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 (728)	8/31/2004 9:44:10 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 812

The top 2% can't pay for what Kerri wants. if Kerri gets what he wants doctors will quit in droves, then what will you do. Have a doctors at gun point program? SOCIALISM doesn't work, it's against human nature. Once you understand this your eyes will finally be open

To: Rarebird who wrote (728)	8/31/2004 8:08:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 812

Senator Kerry's Universal Health care plan is to be applauded for recognizing this and stating upfront that the Top 2% of income producing Americans should pay for this expense. That expense is too big even for them, esp. since the other government expenses and taxes to cover them won't go away. And the vast majority of Americans agree with this. That simply isn't true. If you asked "do you want a socialized health care system" you would get only minority support, you would do better if you asked "do you want a universal health system paid for by the government?" (which would be the same thing but how you word the question effects the poll, but I'm still far from certain you would get a majority. You certainly would get a "vast majority". limitations on health compromise the ability to enjoy human rights. If someone is healthy, wealthy, charismatic, well-connected ect. they will be able to do more with their human rights then someone who is sick, poor, uncharismatic ect. but that doesn't mean the less fortunate don't have rights. I have the freedom to run a 100 yd sprint even if an Olympic sprinter might be able to run to the finish line and then back to the start before I reach the finish. You have a right not to be forcibly prevented from exercising your rights, that doesn't mean you will always have the ability to exercise them. I could try to make it to the Olympic trials, with the plan to go to the 08 Olympics and win a gold. The fact that I would only win the race if all the other contestants fell down laughing at how slow I am doesn't change that fact. I don't have a "right to be fast", just as I don't have a right to be female or to be the moon. Similarly you can't have a right to be healthy. You can argue for a right to have the government pay for your health care, but that isn't a right to be healthy, and of course if the government is going to pay for your health care it has to take the funds to do so away from someone else by force or threat of force. If such right is supposed to be a universal human right to have someone else provide your health care then what if you live in a situation where no one has the excess funds and the local doctor refuses to provide the care without getting paid? Yes in the US there are trillions of dollars and a lot of doctors but you didn't say this is a right at this time or place but rather a universal right. Human rights are social preconditions for individuals and populations to achieve a state of optimal physical, mental and social well being. It could be argued that human rights are such preconditions but that doesn't mean any precondition is a human right. Also even if health is such a precondition the real "right" you are arguing for is government provided health care (either directly provided or paid for by government funds). Government health provision or government health insurance is not a necessary precondition for individuals, or the population as a whole to achieve physical, mental or social well being. It can even reasonably be argued that such provision reduces well being, and in any case such well being can exist without massive government health care programs. can the health of a population prosper in the midst of systematic abuses of human rights? Depends on how you define health, and what prospering would mean in this context. It is possible to have a reasonably health population even without a deep systematic respect for human rights. Can human rights exist in conditions of ill health? Yes. Also good health can exist in the absence of any universal health care program. Tim