+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Thread: additional debate over health care reform (/showthread.php?tid=2206)
- Mike Thomas #828 - 04-01-2010
as far as left-wing lawyer hack drones go..you are one of my favorites.
since when is funding our military considered redistribution of wealth? It is ACTUALLY one of the functions of the federal gov't unlike providing health care for everybody.
As much as you believe that health care is a right, that does not make it so. Health care is not a right, it is a priviledge. If you feel so strongly about helping people who can't pay for health care..by all means..be charitable yourself...but it is immoral to force someone else to part with the product of their physical/intellectual labor.
One man's need does not make a claim on another.
- AMoore - 04-01-2010
Mike Thomas #828 wrote:
Quote:"Health care is not a right, it is a priviledge (sic)."
That is where we disagree. I need not argue further.
- emayer - 04-01-2010
Guys,
This like many of the other debates here are interesting and worthwhile, but there is no room for personal attacks. By the same token, just because some of us may disagree with a particular administration's actions should not define us as radicals of either stripe. Most of us truly care about the well-being of this country though we may differ as to how to achieve this.
As someone whose family recently immigrated to the US from a "Social-Democracy" I can state that there are benefits and pitfalls of both systems of governance. At present it seems that the nation is drifting toward a Euro-centric model. Thus, we will ultimately loose our distinction amongst our peers as a nation of personal freedom and responsibility as we drift toward a state of complacency, uniformity, and mediocrity. If this is the will of our Country so be it, but this differs from our Founder's intent and that which has been defended all these centuries. Remember, it was those fundamentals that enabled this fledgling country to evolve into a dominant economic and entrepreneurial superpower to begin with.
I believe in large part, it is this philosophical difference of opinion with the administration which has fostered the Tea Party etc. I don't know the demographics of that group but they seem to comprise plenty of those from "The Greatest Generation." They ought to know full well the cost of our freedoms, perhaps it is worth listening a bit.
- Mike Thomas #828 - 04-01-2010
You can disagree with me all you want, it doesn't matter. I am right and you are wrong.
So, according to you, health care is a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let’s ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Mike, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another?
There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another.
In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources.
The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals.
However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Owned.
- larrybard - 04-01-2010
I guess Ayn Rand . . . er, Walter Williams . . . is alive and well. Even if not given appropriate credit for their statements.
- AMoore - 04-01-2010
Mike, your arguments are well articulated and approrpriate if this discussion were taking place more than 5,000 years ago before mankind decided it wanted to live in civilization, which by definition requires reliance upon one another.
Pursuant to your argument there would be no schools, libraries, infrastructure, social security, or medicare. Like I said, we are all socialists to a degree. Your logic goes well beyond the social contract. John Locke would conclude that you are an anarchist.
I assume you do not believe that public education for children is a right?
- cjbcpa - 04-01-2010
Modern civilization requires cooperation, not reliance.
I'm in favor of some limited "cooperation". I want only as much government as we need, not as much as we want. In that respect I line up with Mike. Defense, Treasury, the Judiciary. These are the functions of government. Libraries? the Arts? Student Loans? Mortgage Interest Deductions? Come on, that's not government. Nice, maybe, necessary, no way.
Education; its necessary to succeed but not a right. You're a lawyer, what article of the Constitution talks about that? Should everyone have some? Absolutely. Am I willing to contribute some of my resources to achieving it? Absolutely, if they're used effectively. Unfortunately that's not the case. Every time the government rolls out a program to "help" some group or segment of the economy the end result is a massive growth in the bureaucracy and a steep increase in the price of whatever products or services were involved. Things get tweaked over time, But the bureaucracy remains and the taxpayers end up with the tab for inferior service, greater cost, and higher taxes.
The private sector, aka capitalism is brutally efficient. Capital goes to were its treated best and produces the maximum result, unlike the government, where it goes unwillingly and is primarily wasted. If the world needed libraries, the private sector would find an opportunity and presto, there will be libraries. But don't force me to fund a service that's nice to have
Do we need rules to avoid excesses, of course. The place where there are apparently no limits to the excess is the government. Name one program, that is not an essential government activity, that the government does better than the private sector and I'll buy all your beer at NJMSP on the 29th, you name the brew.
- emayer - 04-01-2010
Well articulated discussion everyone. Aaron, I'd point out these arguments occurred here some 230+ years ago and the framework decided upon. You may recall that there was heated debate at that time also as whether to even have a standing federal army and navy. Clearly, the thrust was to have minimal centralized governmental control.
Unfortunately I can't make the NJMSP event this month, but I'll second Chris' bet for $50 toward the charity of your choice if you can answer his question!
BTW, I haven't seen Nick drive by yet to check those reflectors out. Beer is waiting....
- nplenzick - 04-01-2010
emayer wrote:
Quote:Sorry for the delayed response, been away.
Actually, I spend alot of time in both countries. No question, America is superior though! I point out the reflector system used there because it makes more sense. Again, I'm not against the concept at all, but if you take a ride on this particular road you'll see that it wasn't implemented well and is a waste of resources. Sounds like Flagler county Florida did a better job of this. Brings up a reasonable question, shouldn't all this be standardized?
Here's the location for any doubters out there:
Easton Road, Hellertown PA. Follow this in the direction (East) toward Riegelsville and you'll see my point. (Hopefully).
After a bad morning I decided to take the afternoon off and check out this highway of reflector hell and here's what I found; All sections of this road that had a guardrail needed it. It was installed to protect from the very steep drop off that was near the roadway. That drop off was anywhere from 6' - 10' below the roadway and in many case's there was a small stream flowing in it. The guardrail was not continuous but ran for short sections of which the longest was about 200 yards. The reflectors where mounted to the posts with epoxy and were spaced 16' - 20' apart, not 5'. The reflectors appear to be of high quality, easily manufactured, economical and extremely easy to install. ALL sections of this road that had this guardrail needed it, and I would have to compliment on a job well done Pendott!
The next time you bitch about something you might want to dig a little deeper first. Anyone who wishes to see some photo's send me a PM, I tried to post them here but my file size is to large.
- AMoore - 04-01-2010
Reliance on the cooperation of others?
Education is not addressed in the Constitution, however, rights are not limited to those inalianable rights identified by the founders, or the words of our Constitution. Rights can be bestowed upon people in a democratic society.
Does society need access to education any more than access to health care?
I'll say it for a fourth time: public education is a product of socialism. The issue is not whether redistribution of wealth is proper, but how much.
I'd bet your defintion of "essential government activity" differs from mine, but here is an example. Teaching. Yes, expensive private schools produce more productive students, but that is only because they start with a better student. Private school teachers are generally less educated and are paid far less than public school teachers. Most would not last a week in a Philadelphia public school. They are hired in private schools in order to keep costs down. Charter schools which are required to have open door enrollment are failing miserably. What have you heard about Edison schools lately? You simply cannot educate the masses for a profit.
There are some public schools that can be selective with respect to its student body. In fact students from two Phladelphia public schools, Masterman and Central traditionally have the highest SAT scores in the entire state. Those kids have parents that care, and highly qualified teachers.
Admittedly, public schools do have a problem with wasting money, and those problems need to be addressed in a manner that does not involve throwing good money after bad, but the charter school phenomena has run its course.