Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 124

Thread: Is Health a matter of civil rights?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    You said there should be a set standard of care that should not fall. Not that people are limited to that set standard.

    You said "People in my mind are entitled to everything to extend their life for themselves and their families.

    The "set standard" seems to be a token phrase that doesn't actually place any limits of any kind, whatsoever, on the amount of healthcare that needs to be supplied.
    It does place limits. Limits on what the standard of care should be as far as it's lowest point. And yes I feel people are entitled to everything to extend their life, but sadly this is not going to be a fact as there would be resource limitations upon what care could be provided.

    I am stating that we should as a nation provide the most care we can with what resources we do have.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    I don't believe in any inherent rights of anyone - all rights you have are something that is set up via ways to protect them.

    As such, all human/civil rights are constructs of the society - the core values that it will acknowledge/protect. They are a civilizational luxury.

    However, it is the luxury that should be the FIRST luxury any society should strive for.

    In this light, universal health care, which is by nature "socialistic" - all for one being the key element should be among the very very first rights that a society should strive for.

    P.S. Socialist, socialist... by the definitions slung around this forum ANY INSURANCE is socialist. Everyone involved pays into it, and only those that get sick get anything out. Wow, such socialist principles...

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    I don't believe in any inherent rights of anyone - all rights you have are something that is set up via ways to protect them.

    As such, all human/civil rights are constructs of the society - the core values that it will acknowledge/protect. They are a civilizational luxury.

    However, it is the luxury that should be the FIRST luxury any society should strive for.

    In this light, universal health care, which is by nature "socialistic" - all for one being the key element should be among the very very first rights that a society should strive for.

    P.S. Socialist, socialist... by the definitions slung around this forum ANY INSURANCE is socialist. Everyone involved pays into it, and only those that get sick get anything out. Wow, such socialist principles...
    A luxury? I suppose that based upon the society the conditions would be so. I however do not think the health care system nor the reform itself is socialist in nature since it is not a everyone gets the same but attempts to set a standard for all.

    In other words, the standard is not the limit to how much or how high the quality can be, but to ensure it does not fall below a set standard.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    I am stating that we should as a nation provide the most care we can with what resources we do have.
    Well that position seems more reasonable, sadly America's blown its load on a supersized adventurous military leeching any spare resources that could have been used on human welfare.

    Guns and butter, pick one, don't join the ranks of the parasites and then come crying about how the government can't afford an extra hospital bed. Sorry the money for your liver transplant was spent on depleted uranium ammunition launched from 300 million dollar gunships into a pashtun wedding celebration in the mountains of pakistan.

    Maybe it is socialism, and I don't really like government healthcare whatever you call it; but I still prefer a northern european style welfare state to the festering zombie the US as a nation has become.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Well that position seems more reasonable, sadly America's blown its load on a supersized adventurous military leeching any spare resources that could have been used on human welfare.

    Guns and butter, pick one, don't join the ranks of the parasites and then come crying about how the government can't afford an extra hospital bed. Sorry the money for your liver transplant was spent on depleted uranium ammunition launched from $300 million dollar gunships into a pashtun wedding celebration in the mountains of pakistan.
    Providing care and security go hand in hand. A nation that is unable to protect it's citizens is thus unable to provide any liberty or peace of mind.

    Please don't turn this into a thread of political blame. We are discussing the moral virtues of providing care and if it is thus a right...
    If you have a gripe about military spending put it in the government section or gun rights...

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    Providing care and security go hand in hand.
    Obviously not or the US wouldn't be in the state it is, a broke XXX beggar nation dependent on foreign aid from China.

    It's pathetic you want more money for social programs but wouldn't dare even consider cutting the military budget. Where else do you think it's going to come from? Schools? Police? Social Security? Print it up? Cut back the trash collection to biannually?

    It's easy to make vague assertions about how moral you are because you want more resource for everything. The hard part is working out what you're going to sacrifice to get it (and "nothing" isn't a good enough answer).
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    A luxury? I suppose that based upon the society the conditions would be so.
    That is exactly what I mean. There will be occasions where society can't afford the luxury - natural disasters leading to normal procedures being suspended temporarily and similar. Or, for example, a health system with enough resources to only service a part of the population's needs and similar.

    I however do not think the health care system nor the reform itself is socialist in nature since it is not a everyone gets the same but attempts to set a standard for all.
    Neither am I, my comments were sarcastic aimed at the lovely US citizens with no idea of what socialism is claiming Obama is socialist.

    sadly America's blown its load on a supersized adventurous military leeching any spare resources that could have been used on human welfare
    Yes, THAT's the really problematic part here. Health care reform in the US is necessary, but it has been undertaken at the worst of times - in a depleted US during an economic crysis.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    If our country is about opportunity how then would it be possible for that person to pursue the overall happiness and liberties endowed upon him if he is then not entitled to life and the maintaining thereof?

    We are not speaking of a select few who are dealt the cruel hand of "finding other means" such as you have stated.. But a growing number of the population including those of the middle class and upper middle class...

    This is simply not bound within the context of pure opportunity, but to ensure that all men have the equal opportunity to pursue such is their liberties and their happiness being sure of the maintaining of life for themselves and their families...

    If the three major rights endowed by our creator is thus not a worthy enough cause to follow what is? Is not life itself a treasure that cannot be measured in wealth or fame? Fortune or possession? Even the richest and most opportune fall victim to death which grips us all in the end...

    I feel that it is not only our moral obligation to ourselves and to ensure that our children and the following generations after us look upon us through histories piercing and weighing glance and see that we took it upon ourselves to do something to endow and empower more of our fellow citizens with the one inalienable right that cannot be bought and cannot have a price put upon it the maintaining of one's life in order to pursue their happiness through the liberties provided to them and their families..
    In a perfect world everybody would have the same chance, but the world isn't and not everybody does.

    What you really are saying is that the safety nets in place are not sufficient, because they do exist. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance, but that does not mean they do not have access to medical care. Could the available resources cover more services, be easier to access and be provided with higher quality, yes without question. EMT's don't ask for proof of insurance before you get on the ambulance. They may take someone to a certain ER, but they get in. Many states have medical services for children and pregnant women. Seniors and disabled have Social Security and Medi-Care along with many other health and social services at the State and Federal level. None of which existed 100 years ago. Not bad considering the country is only 234 years old. Some countries have better health services, some better education opportunities, some overall quality of life, but none rank as high as we do having the freedom and population that we do.

    Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no statement with regards to the quality of that life, that we have freedom to do as we please or that happiness will be acquired. This statement means your life is protected from being taken unjustly (but it happens) we are protected from being unjustly detained (but it happens and is different than freedom) and that unjust are not restrictions are placed on us. The DOI is concerned with the unfair treatment of the people by government. Stating that the government should be and is obligated to the interests of the governed. We the governed forget that our government is supposed to be the collective voice of those being represented.

    Who and how is the standard of care to be determined? Do we restrict the pursuit of happiness because certain activities are more likely to require use of resources? Do we mandate preventative care to better manage limited resources? Does this apply to all people or just citizens? Here illegally or legally, but not a citizen?

    The desire is noble, the reality imposing, the solution unknown but the the fight worthwhile. Those who choose to participate in the government that governs them, will many times feel frustrated and disappointed, but will always have the potential for their voice to be heard amid the deafening silence of the uncaring masses

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by pappillion001 View Post
    In a perfect world everybody would have the same chance, but the world isn't and not everybody does.

    What you really are saying is that the safety nets in place are not sufficient, because they do exist. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance, but that does not mean they do not have access to medical care. Could the available resources cover more services, be easier to access and be provided with higher quality, yes without question. EMT's don't ask for proof of insurance before you get on the ambulance. They may take someone to a certain ER, but they get in. Many states have medical services for children and pregnant women. Seniors and disabled have Social Security and Medi-Care along with many other health and social services at the State and Federal level. None of which existed 100 years ago. Not bad considering the country is only 234 years old. Some countries have better health services, some better education opportunities, some overall quality of life, but none rank as high as we do having the freedom and population that we do.

    Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no statement with regards to the quality of that life, that we have freedom to do as we please or that happiness will be acquired. This statement means your life is protected from being taken unjustly (but it happens) we are protected from being unjustly detained (but it happens and is different than freedom) and that unjust are not restrictions are placed on us. The DOI is concerned with the unfair treatment of the people by government. Stating that the government should be and is obligated to the interests of the governed. We the governed forget that our government is supposed to be the collective voice of those being represented.

    Who and how is the standard of care to be determined? Do we restrict the pursuit of happiness because certain activities are more likely to require use of resources? Do we mandate preventative care to better manage limited resources? Does this apply to all people or just citizens? Here illegally or legally, but not a citizen?

    The desire is noble, the reality imposing, the solution unknown but the the fight worthwhile. Those who choose to participate in the government that governs them, will many times feel frustrated and disappointed, but will always have the potential for their voice to be heard amid the deafening silence of the uncaring masses

    And yet it is the will of the people that must voice this moral obligation. I feel that bitter politics upon both sides has cast a dark cloud over any sort of serious debate over the matter. It is seen more of as a democratic potential victory or a republican loss than the real meaning behind such legislation which is to improve the quality of life among our citizens.

    More often than not issues that become important and even dire to our nations well being are simply twisted into political capital rather than seen as an improvement for the common good of all people.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Obviously not or the US wouldn't be in the state it is, a broke XXX beggar nation dependent on foreign aid from China.

    It's pathetic you want more money for social programs but wouldn't dare even consider cutting the military budget. Where else do you think it's going to come from? Schools? Police? Social Security? Print it up? Cut back the trash collection to biannually?

    It's easy to make vague assertions about how moral you are because you want more resource for everything. The hard part is working out what you're going to sacrifice to get it (and "nothing" isn't a good enough answer).
    We have sacrificed and cut the military budget. Look at the wastefull F-22 Raptor that was finally given the axe. Sadly it seems that the social well being of our citizens is now overshadowed by conflict abroad and wars in two theaters...

    It is a sad time yes, but hopefully we can do some good for our own people here which is what our elected officials and our government was designed to do. To enforce and ensure the will of the people and provide.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    We have sacrificed and cut the military budget.
    Where do you pull this XXXX from? You could at least do a basic google search before making up whatever BS you think sounds good at the time.

    Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Spending is up year on year, without even including the "emergency funding" for Iraq and Afghanistan which continues to grow (how about those mercenaries being dropped in Iraq to do the dirty work at $1 million per head).

    I'm sure those extra 30,000 troops in afghanistan will help cut back on the budget too.

    Not to mention the growing CIA operations inside the borders of Pakistan that are entirely outside the military budget.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Where do you pull this XXXX from? You could at least do a basic google search before making up whatever BS you think sounds good at the time.

    Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Spending is up year on year, without even including the "emergency funding" for Iraq and Afghanistan which continues to grow (how about those mercenaries being dropped in Iraq to do the dirty work at $1 million per head).

    I'm sure those extra 30,000 troops in afghanistan will help cut back on the budget too.

    Not to mention the growing CIA operations inside the borders of Pakistan that are entirely outside the military budget.
    We cut useless programs that did not help our military in the least. I gave an example of this which was part of the 2010 defense spending budget.

    And I would not doubt the spending is up with the conflict escalating the way it has in Afghanistan. I did not say the cuts were substantial but they are there.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,073
    Hey, since when is the air dominance fighter a waste of money? Don't go there, man.

  14. #29
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jazyjason View Post
    In hearing the ongoing debate and squabble over health care I had to wonder is health or rather the care of someone, and their family a matter of civil rights?

    Is not a person entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And if all men are created equal should it thus be so that all men have the equal right to then be sound in mind and body as well?

    If we truly are to uphold these principles are not we then the citizens responsible to ensure that all men be cared for equally? That all people have a right to health, longevity, and well being?

    Is this not what the current health care debate SHOULD be about? Should it be more of a matter of upholding these principles than meaningless bitter struggle? Have we as a nation become so divided in our own self interests that we have failed to see the bigger picture?

    That this is not a matter of money, or compromise, or taxes, or choice, or public, private, trigger, or option. But it is the most simple matter of all.

    That value of a human life. Can we as Americans sit idly by and watch as our neighbors, and maybe even ourselves and our families suffer? If truly all men are created equal can this be so?

    I look forward to peoples answers on whether you think Health and the care and ability to ensure that is a matter of civil rights...
    In a free society, one member of that society has no legitimate claims over the fruits of another's labor.
    Now, you can pontificate about equality all you like, but the bottom line is the forced taking of another man's property is theft.
    I believe that, in a civilized society, we should do what we can to help the less fortunate. That's called "being charitable" and it's a voluntary endeavor. When the government gets involved and forces the haves to pay for the have-nots, that's called socialism.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Iuris View Post
    Hey, since when is the air dominance fighter a waste of money? Don't go there, man.
    The plane was a huge waste in spending period. Each plane had it's faults and it's build quality was sub par. Not to mention that the planes limited role and insane cost per plane not to mention upkeep and maintenance was what caused it's downfall.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •