quote:

FB dedate on healthcare

Waste. Of. Time. Arguing. With. Leftists.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

FB dedate on healthcare

Waste. Of. Time. Arguing. With. Leftists.

I wont reiterate what has been said but yes, I don't waste my time with leftists on any medium. I just inform them that they are wrong and go about my business. Amazingly some of them see this as a challenge and still try to change my mind...

Usually "healthcare" is a euphemism for medical treatment, that is doctors, nurses, hospitals etc. Some people want medical care to be provided a zero cost to the individual in need.
I start by trying to get people to agree that what they are demanding is medical treatment, specifically medical treatment at no cost to themselves.

Once you have that agreement the path is clear to explain economics.

Do they think Doctors, Nurses, and other providers should not be paid? If they do think that, move on it's hopeless.

If they agree that pay for providers is necessary (slavery is illegal, immoral, etc. so if no pay; no provider) then follow through with the discussion about where the money should be found.

You can tell them by-the-way, that most of us here on the forum are not interested in providing the money for other peoples medical care except under very special circumstances.

quote:

You can tell them by-the-way, that most of us here on the forum are not interested in providing the money for other peoples medical care except under very special circumstances.

.... and when we do, we call it charity.
Charity is voluntary and noble.
Government is force.

Healthcare as a right is in direct opposition to the principles this nation was founded on: individual liberty, and individual responsibility.

Here is a ginger with a badass eyepatch to briefly explain:

quote:

Why not ~ food?
Why not ~ clothing?
Why not ~ shelter?
Why not ~ cable tv?

These are legitimate questions to ask, especially the first three, because they are all essential to survival - moreso than healthcare - for every single person. Ask this FB person if they believe every citizen has a RIGHT to water, food, clothing and shelter.

Here is a Canadian government website for use by Canadians to see how long they have to wait for healthcare.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en.../programs/waittimes/

quote:

Here is a Canadian government website for use by Canadians to see how long they have to wait for healthcare.

Not bad. Average wait for colon cancer surgery only 84 days. I am sure Bernie would be fine with that. Hope it is not aggressive stage three.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Here is a Canadian government website for use by Canadians to see how long they have to wait for healthcare.

Not bad. Average wait for colon cancer surgery only 84 days. I am sure Bernie would be fine with that. Hope it is not aggressive stage three.

just to be clear, the average wait time for higher priority cases is nine days

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Why?
Why not ~ food?
Why not ~ clothing?
Why not ~ shelter?
Why not ~ cable tv?

You mean those aren't all enumerated rights in the bill of rights?
Don't tell the lefties, they'll want to add them.

True human rights exist simultaneously between all people. Life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness...

A right can not be defined as one that diminishes the rights of another. The link is no longer active, but Prof. Walter Williams wrote the following years ago...

quote:

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.

I've heard that before, but Walter Williams always amazes me at how succinct, accurate, and funny he can be all at the same time.

Rights versus Wishes
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew...icles/02/wishes.html

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

https://townhall.com/columnist...are-a-right-n1181702

quote:

Originally posted by Pal:
You may be right Para but I do think it can have an effect on others reading it. And they may use it as well.

I strongly suspect you won't be the pioneer to break through the FB barrier of common sense and actually influence anybody's views materially. More power to you for trying though, Mr. Quixote!

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just my opinion- you're wasting your time.

Yup, that whole arguing over the internet...

Yup, instead of enganging in Fakebook arguments, I'd just close your account and never get on that site again.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
I agree with Para. However, a right confers no obligation on others. To say one has a right to health care confers an obligation on another to provide healthcare, whether or not the provider desires to provide services.

A true right confers no obligation on another.

To argue otherwise is incorrect and exposes the individual arguing such as against freedom and for totalitarian dictates.

The bolded portion is probably the best response to a bumper sticker pseudo-principle. Distilled principle to counter bumper sticker scatacephally. That is a true art.

I'm just being the devil's advocate here.

I think we can agree that the right to free speech is a true right. And sometimes, the exercise of free speech obligates the government and, by proxy, the whole of society to protect the exercise of free speech by providing police escorts.

I am reminded of what Heinlein said about rights in Starship Troopers:
""Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it.""