Another poster asked if free health care was a basic human right and satirized it by comparing it to getting free HBO. How can anyone compare the two?I think that most of us here would agree that people have the right to LIVE, and in order to live, it is sometimes necessary to get health care. Unfortunately, though, not everyone can afford it.
2007-07-16 05:20:59 · 22 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is absolute ignorance and a way to divert attention from reality. I am guessing that a person who can look at a 2 yr old child and think it is ok to deny them health care because there mommy and daddy dont make enough money belongs on the right. They can keep her as far as I am concerned.
They can call me a bleeding heart all they want. I much prefer being a bleeding heart to an amoral conservative.
2007-07-16 05:39:51 · answer #1 · answered by Mariah B 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
it is called a straw man attack with a false analogy and you fell for it
FOURTHY I sent this to you in case you do not look back here
your answer about healthcare as a right was rife with error and propaganda....which HMO do you work for?
I lived with "socialized" medicine as you call it here and it is the best system by far. I never waited more than a week to see any doctor..I was referred for a CT scan and got it that afternoon and was recommended to surgery which was scheduled in 2 weeks!! I paid 500Euros a year for access to this "horrible" system and i was a resident alien!! and then you state that "there is PROBABLY a free market solution...there was a time in this country when greedy twits and dupes like you had their way and a doctor was only for the well to do!! which is still today tho not as bad and people are denied care EVERYDAY in this country due to a lack of insurance..except for bare minimum to keep you alive and get you out the ER door fast>>> this system of health care delivery is broken by the Free Market system and profit motive does not belong in health care and we are not the leaders in certain treatment that is why more and more people leave this country for health care just as I did to avoid surgury on a condition for which prolonged PT was called for but no insurance company would allow a doctor to prescribe or carry it out!!!! so that is a PRIME example of greedy bastards interfering in medical actions FOR PROFIT ooops maybe that is too much information for your american educated brain to absorb all at once ....my apologies
you bloody ignorant wanker
2007-07-16 06:23:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well in some minds its probably valid. The couple in Nevada that neglected 2 kids nearly to death would probably state the internet and computers are necessary to live.
I agree with your perspective. It is sometimes necessary to get health care. The vast majority of americans would live to a ripe old age without the benefit of modern medicine. Its a great blindness in this county that you need doctors. I am not saying they arent helpful in some serious situations but realistically I dont go nor would I take my kids to one unless they have specific symptoms. Immunizations and antibiotics have done the most for people!
2007-07-16 06:37:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whoever posted that comparison is an imbecile.
Fourthy27 must not get out very much because people are denied healthcare in the US all the time - you *don't* have to see "Sicko" to know that. That's like saying there are no poor people in America, another lame-brained comment you see here now and again.
Just read the rest of Fourthy's post. Wow, that's one very twisted individual. There is nothing coercive about "socialized" medicine. Fourthy can get treatment wherever he wants to, IF his insurance provider will approve the care he requests. Ah, ferget it - that is one guy who is so not worth anyone's time.
2007-07-16 05:54:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
it's a logical argument form--reductio ad absurdum. it means that you show the path of logic to be absurd.
saying that someone has a right to life is to say that you disagree with murder. to say that it means i have to do something to keep you alive is entirely different.
let's make a more serious comparison:
you're in desperate need of a kidney and i match your blood type. does your right to life dictate that you can take my kidney?
clearly not, if you believe in individual rights.
however, you do have the right to not be stabbed with a knife.
so there is a difference of some kind between entitlement and being left alone.
your right is to be left alone, not an entitlement. socialized healthcare is an entitlement, and therefore, not a right.
2007-07-16 05:39:43 · answer #5 · answered by brian 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are making 2 unsupported assumptions:
1. that people have the right to LIVE; and
2. not everyone can afford it (health care).
RE #1:
people have the right to live, but not necessarily at any particular quality of life or living standard. As soon as you define a "basic" standard of living that would be subsidized by the government, you run into the problem of the people who move themselves slightly ABOVE the standard.
RE #2:
affordability is in the eyes of the beholder.
2007-07-16 05:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
neither are entitlements enshrined in the constitution. people do have a right to be medically treated, but we do not have a right to a state funded medical plan. people need to get away from the idea that the state is the only engine of social change and social empathy. this is the nanny-state theory, and its nonsense.
there are plenty of public and private programs people who lack income can get involved with if they need it (including medicare, medicade, and all state programs), without the state paying for everyone to have a health plan.
2007-07-16 05:30:57 · answer #7 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
lol, I wonder how fourthy feels about abortion. Anyhow, people are free to die in the streets. It just doesn't work well for those of us who wish to live in a country that doesn't allow their children and the elderly to die in the streets. Furthermore, as a conservative, I don't want people to use the emergency room for preventative care...because it is unnecessary and costs too much. We are ALREADY paying for the uninsured. Let's just do it responsibly. AFFORDABLE ACCESSIBLE healthcare for ALL.
2007-07-16 05:29:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
So since "free" healthcare isn't really free at all, how should the government decide to allocate fundamentally limited resources? Probably in much the same way most insurance companies do today, except you'll be forced to contribute even if you are denied coverage.
2007-07-16 05:24:27 · answer #9 · answered by freedom first 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Government health care will be just like HBO.
Stuck watch and dealing same lousy movies over and over again.
You do have a right to live than you need to work to get your own health care.
So why can't you take care of yourself.
2007-07-16 05:27:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋