Socialized Healthcare?

Options
1…121314151618»

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    scb wrote:
    http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Commy wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    scb wrote:
    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.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • potluck
    potluck Posts: 170
    scb wrote:
    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    potluck wrote:
    What?

    Only white, land-owning men over the age of 21 could vote.
  • potluck
    potluck Posts: 170
    scb wrote:
    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    potluck wrote:
    yes but it was a representation of the masses. "We the people....."

    What?! :confused:
  • potluck
    potluck Posts: 170
    scb wrote:
    What?! :confused:

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    scb wrote:
    So should we just do away with the UN then?

    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?
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    potluck wrote:
    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.)

    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    scb wrote:
    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.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    If the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for the poor, sick, and hungry, that would make them selfish. And rightfully so.
    But the poor, sick, and hungry want benefits for everyone, not just for themselves. That indicates compassion and fairness - not selfishness.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    scb wrote:
    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.

Categories