Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : SI Member Vote 2004/SubjectMarks Only For Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/29/2004 8:06:39 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 812

There is no "right" to rob others of their property at the point of a gun to buy medicine for yourself. Health is a gift from God. It is given to both the deserving and undeserving. But as long as the rest of us are alive, we have the RIGHT and OBLIGATION to protect our property from being confiscated at gun point by the government, to buy votes from the greedy and slothful through "public health insurance". MEDICARE is illegal, immoral, and unethical. It must be ENDED, not re-arranged...

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/30/2004 1:44:21 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 812

You have no right 'to be free from hunger" if you don't want to be hungry GET A JOB. What right did are ancestors have 200,000 years ago? They worked to eat. What 'feel good' crap

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/30/2004 2:31:27 PM
From: mistermj	Respond to of 812

Just curious...what is your stand on abortion?

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/30/2004 4:05:55 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 812

<"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. I note that not one part of your paragraph is a response to what I said. Why even bother to quote a point and then post if you aren't going to respond to the point. Instead of responding to the point you restate your overall idea, and then follow it with an ad-hominem attack which is irrelevant to the point being discussed (even if I had little feeling for my fellow man it wouldn't make your point correct or mine incorrect). If I claim something and you disagree and want to refute it fine, but at least attempt the refutation. Repeating the same thing over and over, or attacking people personally doesn't prove your case and isn't interesting or useful. You never deal with the simple statement that "human health" is a vague concept. Using such a poorly defined alleged right to health to justify making demands on society, is like using the vague concept of freedom, to justify the idea that I should be able to do anything I want to do. When you get more specific about what you mean by human health and what specific rights you would give people in its name, then maybe we can have a real dialog about these ideas, which would be much preferable to your just bashing anyone who disagrees with you vague position as not caring about people or their health. Health is wealth. I'm not sure I would say "health is wealth", but I would agree that health is an important part of human well being. However it isn't the only part. No one thing, or one aspect of the human condition trumps all other considerations. If you could guarantee that you would be healthy for the rest of your normal expected lifespan but that during that time you would be poor, alone, and in an ugly place with bad weather and none of your accustomed comforts and conviences you probably wouldn't take the offer and even if you would most people would not. Of course in reality the trade off is not normally having every other aspect of your life be miserable in order to have perfect health but there are tradeoffs. If you think about it, I think even you would recognize this. I doubt even you would say that any possible price should be made for any increase in health for anyone. You might give it a very high priority for health but if your sane you will realize it doesn't always trump all other considerations. I take it you are probably sitting at your computer all day smoking 3-4 packs of cigarettes. Again with the irrelevant ad-hominems. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, not even a puff, but if I was the biggest smoker in the world it wouldn't make either of our arguments stronger or weaker. 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. IMO taking human life and health seriously is a reason not to support universal health care systems. Also you continue to neglect the point that by asserting an absolute positive right to something you assert a right to enslave others in order to achieve it. Its one thing to say that maintaining health and preventing hunger are important goals and that great efforts should be made to achieve these goals, its another to say they are absolute positive rights that always trump any other consideration. )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. So now it isn't just food and health care but energy as well. And the level of health care that you assert a human right to is "the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health". Think about that for a second. It could cost millions of dollars for someone to obtain the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. And since you include mental health as a right I guess I can't be rude to anyone who is depressed or physiologically fragile, or I might hurt their mental health in some way and thus violate this absolute right of theirs... 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". No mumbo jumbo. It doesn't work well, but even if it did there would be other problems and issues to consider that would make it problematic in the long run. That's a pretty simple combination of ideas. Most 15 year olds can think clearer than this. ad-hominem seem to be your favorite strategy. 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." You where the one who asserting health/health care as an absolute right. You asserted that maximizing human health was "a universal law for all rational beings". Are you backing off that now? We should draw some distinctions here. The following statements are different. Which ones do you support? 1 - Human health is by far the most important consideration, normally trumping other factors when we decide how to set up society and how to treat individuals. 2 - Human health is an important concern. 3 - Free (or at least "affordable" which might mean free for some) health care is a universal human right. 4 - Free (or affordable) health care or health insurance is an extremely important and useful idea that should be implemented. 5 - A public or "universal" health care system would work better then either what we have now, or just about any market based systems. 6 - The government/taxpayers should pay for basic goods and services for people who are unable to afford them. Since I don't support 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, you assert that I don't agree with 2. That assertion is false. You tangle up different ideas and then assume anyone who rejects any of them, rejects all of them. Tim

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/30/2004 4:36:54 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 812

Rarebird, well I'm just gonna sit back and do nothing then. When you GET a job, I'll tell you where to mail me a check. Hurry up, I'm getting hungry

To: Rarebird who wrote (715)	8/30/2004 7:48:26 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 812

Rarebird, Health is a human right and thus a right of all humans... ...And this includes the human right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. I thought health was a responsibility - as in responsibility to take care of one's health, awareness and management of risks. This, in order to avoid sickness, accidents and injuries. How exactly does this become a "right"? What if I see you engaging in a risky activity, where you may be consciously endagering your health, which is accoding to you is a "right". Should I intervene? Wouldn't I be violating some other rights, such your liberty? Now if an unfortunate thing happens and I see you somewhere bleeding (maybe you miscalculated the length of your bungie jumping rope), and I am the only one there to help. How do you imagine to exercise this right to highest attainable health? I can offer help voluntarily, for free or for a fee. You can't make me do anything. It seems to me that you are missing something in this "rights" concept of yours. Something that you can obtain only by services of others cannot possibly be a right. And a responsibility for your own health is of course not a right. Maybe you need to think this through some more. Joe