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

[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.

 

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.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

WHAT?

 

Where in the US constitution does it say we can't tiuniversal healthcare?

 

Many countries receive that right. Most developed countries have a form on universal healthcare, and it is recognized that they have a right to health.

 

Every country is history operates by giving things to the government, so the government can orderly distribute it. The USA is no different.

 

Actually that is the very thing that makes the US different.

 

As far as the european systems, they are broke because of it, their healthcare is far worse than ours and that is even with us picking up their bill for national defense.

 

If you dont understand the fact that the constitution is a list of things, individual and general, principles and situations, that the government cannot do to you or compell you to do, then there is no hope for you to understand the concept of why this country is different from all those others.

 

as far as why the constitution does not tallow for universal healthcare, that would be the tenth amendment. But the fact that you dont know that and instead of inquiringm you entirely assume your position is correct just cuz thats the way you feel, is very revealing.

[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.

 

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.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

 

I receive aid from the state, and they do not tell me how to live my life beyond what is typically required by law. I really don't see what your issue here is, and why you would be diametrically opposed to the very constitution that affords you the freedom you exercise on a daily basis.

the constitution does not afford you freedoms, it is a restriction on what the government can do or compel you to do.

[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.

 

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.

 

No you mean the UN disagrees with me and the united states constitution.

 

and there is not a country in the world that actually recieves that right in any context

 

FDR tried that. he tried to declare everyone a right to a job, house, etc

 

but what you dont realize is that rights like that turn a freeborn citizen into a peasant that awaits permission and products from the government.

It is the oldest system on the planet - a top down system, where all resources are fed to a few at the top, all else are diminished in power and wealth, and it is distributed to individuals increasingly diminishing the further down in society you go. That is how every country has operated since the beginning of human existance. The concept of freedom to pursue your own goals without influence from a king, monarch, despot, tyrant, or otherwise is the newest and greatest concept ever developed in the history of the world.

 

And you would trade that for a warm blanket of tyranny

WHAT?

 

Where in the US constitution does it say we can't tiuniversal healthcare?

 

Many countries receive that right. Most developed countries have a form on universal healthcare, and it is recognized that they have a right to health.

 

Every country is history operates by giving things to the government, so the government can orderly distribute it. The USA is no different.

 

Actually that is the very thing that makes the US different.

 

As far as the european systems, they are broke because of it, their healthcare is far worse than ours and that is even with us picking up their bill for national defense.

 

If you dont understand the fact that the constitution is a list of things, individual and general, principles and situations, that the government cannot do to you or compell you to do, then there is no hope for you to understand the concept of why this country is different from all those others.

 

as far as why the constitution does not tallow for universal healthcare, that would be the tenth amendment. But the fact that you dont know that and instead of inquiringm you entirely assume your position is correct just cuz thats the way you feel, is very revealing.

You do realize that the Constitution grants congress the right to pass laws that will go towards the general welfare of the United States?

 

The tenth amendment would not be violated by universal healthcare due to the above. The constitution DOES grant that power to congress, if congress feels the need to do so.

 

Europeans are broke because of it? Really? They are trillions of dollars less in debt then the USA is. That is not even close to a valid argument.

 

There healthcare is worse? In what world? How is the healthcare in the USA better then the healthcare in Sweden or Canada?

 

The Constitution is not just a list, it is a written document of federal law.

Edited September 15, 2011 by marharth

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

I receive aid from the state, and they do not tell me how to live my life beyond what is typically required by law. I really don't see what your issue here is, and why you would be diametrically opposed to the very constitution that affords you the freedom you exercise on a daily basis.

 

The Declaration of Independence state that the people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

 

Rights are a property of being human, not granted by a document, even one as great as the US constitution.

[PowderdToastMan]

Making stuff up cuz it souds good in your head or supports your argument does not make any of it true. I teach several aspects of constitutional law at my office for trainees and i can tell you that you are wrong about the tenth amendment issue. you already revealed that you dont actually know anything about the constitution when you openly asked what violates it.

 

as far as the healthcare, i could give a million examples.

 

how bout the fact that there are more MRI machines in philly than the entire country of canada

or how bout the fact that the wait times are so long that many canadians go to the US for treatment.

last i checked, the wait time for a knee surgery was2 and a half years. and that was if you qualified.

 

to say that because the US is more broke than europe means that europe is not broke does not make any sense?

[PowderdToastMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

 

Europeans are broke because of it? Really? They are trillions of dollars less in debt then the USA is. That is not even close to a valid argument.

 

 

 

Debt to GDP ratio is a much better way to measure 'how broke' a country is than absolute #s.

Check it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

 

Highlights:

 

Japan #1

Greece #5

Italy #8

Ireland #11

Canada and France #15 and 16

GERMANY #19

UK #23

 

USA #37

[Sepherose]

The constitutions purpose was to limit what the government can compel you to do, therefor it ensures that your freedoms are maintained. Without it, you would be in no place to say what you have said throughout this thread. But, you people seem to be missing the point entirely. Is it morally okay to allow people to die simply because they can not afford health insurance? That's what I gathered anyway, and sure the person that posted the original story may have took what was said out of context, the question asked in the beginning of this thread is still a valid one. No, it is not morally alright to do so. It is inhumane, you can argue it all you like, but I would like to think that those living in a "civilized" society would agree with me on that. All I keep reading here are various long winded variations of "if they can't afford it, yes". That is a grotesque mindset as far as I am concerned.

[marharth]

Making stuff up cuz it souds good in your head or supports your argument does not make any of it true. I teach several aspects of constitutional law at my office for trainees and i can tell you that you are wrong about the tenth amendment issue. you already revealed that you dont actually know anything about the constitution when you openly asked what violates it.

 

as far as the healthcare, i could give a million examples.

 

how bout the fact that there are more MRI machines in philly than the entire country of canada

or how bout the fact that the wait times are so long that many canadians go to the US for treatment.

last i checked, the wait time for a knee surgery was2 and a half years. and that was if you qualified.

 

to say that because the US is more broke than europe means that europe is not broke does not make any sense?

I didn't make anything up.

 

I do know a lot about the constitution, and I highly doubt you teach about constitutional law when you are not aware that the tenth amendment gives power to the states only if the power is not granted to the federal government. The constitution grants power to congress to pass legislation for the general welfare of the USA. I know a lot of conservatives like to throw around the tenth amendment, but there is more to the constitution then that.

 

WHAT? Are you seriously saying Canadians come to the USA for treatment? That is not even close to true. If you can back that up with even a speck of evidence, I would be surprised.

[PowderdToastMan]

Making stuff up cuz it souds good in your head or supports your argument does not make any of it true. I teach several aspects of constitutional law at my office for trainees and i can tell you that you are wrong about the tenth amendment issue. you already revealed that you dont actually know anything about the constitution when you openly asked what violates it.

 

as far as the healthcare, i could give a million examples.

 

how bout the fact that there are more MRI machines in philly than the entire country of canada

or how bout the fact that the wait times are so long that many canadians go to the US for treatment.

last i checked, the wait time for a knee surgery was2 and a half years. and that was if you qualified.

 

to say that because the US is more broke than europe means that europe is not broke does not make any sense?

I didn't make anything up.

 

I do know a lot about the constitution, and I highly doubt you teach about constitutional law when you are not aware that the tenth amendment gives power to the states only if the power is not granted to the federal government. The constitution grants power to congress to pass legislation for the general welfare of the USA. I know a lot of conservatives like to throw around the tenth amendment, but there is more to the constitution then that.

 

WHAT? Are you seriously saying Canadians come to the USA for treatment? That is not even close to true. If you can back that up with even a speck of evidence, I would be surprised.

 

 

Wow that is insulting

 

the tenth amendment says that anything not already explicit in the constitution is reserved for the states.

 

Of course, there are also several clauses in the fourteenth amendment that prevent socialized medicine. again im sure you diddnt know that

 

 

Yes many canadians come to the us for treatment because either the extremley long wait times, the canadian government has turned them down for treatment, or the drugs are not available because the canadian government cannot afford them.

 

this is common knowledge and you can find that out from a 30 second google search

 

You are doing that thing again where you assume something without any evidence and ask me to provide you proof because it stands in contrast to something you just made up cuz it suits your goal?

 

 

Its been fun fellas. I enjoyed this so kudos to all. alas i must get back to other stuff. My laptop crashed earlier after i created a list of 40 examples of why the european and canadian health systems are worse and failing and it erased it.

so maybe for another day then we can battle it out...