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?

 

"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.c...h?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.

 

I don't agree that your example is equivalent. If someone walked into denny's about to die of starvation, it is likely that the staff would feed said person. By your analogy, if someone was in an accident (not necessarily automobile), and didn't have insurance, nor the ability to pay, the hospital should let them die?

[Sepherose]

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."

 

-snip-

 

I'd like to point out how flawed your reasoning is, and also how ridiculous it is. Saving someone from death is one thing, paying for their care in the event of every bruise scrape and sprain is completely different. The main subject is "Should people be left to die if they have no health care" not "should taxpayer money go towards funding even the most ridiculous healthcare claim". If it were in fact the latter, you would be closer to being right, but since it is the former, you are not.

[marharth]

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.

The reason for universal healthcare is so people can have healthcare if they need it. Its nothing deeper then that. A lot of countries in Europe have universal healthcare, and they are doing fine. Canada is doing better then the USA, and they have extremely similar freedoms to us.

 

 

We pay taxes so the government can help its citizens. If you don't what a government taking taxes to help others then why do you even want to have a government?

 

As mentioned before, we pay taxes for the military for protection of ourselves and others. Why is it so drastically different to pay taxes for healthcare for yourselves and others?

[PowderdToastMan]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

[marharth]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

So your saying we don't have the right to health and happiness?

[Sepherose]

Food and medical services are provided by individuals to others for the sellers livleyhood. No one has the right to those products or services. That is a principle.

You stated that my principle was flawed but diddnt provide testimony regarding the principle being flawed, only the particulars of the situationwhich you concived.

 

Did you watch the video. same principle, different scenario.

 

Trying to save someones life in an emergency or give a starving man food is certainly something anyone of us is definitley compelled to do. but the dying man does not have the right to my product or service. That is the principle you fail to understand.

 

The UN Disagrees with you:

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Want a link? Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

 

Oh, by the way, the United States agreed to this.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I could give a crap what the UN says, or whether a US government, who doesn't know what the word liberty means, agrees to it.

[marharth]

So you don't care what the governments of the world think?

 

The USA agreed that its citizens should have the right to health and happiness when the country was created.

Edited September 15, 2011 by marharth

[Sepherose]

I could give a crap what the UN says, or whether a US government, who doesn't know what the word liberty means, agrees to it.

 

My point is that they disagree. I can agree with you about liberty, but we all have a right to life, liberty, and happiness, according to our founding fathers, whom did understand the idea of liberty. The UDoHR echoes that particular aspect, and what a lot of people in this thread are saying opposes that concept in many ways.

[kvnchrist]

I'm not a lover of left wing or right wing causes or agendas. I also don't believe in spinning the remarks of a lunatic, to try to make a point. If the blogger has to do this, then they aren't interested in the truth and they've just tried to deceive those they are talking to. The man was clearly talking about taking responsibility for what's yours. If everybody is so sure that government is the best answer to everything, I'd like to point everyone's attention to the TSA and the ATF.

 

The government runs on money and what they steal from us is chickenfeed. Big Business and big labor runs this country. The government, left or right is nothing more than the polish they use to delude the citizens of this country. Do you guys really think that the government can run health care, when they have the trial lawyers on one side, trying to sue the health care industry and the insurance companies and the health care industries on the other. If the government ran health care it would be the bureaucrats running the show and their hand is out to the highest bidder. The average citizen doesn't have a chance. I'd be more worried that one of those suits would see you as a lost cause and order the doctors to drug you up, so you could die at home, drooling on yourself.