<"Human health" is a vague concept>
Health is a human right and thus a right of all humans. One of the noblest acts a person can do is to fight for the welfare of a stranger. I know you cannot relate to that because based on your stance against universal health care, it is clear that you have little, if any feeling for your fellow man. Unfortunately, there are a number of Americans in the World like you who hide behind their "vague" or abstract principles.
<human health is not the only important consideration.>
Health is wealth. Without good health you have nothing. If your health deteriorates enough, you won't even be able to post on a thread like this on SI. But you are too "vague" or abstract to realize that. I take it you are probably sitting at your computer all day smoking 3-4 packs of cigarettes.
I take the Value of Human Life seriously. This is why I not only support Universal Health Care as a Fundamental Human Right but likewise support the Human Right to be free from hunger and malnutrition as a fundamental human right of every woman, man, youth and child.
The human right to adequate food includes:
1)The human right to be free from hunger.
2)The human right to access safe drinking water.
3)The human right to access resources, including energy for cooking.
And this includes the human right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
<Attempts to provide an extensive level of government provided health care can lower human health because socialized medicine often doesn't work well, but even if the system does work well and in the short run the average person becomes healthier, in the long run you are likely to reduce economic growth and thus reduce wealth and eventually health.>
What is this abstract mumbo jumbo? In the same sentence you are telling me that "socialized medicine often doesn't work well, but even if the system does work well".
Have you ever lived anywhere outside the USA and had occasion to use the socialized health care of another nation? Most 15 year olds can think clearer than this.
<Asserting any "positive right" as an absolute above all else maxim means that anything is justified to achieve it.>
Take your time when you write, Timmy. English is not even my first language and I can write a million times better than this.
No, I'm not the Typical Immoral Pragmatic American who believes that the "ends justifies the means, so I don't subscribe to the view that "anything is justified to achieve it." If you could make a statement like that, it is obvious that you don't have the faintest idea of what the categorical imperative represents. Yes, there are presuppositions inherent in the Categorical Imperative (such as Freedom); but honestly, abstract Libertarian boy, I don't think you are capable of grasping anything fundamental outside of that "vague" Libertarian view you espouse. |
