Taking back the Republican party

[Arres]

You sir are not Socrates, and fail at his method.

You may claim that there is no such thing as innate human rights. That's fine. My posts ALSO covered whether or not it should be a government granted right in my discussion with Mav. You should maybe consider taking part in the discussion at hand rather than trying to educate those around you with your brilliant insight into the human condition.

[StruckingFuggle]

They exist in a meaningful way when I kick your ass when you try to take them away.

EXACTLY. They don't exist because there's some universal truth or power to them, some way to make nature respect them. They only exist because you make it exist and defend it against those who would not respect your self-defined right.

[adciv]

So, are you arguing for vigilantism or might makes right?

[StruckingFuggle]

I'm not making an argument FOR a system, I'm arguing a mere state of being, a statement of fact. "What is" does not necessarily establish "what to do about it".

If anything, I'd say "right requires might to be made."

[Mav]

I am a firm believer in right makes might.

Righteousness makes for a tough motherfucker.

[Eihger]

Human rights basically go along the principle that you don't need them until someone tries to take them away. I have the right to be healthy, if I am healthy it doesn't matter, if someone tries to stab me, suddenly my right is getting infringed upon. If I didn't have my right to health then assault wouldn't be a crime now would it?

There are governmental rights such as free speech and to bare arms. Then there are human rights like freedom, health, and life. Sometimes they coincide, or benefit each other.

I hope I am making this clear?

[Arres]

You are but I disagree with your basic premise. I can't imagine what makes you think you have the right to be healthy.

[ShahinVahdat]

So you have the right to life, just not a healthy life?

[The Cid]

You have a right to be healthy insomuch as you have a lot of power over your own health. You have the right to be as healthy as you wish to be, and nobody else has a right to adversely impact your health.

You also have the right to walk into a free clinic if you feel you have a medical emergency and see if there's anything they can do for you. So far only two people in this health care discussion have even acknowledged that free clinics already exist in America.

You have the right to take up a collection for somebody who is sick and needs an expensive procedure. People do it all the time. You even have the right to study medicine, get licensed to practice medicine and choose to do all your work completely gratis if you'd like.

If you work and have steady income, you can ask an institution to loan you money that will cover the cost of a procedure you need done. Yes, you'll have to pay it back, but it is theoretically possible to get a loan to cover medical bills.

But do you actually believe you have a RIGHT to complete and total access to professionals whose craft requires a great investment and an immense deal of hard work? Personally, I believe those doctors/nurses/surgeons/et cetera have a right to earn a good living off of a difficult craft with a highly prohibitive cost of entry. And you getting everything for free would seriously hinder that ability for them to make a good living.

[Springy]

But do you actually believe you have a RIGHT to complete and total access to professionals whose craft requires a great investment and an immense deal of hard work? Personally, I believe those doctors/nurses/surgeons/et cetera have a right to earn a good living off of a difficult craft with a highly prohibitive cost of entry. And you getting everything for free would seriously hinder that ability for them to make a good living.

Medical professionals in Canada make a good living, and we have universal health care.

[ShahinVahdat]

If you work and have steady income, you can ask an institution to loan you money that will cover the cost of a procedure you need done. Yes, you'll have to pay it back, but it is theoretically possible to get a loan to cover medical bills.

I assume you're being facetious, but I didn't know one could perform major surgery on one's self. If you can do that, kudos to you.

If you work and have steady income, you can ask an institution to loan you money that will cover the cost of a procedure you need done. Yes, you'll have to pay it back, but it is theoretically possible to get a loan to cover medical bills.

Your conditions are a little too broad. I doubt an institution will loan you the money for a procedure that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars if you only work full time for minimum wage.

But do you actually believe you have a RIGHT to complete and total access to professionals whose craft requires a great investment and an immense deal of hard work? Personally, I believe those doctors/nurses/surgeons/et cetera have a right to earn a good living off of a difficult craft with a highly prohibitive cost of entry. And you getting everything for free would seriously hinder that ability for them to make a good living.

I completely agree. I don't think those people should have to work for free. I work in public interest law, and it's actually quite annoying when people assume we'll do things for free. However, I never advocated forcing those people to turn into volunteers.

[The Cid]

However, I never advocated forcing those people to turn into volunteers.

Who said you did? You're advocating, however, that medicine should be treated differently from a typical industry.

You and Springy both pretty much skipped over the rest of my post to harp in on the last point by the way.

I assume you're being facetious, but I didn't know one could perform major surgery on one's self. If you can do that, kudos to you.

"Yourself" is a damn selfish reason to want universal health coverage. I figured, apparently erroneously, that you were interested in everybody having access to a good doctor regardless of whether they could pay. So I thought I'd point out that there's nothing stopping any of us from learning to practice medicine and serving our community free of charge. You have to be licensed just like a real doctor, but there's absolutely nothing to stop you from doing it.

Also, you quoted the same thing twice. The first time, you responded to a statement you never actually quoted. I know what you're talking about, but it's very confusing.

I don't think those people should have to work for free.

That's taking my point to an extreme and putting words in my mouth. You're responding like you don't quite understand my post.

The "right to good health" that you're talking about? There are already measures in this society to provide you with the tools you need. Plenty of them. In fact, I can think of several ways in addition to what I listed in my last post for you, personally, to get actively involved in providing adequate "health care" to those who do not have it.

Furthermore, if you try and nationalize health care, you take a lot of monetary incentives out of the medical profession. It is currently in the best interests of a doctor's wallet--of a hospital's balance sheet and of a pharmaceutical company's bottom line--that medicine constantly get better and better. Why? Because there's a giant pot of gold in it for anybody who's the first to cure something, or effectively treat something, or lower the recovery time on a procedure. Take that away, see what happens to the quality of our medicine and medical professionals.

I'm not saying they'd work for free. I'm saying there would be no financial incentive to be the doctor that stands out in a pack of a thousand doctors. Sure, there are other reasons to want to be the best doctor around, but money is a pretty damn powerful one as well.

[Springy]

I'm not saying they'd work for free. I'm saying there would be no financial incentive to be the doctor that stands out in a pack of a thousand doctors. Sure, there are other reasons to want to be the best doctor around, but money is a pretty damn powerful one as well.

Do we know of any medical breakthroughs that were reached because the doctors involved were given some sort of monetary incentive? I would like to think that the 'best' doctors around are good at their job because they like their job, not because they get paid more.

[The Cid]

Do we know of any medical breakthroughs that were reached because the doctors involved were given some sort of monetary incentive?

Sure. Any breakthroughs that came from the modern pharmaceutical industry. Unless you believe they're altruistic, but that would be a stretch for me.

But what does it matter: it's hard to deny that there IS a large monetary incentive to finding the cure or a more effective treatment for a common disease. Does that make the important medical breakthrough any less important? I don't see how. But those big companies aren't plunking down millions and millions of dollars simply because they want to rid the world of disease. I'm sure the people within those companies feel good about that kind of thing, but they're doing what they do to turn a profit for their shareholders and themselves. Good can be done in this manner you know; it's not impossible for people to want to help the world and turn a profit.

[Springy]

I suppose you have a point but that seems to imply that public service jobs such as firefighters, cops, paramedics, etc, should also be privatized so they have the same financial incentives as the health care industry and thus do a better job.