see: http://byu.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2246535328&topic=3331
#1 - why ought we avoid the argument about poor little children? it seems perfectly valid to me. as far as the US having the "greatest health care system in the world", i think it ought to be obvious that any statement that absolute is bound to be false.
#2 - wise to have phrased this as a question if you're going to go ahead and start making broad statements like that without substantial evidence
#3 - of course they have a tax for health care. but it's instead of paying health insurance premiums. theoretically, you could be paying the same amount, but instead of the excess going to the pockets of the insurance companies it will actually be used for health care. AND interesting choice of terms... "they" and "us"...i was under the impression that we had a government of the people, for the people, and by the people... if the "they" and "us" you are referring to actually exist the "us" are only the people who choose to be uninvolved
#4 - see ryan's #5 which i think is a great point...
#6 - mexico, huh?... i don't think working for the gov't wears away at a person's humanity any more than plenty of other jobs or employers do. i've felt that way lots of places doing lots of things. and most people probably shudder at the thought of insurance agents no matter who employs them.
#7 - well, when the people who can afford better care chip in to build that safety net of their own free will then i suppose everything will be great, so let's just sit around and wait for them to do it, okay? (yes, that was sarcasm) besides, that's what medicare and medicaid are supposed to be - safety nets for people who need it, but those are underfunded because the people who can afford to support those programs don't want to. they might donate when there's a disaster, or around the holidays, but the everyday poor and sick or dying people just aren't special enough i guess.
#10 - well, if persons rights are in conflict, then i suppose value judgments of the situation would depend on what type of right infringement is "worse". maybe "forcing" a health care program on you isn't protecting your "right" to choose better care than other people, but what if in doing so you're denying them a "right" to any care at all? i suppose some people would say that it isn't a "right" to have health care, but frankly i don't think it's a "right" to get better care just becuase you have more money. my property law professor has pointed out multiple times this semester that the constitution specifically protects the rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" but purposely left out rights of ownership, because ownership is a privilege and responsibility, not a right. by extension, this means that, in a currency-based economic system, having money is a privilege and responsibility, not a right. perhaps this is a lengthy extrapolation, but one could argue that it's more important to protect a dying person's right to life by offering them necessary medical care than it is to protect a rich man's right to spend his money how he wants. in fact, an illegal or tortious act, if committed with the intent to protect life, is protected by the defense of necessity under both civil and criminal law, so as far as policy goes, our society has already shown that it is right and proper to value rights to life over rights to personal property.
#13-17 - see ryan's # 18-19
#22 - self-respect? pride in one's work? human dignity? caring about patients more than money? knowing that your life has meaning and purpose? a sense of personal accomplishment? those aren't motivators?
#23 - i almost took you seriously there, until that crack about the middle class being the largest sector of society. haha! what a great joke! i bet 20 years from now you'll be referring to caucasians as the largest ethnic group in the US too, won't you?
#25 - stellar. three cheers.
#27 - most conservatives run around screaming like crazy when you start talking about welfare for people below the poverty line. in fact, medicare and medicaid are, nowadays, the largest form of public welfare we have. so, your point was what?
#28 - wow, so giving a starving person food isn't generous unless it's better than liver. well, i hope that all the people collecting food for shelters during the holidays know this so that they can make sure and reject all donations that don't meet your standards, since obviously all the poor people would rather go hungry than be insulted when you donate a can of tuna instead of caviar.
(skipping...blah...blah...)
#48 - whatever, liar. you're paying for their time, not for them to fix you. plenty of other people do the same thing. laywers, plumbers, auto mechanics... they charge you by the hour, and if they can't figure out what's wrong or if they can't fix it, a lot of the time you end up paying anyway. one of those perks of capitalism that make it so much better than every other possible system.
#53-54 - heck yes. and this didn't end the argument because why?
#55 - government involvement and regulation does not equal government control and dictatorship
(skipping...blah...blah...)
#71 - oh, wait, you mean a democratic rebublic form of government where every citizen is a participant is a SMALL government...oh, i see now. yes, the founding fathers were definitely interested in keeping government as small as possible... (rolls eyes)
health care for everyone creates social damage? welfare creates a feeling of entitlement? wow. go take SOC 422 on social stratification like i did and then come talk to me again...or i guess they have a less intensive (non-major?) option now 322 on class inequality... i think Dr. Heaton probably teaches both of them and i'm sure he'd be much more persuasive authority than i.
No comments:
Post a Comment