General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoda634 View Post
Let me clarify for you, since I don't think you get it:

Everyone has a right to earn money.
Everyone has a right to do with their money and capital as they please.
No one has a right to anyone else's money, goods, or services, unless the other person voluntarily agrees to give it to them.

I'm not sure exactly where you're seeing a problem with leaving the money one earns during life to their family.

So the civilized thing to do is give all of your excess wealth to your children and let others who cannot afford health care die?
Old 02-25-2008, 10:03 AM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
So the civilized thing to do is... let others who cannot afford health care die?
The money that you spend on health care could also be spent on feeding starving people. In fact, you could probably save more lives by spending money on starvation than health care on a per-dollar-basis. So what's the most civilized thing to do now?
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 02-25-2008, 10:09 AM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
The money that you spend on health care could also be spent on feeding starving people. In fact, you could probably save more lives by spending money on starvation than health care on a per-dollar-basis. So what's the most civilized thing to do now?

I didn't say the money should be spent on health care, I responded only to yogi's comment. Starvation is a larger issue so lets look at that.

We could solve the problem if enough people put forth money or time, but people are selfish and lazy. How do we solve that problem? If we force them to give money or pay in taxes then we are talking about the same situation as with universal healthcare.

Which is more important, human rights or your right to spend your money as you see fit?

Last edited by UID=growler; 02-25-2008 at 10:19 AM..
Old 02-25-2008, 10:17 AM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

brouski
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
Which is more important, human rights or your right to spend your money as you see fit?
The anarcho-capitalist's answer: The right to spend his money as he sees fit IS a human right.
__________________
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society:
we don't make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!

WHO CAN WITHSTAND HIS COCK FUCKING??

Founding member of the Weird Al Fan Club
Old 02-25-2008, 10:20 AM brouski is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
We could solve the problem if enough people put forth money or time, but people are selfish and lazy. How do we solve that problem? If we force them to give money or pay in taxes then we are talking about the same situation as with universal healthcare.
But I bet I can come up with a thousand other life-and-death problems that we could pay for as well, would your answer always be collect taxes in order to solve them? How soon until we run out of money, and what would we do then?

Quote:
Which is more important, human rights or your right to spend your money as you see fit?
Liberty is a human right, the most important one. In fact, you cannot create or implement any other human rights without first having the liberty to do so. Every solution to every problem comes from the conscious decision of someone to devise and build it--nobody ever solved anything by being forced to do so.
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 02-25-2008, 10:24 AM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
But I bet I can come up with a thousand other life-and-death problems that we could pay for as well, would your answer always be collect taxes in order to solve them? How soon until we run out of money, and what would we do then?

I did not specifically says we should tax, I only mentioned it to bring up the broader issue of someones right to life/health vs someone else right to spend their money as they want. Obviously you should not take money from those who have it and give it to the poor until the previously rich are in the same need of help as those you were trying to help.. that does not fix anything. But since we know most people are not going to help on their own, should we force them to pay, through taxes or otherwise? If not, how should the issue be addressed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
Liberty is a human right, the most important one. In fact, you cannot create or implement any other human rights without first having the liberty to do so. Every solution to every problem comes from the conscious decision of someone to devise and build it--nobody ever solved anything by being forced to do so.

But there are more people abusing this liberty by using it for selfish gain than those who use it to help others.
Old 02-25-2008, 10:35 AM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
But since we know most people are not going to help on their own, should we force them to pay, through taxes or otherwise? If not, how should the issue be addressed?
The only way that it can be addressed--allow people the freedom to buy as much health care as they want, and allow people the freedom to provide as much health care as they want. This means allowing the most incentives possible for obtaining the things that health care providers want, and the most incentives for providing health care. That means no taxes or other infringements on liberty.

Quote:
But there are more people abusing this liberty by using it for selfish gain than those who use it to help others.
What is liberty for, if not selfish gain?
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 02-25-2008, 10:43 AM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#22  

Badger_sly
 
Great post yoda!

The following from the article stands out as an important point
:
Quote:
You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience.
Old 02-25-2008, 11:45 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brouski View Post
Not in a civilized society, which we claim to be.

However, my idealism ends at the doorstep of pragmatism. Federalized single-payer health care is unworkable in a country of our size and demographics, for some of the reasons you stated. Something managed at the state level or lower, subsidized with federal tax dollars, is a more reasonable goal to shoot for.
In a civilized society it should be that all people should be able to afford healthcare. It should not be a right, however because if there is a shortage in a specific health care, how do you decide who gets it and who doesnt? The easiest way is by money, but that is somewhat touchy. The best way would be character and societal worth, but that is hard to determine. In the end the government usually goes with what's easy and cheap, and it would be by money. I do like your state idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
But there are more people abusing this liberty by using it for selfish gain than those who use it to help others.

I find it disturbing that you would rather the government force people to be moral than allow people to do as they wish. There is a fine line you walk there. What is considered moral? The chrisitan agenda could easily influence such debates. Think if Huckabee were elected, he might dictate what is moral and what is not based solely on his values.

I agree that people should be more generous with their money if they have enough to do so. I believe the best way to do this is to lower taxes and increase incentive to donate.

Last edited by wingedbuttmonkey; 02-25-2008 at 01:50 PM..
Old 02-25-2008, 01:46 PM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

yoda634
my title sucks i need a new one.
 
yoda634's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
So the civilized thing to do is give all of your excess wealth to your children and let others who cannot afford health care die?

Of course I'd give my money to my family rather than strangers. I love my family. They support me. By the end of my life, I'll be the head of my family, and will have a responsibility to myself and to them to care for my family as a priority. Therefore yes, the civilized thing to do is to leave my wealth to my family rather than to the health care desires of people I don't know, and have no reason to care about. And before you say it, no, the fact that someone is human does not obligate me to provide for their wellbeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
Which is more important, human rights or your right to spend your money as you see fit?

The right to do as I please with what I have rightfully earned is the most essential of human rights. And regardless, no one else has the "human right" to a single cent of what I have earned, unless I voluntarily choose to give it to them for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
I did not specifically says we should tax, I only mentioned it to bring up the broader issue of someones right to life/health vs someone else right to spend their money as they want. Obviously you should not take money from those who have it and give it to the poor until the previously rich are in the same need of help as those you were trying to help.. that does not fix anything. But since we know most people are not going to help on their own, should we force them to pay, through taxes or otherwise? If not, how should the issue be addressed?

But there are more people abusing this liberty by using it for selfish gain than those who use it to help others.

I think the issue of someone's right to life vs. someone's right to do as they please with their wealth isn't an issue at all.

You have a right to life -- but that only means I have no right to kill you. You don't have a right to health. You have the right to do your best to maintain your health, but you are not entitled for anyone else to make certain you stay healthy. You have the right to try and maintain your health by exchanging your wealth for health care goods and services. You do not have the right to force me to exchange my wealth for health care for you.

I absolutely believe that it is not in anyone's best interest to force anyone to pay into the common good. This violates the rights of one to benefit another.

The way I see it is that I alone know what I need and what I want, and I alone have a vested interest in achieving those goals. You alone know what you need and want, and you alone have a vested interest in achieving these goals. Therefore, you are in the best position to take care of you, and I am in the best position to take care of me. For me to be compelled to take care of you and vice versa would be like saying that a bricklayer has to spend a portion of his time as a chemist and the chemist has to spend that same portion of time laying bricks. It's not what he's good at, and he doesn't care about the job. Everyone loses.

Another key here is that health care is a finite resource. Not everyone can have all the health care they want. There simply isn't enough to go around. So, how do we determine who gets it? Those who provide it charge for it. This allows them to purchase things they need, commensurate to what they provide. This also ensures that the people getting it see it as important enough to spend their money (read: labor) on it. Money is a tool of civilized people to trade goods and services, as opposed to taking them by force.

edit: And how is it a bad thing to use one's liberty for personal gain? Do you not want to get ahead in life? Is your primary motivation to never be better off than your neighbors?
__________________
[M]ember of the Official "At The Drive-In" fanclub
1987 Audi 5000 CS turbo quattro
1990 BMW 325i
1999 Ford Exploder Sport

Last edited by yoda634; 02-25-2008 at 02:47 PM..
Old 02-25-2008, 02:44 PM yoda634 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#25  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingedbuttmonkey View Post
Debatable.
See: Rest of modern world.

Quote:
Either way you look at it, with universal healthcare you are telling the top 50% to pay for the bottom 50%. Simple as that.
And? Another way to say it is the people with 90% of the wealth pay for the care of the people with 3% of the wealth. Or you could say that it would operate much the same way that private insurance does in that those who are not currently sick pay for the care of those who are currently sick. And the people with jobs and health insurance already pay for the uninsured through increased health insurance costs and taxes...

Quote:
So lets make it 100%? Yea, that will solve the huge spending problem.
We spend 2+ trillion dollars now to cover 250 million people with health insurance. The EU spends ~1.5 trillion to cover 500million people. We are the ones with the spending problem now and it is directly related to our private health care system. We are projected to be spending close to 4 Trillion dollars annually on health care by 2016.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august...tive_costs.php
Quote:
Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending, a sum so great that if the United states were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12930930


Quote:
This is a crappy argument for obvious reasons.
Tell that to Leonard Peikoff. It's his argument.

Quote:
16% is a minority. Maybe not tiny, but still quite small.
50 million people is a lot. One sixth of the nation.

Quote:
The argument was that healthcare quality would go down, not that the country would collapse.
It seems strange that universal health care countries would routinely beat us on measures of health and accessibility if we are the best. I wonder what that means....

Quote:
The spend less per capita than we do because we have a shitload more older (and aging) people to pay for.
That is not why we pay more.
http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact14_1.asp

Quote:
Our life expectancy is 77 years old, much higher than most of the world and at or within 2-3 years of the best developed countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:L...d_Factbook.PNG
We are ranked 45th out of 222. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Quote:
The answer is not national healthcare, it is a reformation of our current system. We need to reduce cost and increase competition. This leads to lower prices and expanded coverage.
Or we could go universal/single payer which also seems to lower costs and expand coverage. If we had a working universal system like the EU we could potentially cut our annual costs by up to half leaving us with almost a trillion extra dollars each year. And since government expenditure on health care is almost 50% already we probably wouldn't even have to raise taxes much above current levels to cover the system.

Quote:
Smaller countries have a much easier time paying for healthcare because their needs are not as diverse.
The EU has 200million more people than us and pays less than we do overall for total health care expenditures and has better average outcomes. If the argument is that smaller states could better serve their populations then we could have our individual states provide health care to their citizens in much the same way that individual EU member states do. We are already divided into states of comparable size to EU member nations.

Quote:
Also note Canada is 30 on the list, not much better than us.
Yeah, they are only 7 places ahead of us and cover all their people.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellne...2/?page=entire

Quote:
What the fuck are you talking about?
A sarcastic riff about moral hazard and public services.

Quote:
He didnt say evil, he said immoral and his argument is reasonable.
"wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil."

"To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil."

Quote:
He also did not say it hadn't worked anywhere, just that it doesn't work.
Which is pretty much the same thing and a bold faced lie either way.

Quote:
In many respects it does not.
Like what respects? Costing less than our system? Operating more efficiently than our system? Serving more people than our system? Better average outcomes than our system? More doctors per capita than our system? In what way does it not work?

Quote:
Health care is not a right, it is a privilege and a service.
In the united states anyway. In most of the rest of the modern world they have a different opinion.

http://www.pyramid-tech.net/images/g...rld_health.png
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 02-25-2008, 02:51 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
pyramid, you're just repeating what you said in the other health care thread. I pointed out problems in each and every one of your claims which you ultimately ignored. When are you going to learn that your (now repetitive) mantra doesn't stand up to serious criticism?

Were you really waiting for someone else to bring up health care again so that your ignorant conclusions would be magically rejuvenated? How childish

Moreover, your argument is centered on the results of universal health care, which is not germane to this thread at all. Peikoff didn't say that universal health care produces negative results--irrespective of that, the moral problem of what you have to do to get universal health care is insurmountable. Do you have anything to say about that?
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky

Last edited by cromicus; 02-25-2008 at 03:01 PM..
Old 02-25-2008, 02:58 PM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingedbuttmonkey View Post
I find it disturbing that you would rather the government force people to be moral than allow people to do as they wish. There is a fine line you walk there. What is considered moral? The chrisitan agenda could easily influence such debates. Think if Huckabee were elected, he might dictate what is moral and what is not based solely on his values.

I agree that people should be more generous with their money if they have enough to do so. I believe the best way to do this is to lower taxes and increase incentive to donate.

I don't necessarily think the government should. I came into this thread supporting the idea of Universal Healthcare, more than the actual implementation that we would end up with. While the government should not enforce morals, you must agree that there are a lot of immoral people out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoda634 View Post
Of course I'd give my money to my family rather than strangers. I love my family. They support me. By the end of my life, I'll be the head of my family, and will have a responsibility to myself and to them to care for my family as a priority. Therefore yes, the civilized thing to do is to leave my wealth to my family rather than to the health care desires of people I don't know, and have no reason to care about.

Of course you should provide for your family first, but once you have done that you should look to help others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoda634 View Post
And before you say it, no, the fact that someone is human does not obligate me to provide for their wellbeing.

I disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yoda634 View Post
words

edit: And how is it a bad thing to use one's liberty for personal gain? Do you not want to get ahead in life? Is your primary motivation to never be better off than your neighbors?

Ideally yes, my neighbors would be just as well off as I am. That is not to say we should all get McJobs and live like bums, but I should also not actively work to become better off than my neighbors at their expense.
Old 02-25-2008, 03:13 PM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UID=30151 View Post
I disagree.
Can you say why? Is there a reason why a person should be obliged to help others?

Quote:
Ideally yes, my neighbors would be just as well off as I am. That is not to say we should all get McJobs and live like bums, but I should also not actively work to become better off than my neighbors at their expense.
Then you would refuse to better yourself with free health care that they are forced to pay for, wouldn't you?
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 02-25-2008, 03:18 PM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

Spacemoose
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
Can you say why? Is there a reason why a person should be obliged to help others?

No. Now give me a reason why I shouldn't put a gun in your face and pull the trigger.

That would be immoral and anti-social, right?

(I'm still amazed that while so many people, myself included, go through an Ayn Rand phase, that there are people who don't grow out of it. The only difference between a Randroid and a Trekkie is the Vulcan ears...)
Old 02-25-2008, 04:04 PM Spacemoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.