Do you have a lot of data suggesting that American medical patients who have been sliced open, operated on, and have tubes and wires flowing into and out of their various holes who have not had access to gauze or gowns or towels?
Further treatment period. If the money is not there, apparently this seems to be the case. As per the article by Nader I posted some posts up....full stop it seems.
pay up or die...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Besides, it's succinct.. The rhetoric is accurate.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Perhaps I should have phrased it better: I believe "for-profit" and "for the good of the people" are mutually exclusive GOALS. Certainly profit and the good of the people can co-exist. But when the purpose of a company is to make profit first and to provide healthcare only so much as it makes them profit, that's where the problem lies.
I disagree that there's a "problem" there. Absent the profit motive, these companies have little motive to innovate or respond to customer needs. Take away the profit and you take away the direct influence of the customer. Furthermore, government controlled systems and not-for-profit system have no more of a motive to provide "for the good of the people" than do profitable organizations. If one looks at most governmental systems, we see a greater interest in simply maintaining existence than we do in providing high-quality service.
Of course I agree that there are more ways to profit in the world than monitarily. But when we speak of "for-profit" companies - we are speaking of money.
We are speaking of money in those terms. But in terms of their end customers, we're not. For example, let's say that you get cancer. And let's say that I invent a pill that you can take that cures cancer. And let's say it costs me $0.10 to make this pill. Let's also say that no insurance or governmental system exists to provide that pill to you, the cancer patient. You must come to me to buy it. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you're going to buy my pill and give me $10. I pocket a monetary profit of $9.90. Why did I sell it to you in the first place? Because the value of that $10 exceeds the value of the pill I just made to me. Why did you pay $10 for it? Because the value of the pill exceeds the value of that $10 to you. I made a monetary profit. You, however, made a non-monetary profit. That's how most healthcare exchanges do and should work -- those providing a product or service that has little value to them should receive a counterveiling monetary profit relative to the non-monetary benefit you receive from the same product. Absent the monetary ($9.90) profit motive for me, I have little or no reason to make or sell my pill. Absent the non-monetary (cancer-free) profit motive for you, you have little or no reason to buy my pill.
The fundamental problem in a market-oriented system comes from those who need healthcare but cannot afford it, regardless of the price. This is the place where governmental intervention is most appropriate but so often misguided. What we need to do with government in terms of healthcare is not just take existing healthcare from person A and give it to person B, but rather to create new supplies of healthcare such that the price decreases to the point that person B can now access it along with person A. UHC tends to cut against this model by decreasing supply through fighting the profit motive and by increasing demand by arbitrarily giving access to everyone into markets that aren't ready to accept them.
Of course I wouldn't. But I don't buy insurance myself - I'm stuck with whatever insurance my employer provides.
Exactly. And your employer is not likely buying insurance based on what's best for you. They're buying insurance based on what's best for them, which may be entirely reasonable or unreasonable, depending on your employer's goals. What's completely unreasonable is the silly expectation people have that either employers or governments or anyone else for that matter will have an unfailing interest in providing goods or services to people who, by the very nature of the transaction, provide little or no value into the process.
I disagree. When we can't even agree that every person deserves healthcare, the healthcare crisis is first and foremost a philosophical & justice problem.
Well, then we're going to disagree here. The statement "every person deserves healthcare" makes no sense because there are nothing but arbitrary justificiations for it. Simply ask "why" that's the case, and you'll come up with nothing but silly answers that have no actual link to healthcare.
Healthcare, despite its importance, is simply a service. It is a service provided by another person to you. If you "deserve" that service, then the person providing it "deserves" something in return. The fact of the matter is that its only when you ignore the above to you create a justice problem.
Certainly I believe that everyone having healthcare is an ideal. The day that everyone on this planet has access to state of the art medicine, if that day ever comes, will be one of the greatest days in human history. But simply taking that and turning it into a false absolute regarding a "right to healthcare" accomplishes nothing. The better approach is to recognize the economic nature of the problem and then act accordingly.
Once we can agree that our goal is to provide healthcare for all, then we can move on to the details of how best to make that happen. It's at that point that it becomes an economic problem.
The opposite is true, unfortunately. The instant you say that everyone has a "right to healthcare" is the moment you make it a political problem instead of an economic problem. And that is when you go back to the unintended consequences from which we started this discussion.
life and death situation: when nothing else in this world matters and you are helpless.
Then someone asks you how much money you got, and it better be a lot, and if it isn't, they don't want to know your name.
no thanks...that's a crap society.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
1. Healthcare is a basic human right.
2. There are people and systems in this country that would and do provide healthcare because it's a basic human right, rather than for their own profit. (That's not to say they don't receive payment - just that the systems are not set up as for-profit systems.)
When greed bleeds into a society at such a fundamental level, I think it's a prime indicator that circumstances in that society are going not so great.
Actively leveraging people for money (exorbitant rates at that) over life and death matters when they are sick?
yikes...
shame...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
2. There are people and systems in this country that would and do provide healthcare because it's a basic human right, rather than for their own profit. (That's not to say they don't receive payment - just that the systems are not set up as for-profit systems.)
And there's nothing I'm saying that precludes them doing this. If this is what they wish to do, certainly no one should stand in their way. The fact remains, however, is that the efforts of these groups will pale in overall comparison to those of for-profit entities. Regardless, no one here is making the argument that not-for-profit entities shouldn't participate in a healthcare system to whatever extent they desire.
And there's nothing I'm saying that precludes them doing this. If this is what they wish to do, certainly no one should stand in their way. The fact remains, however, is that the efforts of these groups will pale in overall comparison to those of for-profit entities. Regardless, no one here is making the argument that not-for-profit entities shouldn't participate in a healthcare system to whatever extent they desire.
I was merely responding to your suggestion that the healthcare system must be profit-driven for people to be motivated to provide healthcare. That's simply not true.
Are you saying that whatever the UN says is a right becomes a de facto right?
I was merely responding to your suggestion that the healthcare system must be profit-driven for people to be motivated to provide healthcare. That's simply not true.
I'm not saying that it must be profit-driven for any motivation to exist. What I'm saying is that it must be profit-driven for a motivation to exist sufficient enough to keep the system going.
Are you saying that whatever the UN says is a right becomes a de facto right?
No. Are you saying that the UN holds no weight whatsoever?
I'm saying:
1. I don't have time to completely get into this right now.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays out a pretty good argument.
3. The US agreed to uphold this Declaration so I don't know why there's still any argument about it.
I'm not saying that it must be profit-driven for any motivation to exist. What I'm saying is that it must be profit-driven for a motivation to exist sufficient enough to keep the system going.
I disagree. And I think that's a sad commentary on the human spirit.
Are you saying that whatever the UN says is a right becomes a de facto right?
Isn't the UN, in theory a representative of the world, which is in theory a group of gov't's represented by their people, ie a world democratic body-have a say in it?
Isn't the UN, in theory a representative of the world, which is in theory a group of gov't's represented by their people, ie a world democratic body-have a say in it?
No. No member of the UN is a representative of anything. UN members are not elected nor are their nations equally represented. The UN is not a democratic body.
No. Are you saying that the UN holds no weight whatsoever?
In terms of decreeing reality? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If the UN says something is a right, it doesn't make it a right any more than the UN decreeing a unicorn creates a unicorn.
I disagree. And I think that's a sad commentary on the human spirit.
It may certainly be a sad commentary on the human spirit. But sad or not, it doesn't really change the facts. History, psychology, and philosophy show that altruism is an inconsistent and poor motivator.
No. No member of the UN is a representative of anything. UN members are not elected nor are their nations equally represented. The UN is not a democratic body.
Seems that was the idea going in though, to prevent another Nazi style world conquest and to give countres a world body to voice their concerns. Agreed, they have failed, as one of the security council members seems to have picked up where the Nazi's left off, but in theory it is a good idea.
When insurance companies stop putting the profits over people as the norm.
Kind of a backwards principled society right there..
gotta get another Porsche....I don't care if people are dying...actually it would be better if they did... I get it faster.
Money above all....even life itself.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Are people in the US more scared of their houses burning down than they are of getting sick at some point in their lives? Lots of neighborhoods going up in smoke in the US every day?
Why should I pay if some guy burns his house down?
fuck em... I want another Porsche....hehe
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
In terms of decreeing reality? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If the UN says something is a right, it doesn't make it a right any more than the UN decreeing a unicorn creates a unicorn.
So should we just do away with the UN then?
The UN may be imperfect - like all other political bodies, including our own governmet - but that doesn't preclude the value of it or its documentation of what its members have argeed to. The US government surely wasn't representative of the people when it wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc., yet we still hold those documents in high regard.
Let's not get into the subjective nature of what we believe to be reality.
It may certainly be a sad commentary on the human spirit. But sad or not, it doesn't really change the facts. History, psychology, and philosophy show that altruism is an inconsistent and poor motivator.
Altruism may have been shown to be a poor motivator for the general public. But healthcare professionals are a unique sub-set of the population and I haven't seen any studies that show that this group is unmotivated by altruism. I think just the fact that the public health field is not relatively lucrative indicates that this group is more motivated by altruism than the general public is. It's the insurance companies that are not motivated by altruism, and that's exactly why I don't think there's a place for them within the system of medically necessary healthcare.
The US government surely wasn't representative of the people when it wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc., yet we still hold those documents in high regard.
What?
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Only white, land-owning men over the age of 21 could vote.
yes but it was a representation of the masses. "We the people....."
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
first off. the const. itself does not designate voting rights. u r correct in your facts but the fact of the matter is, whether it gave the right to vote to everybody or not, it has always been a pretty good reference for a basis of protection for ALL! Where's your beef in it? What is wrong w/ the constitution? Please...enlighten me.
06/24/1998 SD
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
I don't really care what you do with the UN -- doing away with or keeping the UN has nothing to do with the original point -- decrees to not determine human rights. The fundamentals of our nature determine human rights.
Altruism may have been shown to be a poor motivator for the general public. But healthcare professionals are a unique sub-set of the population and I haven't seen any studies that show that this group is unmotivated by altruism. I think just the fact that the public health field is not relatively lucrative indicates that this group is more motivated by altruism than the general public is. It's the insurance companies that are not motivated by altruism, and that's exactly why I don't think there's a place for them within the system of medically necessary healthcare.
I wish you the best of luck, though I cannot help but wonder if, altruism being the powerful motivator you claim it to be, why the worlds poor, sick, and hungry aren't just willing to curl up and die?
first off. the const. itself does not designate voting rights. u r correct in your facts but the fact of the matter is, whether it gave the right to vote to everybody or not, it has always been a pretty good reference for a basis of protection for ALL! Where's your beef in it? What is wrong w/ the constitution? Please...enlighten me.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that voting rights are a function of the Constitution. I'm saying that not everyone had a say in the creation of the Constitution. Whether or not it's a good reference for a basis of protection for all is subjective.
Personally, I think (and most American agree) that it is a good reference - just as I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good reference. I was comparing the two. I believe farfromglorified suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not a good reference because not everyone had a say in its creation. My point is that lack of complete involvement in the creation of a document does not negate its value. I was using the Constitution as an example.
The fundamentals of our nature determine human rights.
Please enlighten me about the fundamentals of our nature - what they are and how you know. (Unless that's getting too far off thread topic, in which case it sounds to me like a good topic for a new thread.)
I wish you the best of luck, though I cannot help but wonder if, altruism being the powerful motivator you claim it to be, why the worlds poor, sick, and hungry aren't just willing to curl up and die?
Because that would benefit those who aren't poor, sick, or hungry? That's completely subjective. That's like saying all the Republicans should curl up and die because it would benefit the Democrats.
Please enlighten me about the fundamentals of our nature - what they are and how you know. (Unless that's getting too far off thread topic, in which case it sounds to me like a good topic for a new thread.)
Your rights are your abilities that extend from your nature. You have the right to breathe so long as your lungs can hold air. You have the right to run, so long as your legs can carry you. You have the right to speak, so long as your voice can carry. And you have the right to think, so long as your mind is alive.
Extended, this gives you a right to whatever healthcare you can provide for yourself. From there, you have a right to whatever healthcare you desire that another can provide so long as you recognize their rights to ask for something in return, based on their desires relative to yours.
Because that would benefit those who aren't poor, sick, or hungry?
If the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for the poor, sick, and hungry, that would make them selfish. And rightfully so.
That's completely subjective. That's like saying all the Republicans should curl up and die because it would benefit the Democrats.
They should, based on a credo of altruism. And vice versa.
Your rights are your abilities that extend from your nature. You have the right to breathe so long as your lungs can hold air. You have the right to run, so long as your legs can carry you. You have the right to speak, so long as your voice can carry. And you have the right to think, so long as your mind is alive.
Extended, this gives you a right to whatever healthcare you can provide for yourself. From there, you have a right to whatever healthcare you desire that another can provide so long as you recognize their rights to ask for something in return, based on their desires relative to yours.
So it sounds like you're saying that rights are about people's ability to utilize their own resources without interference. But the reason people are poor and unable to provide for themselves is because a few people/groups in the world have stolen the resources of everyone else. So that theory isn't really applicable to the real world. You can't say someone has a right to run so long as their legs will carry them, and then chop off their legs, and then say that must mean they have no right to run.
So it sounds like you're saying that rights are about people's ability to utilize their own resources without interference. But the reason people are poor and unable to provide for themselves is because a few people/groups in the world have stolen the resources of everyone else. So that theory isn't really applicable to the real world. You can't say someone has a right to run so long as their legs will carry them, and then chop off their legs, and then say that must mean they have no right to run.
Technically, you can't say someone has a right to run so long as their legs will carry them, and chop off their legs, and then say that you have a right to your legs.
Anyway, I'm in absolutely agreement that much has been stolen from many in this world. But if that's wrong, then stealing it back from the ancestors of those people or the innocent isn't right either.
The fact of the matter, however, is that all wealth extends from the mind. When two groups of idiots bicker over whose wealth is whose, someone smart usually steps in and simply creates a whole lot of new wealth that all benefit from. And, in terms of providing healthcare to all people, that's where the answer lies. You can take healthcare from a rich man and give it to a poor man, or you can increase the supply of healthcare for everyone.
But the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for everyone, not just for themselves. That indicates compassion and fairness - not selfishness.
Hehe...so it's cool when a rich guy steals from the poor so long as he splits it with his cronies?
The fact of the matter is that people who are hungry want food. And people who are sick want to be better. And they should want those things. The root of everything we hold to be good - love, health, happiness, wealth, security, comfort...all of these things extend from selfish desires. And they work best when they recognize those same desires in others.
Comments
Further treatment period. If the money is not there, apparently this seems to be the case. As per the article by Nader I posted some posts up....full stop it seems.
pay up or die...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
could you be more melodramatic?
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
I was in reference to article http://www.counterpunch.com/nader05062008.html
in the title "pay or die"
Besides, it's succinct.. The rhetoric is accurate.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I disagree that there's a "problem" there. Absent the profit motive, these companies have little motive to innovate or respond to customer needs. Take away the profit and you take away the direct influence of the customer. Furthermore, government controlled systems and not-for-profit system have no more of a motive to provide "for the good of the people" than do profitable organizations. If one looks at most governmental systems, we see a greater interest in simply maintaining existence than we do in providing high-quality service.
We are speaking of money in those terms. But in terms of their end customers, we're not. For example, let's say that you get cancer. And let's say that I invent a pill that you can take that cures cancer. And let's say it costs me $0.10 to make this pill. Let's also say that no insurance or governmental system exists to provide that pill to you, the cancer patient. You must come to me to buy it. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you're going to buy my pill and give me $10. I pocket a monetary profit of $9.90. Why did I sell it to you in the first place? Because the value of that $10 exceeds the value of the pill I just made to me. Why did you pay $10 for it? Because the value of the pill exceeds the value of that $10 to you. I made a monetary profit. You, however, made a non-monetary profit. That's how most healthcare exchanges do and should work -- those providing a product or service that has little value to them should receive a counterveiling monetary profit relative to the non-monetary benefit you receive from the same product. Absent the monetary ($9.90) profit motive for me, I have little or no reason to make or sell my pill. Absent the non-monetary (cancer-free) profit motive for you, you have little or no reason to buy my pill.
The fundamental problem in a market-oriented system comes from those who need healthcare but cannot afford it, regardless of the price. This is the place where governmental intervention is most appropriate but so often misguided. What we need to do with government in terms of healthcare is not just take existing healthcare from person A and give it to person B, but rather to create new supplies of healthcare such that the price decreases to the point that person B can now access it along with person A. UHC tends to cut against this model by decreasing supply through fighting the profit motive and by increasing demand by arbitrarily giving access to everyone into markets that aren't ready to accept them.
Exactly. And your employer is not likely buying insurance based on what's best for you. They're buying insurance based on what's best for them, which may be entirely reasonable or unreasonable, depending on your employer's goals. What's completely unreasonable is the silly expectation people have that either employers or governments or anyone else for that matter will have an unfailing interest in providing goods or services to people who, by the very nature of the transaction, provide little or no value into the process.
Well, then we're going to disagree here. The statement "every person deserves healthcare" makes no sense because there are nothing but arbitrary justificiations for it. Simply ask "why" that's the case, and you'll come up with nothing but silly answers that have no actual link to healthcare.
Healthcare, despite its importance, is simply a service. It is a service provided by another person to you. If you "deserve" that service, then the person providing it "deserves" something in return. The fact of the matter is that its only when you ignore the above to you create a justice problem.
Certainly I believe that everyone having healthcare is an ideal. The day that everyone on this planet has access to state of the art medicine, if that day ever comes, will be one of the greatest days in human history. But simply taking that and turning it into a false absolute regarding a "right to healthcare" accomplishes nothing. The better approach is to recognize the economic nature of the problem and then act accordingly.
The opposite is true, unfortunately. The instant you say that everyone has a "right to healthcare" is the moment you make it a political problem instead of an economic problem. And that is when you go back to the unintended consequences from which we started this discussion.
Then someone asks you how much money you got, and it better be a lot, and if it isn't, they don't want to know your name.
no thanks...that's a crap society.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
This is getting really long. My short response:
1. Healthcare is a basic human right.
2. There are people and systems in this country that would and do provide healthcare because it's a basic human right, rather than for their own profit. (That's not to say they don't receive payment - just that the systems are not set up as for-profit systems.)
ok sorry, I missed that part.
I'm with farfromglorified on this. Well said.
Actively leveraging people for money (exorbitant rates at that) over life and death matters when they are sick?
yikes...
shame...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why? How?
And there's nothing I'm saying that precludes them doing this. If this is what they wish to do, certainly no one should stand in their way. The fact remains, however, is that the efforts of these groups will pale in overall comparison to those of for-profit entities. Regardless, no one here is making the argument that not-for-profit entities shouldn't participate in a healthcare system to whatever extent they desire.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I was merely responding to your suggestion that the healthcare system must be profit-driven for people to be motivated to provide healthcare. That's simply not true.
Are you saying that whatever the UN says is a right becomes a de facto right?
I'm not saying that it must be profit-driven for any motivation to exist. What I'm saying is that it must be profit-driven for a motivation to exist sufficient enough to keep the system going.
No. Are you saying that the UN holds no weight whatsoever?
I'm saying:
1. I don't have time to completely get into this right now.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays out a pretty good argument.
3. The US agreed to uphold this Declaration so I don't know why there's still any argument about it.
I disagree. And I think that's a sad commentary on the human spirit.
Isn't the UN, in theory a representative of the world, which is in theory a group of gov't's represented by their people, ie a world democratic body-have a say in it?
No. No member of the UN is a representative of anything. UN members are not elected nor are their nations equally represented. The UN is not a democratic body.
In terms of decreeing reality? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If the UN says something is a right, it doesn't make it a right any more than the UN decreeing a unicorn creates a unicorn.
It may certainly be a sad commentary on the human spirit. But sad or not, it doesn't really change the facts. History, psychology, and philosophy show that altruism is an inconsistent and poor motivator.
Seems that was the idea going in though, to prevent another Nazi style world conquest and to give countres a world body to voice their concerns. Agreed, they have failed, as one of the security council members seems to have picked up where the Nazi's left off, but in theory it is a good idea.
Kind of a backwards principled society right there..
gotta get another Porsche....I don't care if people are dying...actually it would be better if they did... I get it faster.
Money above all....even life itself.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why should I pay if some guy burns his house down?
fuck em... I want another Porsche....hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So should we just do away with the UN then?
The UN may be imperfect - like all other political bodies, including our own governmet - but that doesn't preclude the value of it or its documentation of what its members have argeed to. The US government surely wasn't representative of the people when it wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc., yet we still hold those documents in high regard.
Let's not get into the subjective nature of what we believe to be reality.
Altruism may have been shown to be a poor motivator for the general public. But healthcare professionals are a unique sub-set of the population and I haven't seen any studies that show that this group is unmotivated by altruism. I think just the fact that the public health field is not relatively lucrative indicates that this group is more motivated by altruism than the general public is. It's the insurance companies that are not motivated by altruism, and that's exactly why I don't think there's a place for them within the system of medically necessary healthcare.
What?
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
Only white, land-owning men over the age of 21 could vote.
yes but it was a representation of the masses. "We the people....."
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
What?!
first off. the const. itself does not designate voting rights. u r correct in your facts but the fact of the matter is, whether it gave the right to vote to everybody or not, it has always been a pretty good reference for a basis of protection for ALL! Where's your beef in it? What is wrong w/ the constitution? Please...enlighten me.
10/12/2000 KS
06/13/2003 IA
06/15/2003 ND
06/16/2003 Mn
06/21/2003 WI
10/05/2004 MO
10/08/2004 FL
09/08/2005 MB
09/09/2005 ON
05/17/2006 IL
05/19/2006 MI
07/02/2006 CO
08/05/2007 Lolla
06/14/2008 B'roo
Kill Fascists.... or at least make them realize what they are.
I don't really care what you do with the UN -- doing away with or keeping the UN has nothing to do with the original point -- decrees to not determine human rights. The fundamentals of our nature determine human rights.
I wish you the best of luck, though I cannot help but wonder if, altruism being the powerful motivator you claim it to be, why the worlds poor, sick, and hungry aren't just willing to curl up and die?
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that voting rights are a function of the Constitution. I'm saying that not everyone had a say in the creation of the Constitution. Whether or not it's a good reference for a basis of protection for all is subjective.
Personally, I think (and most American agree) that it is a good reference - just as I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good reference. I was comparing the two. I believe farfromglorified suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not a good reference because not everyone had a say in its creation. My point is that lack of complete involvement in the creation of a document does not negate its value. I was using the Constitution as an example.
Please enlighten me about the fundamentals of our nature - what they are and how you know. (Unless that's getting too far off thread topic, in which case it sounds to me like a good topic for a new thread.)
Because that would benefit those who aren't poor, sick, or hungry? That's completely subjective. That's like saying all the Republicans should curl up and die because it would benefit the Democrats.
Your rights are your abilities that extend from your nature. You have the right to breathe so long as your lungs can hold air. You have the right to run, so long as your legs can carry you. You have the right to speak, so long as your voice can carry. And you have the right to think, so long as your mind is alive.
Extended, this gives you a right to whatever healthcare you can provide for yourself. From there, you have a right to whatever healthcare you desire that another can provide so long as you recognize their rights to ask for something in return, based on their desires relative to yours.
If the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for the poor, sick, and hungry, that would make them selfish. And rightfully so.
They should, based on a credo of altruism. And vice versa.
So it sounds like you're saying that rights are about people's ability to utilize their own resources without interference. But the reason people are poor and unable to provide for themselves is because a few people/groups in the world have stolen the resources of everyone else. So that theory isn't really applicable to the real world. You can't say someone has a right to run so long as their legs will carry them, and then chop off their legs, and then say that must mean they have no right to run.
But the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for everyone, not just for themselves. That indicates compassion and fairness - not selfishness.
Technically, you can't say someone has a right to run so long as their legs will carry them, and chop off their legs, and then say that you have a right to your legs.
Anyway, I'm in absolutely agreement that much has been stolen from many in this world. But if that's wrong, then stealing it back from the ancestors of those people or the innocent isn't right either.
The fact of the matter, however, is that all wealth extends from the mind. When two groups of idiots bicker over whose wealth is whose, someone smart usually steps in and simply creates a whole lot of new wealth that all benefit from. And, in terms of providing healthcare to all people, that's where the answer lies. You can take healthcare from a rich man and give it to a poor man, or you can increase the supply of healthcare for everyone.
Hehe...so it's cool when a rich guy steals from the poor so long as he splits it with his cronies?
The fact of the matter is that people who are hungry want food. And people who are sick want to be better. And they should want those things. The root of everything we hold to be good - love, health, happiness, wealth, security, comfort...all of these things extend from selfish desires. And they work best when they recognize those same desires in others.