Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[HeyYou]

Quote it for me, because I don't see it.

That is more the point of this thread. Not debating the definition of consent.

 

In a nutshell, in a society that does not have universal health care, denying services to someone based on a lack of money is inhuman. What value do you place on a persons life? Don't start with the "they should have insurance then" thing, or something similar. Fact is, not everyone has insurance, nor can everyone afford insurance, and thru no fault of their own. that is just the way it is. It seems in your world, there should be NO services of ANY kind simply given away, if you don't have money, you don't eat, you don't get a warm place to sleep, you don't get health care, nothing. You can just go someplace and die (quietly please).

 

So, is money THE most important thing in your life then?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I think you sum it up. All these things that you want to provide for free are not free. They are paid for.

I would argue that to steal the fruits of an inidividual's labor is inhuman. It reduces them to the role of a machine, or a farm animal, whose function is to produce revenue for the state.

 

Money is not the most important thing in my life. Freedom is. If you are not free to dispose of the products of your own labor as you see fit, you are not free. Sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[draconix]

It doesn't have to be the most important thing for you to not want to blow it all on fixing problems for the faceless people you've never met. This is why "save the children" hasn't completed their mission yet, and it's why you still have money in your bank account. It's a choice that we have to make for ourselves, not one that should be made for us.

[HeyYou]

It doesn't have to be the most important thing for you to not want to blow it all on fixing problems for the faceless people you've never met. This is why "save the children" hasn't completed their mission yet, and it's why you still have money in your bank account. It's a choice that we have to make for ourselves, not one that should be made for us.

 

And once again, we get into the aspect of "Who decides how the government spends money."

 

You don't get that option. You can vote for a representative that holds similar views as you, but, that's as far as it goes. Aside from that, you are out of the loop.

[Sepherose]

To those saying that income tax is taken without consent, did you fill out a W-4 form when you were hired at your place of employment? If so, you signed an agreement to have your income tax deducted from your paycheck every month. And considering most places of employment do not allow you to work there unless you fill out said form, then sorry to say, but nothing, absolutely nothing, was stolen from you. I agree, it isn't constitutional, but you do have a choice: Work, and be taxed, or don't, and go to jail. As for the rest of this radically derailed thread (from my perspective) I think this sums up what a lot of people seem to think:

 

You know, why do I have to use my hard earned money to help to pay for the damn government to protect everyone? If you suck so bad you can't get a job and pay for proper protection, its not our job to help ya.

 

I can protect myself, I have a rifle ya know!

 

 

Same goes with medical care, we don't need no government stealing our money. Its your own fault if you can't get no health care for yourself.

 

I find that appalling. As for myself, I have a torn sciatic nerve. It will never heal, and due to this, although I am otherwise healthy, any job that requires even a minor amount of physical labor will not hire me because I am a liability according to their insurance policy. Does that mean I am incapable? No. I have held jobs like that after underplaying the damage in my back, and I did rather well. Amusingly enough, the torn nerve is not what lost me my job, it was my discovery of my supervisors use of drugs that lost me my job, luckily, he was caught not long after due to myself and others raising a huff about it. Did I get my job back? No. Was I able to find another job afterwords? Not for a while. And when I did find another job? They offered me insurance, let me work, then revoked my insurance, cut my pay, fired me with no cause, and then went belly up. Is that my fault? No.

 

Now, understand my reasoning for posting that, I am not the only person who has had similar things happen in this country. Maybe not exactly the same, certainly, but similar stories for sure. Is it the individuals fault when the company they are working for goes belly up? No. Is it the individuals fault when they get fired for accidentally finding something out about their boss? No. Is it the individuals fault when their insurance through their job gets revoked for no reason? No. Is it the individuals fault when their company outsources and fires them? No. Is it the individuals fault when they are skilled in a particular area that is considered a "high-demand" sector, but unemployment in their area is at about 16%? No.

 

In those situations, is it right to tell those people "No, I'm not alright with you getting a portion of the money that comes from my income tax that I signed away on", no. It is not. Is it right to tell someone that has an actual physical or mental disability something along the same lines? Most certainly not.

 

So, is it right to say that someone should be left to die if they do not have insurance? No, absolutely not. It is inhumane. People want a better society? That is a good reason why it is not happening, because people can't pull together and help one another of their own volition, with a few exceptions.

[marharth]

To those saying that income tax is taken without consent, did you fill out a W-4 form when you were hired at your place of employment? If so, you signed an agreement to have your income tax deducted from your paycheck every month. And considering most places of employment do not allow you to work there unless you fill out said form, then sorry to say, but nothing, absolutely nothing, was stolen from you. I agree, it isn't constitutional, but you do have a choice: Work, and be taxed, or don't, and go to jail. As for the rest of this radically derailed thread (from my perspective) I think this sums up what a lot of people seem to think:

 

You know, why do I have to use my hard earned money to help to pay for the damn government to protect everyone? If you suck so bad you can't get a job and pay for proper protection, its not our job to help ya.

 

I can protect myself, I have a rifle ya know!

 

 

Same goes with medical care, we don't need no government stealing our money. Its your own fault if you can't get no health care for yourself.

 

I find that appalling. As for myself, I have a torn sciatic nerve. It will never heal, and due to this, although I am otherwise healthy, any job that requires even a minor amount of physical labor will not hire me because I am a liability according to their insurance policy. Does that mean I am incapable? No. I have held jobs like that after underplaying the damage in my back, and I did rather well. Amusingly enough, the torn nerve is not what lost me my job, it was my discovery of my supervisors use of drugs that lost me my job, luckily, he was caught not long after due to myself and others raising a huff about it. Did I get my job back? No. Was I able to find another job afterwords? Not for a while. And when I did find another job? They offered me insurance, let me work, then revoked my insurance, cut my pay, fired me with no cause, and then went belly up. Is that my fault? No.

 

Now, understand my reasoning for posting that, I am not the only person who has had similar things happen in this country. Maybe not exactly the same, certainly, but similar stories for sure. Is it the individuals fault when the company they are working for goes belly up? No. Is it the individuals fault when they get fired for accidentally finding something out about their boss? No. Is it the individuals fault when their insurance through their job gets revoked for no reason? No. Is it the individuals fault when their company outsources and fires them? No. Is it the individuals fault when they are skilled in a particular area that is considered a "high-demand" sector, but unemployment in their area is at about 16%? No.

 

In those situations, is it right to tell those people "No, I'm not alright with you getting a portion of the money that comes from my income tax that I signed away on", no. It is not. Is it right to tell someone that has an actual physical or mental disability something along the same lines? Most certainly not.

 

So, is it right to say that someone should be left to die if they do not have insurance? No, absolutely not. It is inhumane. People want a better society? That is a good reason why it is not happening, because people can't pull together and help one another of their own volition, with a few exceptions.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I said, but I was being sarcastic.

Edited September 15, 2011 by marharth

[Sepherose]

-snip-

 

I could kind of tell you were, but I still used it as a summary, I probably should have explained that.

[draconix]

You don't get that option. You can vote for a representative that holds similar views as you, but, that's as far as it goes. Aside from that, you are out of the loop.

 

I suppose that I can see what you mean by that. Like I also said in my first post in this thread,I think that the decision should be handled at a state-level rather than federal level.

[HeyYou]

You don't get that option. You can vote for a representative that holds similar views as you, but, that's as far as it goes. Aside from that, you are out of the loop.

 

I suppose that I can see what you mean by that. Like I also said in my first post in this thread,I think that the decision should be handled at a state-level rather than federal level.

 

To some extent it is. A fair few of the healthcare programs for the poor are state administered, but federally funded/mandated. (maybe that should be UNDERfunded.....) I think taking the federal government out of quite a few areas that should be states sovereign territory wouldn't be such a bad plan. They seem quite adept at taking something that works reasonably well, and totally screwing it up. All under the guise of "improving it".

[PowderdToastMan]

Quote it for me, because I don't see it.

That is more the point of this thread. Not debating the definition of consent.

 

In a nutshell, in a society that does not have universal health care, denying services to someone based on a lack of money is inhuman. What value do you place on a persons life? Don't start with the "they should have insurance then" thing, or something similar. Fact is, not everyone has insurance, nor can everyone afford insurance, and thru no fault of their own. that is just the way it is. It seems in your world, there should be NO services of ANY kind simply given away, if you don't have money, you don't eat, you don't get a warm place to sleep, you don't get health care, nothing. You can just go someplace and die (quietly please).

 

So, is money THE most important thing in your life then?

 

"healthcare" is a service provided by an indiidual for another individual at a cost to that person. To say that not reciving it for free, or paid for by someone else is "inhuman" is ridiculus. I gave this example earlier - it would be like going to dennys and saying that not giving me food for free is "inhuman."

 

Medical services of a doctor are no different that anything else that can keep you alive, and in some cases further prolong your life. But at a cost. You need to learn that anyone can increase their chances of survivability, or their risk of death at a cost, but it is not the responsibility of the government or any third party, only your own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

 

watch the link

 

 

In the most free society on the planet, the principle to be heralded is that the government cannot compel you in any fashon, yet you pine for government to take the reins and run your life for you?

 

Isiah Berlin wrote a paper called "the two concepts of liberty." and in it he described "freedom", and "freedom from." or negative liberties and positive liberties.

The most starkly revealing thing about the concepts is that when you have a "freedom from" you no longer have the "freedom to" experience something, because it have been removed from your view.(figurativley) The two concepts cannot operate at the same time. But the most important thing to take away from it is "who" determines what you have a freedom from.

Talk radio would be an easy example which has been nearly eliminated on several occasions by the fairness doctrine. If you have a freedom from that which you dont like, you no longer have the freedom to determine whether you like it or not. And whoever is currently in power would be the one to determine what you have a freedom from.

 

The concept of universal healthcare is only about control, just as much as universal food care would be. They want it to determine your decisions for you, and take away your freedom.