The Problem with Health Care in the US is....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

But it isn't free. Nothing is free, like I already said.

By your definition, these poor people get free military defense. They get a free court system. They get free consumer products protections. They get free environmental protections. They get free educations. They get free sidewalks to walk down, steet lights to light their nights, roads to drive on. Why should they not get free immunizations? Why not free early diagnoses of diabetes so the disease can be controlled early on? Why not free casts for their broken bones?

But again all of this costs money. All of this is necessary to live a long, healthy, potential-filled life. And all of it makes for a prosperous country. The problem with US health care isn't that too many people have it, that everyone should have it, that our goal must be to ensure everyone has it; the problem is we spend way too fucking much on it. We need to find out what is driving the cost and find a means to curb that.

---

It sounds like you're leaning towards the European social-democratic model, which I just don't think is feasible. It sounds nice, but there are real costs to that cradle-to-grave welfare state model that I don't think are worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

For the love of...

You've got a degree from an ivy league school right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus_type_1

Did they ever mention this condition?

Did you know that there are many diabetics that can't control their blood sugar levels without insulin even though they aren't force-fed sugar in their sleep??

Granted, but in one of those groups gay marriage and abortion remain controversial and in the other you find CitizenCain. Loki asked about human rights, and that's one take on human rights. Feel free to present the Dreadnaught Convention on Human Rights

There's nothing remarkably contradictory about it. Even Enoch recognises that your rights end where mine begin. Parents' right to choose the kind of education is tempered by their kids' right to get an education in accordance with the two preceding clauses.

So, about your ridiculous military spending and your incompetence wrt taxing corporations on their profits and your thousands of retarded tax loopholes and

---

No.

And I didn't know what your point about diabetes was. I still don't, you haven't really explained how the existence of diabetes validates the welfare state. Nor have you explained how your welfare state would be possible without living so close to the NATO defense umbrella that you may as well be under it, even if you don't contribute directly to it.

How do you define worthwhile? If your company goes bankrupt and you're out of work for longer than cobra lasts and you break your leg, needing surgery to keep from having a limp for the rest of your life, would your concept of worthwhile change? Seriously, the cavalier manner in which you declare life and death circumstances for other people "not worthwhile" really is disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

And I didn't know what your point about diabetes was.

---

My point was that Type 1 diabetes isn't caused by people being force-fed sugar in their sleep. Put very simply it's an autoimmune disorder, the cause of which remains unknown, where insulin-producing cells are killed by the patient's own immune system. Without those cells, no insulin. Without insulin, death. Without sufficient insulin therapy, long-term complications in the form of eg. blindness, lost limbs, neuropathy, heart disease. Rich people get it, poor people get it, skinny people get it, fat people get it. Usually in childhood or early adolescence. If you're going to make light of something then at least make sure you know what you're talking about so that you can legitimately pass it off as irony or sarcasm or some other high form of humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

My point was that Type 1 diabetes isn't caused by people being force-fed sugar in their sleep. Put very simply it's an autoimmune disorder, the cause of which remains unknown, where insulin-producing cells are killed by the patient's own immune system. Without those cells, no insulin. Without insulin, death. Without sufficient insulin therapy, long-term complications in the form of eg. blindness, lost limbs, neuropathy, heart disease. Rich people get it, poor people get it, skinny people get it, fat people get it. Usually in childhood or early adolescence. If you're going to make light of something then at least make sure you know what you're talking about so that you can legitimately pass it off as irony or sarcasm or some other high form of humor.

---

He was probably talking about type 2 that Americans are getting in almost epidemic proportions these days cheifly because our diet is hyper in refined sugars and carbs. Its seen more in poorer people because of food deserts, the fact that the hyper sugar food is much cheaper than healthy food, and because the working poor often have two jobs and/or split families there's little to no time to cook a decent meal - and restaurant food tends to be unhealthy. In other words, its their own damn fault for choosing to be poor. Or in the words of Lewk, they are lazy, undisciplined and stupid. Hence Dread's ire at having them get health care for 'free.'

We would all be better off it they just got their diseases, suffered and died. There would be less crime, a smaller federal budget, and less guilt overall at treating our fellow humans in such a foul, callous way. Not sure who would join the army though. I mean, we can't send the smart, disciplined and hard working people off to be killed/ maimed/ traumatized for life in Afghanistan now can we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Here's a question for the pinkos here, is a government that doesn't provide free education illegitimate? Is it committing human rights abuses? In what way is it different to a government that does provide it?

---

This is just re-phrasing the conversation you and I had ages ago about whether what the Nazis did was murder. So long as enough outside forces agree that a state becomes illegitimate when it starts re-defining what qualifies as "human", then that state becomes illegitimate through force. The view of modern Russia, and most certainly the CCCP, was that they were a legitimate state offering wanted and required help to the Baltic states they ruthlessly conquered, and proceeded to drastically alter demographics through murderous and slave-driving ways.

I can be of the opinion that a state that does not offer "free" education (where your liberal use of the word free is both unwarranted and insulting) and "free" health care is not a legitimate state, and is a state that violates things that I consider basic human rights, but so long as I do not have a massive army behind me backing my opinion, it is meaningless. If your question was aimed at ridiculing the persons responding in the positive, as your demeanor ("pinkos"?) suggests, it is a laughably poor attempt thereof, and I further invite you to go fuck yourself with the nearest sharp gardening implement you can acquire :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

....The problem with US health care isn't that too many people have it, that everyone should have it, that our goal must be to ensure everyone has it; the problem is we spend way too fucking much on it. We need to find out what is driving the cost and find a means to curb that....

---

Ryan's Medicare voucher plan goes on the theory that if people pay more of their care costs (including insurance premiums from exchanges) they'll shop around, and competition will make providers lower their charges and rates. I didn't see the proposal to limit huge insurance companies offering special deals to big employers, though. Or what to do when one dominant Network (that favors certain insurance companies) practically has a monopoly on local/regional services and fees. Not to mention that no one "shops around" for emergency services.

But projections are that each senior would have to put out $6,000 more of their own money to buy Medicare with these vouchers.

Extending Bush's tax cuts for upper income, and corporate tax loopholes (that benefit behemoths like GE) haven't produced "stimulus" and job recovery that was promised. Yet, the GOP keeps claiming cutting taxes is still the remedy for growth. :hmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I can be of the opinion that a state that does not offer "free" education (where your liberal use of the word free is both unwarranted and insulting) and "free" health care is not a legitimate state, and is a state that violates things that I consider basic human rights

---

Can I take it that you believe all poor countries that do not offer these services are gross abusers of human rights as well? If not, what does that say about these services being a "human right" and not a right of people in rich states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

My point was that Type 1 diabetes isn't caused by people being force-fed sugar in their sleep. Put very simply it's an autoimmune disorder, the cause of which remains unknown, where insulin-producing cells are killed by the patient's own immune system. Without those cells, no insulin. Without insulin, death. Without sufficient insulin therapy, long-term complications in the form of eg. blindness, lost limbs, neuropathy, heart disease. Rich people get it, poor people get it, skinny people get it, fat people get it. Usually in childhood or early adolescence. If you're going to make light of something then at least make sure you know what you're talking about so that you can legitimately pass it off as irony or sarcasm or some other high form of humor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

He was probably talking about type 2 that Americans are getting in almost epidemic proportions these days cheifly because our diet is hyper in refined sugars and carbs. Its seen more in poorer people because of food deserts, the fact that the hyper sugar food is much cheaper than healthy food, and because the working poor often have two jobs and/or split families there's little to no time to cook a decent meal - and restaurant food tends to be unhealthy. In other words, its their own damn fault for choosing to be poor. Or in the words of Lewk, they are lazy, undisciplined and stupid. Hence Dread's ire at having them get health care for 'free.'

We would all be better off it they just got their diseases, suffered and died. There would be less crime, a smaller federal budget, and less guilt overall at treating our fellow humans in such a foul, callous way. Not sure who would join the army though. I mean, we can't send the smart, disciplined and hard working people off to be killed/ maimed/ traumatized for life in Afghanistan now can we?

---

None of this addresses my point, which was not to dismiss that bad stuff happens but to accept the reality that bad things happen. And we can't make the abrogation of bad-happenings a fundamental legal right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

None of this addresses my point, which was not to dismiss that bad stuff happens but to accept the reality that bad things happen. And we can't make the abrogation of bad-happenings a fundamental legal right.

---

We don't need to go down the Rights road to drive home the goals of a "super-rich" and "super-powerful" nation. Why isn't it legitimate to discuss our social contract, cultural expectations, standards of living, and basic necessities? Sure, shit happens. Quite a lot happens to and around children, elderly, and poor people. People can be victims of their genes, parents, environment, social class, cultural norms.

I mean, there's nothing I can do about being born a female, with a reproductive system that needs routine screening (mammograms, pelvic exams, PAPs), birth control, peri-natal or post-partum care, peri-menopause or menopause care.....any more than you can change being a male, circumsized at birth, needing male birth control, screenings for testicular or prostate cancer, care for male menopause or low testosterone.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Can I take it that you believe all poor countries that do not offer these services are gross abusers of human rights as well? If not, what does that say about these services being a "human right" and not a right of people in rich states?

---

That could just as well be a symptom of a corrupt government, the kind of dictatorship or banana republic that hoards national money for their chosen elite.

Even so, poor people still value education, even if it's on a dirt floor one room schoolhouse with no books. And they still value rudimentary healthcare, even if it's using untrained midwives during childbirth, or providing mosquito netting or one sanitary toilet for a whole village.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Can I take it that you believe all poor countries that do not offer these services are gross abusers of human rights as well? If not, what does that say about these services being a "human right" and not a right of people in rich states?

---

Just as much as the poor countries where slavery, especially of the sexual kind, is so abundant? Sure. Despite my rampant National Socialism fandom, I don't actually believe the slanty-eye (or the kike) has an especial fondness for selling one's children into sexual slavery, it's just that they're strapped for cash.

Heh, a typical Loki-question to follow-up: Would you rather starve than uphold human rights of another individual? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Just as much as the poor countries where slavery, especially of the sexual kind, is so abundant? Sure.

---

Bad example, Nessie. The USA has an abundant problem with sex slavery and sex trafficking. It's all about the money, y'know. :(

That makes it a good example, lest Loki chooses to argue that sexual slavery doesn't infringe on what he sees as rights since it's so prevalent in the U.S.

:up: :)


Edit

Looks to me like Dread and Loki are trying to define basic human needs/rights from a monetary standpoint. That valuable concepts surrounding dignity and self-determination are things a government must first recognize, define, and then funnel money toward.

Probably why we end up in these debates anyway, because we look at it differently. IMO 21st century human beings know what pain, illness, poverty, misery and ignorance feels like, and wants to avoid it. But everyone needs help from greater bodies (like academics or governments) to get ahead, even to stay alive.

It's a strange paradox when conservatives or libertarians decry foul on these human needs, and debate if from the Human Rights angle. I really don't get it. They'd deny others things they had from birth to adulthood, simple things like vaccinations, non-contaminated food, a decent education.....things our collective society gave them....just to turn around and say certain groups or individuals don't deserve the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

None of this addresses my point, which was not to dismiss that bad stuff happens but to accept the reality that bad things happen.

---

Accepting that reality is what a health care and emergency response system is for. It is why we have fire departments and FEMA. It's what occupational safety and health laws are for. Its what traffic law and traffic law enforcement is for. It's what consumer protection law and enforcement agencies are for. Do human beings have the right to be safe from everything? Of course not, that's absurd strictly because its impossible.

But, do we have the right to be as safe as possible from the misfortunes of life that have been made predictable and preventable by the advances of modern society? Sure. What is the point of modern society if the answer is not yes?

You propose to create two societies - one that can pay out of pocket for all of modern civilization's benefits and one that gets at least partially left out because they cannot pay. And because they cannot buy health care, healthy food, good education, community safety, have no opportunity to better their circumsntance, they become a permanent second class without hope. Why would these people lumped into their poor communities live up to modern society's responsibilities (like obeying the law) if they cannot benefit from its goodies?

This leave 'em out conservative approach is an assault on the cohesive, largely illusory anyway, structure that keeps the have-nots from taking what they want/need from the haves. Its the hope, the promise, the social compact of equal benefit & opportunity for everyone in America that negates the need for a police state to protect the haves from the lazy, stupid, undisciplined have-nots. America will end up taking the money for all the 'free' stuff these poor folks don't deserve and blowing it on the resulting need for a beefed up police protection system. What is the sense in that???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Just as much as the poor countries where slavery, especially of the sexual kind, is so abundant? Sure. Despite my rampant National Socialism fandom, I don't actually believe the slanty-eye (or the kike) has an especial fondness for selling one's children into sexual slavery, it's just that they're strapped for cash.

Heh, a typical Loki-question to follow-up: Would you rather starve than uphold human rights of another individual? :D

---

One can still condemn a poor country for engaging in slavery. Hell, most poor countries don't have slavery. One can condemn an undeveloped country for violating freedom of speech or of the press, because permitting those rights does does not prevent any country from being able to function. That is why those are human rights. Any person that beliefs in the very idea of human rights would agree that there is no basis for any country to not respect them. The human rights you focus on are dependent on an incredibly high standard of living, one that is not present in most of the world and has historically not existed at all. Unless you're making the argument that humans today deserve to have more rights than humans in the past (and that humans in the West are more deserving of rights than humans elsewhere), then you're guaranteeing that a vast majority of the world, past or present, should be condemned for something they had no power to prevent.

I don't believe in positive rights. You have the right to have others not do certain things to you. You have no right to receive anything from others. The latter violates their rights to be free from coercion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That could just as well be a symptom of a corrupt government, the kind of dictatorship or banana republic that hoards national money for their chosen elite.

Even so, poor people still value education, even if it's on a dirt floor one room schoolhouse with no books. And they still value rudimentary healthcare, even if it's using untrained midwives during childbirth, or providing mosquito netting or one sanitary toilet for a whole village.

---

Really? Only corrupt governments aren't able to provide free healthcare and education? Seriously? It's irrelevant what people value. If we have no expectation about the ability of a large amount of states to respect those "rights", then how can we say that people have a right to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

That makes it a good example, lest Loki chooses to argue that sexual slavery doesn't infringe on what he sees as rights since it's so prevalent in the U.S.

---

Do most countries have the ability to outlaw sexual slavery? Would their ability to function being severely undermined if they tried?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

One can condemn an undeveloped country for violating freedom of speech or of the press, because permitting those rights does does not prevent any country from being able to function. That is why those are human rights.

---

I assume that with a functioning country, you mean that the government of said country is functioning. And I think that certain forms of government rely on a lock of free speech or press to function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I assume that with a functioning country, you mean that the government of said country is functioning. And I think that certain forms of government rely on a lock of free speech or press to function.

---

I'm referring to the ability of a state to function, not its government.

How would a state function in a stable way without a government, or with a collapsing government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

How would a state function in a stable way without a government, or with a collapsing government?

---

One government can be replaced with another. My argument is premised on there being a reasonable argument that would give people their rights if it had the ability to do so. You're referring to governments that don't meet this criterion. Are you seriously making this argument? Perhaps we should tolerate genocide in cases where it allows a government to stay in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Accepting that reality is what a health care and emergency response system is for. It is why we have fire departments and FEMA. It's what occupational safety and health laws are for. Its what traffic law and traffic law enforcement is for. It's what consumer protection law and enforcement agencies are for. Do human beings have the right to be safe from everything? Of course not, that's absurd strictly because its impossible.

But, do we have the right to be as safe as possible from the misfortunes of life that have been made predictable and preventable by the advances of modern society? Sure. What is the point of modern society if the answer is not yes?

You propose to create two societies - one that can pay out of pocket for all of modern civilization's benefits and one that gets at least partially left out because they cannot pay. And because they cannot buy health care, healthy food, good education, community safety, have no opportunity to better their circumsntance, they become a permanent second class without hope. Why would these people lumped into their poor communities live up to modern society's responsibilities (like obeying the law) if they cannot benefit from its goodies?

This leave 'em out conservative approach is an assault on the cohesive, largely illusory anyway, structure that keeps the have-nots from taking what they want/need from the haves. Its the hope, the promise, the social compact of equal benefit & opportunity for everyone in America that negates the need for a police state to protect the haves from the lazy, stupid, undisciplined have-nots. America will end up taking the money for all the 'free' stuff these poor folks don't deserve and blowing it on the resulting need for a beefed up police protection system. What is the sense in that???

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

We don't need to go down the Rights road to drive home the goals of a "super-rich" and "super-powerful" nation. Why isn't it legitimate to discuss our social contract, cultural expectations, standards of living, and basic necessities? Sure, shit happens. Quite a lot happens to and around children, elderly, and poor people. People can be victims of their genes, parents, environment, social class, cultural norms.

I mean, there's nothing I can do about being born a female, with a reproductive system that needs routine screening (mammograms, pelvic exams, PAPs), birth control, peri-natal or post-partum care, peri-menopause or menopause care.....any more than you can change being a male, circumsized at birth, needing male birth control, screenings for testicular or prostate cancer, care for male menopause or low testosterone.....

---

There isn't enough money in the world to solve all of life's problems, and the government certainly can't tax enough to ever make life perfect.

On the balance, we have a healthy, educated and safe society. That's a combination of wealth, social cohesiveness and government. The only difference between those three aspects of our society is that growing government doesn't increase social cohesiveness and wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

There isn't enough money in the world to solve all of life's problems, and the government certainly can't tax enough to ever make life perfect.

On the balance, we have a healthy, educated and safe society. That's a combination of wealth, social cohesiveness and government. The only difference between those three aspects of our society is that growing government doesn't increase social cohesiveness and wealth.

---

WTF are you talking about? :confused: You bought into the idea there's not enough resources for everyone to benefit from the advances of modern society, that a large chunk of people by the necessity of rationing must be left out for the benefit of the rest of us.

There's plenty of resources for the fruits of modernity to be distributed around as long as we're good environmental (and economic) stewards.

But you and GGT just keep on listing problem after problem that someone could theoretically have, then basically saying, "this is unfortunate! There should be a law..." as the solution. It's almost like making a dead baby joke, except you two are sort of serious in this sophomoric idea that government should and must solve all of our problems. Without trying to sound demagogic, that is basically socialism.

Can government provide education subsidies? Sure. Can government give everyone a Yale degree? No.

Can government provide health subsidies in some cases? Sure. Can government provide everyone with gold-plated healthcare? No.

Are any of these things "rights"? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

WTF are you talking about? :confused: You bought into the idea there's not enough resources for everyone to benefit from the advances of modern society, that a large chunk of people by the necessity of rationing must be left out for the benefit of the rest of us.

---

You tend to trumpet that idea in most economic/consumption contexts, even with modern agriculture, but seem fairly oblivious to it when discussing health-care. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well that was a nice rant. Guess what? Life isn't always perfectly fair.

---

Let this be an answer to all your Obama complaints.

I'm glad we settled that and can move on from here. I feel good about it, you too? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Here's a question for the pinkos here

---

Denim on denim is a definite no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

But you and GGT just keep on listing problem after problem that someone could theoretically have, then basically saying, "this is unfortunate! There should be a law..." as the solution.

---

Uh, no I don't. :confused:

Quote:

---

Are any of these things "rights"? No.

---

You must have missed my "the concept of rights as an argument for or against universal healthcare is meaningless to the point of dumb" post.

I'll quote it:

Quote:

---

There are no innate human rights. The concept is a cultural construct as are all the individual ideas about what is or is not a right. To ask the question "Do Americans, or humans in general, have a right to health care" is to ask one's subjective opinion and then pretend its somehow objective. All the rights any of us have are subjective brain children of some great thinker who managed to impress his audience enough to move the world.....<snip>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You tend to trumpet that idea in most economic/consumption contexts, even with modern agriculture, but seem fairly oblivious to it when discussing health-care. Why?

---

When I talk about carrying capacity and resource limitations I'm talking about the ability of the world in the future to feed growing human populations and/or absorb waste from humanity's increasing development. Here in the US the resources clearly exist to feed everyone and we are about as industrialized as we are going to get. In fact, we are getting less industrialized and our industries have gotten progressively cleaner. Now, to argue that universal health care is beyond our nation's ability to provide to all citizens because "there just isn't enough to go around" is hogwash. Its been done fairly effectively in plenty of countries far less capable than ours. The universal healthcare question is not one of the limitations of human civilization, it is one of will and greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

One can still condemn a poor country for engaging in slavery. Hell, most poor countries don't have slavery. One can condemn an undeveloped country for violating freedom of speech or of the press, because permitting those rights does does not prevent any country from being able to function. That is why those are human rights. Any person that beliefs in the very idea of human rights would agree that there is no basis for any country to not respect them. The human rights you focus on are dependent on an incredibly high standard of living, one that is not present in most of the world and has historically not existed at all. Unless you're making the argument that humans today deserve to have more rights than humans in the past (and that humans in the West are more deserving of rights than humans elsewhere), then you're guaranteeing that a vast majority of the world, past or present, should be condemned for something they had no power to prevent.

---

Can you give a citation for that most poor countries don't have slavery thing?

I don't think it's saying the peoples of the past didn't deserve the same rights, but as you point out, it was economically and culturally unfeasible to provide them; the idea of equality is a very new one, relatively speaking. It seems to me your argument more or less means that progress is either impossible or unwanted, and certainly morally reprehensible; we cannot create new concepts or grant new rights because the ghosts of generations pasts are then somehow wronged and angered. I don't personally believe in spirits, or an after-life, so I am utterly unable to violate the rights or thoughts of those already dead.

Surely you must realize what a profound effect technological progress has to our culture and our dialogue on what is and is not moral. After the summer of 1945, the analyst whose projections raised the number of victims to powers of ten numbering in the eight or nine was no longer a deranged, reprehensible person; he is a patriot, a realist and a defender of peace and human rights, all the while devising new ways of crafting millions of charred human corpses as expediently as possible. Before the Enlightenment, it was a rare and naive idea that slavery was inherently bad. Hell, the Greeks had steam machines, but it was cheaper to use slaves instead!

I think it was a violation of someone's rights to drive a rod into their anus deep enough to kill them, for what the post-Orwell world would call thought crimes. I fail to see how the condemnation of the society that allowed that to happen is somehow unjust. It is futile, as the society no longer exists, and it harms no one, as the participants are already dead. Criticizing Stalinism is trickier, as people yet live who at the time thought they were doing the right thing. But I fail to see how any of this makes it unreasonable to expect new things of new inventions, and being able to elevate into rights those things which in the past were impossible, or a privilege. The opposite would mean that society as a whole is unable to deal, culturally and legalistically, with new inventions such as Facebook, or BitTorrent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I don't believe in positive rights. You have the right to have others not do certain things to you. You have no right to receive anything from others. The latter violates their rights to be free from coercion.

---

This means that militaries, policemen and firemen should all be privatized, as I do believe the reason they are provided by taxed funds, and government force, is that their services are considered important enough to be rights. My right to decide who does what to my body implicitly means that either I have the right to expect others to protect my body from harm (at least as done by other people), or society should resemble Sparta, where each free person was also a soldier capable of protecting themselves. I would not do well in either a fist-fight or a gun-fight, having never touched a fire-arm, but does this mean I do not have the right not to be beaten (lest I want to), or shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Really? Only corrupt governments aren't able to provide free healthcare and education? Seriously? It's irrelevant what people value. If we have no expectation about the ability of a large amount of states to respect those "rights", then how can we say that people have a right to them?

---

You asked: Can I take it that you believe all poor countries that do not offer these services are gross abusers of human rights as well? If not, what does that say about these services being a "human right" and not a right of people in rich states?

My answer was that poor countries that don't offer basic health and education can be a symptom of a corrupt government (see Haiti), not that corruption is always the cause. I'm not getting into the Rights issue as much as values or ethical choices that make societies better places to live. It does matter what people value and what they expect from their gov't (passive and active), as we've seen with repressive regimes and protests....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

There's plenty of resources for the fruits of modernity to be distributed around as long as we're good environmental (and economic) stewards.

---

SSSocialist. :bored:

Quote:

---

But you and GGT just keep on listing problem after problem that someone could theoretically have, then basically saying, "this is unfortunate! There should be a law..." as the solution. It's almost like making a dead baby joke, except you two are sort of serious in this sophomoric idea that government should and must solve all of our problems. Without trying to sound demagogic, that is basically socialism.

---

Where have I ever said "there oughtta be a law!" ? And when the hell did discussing how to change/improve our healthcare system turn into "the gov't solving all of our problems"? Stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting what I've said. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Can government provide education subsidies? Sure. Can government give everyone a Yale degree? No.
Can government provide health subsidies in some cases? Sure. Can government provide everyone with gold-plated healthcare? No.

---

We've agreed on that much. :bored: Where to draw the lines, how to define Basic, how to discuss appropriate "rationing" of services without turning into Death Panels....or dead baby jokes....and who's doing the defining. That's what we've all been debating, roles of legislators-insurers-providers-patients, who makes policy and who pays?

Quote:

---

Are any of these things "rights"? No.

---

I'm saying it matters less if we define these as Rights, negative or positive, than simply expectations of people in a first world, developed society. Hell, I had a thread asking if Health Care was a Right a long time ago. Can't remember how that went, but in the end we still have to figure out the whole mess.

The worst answer would be to simply cut and slash existing safety nets during The Great Recession (IMO it's not a weak jobless recovery but still a recession). 80 million baby boomers approaching retirement and their attendant diseases of ageing, 50 million uninsured, 42 million on food stamps, 13 million looking for work....

The whole "rights" or not "rights" discussion is stupid.

Probably the reason it flourishes.