Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:US doctors certainly get paid more. Though I think you'd be hard pressed to say someone making over 100,000k a year is a slave.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ries-make/

For what is likely the 25,000th time, I will explain again that doctors, by the oath they take, are required to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The difference between that and the "right to healthcare" is subtle, but important especially in light of my first post in this thread. In case you missed it...

Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

thegreekdog wrote: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE GASOLINE!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOUSES!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES!

1 and 3 are luxuries, not necessary for life. I would say there is some acknowledgement by the state for 2, well for a home. a detached house is a luxury, a home is not. this is why you see social housing projects. these kinds of projects can often save money for local communities as the costs of dealing with the homeless is higher than simply giving them a home. A few municipalities in the us did a project where they gave homeless people apartments.

Regardless Universal healthcare is based on the idea that those things necessary for life should have some form of guarantee.

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a person has the right to be paid what they can get paid... no more, no less.

I disagree.

Good for you.

Pay me more money now.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Right doctors don't turn down requests for care if you don't have the money,this is why the homeless never die due to treatable ailments. very amusing tell me another.

The homeless are dying due to treatable ailments because doctors are turning down their request for healthcare? I've heard this before but have yet to see any data on this. If you could please provide, that would be helpful.

Baron Von PWN wrote:1 and 3 are luxuries, not necessary for life. I would say there is some acknowledgement by the state for 2, well for a home. a detached house is a luxury, a home is not. this is why you see social housing projects. these kinds of projects can often save money for local communities as the costs of dealing with the homeless is higher than simply giving them a home. A few municipalities in the us did a project where they gave homeless people apartments.

There were recent Congressional hearings regarding high oil prices and how the oil companies were making too much money. I'm not sure if you were aware, but comments were made to the effect of "WAAH, OIL COSTS TOO MUCH AND YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY... WE DESERVE CHEAPER OIL!"

thegreekdog wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a person has the right to be paid what they can get paid... no more, no less.

I disagree.

Good for you.

Pay me more money now.

No.

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a person has the right to be paid what they can get paid... no more, no less.

I disagree.

Good for you.

Pay me more money now.

No.

But I have a right to make a living. And I'm not making a living. I have a right to life, liberty, and happiness!

thegreekdog wrote:........... I have a right to life, liberty, and happiness!

Your right to life depends on my willingness to let you keep it, so not a right.
Your liberty depends on my willingless to allow you to remain free, so not a right
your happyness depends on me activly providing you happyness, but i'd rather spread unhappyness, so no?

did i follow the argument good enough, or is it all depending on not interfearing with other people's rights/ or maybe just if nobody else did anything to impact you, then you would have those?
I am thinking an island, that would be just great. Nobody to pester you, nobody to tax you for healthcare for others. You can be perfectly happy all by yourself.

As arguments go, its not even that badly flawed (well a bit anyways)

thegreekdog wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a person has the right to be paid what they can get paid... no more, no less.

I disagree.

Good for you.

Pay me more money now.

No.

But I have a right to make a living. And I'm not making a living. I have a right to life, liberty, and happiness!

I also have a right to make a living. If I give you money I won't make a living.

I know! Here's an idea, let's ask those who make way too much money to ever know what to do with it to give some of it to us.

But oh noes! Those guys are greedy bastards and won't give us money. What to do?

natty_dread wrote:But I have a right to make a living. And I'm not making a living. I have a right to life, liberty, and happiness!

I also have a right to make a living. If I give you money I won't make a living.

I know! Here's an idea, let's ask those who make way too much money to ever know what to do with it to give some of it to us.

But oh noes! Those guys are greedy bastards and won't give us money. What to do?[/quote]

Revolution?

Problem with posesions is, there is constitution protecting them. After all they require me to not take them from you, as in i need to allow you to keep them = not a right..

For the sake of society, liberties and rights are sacrificed so that the individual can live and prosper within the society and the society can exist. This is a balance that is precarious. To much liberty taken by the individual and there is no society, with not enough liberties there is no individual and therefor no society that can adapt, and therefor society will perish. so something to that effect

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:US doctors certainly get paid more. Though I think you'd be hard pressed to say someone making over 100,000k a year is a slave.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ries-make/

For what is likely the 25,000th time, I will explain again that doctors, by the oath they take, are required to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

Correction, they have to treat life-threatening emergencies. They are not legally obligated to do anything else. However, most do treat a LOT more than that. (Our doctor, for example has phoned in perscriptions rather than making us come in. He does not get paid, and, in fact, is putting himself at risk except that he knows us well enough to know we don't imagine symptoms, etc.) And one of the primary reasons they must take so many for free is that the insurance companies are free to just dismiss anyone they feel they don't wish to cover.

They also keep seeing their payments cut by insurance companies, along with increases in paperwork requirements.. again, by insurance companies, while those same insurance companies profits maintain or grow.

thegreekdog wrote:The difference between that and the "right to healthcare" is subtle, but important especially in light of my first post in this thread.

Not really subtle, two completely different things. The ability to go to the emergency room in extreme emergencies is not "health care"..and that is the problem.

thegreekdog wrote: In case you missed it...

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE GASOLINE!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOUSES!
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES!

We read it. It just has nothing to do with the real issues of whether people have a basic right to basic medical care or not. Though houses, yes.. shelter is a basic requirement.

natty_dread wrote:I also have a right to make a living. If I give you money I won't make a living.

I know! Here's an idea, let's ask those who make way too much money to ever know what to do with it to give some of it to us.

But oh noes! Those guys are greedy bastards and won't give us money. What to do?

It's not a right to make a living. Its a right to get a reasonable paycheck if you are working.

the other is not necessarily a right, but is one of the lines we draw between a moral society and an immoral one. A moral society takes care of those unable to care for themselves. and yes, "to whom much is given, much is asked". That is not just in money, but it applies. If you have a good brain and are not using it, then you are not truly living a moral life. A society that conveniently sidesteps or curtails the abilities of some simply because of their color, their gender, etc... is not a fully moral society, is not a fully productive society, either.

Isn't it interesting how, once again, the people so quick to say healthcare is not a right are the same people who claim the "right to life" gives them the right to decide that a parent has to carry and bear a child with very severe disabilities, no matter their financial or other abilities to care for that child, that abortion for any reason is "just wrong".

PLAYER57832 wrote:Isn't it interesting how, once again, the same people who claim the "right to life" gives them the right to decide that a parent has to carry and bear a child with very severe disabilities, no matter their financial or other abilities to care for that child, that abortion for any reason is "just wrong", are the exact ones now saying that "healthcare is not a right".

Libertarians and Rand Paul (the subjects of this thread) are pro choice. Seriously, before making blanket assertions do some research.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Isn't it interesting how, once again, the same people who claim the "right to life" gives them the right to decide that a parent has to carry and bear a child with very severe disabilities, no matter their financial or other abilities to care for that child, that abortion for any reason is "just wrong", are the exact ones now saying that "healthcare is not a right".

Libertarians and Rand Paul (the subjects of this thread) are pro choice. Seriously, before making blanket assertions do some research.

I was referring to Night strike and some other CCers.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And one of the primary reasons they must take so many for free is that the insurance companies are free to just dismiss anyone they feel they don't wish to cover.

They also keep seeing their payments cut by insurance companies, along with increases in paperwork requirements.. again, by insurance companies, while those same insurance companies profits maintain or grow.

What do insurance companies have to do with a right to healthcare? You're confusing the issue. The issue is whether every person in the United States has the right to healthcare. It's not written in the Constitution that they have this right. It's not written in any law (certainly not the Affordable Care Act). Rand Paul is explaining that for people to suggest that a person has the right to healthcare, the right to make another person provide services to another without pay, is indentured servitude (or conscription). It is and he's right. Dr. Paul is not making a critique of the Affordable Care Act or insurance companies or doctors generally, so those aren't up for discussion in this thread (so far).

PLAYER57832 wrote:It just has nothing to do with the real issues of whether people have a basic right to basic medical care or not. Though houses, yes.. shelter is a basic requirement.

It does have to deal with the "real issues." Congresspeople are suggesting that we have the right to cheap gasoline. They held hearings on the issue and grilled CEOs of oil companies in a ridiculous abuse of power and waste of time and money.

And people do not have the right to shelter. Again, the right to shelter is not in the Constitution or any other founding documents. You can say, "All people should have a home/shelter," but...

IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!!

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:And one of the primary reasons they must take so many for free is that the insurance companies are free to just dismiss anyone they feel they don't wish to cover.

They also keep seeing their payments cut by insurance companies, along with increases in paperwork requirements.. again, by insurance companies, while those same insurance companies profits maintain or grow.

What do insurance companies have to do with a right to healthcare? You're confusing the issue. The issue is whether every person in the United States has the right to healthcare. It's not written in the Constitution that they have this right. It's not written in any law (certainly not the Affordable Care Act).

It's a matter of morality, not law. Still, at the time the constitution was written, "healthcare" was what just about every wife knew how to do-- that and leeches, which even then many people eschewed. It was effectively gauranteed, available to all.

It is yet another case of humanity having advanced beyond that original constitution, just as we no longer agree with slavery and women can now vote.

thegreekdog wrote: Rand Paul is explaining that for people to suggest that a person has the right to healthcare, the right to make another person provide services to another without pay, is indentured servitude (or conscription). It is and he's right. Dr. Paul is not making a critique of the Affordable Care Act or insurance companies or doctors generally, so those aren't up for discussion in this thread (so far).

His arguments are disengenious at best.

The fact is that right now, we have one of the most wonderful health care systems available in the world, but a LARGE number of people cannot access it. Ironically, the deadbeats everyone rails against are those who DO get access. Its working people who get shut out by insurance companies.

What I say is that insurance companies have given up their right to make a profit and to exist. They have shown themselves to be harmful and even downright evil. THEY are the ones who need to be outlawed, not healthcare reform.

And, while I do NOT think this past bill was all that wonderful, at least my kids will be covered as soon as we get insurance. WE will be covered in 2012, providing the law is not reversed. That, alone is a huge benefit for many.

.[/quote]

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It just has nothing to do with the real issues of whether people have a basic right to basic medical care or not. Though houses, yes.. shelter is a basic requirement.

It does have to deal with the "real issues." Congresspeople are suggesting that we have the right to cheap gasoline. They held hearings on the issue and grilled CEOs of oil companies in a ridiculous abuse of power and waste of time and money.

I believe the hearings were about whether the oil companies should continue to recieve the largess from the government in light of the damage they recently caused AND the huge bonuses... along with some questions as to why the cost has gone up so much with the claim that it "cannot be lowered", but, again, the companies have made record profits.

A tad different than claiming that anyone has a right to cheap oil!
And, personnally, I think we need to pay more.. though it should go to research and infrastructure maintenance, not the oil companies.

thegreekdog wrote: And people do not have the right to shelter. Again, the right to shelter is not in the Constitution or any other founding documents. You can say, "All people should have a home/shelter," but...

The constitution was written by people. Rights are invested by another authority.

and yes, when not having shelter means people die, it is a moral right.

I'm ready to give up now. You've worn me down. I can't keep typing the same things over and over again only to be ignored or for the subject to change.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The constitution was written by people. Rights are invested by another authority.

and yes, when not having shelter means people die, it is a moral right.

Rights are not invested by another authority (I mean, really, a large percentage of the people in the US don't even believe there is another authority). They are generally enumerated in the Constitution or through US and state and local law. I don't disagree that the health insurance system sucks and that certain people don't have access to affordable (for them) healthcare. These are things that I'm not arguing right now.

What I am arguing about and what I do have a problem with is the use of the term "right" in the context of healthcare (or housing or food or clothes). We have a right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (supposedly... see the King case), and all the others; none of those are economic rights. I think it is a testament to how horrendous our culture has become that people believe they are no longer just entitled to free speech, they are also entitled to free healthcare and free housing at the expense of stepping on the rights of others. It's disgusting.

Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?


Who here understands the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"?

thegreekdog wrote:I'm ready to give up now. You've worn me down. I can't keep typing the same things over and over again only to be ignored or for the subject to change.

I am not ignoring you. I disagree on a fundamental level.

The only problem is that while I fully understand I am disgreeing with you, you seem to think I am not... and merely don't understand your points.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The constitution was written by people. Rights are invested by another authority.

and yes, when not having shelter means people die, it is a moral right.

Rights are not invested by another authority (I mean, really, a large percentage of the people in the US don't even believe there is another authority). They are generally enumerated in the Constitution or through US and state and local law.

LOL... read the Declaration of Independence, a document that rather predates the constitution.

Anway, you are just wrong on this. Rights are not given by the government, but can be protected by the government. That is why governments have legitimacy, because they protect our rights. (or are supposed to). However, those rights are not "from" the government. A fundamental difference.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't disagree that the health insurance system sucks and that certain people don't have access to affordable (for them) healthcare. These are things that I'm not arguing right now.

OK

thegreekdog wrote:What I am arguing about and what I do have a problem with is the use of the term "right" in the context of healthcare (or housing or food or clothes). We have a right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (supposedly... see the King case), and all the others; none of those are economic rights. I think it is a testament to how horrendous our culture has become that people believe they are no longer just entitled to free speech, they are also entitled to free healthcare and free housing at the expense of stepping on the rights of others. It's disgusting.

LOL... just how much "freedom" does someone who is starving or freezing to death have?
In truth... well according to Neitz (sp?) you are correct. The ultimate freedom is within ourselves, something no one can ever take away. However, in practicality, if you cannot eat, have shelter, etc, then you cannot think, reason or do anything effectively. It negates the rest. Putting this into a mere economic argument is not just silly, it is hypocritical.
Now, this is not saying that you have a right to a 2 story, 3 car garage house and yard or to eat your favorite foods every day. However, basic sustenance and shelter are needs and therefore basic HUMAN rights, rights not from any constitution (though I do believe various world entities have put them forward as basic rights).

As for the other.. it is dispicable, but also related to the above, as Machiavelli noted. (an auther, I will add who has become more and more popular among the elite business owners of today.. a development I find "interesting"). People who are hungry don't have time to worry about who is in charge. They are too busy just eaking out survival.

And, once our education system is fully gutted as the Tea Partiers ask for, the Republicans plan and Democrats seem to be only minimally fighting, then the opportunity for anything else will be even further removed from a large percentage of the population. They not only won't ahve time to debate, they will lack the knowledge of anything worthy of debate. A population who will find that they don't even have welfare to rely upon!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who here understands the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"?

Rights come from basic humanity or God (if you believe in God, of course).
Civil rights are specific rights bestowed by and protected by law. They generally, but not always concur in part with the above rights, but are inherently seperate.

Priviliage is something else entirely. The ability to have a business and earn money is a priviliage, as is the ability to go out and work for a wage.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

This thread is now about healthcare.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Having basic healthcare is as much a right as access to food, clothing and housing.

Oh yeah.. you don't think WORKING people have any right to those things, either.

Get caught committing a felony....all your dreams will come true.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Having basic healthcare is as much a right as access to food, clothing and housing.

Oh yeah.. you don't think WORKING people have any right to those things, either.

Get caught committing a felony....all your dreams will come true.

If you get caught committing a felony, you go to jail. Right?

Why would anyone want to go to jail, let alone dream about it?

Furthermore, do you really think that a society where one has to resort to crime to get food and shelter is a good society to live in?

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Having basic healthcare is as much a right as access to food, clothing and housing.

Oh yeah.. you don't think WORKING people have any right to those things, either.

Get caught committing a felony....all your dreams will come true.

yet somehow, you don't seem to see the irony there.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Were people in here seriously arguing that a state-mandated minimum price for labor is a right?

It is as much a right as your right to make a profit from a business.
That is, not a right, but something as part of our governmental system.

Private property rights (retaining one's own money earned) fundamentally differ from legally mandated price controls like minimum wage.

Who defines "earning" money as money you plop down to get interest and money received for doing labor "not earned [unless the employer decides to pay]"?

Not so long ago the first would be called "usery" and the second "work".
If you hire someone fulltime, you pay them enough to live on or it is abuse.
But anyway, in a technical sense, neither is a right. However, you keep insisting that owning a business, taking whatever profit you have is a "right". I say if that is a "right", then getting at least a livable wage for work is also a right.