You guys speak of health care as a right and not a privilege. What about Roe v. Wade? What about abortion?

You expect me to believe health care is a right when many children don't even get a shot at life? Pathetic.

@ Akuma - I've been reading a lot of Foucault recently on Subject and Subjectivity and Governmentality. It makes a lot of sense when you consider his idea of "biopower", if you're interested in sociological/political theory read some of his essays/speeches or his books.

blazinhead89 said: Govenment/Public Healthcare is a right. Private Healthcare is a privilege

That just means all the people who can afford private healthcare will get better treatment, and some will live while others who don't have it will die.

If healthcare was a right, then all should get the same treatment, regardless of cost.

 

Snesboy said: You guys speak of health care as a right and not a privilege. What about Roe v. Wade? What about abortion? You expect me to believe health care is a right when many children don't even get a shot at life? Pathetic.

 

a fetus is not alive and therefore does not yet have any rights, the mother carrying it does have rights, so she takes precedence

TheRealMafoo said: The_vagabond7 said: Just as a hypothetical, would you be against universal healthcare coverage if somebody came up with a fantastic plan that didn't have any of the supposed major flaws of other UHC plans? If it could be set up that the government had very efficient, cost effective method of offering healthcare to everyone with little to no wait time funded by a small tax on some common products (hypothetical here, not realistic), would you be against it on ideological grounds? Would you deny people healthcare if they didn't "earn" it? Simply as a hypothetical, not as a "well that's not realistic, that would never happen" ect ect. If there was great, effecient, cheap universal healthcare for everyone in america would you be angry about it because deadbeats could have get great health care the same as factory workers who could have it the same as highly educated hedge fund owners?   I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it. It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it. But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.

So then it's not that you think Healthcare shouldn't be a right, but that you don't think the government is capable of doing it. Earlier you said that the government can remove a right, which shows the subjectivity of rights. Really man has no "rights" so to speak, except that which his group provides him. We can say that we have "The right to live a life where others do no harm to you" but that's only a right because a government says so. If James Madison said healthcare was a basic human right (hypothetically of course), would you think it was? Or would you think it's still a matter of entitlement, only for the people that can afford it? I only ask because I want to understand your mindset in these discussions.

Snesboy said: You guys speak of health care as a right and not a privilege. What about Roe v. Wade? What about abortion? You expect me to believe health care is a right when many children don't even get a shot at life? Pathetic.

 I don't believe in any "rights." If they can be taken away (as ours, the USA's, can be), they aren't rights. Anyways, I'm saying it's in the states interest to have people as healthy and happy (in order to hold onto power and prevent revolution) as possible - that's all.

 

 

TheRealMafoo said: blazinhead89 said: Govenment/Public Healthcare is a right. Private Healthcare is a privilege That just means all the people who can afford private healthcare will get better treatment, and some will live while others who don't have it will die. If healthcare was a right, then all should get the same treatment, regardless of cost.

That's the way it should be a RIGHT. But alas, Private Healthcare is a privilege , Im glad I live in society that gives gives public Healthcare as a right.

akuma587 said: TheRealMafoo said:   I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it. It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it. But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over. So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?

 

No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign).

If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper).

It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.

TheRealMafoo said: akuma587 said: TheRealMafoo said:   I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it. It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it. But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over. So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?     No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign). If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper). It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.

But they shouldn't protect you from disease? They should only protect you from Jihadist? That's a narrow definition of "protect". And they have to take from one to protect another. There is very little chance of a terrorist attack where I am. Should I be angry I'm paying to protect new york? If I am paying to protect new york from terrorist attacks and be fine with it, why should I be angry if I pay to protect new york from diabetes or cancer?

TheRealMafoo said: akuma587 said: TheRealMafoo said:   I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it. It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it. But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over. So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?     No, because it's our counties responsibly to protect us from others (domestic and foreign). If they were run privately however, they would run a lot more efficiently (it's why we have contractors, they do things a lot cheeper). It's the governments job to protect you, not to provide for you. In a free society, there is no way for the government to provide for you, as they have no assets to provide. Anything they have, they must take from someone first. Taking from an individual to provide for another, is against there sole purpose of existing... to protect you.

 

you must have hated Robin Hood? you dont seem to understand compassion