Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youbedead wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.

As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.

Thanks for help... yup, I agree.

Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.

Helping an old woman cross the street is a moral thing to do, it is not an inalienable right for her to be helped across the street though.

She doesn't "need" your help to cross: that action is a nice thing to do, but there is no moral imperative. But just to wreck your ridiculous strawman, it is that woman's right to be able to move freely: were she being restrained from crossing, then it would be a moral thing to support her right to mobility.

Morality is separate from need, that is a basic part of many ethics system. Personally I believe that healthcare and food are basic human rights however I can easily understand how one can view a duty and right seperately

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.

Government ARE "they".

You don't vote, then?

 whembly wrote:

Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.

Oh... so you think Healthcare is right? Okay.

Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?

 olympia wrote:
hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too.

Bill Kristol leaving may be the thing that keeps Romney in the race. Seriously, that guy is just wrong, constantly.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.

Government ARE "they".

You don't vote, then?

Of course I do...

Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?

And "I'm" the one accused of wearing tinfoil hat at times...

 whembly wrote:

Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.

Oh... so you think Healthcare is right? Okay.

Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?

Of course....

Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?

 Frazzled wrote:
The Other guy sucks campaign only works for Democrats due to the incredible bias of MsM.

Normally we don't see 'its not fair the mainstream media is cheating' until mid-October. You guys must be really down on how hard your candidate sucks this time around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.

Government ARE "they".

You don't vote, then?

Of course I do...

Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?

What are you drinking? No, I'm not saying that. I'm explaining the basic service and function of government to you. Yes, I understand and appreciate that the actual people staffing it are different people from me and mostly not the exact people I would personally have chosen, but I'm realistic and unselfish enough to recognize that my personal priorities are not the center of the universe.

Pretending that government is some oppressive external force is a weird mental game people play, mostly, I think to avoid their own responsibility for it, and because they're comfortable in an orderly society, with all the benefits government provides (like police, military, fire services, road, sewer, clean water, a system of laws, mandated emergency care, etc.), but are somehow incapable of admitted to themselves that most of the benefits of the society they live in, and which makes them more comfortable, safe and prosperous than 99.9999999999999999999% of all humans who ever lived, is because of what we've achieved using government,

 whembly wrote:

Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?

Of course....

Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?

Um... old lady... let's see.. OH YEAH, she's on Medicare... so that's covered...

Oh, next... let's see (looks at whembly's paycheck)... OH THERE, I pay Medicare taxes! So, I *do* pay.

I'm awesome... right? Of course... I'm the AWESOME!

Okay, so you're saying that you agree with me. You are willing to pay taxes to ensure other people's right to healthcare is provided for. Because that's the morally preferable option to them dying in the streets or being bankrupted for life through no fault of their own.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your conscience is not going to be the same as other peoples. And thats going to cause problems.


If person A thinks its ok to murder people for their stuff and Person B doesn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know whats going to happen.

Which is why we form various kinds of elective government and kind of muddle our way to some kind of middle ground where that most people can be largely happy with.

And that middle ground includes, because very few of us at all are sociopaths, an idea that you give medical attention to people who need it, even when they can't pay for it. This includes the US, which has had that piece of law on its books since Saint Reagan passed it into law.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

Um... he'd be treated.

Under the EMTALA Act.

Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?

Your asking an individual on what to do or can do. Its the entitlement system thats in question

This kids is how you lose a political campaign.

 Frazzled wrote:
No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.

Exactly where he took his votes from is pure speculation. Given the protest nature of the Perot vote, it's likely that if Perot wasn't an option Republican voters would have stayed home rather than switch their vote to 'no new taxes' Bush. This is further supported by a look at Perot's numbers, as he recorded his strongest results in states that went strongly to either Bush of Clinton.

Also, 20 years ago this year. Let it go, dude. Complaining about the mainstream media being unfair to Republicans is probably as ridiculous, but at least it's a little more current.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights.

I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe.

People don't deny medical care to people in desperate need, and don't want to be part of a society that would do such a thing. Acknowledging this basic part of humanity, Reagan passed into law the requirement to provide emergency medical care even when the patient cannot pay.

But the Republicans have taken up such crude, oppositional point to ACA that they end up opposing every single thing the bill assumes, even stuff that previously everyone just took for granted.

You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party? Well that's what produces stuff like this, instead they just lurch from issue to issue, claiming whatever they think will sound like strong opposition to the other side.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

He doesn't have the right to be treated. Doctors however have the obligation to treat him due to the Hippocratic oath, plus whatever moral responsibilities people have.

The Doctors also have the right to charge him for the treatment.


He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.

Its not nice for sure. Its horrible, but thats how the world works.


Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?

If I'm going to pay into a system, I want it to be towards my own care. I also want to have the choice in the matter, not be forced by the government to do something I may or may not need. In fact, the statistics show I will probably never need it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I don't see anyone involved denying healthcare.

Not giving something to someone is not the same as denying them from having it.

Yes it is.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A government without a public healthcare option isn't denying healthcare to anyone. The government shutting down all healthcare providers would be denying people healthcare.

It is denying healthcare to those that cannot afford to participate in the system as structured or, more properly relative to the US, denying certain people a sort of healthcare that doesn't involve them going into massive debt.

 whembly wrote:
Um... he'd be treated.

Under the EMTALA Act.

Yes. By law the hospital is entitled to treat him. Because society acknowledges that it ought to help people that are in medical need.

But when you change that to a long term need, like cancer, what changes? What makes people start talking about healthcare as a privilege?

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

Um... he'd be treated.

Under the EMTALA Act.

EMTALA is not a guarantee to health care though. All EMTALA means is that they won't let you die.

Why should people get something for free?

I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone elses stuff. let them pay for it themselves.

Just living in America is a privilege. Anything extra is a privilege too, pay for it.

 whembly wrote:
Of course I do...

Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?

And "I'm" the one accused of wearing tinfoil hat at times...

Of course you should support it. You pay your taxes and follow it's laws. Because government is part of functioning society, and a functioning society is better than the alternative.

Anything else is just childish posturing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should people get something for free?

Because they're in need. It's called empathy. It's a thing most humans have.

 whembly wrote:


Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

Governments are not moral.

 Mannahnin wrote:

You can deny someone their rights, but that's an injustice.

I agree, and I think one of the problems inherent in the debate is what a right actually is. For example, I would claim that what you believe to be morally right is distinct from a right in itself which comes into existence only by firm consensus. For example, I think its right that I should have access to delicious whiskey but access to delicious whiskey is not a right because, while there is consensus that whiskey is good and people should have access to it, it isn't so firm as to render it inalienable.

Ok, there are plenty of charities that do that.

The Government is not a charity organization. Its the Government.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

 d-usa wrote:


So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

Um... he'd be treated.

Under the EMTALA Act.

EMTALA is not a guarantee to health care though. All EMTALA means is that they won't let you die.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone elses stuff.

Your tax dollars pay for other people's stuff by necessity.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just living in America is a privilege.

And its a privilege we all pay for.

 sebster wrote:


But when you change that to a long term need, like cancer, what changes? What makes people start talking about healthcare as a privilege?

What about it?

 Grey Templar wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

And in the course of defending citizens from each other it is generally wise to make them happy, because happy people don't tend to do violent things. At least without the consent of others, lots of happy people enjoy contact sports and BDSM.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

Governments are not moral.

Never said that...

That's why we have welform/safety nets... because we consider it our duty to help those who need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

And in the course of defending citizens from each other it is generally wise to make them happy, because happy people don't tend to do violent things. At least without the consent of others, lots of happy people enjoy contact sports and BDSM.

...



Take a bow... dats some funny gak man...

 Grey Templar wrote:

He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.

It is more likely that such a person will declare bankruptcy or will die before paying the bill in full.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

OF THE THREE.

So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?

Strange position coming from you.

No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.

Highlighted where you are wrong for you.

What do you mean he "took" the vote? Did people go to the polls wanting to vote for somebody else but then were strong armed to vote for Perot?

Did Bush take votes from Clinton? Did Clinton take votes from Bush? Do you think that only these two parties should be allowed to get votes?

Those 20% of the votes are not votes that Perot "took" from anybody. Those 20% are votes that Bush and Clinton didn't earn.

True, although if people are given 3 options and 2 are similer one could say that one is taking away from the other.


There are 2 blocks of voters. Conservative and Liberal, each individual voter will be in one of these 2 blocks with varying degrees of intensity.

Normally, we also have 2 candidates. One liberal and one conservative.

If a third candidate shows up on the scene his voters will need to come from somewhere. This candidate will also come from one of the 2 spectrums.

The truth is, the Candidate will draw voters from which ever spectrum he comes from.

If one section is divided between 2 candidates then both candidates will obviously have smaller sections of the pie then they normally would.


If America had 3 mainstream political parties then we could honestly say nobody is "stealing" votes from the other. But when you have 2 partys and 3 candidates, obviously the party with 2 candidates is going to lose the election.

That still doesn't mean that anybody is stealing votes.

The big question might be is what you describe the actual problem, or is it a symptom of a different problem.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.

It is more likely that such a person will declare bankruptcy or will die before paying the bill in full.

Or likely they'll either work with the Patient Accounting dept to either work out a reduced payment option, or the facility would write them off.

 AustonT wrote:
Governments are not moral.

Governments are what their people make them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What about it?

That there's a very strange change in thinking. When a person is at the emergency ward with a gunshot, there's no debate on the issue. It's come on in, we'll treat you. But if that person has a long term illness somehow whether or not they're treated becomes a debatable point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.