stealing from your neighbors is a good thing.Much like many of our resources, healthcare should be a pool that we all pay into. Pooling of losses is an important aspect of society and it exists for a reason. You just want to cut out a large portion of society who needs it more than you. That would make you the thief, buddy.
I don't see it as a right so much as a moral obligation.
What is sad is that you actually believe that stealing from your neighbors is a good thing.
You try to pretty it up but it remains theft. You are a self-identified liberal. But you use Marxist words, "From each...to each" so it becomes clear what you really are.
Because it's not worth it. The individual has no bargaining chip. You can say, "**** that bull**** I won't pay it" and they'll send you packing.
At least governmental and insurance agencies have the power to bargain over costs of procedures and medicines.
Much like many of our resources, healthcare should be a pool that we all pay into. Pooling of losses is an important aspect of society and it exists for a reason.
You just want to cut out a large portion of society who needs it more than you. That would make you the thief, buddy.
You are trying to pretty up the theft. Who is obligated to pay for your healthcare? Is it the person across the street? And why would anyone other than you be obligated to pay for something you want?
Is the level of plunder determined by how much you want something? Do you get a warm and fuzzy when you think about the people who are plundered so you can have something you want but are unwilling to pay for? Why shouldn't people like you be declared dangerous to the rest of us and locked up? Theft is theft.
I disagree, but only to an extent. If one is not depended on by anyone, say, single, widowed, etc. and they do not have the desire to seek medical care they assume the risks upon themselves. Now, if someone is a primary income with young children or the owner of a company with many people depending on them it does change slighty on the moral scale, however this is not to be confused with a societal obligation.I don't see it as a right so much as a moral obligation.
Completely disagree, rights exist without any outside influence, they can be infringed by a less than honorable populace or government, but never granted. Look at the right of self defense, whether a government exists or not it is there and falls under the self evident truth of life. Rights exist in a vacuum, IOW, if our government banned all arms the right would still exist, but the government would necessarily have infringed upon it. We have the right to pursue happiness, but not the guarantee, we have the right to liberty, though many are getting in the way of the exercise. It's all about those things that exist, not what can be granted.Rights in and of themselves are what can be won through dominance. If someone can take it by force, they have won their right to it so long as they can defend it. Of course, few people want to live in that sort of society (I certainly don't as I would likely be much more poor, insecure, hungry, etc in that situation), but in terms of what is natural, that is how it works and consequently why some animals are predators.
This is speaking to things that could dissappear in a heartbeat. If there were a catastrophic event wiping out governance, art would have little value, money none, science would be as effective as the tools present would allow, without infrastructure many advancements would go by the waistside. In an event where survival is the only thing rights still exist.Luckily our morality is often quite different from the law of the jungle, as, we as a human race have realized that there are superior ways of organizing society which allow us to gain more wealth, security, freedom or autonomy, etc and allow us to work on interests that do not have immediate survival implications such as art, science, leisure, etc. As we get better and better at finding ways to remove ourselves from a survival situation, we march towards greater pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, and other things along maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is why I see it as a moral obligation, its the direction more and more successful societies inevitably move towards.
You claim to have a conscience. Your position is immoral. It matters little that you claim you do not directly benefit from the plunder that was approved. Rather that patting yourself on the back for your conscience you should consider seeking some professional help as you are unable to discern right from wrong.You wish I was stealing from you. It would give you a place to harbor all of that hate. But I pay and have paid all of my life. I just have a conscience and actually care about other people. You could work on that.
I disagree, but only to an extent. If one is not depended on by anyone, say, single, widowed, etc. and they do not have the desire to seek medical care they assume the risks upon themselves. Now, if someone is a primary income with young children or the owner of a company with many people depending on them it does change slighty on the moral scale, however this is not to be confused with a societal obligation.
Completely disagree, rights exist without any outside influence, they can be infringed by a less than honorable populace or government, but never granted. Look at the right of self defense, whether a government exists or not it is there and falls under the self evident truth of life. Rights exist in a vacuum, IOW, if our government banned all arms the right would still exist, but the government would necessarily have infringed upon it. We have the right to pursue happiness, but not the guarantee, we have the right to liberty, though many are getting in the way of the exercise. It's all about those things that exist, not what can be granted.
This is speaking to things that could dissappear in a heartbeat. If there were a catastrophic event wiping out governance, art would have little value, money none, science would be as effective as the tools present would allow, without infrastructure many advancements would go by the waistside. In an event where survival is the only thing rights still exist.
Are you admitting that you have an inability to tell right from wrong?You are the one that sees it as theft, not me :shrug:
Yeah. I have never liked theft and have never liked slavery. But there it is...modern society and all.But such is the way of having a modern society, don't like it? not my problem.
Are you admitting that you have an inability to tell right from wrong?
Yeah. I have never liked theft and have never liked slavery. But there it is...modern society and all.
The saddest part is that those who think as you do cannot even see how dangerous it is for all of us, including yourselves.