|
Post by rembrandt on May 25, 2010 21:16:06 GMT
True, all will get sick and they will eventually die. There are no inalienable rights. They are alienated all of the time. The exercise of any particular right (or supposed right) only goes so far. When the exercise of that right or "right" begins to infringe upon other people's rights then there is a problem. A decision must then be made on who's right is more important. Taking money and giving it to another so that he can exercise his supposed right(s) states that those that have must give to those who do not have.
|
|
|
Post by grigori on May 25, 2010 21:53:34 GMT
Taking money and giving it to another so that he can exercise his supposed right(s) states that those that have must give to those who do not have. I live in Canada. I've been sick before -- minor stuff like broken bones, colds, etc... I'm not rich. No one has ever taken money from rich people and given it to me. As a matter of fact, I pay about $1,000 per year in Provincial taxes for Health Care. The right to life is not a "supposed" right. The right to have free ice cream cones or pizzza is "supposed" by Americans to exist in "communist" countries, but that was never the case, and it isn't the case in capitalist countries like Canada, Australia, the U.K. and Europe... We're every bit as capitalist as Americans here in Canada, we just understand math better. There's another layer of complexity to this issue that I was avoiding, but let's just peak down the rabbit hole for a moment. Shareholders in private U.S. health insurance companies have been taking in returns of 15-20% annually from their investments. (Let's consider that as "waste" that comes off the top). The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) runs at 3% overhead and administration costs... Why should a government ever pay into a private fund where a portion goes to shareholders when they can do it themselves way cheaper? I would argue that the pre-existing U.S. system was just a sick and twisted "redistribution of wealth" where wealth was taken from the poor and given to the wealthy, and for what? Holding shares? Gambling that poor people get sick? (It's a damn good investment, by the way!) Healthcare is not a free-market capitalistic system. It never was; it never will be. It’s impossible to even imagine such a thing. If anyone here has the wherewithal to even try to describe a free market health care system, I'd love to hear it... But let's be clear from the outset -- the U.S. has never had a free-market capitalist health care system. Not even close. So you're not defending the free-market against communism. You're defending an oligopoly against capitalism... And you can't get any more anti-capitalist than a monopoly/oligopoly. Communism was just a minor irritation to the economic system that died out in the late 1980s... (It's not even worth mention in this context). But monopoly is, (and has always been), the worst threat that capitalism could ever face.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 26, 2010 3:22:52 GMT
Poor people getting sick would actually reduce what insurance companies bring in. As far as understanding math better I am sure you understand that when you pay out you actually have less. Do you think that we can keep it above the belt? Since you mentioned that a government should not pay into a private fund, I do agree. They shouldn't. Where exactly does a government get its money? Is it from the products they make, sell, invent, or other function that adds value or comfort to people's lives?
Please note that I am not defending any particular economic system. I have discussed rights, which had to do with the original question.
It is a supposed right as it has not been shown to be a right.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on May 26, 2010 5:56:40 GMT
The right to life does not mean that you are entitled to free medical care at the expense of others. The right to life means that another person can not deprive you of life through the initiation of force. The government also can not deprive you of life except through the process of law for the commission of a crime. Technical point here: you're saying that you don't have the "right" to life, you just have a "law," (which is much less than a right), saying that others can't deliberately take your life. Therefore, the continuation of your life is not an inalienable right; it's just a crime to deliberately kill you... That's not what I said. You have the right to life, no man may deprive you of that life, through violence, nor may the government deprive you of that life except through due process of law. BTW, it is "unalienable," not "inalienable. Another point: That phraseology comes from the Declaration of Independence, which, while a founding document, is a statement of the philosophical underpinning of the American Revolution. The Constitution of the United States of America lays out the specific, enumerated powers of the federal government. Anything not so enumerated is reserved to the states or the people. Let's put it this way. Under the US's system of government, (being a Constitutional Republic), the government's power is limited to only those things enumerated by the constitution. Healthcare is not an enumerated power, and has always been the responsibility of the states to regulate, as per the 10th Amendment. The current so-called health care legislation will be found unconstitutional - the federal government can not require, as a condition of citizenship, an individual to purchase a product or service from the federal government.
|
|