Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:
In the end I believe we will be judged by how we treat the poorest in society, not the wealthiest. I am pleased with Canada. Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't want it. You mean, YOU don't want it. Indeed, me and 200 million others. Our military is not the most powerfull ( I would like to see it better funded. ) But we have not fely a need to reach out and touch someone in the way GW has. And the reason you have a minimal military is because the US protects you, just like it protected all of western Europe during the Cold War, which freed you from having to spend more money on defense. You're welcome... That would be your opinion, of course. Nope, a fact. Our medical system is fine. Unless you're a teenager needing knee surgery... Strangely enough, the Canadians who live under the system so oppresively described by you seem happier and healthier than most Americans. And they will continue to do so right up until the entire system collapses into chaos. Nothing surprising about people getting freebies not complaining about it...till the gravy train derails. - Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
#112
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:
However, diabetes, broken ankles and heart disease are not a public health threats, which means that the government has no call to impose the costs of treating such individual illnesses on others, because there is no exported harm that justifies imposing this burden on others. You don't think so? Nope. There are many ways that society pays the price for illness beyond the obvious issues of contagion and health care costs. The economic costs of so many Americans sitting at home because they're sick or injured is astronomical when you consider things like lost productivity, overinflated payrolls forced upon employers (which transfer those costs to consumers), etc. And who is responsible for inflated payrolls? The government. When you're a small business owner and your employees are home sick instead of working, you lose money. So what? That's just part of the cost of doing business. Why should government bail out the business owner? Why should I? If the business owner fails to properly plan for sick employees, how is that MY problem and why should I be required to pay for that employee's health care in order to protect the business owner? If the business owner feels the employee is essential, then the employer should purchase health insurance to keep him healthy, not the government or the rest of us. If his business fails because he plans and manages badly, why, that just provides an opportunity for some new businessman to try to do it better. So does the national economy. It's been a long time since I've seen estimates of the figures, but they're enormous. Not really. You falsely presume that the economic impacts of absenteeism are the responsibility of the government to ameliorate or prevent. That responsibility lies with the employee and the employer and no one else. Such things are only an impact because the government interferes with the employer's ability to avoid or reduce those impacts. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
#113
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet persona calling itself Eddy Rapid wrote:
"Scott Weiser" who appears to be a wrote in message [...] Fine by me, just don't try to export your socialism down here, we don't want it. And just how do you imagine we'd try to export our "socialism"? By breeding legions of little socialists. And who elected you as the spokesperson for all the "we"? Me, of course. Parham "bemused, but bound to be none the wiser" -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
#114
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live without concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else to join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the government's duty or authority to compel it. I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded everyone. This includes education and health care. Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights? I say no. I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig. No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion. In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights. What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not "provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those rights. ROFLMAO So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical care is not? Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is. Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that stupid. And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does. Education and health care, however, require the active participation of others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are "violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another in the exercise of a right by an individual. There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free association...and disassociation. Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it? Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right to not associate with neo-nazis? Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights. The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those "rights." Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan, anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise. Er. No. It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation. Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different thing. In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But a doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into the job. What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of "rights" says yes. This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy! Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the subtleties of my argument. Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place. Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those obligations, such as democratic voting? I say the latter. You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong. That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the Constitution As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that. Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness over the rule of law. or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal system. No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else. Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial status of the family they are born into. Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero. I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes with it. Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden on others without their consent. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force of law is morally repugnant. Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society that sees education and health care as necessities of life. Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you happen to think they ought to pay for? Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow. Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..." Talk about repugant. You define selfishness. Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing. It's ugly. And so are you :-/ And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
#117
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KMAN" wrote in message ... Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating, really. It's like witnessing societal devolution. Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science. I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown, as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others. Mark |
#118
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "bearsbuddy" wrote in message . .. "KMAN" wrote in message ... Scott is a moron. He's just clinicall selfish. Sort of fascinating, really. It's like witnessing societal devolution. Ok, now I understand! It's all in the name of science. And typos. I meant to say: Scotty is NOT a moron. He IS clinically selfish. Sort of fascinating, really. It's like witnessing societal devolution. I learned one thing from reading Scotty's posts: If I was to come across him and he was drowning, it would be ethically alright to let him drown, as there would be no chance of harm being transferred to others. Mark What you mean, of course, is the idea that you must save another person (e.g. throw them a life presever) is an affirmative burden on you, and therefore the starting point on the slippery slope to gulags and other nasty commie stuff. |
#119
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott thinks:
=============== The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of money from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all persons in the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an uncontrolled fire. On the other hand, the link between one's private health care issues and some sort of overall public harm is extremely tenuous at best, and doesn't justify the forcible extraction of money from everyone in order to provide health care for some. The risks are not equal ================= United States spends about $35 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with medical care, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis (Bloombert/Hartford Courant, 18 June 2003: "Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America" "Earlier diagnosis"! What a unique concept. No! Wait! I believe it's one of those socialist (and Canadian) concepts. Even if we accept your lack of "overall harm" thesis (which I don't -- see Wolfgang's response to you), perhaps you'll be moved by the extent to which this affects your pocketbook.... frtzw906 |
#120
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Scott thinks: =============== The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of money from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all persons in the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an uncontrolled fire. Nonsense Scott! I have my own firefighting equipment and can protect my own property and I'd never be responsible for starting an uncontrolled fire! Why should I have to pay because people like you are careless and can't take care of their own property! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General |