|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 24 2012 05:52 TATTOO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:44 TATTOO wrote:On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 04:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding. So you are okay with your rights being violated? And this is somehow an argument against the constitution? UK doesnt even have free speech. Your ignorance is astounding. The UK has freedom of speech. And yes, I'm okay with rights being violated. Prison sentences are a violation of freedom of movement. Defamation laws are a violation of freedom of speech. Even in the United States, constitutional rights are violated on a daily basis for reasons that the vast majority of the population agree with. + Show Spoiler +The way rights are designed in most representative republics is based around social contract theory. Rights are not actual forces they are ideas that are supported because we feel them to be good, neither hobbes or locke even attempted to argue ther existance in actuallity. the idea is that they are conditions for you which are legally endowned as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. the only way one could believe your rights are being violated when being justly incarserated is if they felt their rights are godgiven not soley legal. you loose your right to your contructual rights when you violate the contract thus your rights are not being violated. Actually Hobbes specifically wrote about the fact that in the state of nature (lack of society), you have a right to everything, and you enter into the social contract and give up your right to everything because it is in your best interest overall. Furthermore, both wrote about natural rights, which are separate and not given to you by law. + Show Spoiler +yes but locke does not make a logical arguement for the existance of natural rights for obvious reasons, he argues for their existance based on the fact that it would be nice for them to exist. He does argue for them but, but he was not foolish enough to attempt to explain them with a logical foundation. It all depends on your own epistemological views of course, i personally do not believe that rights exist, but i do respect them because i feel their is much to be gained by doing do and that others around me ought to aswell.
And what about Hobbes' argument?
|
On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life.
Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed.
|
On March 24 2012 05:55 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The national debt is around $15 trillion. I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
Unfunded liabilities are defined as "transfer payments" and so aren't counted in the national debt figures. Current unfunded liabilities exceeds $100 trillion. Which is why Americans are making a big deal about trying to cut entitlement spending, it will be necessary eventually.
|
On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed.
You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious?
|
On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious?
Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life.
|
On March 24 2012 05:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:52 TATTOO wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:44 TATTOO wrote:On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 04:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding. So you are okay with your rights being violated? And this is somehow an argument against the constitution? UK doesnt even have free speech. Your ignorance is astounding. The UK has freedom of speech. And yes, I'm okay with rights being violated. Prison sentences are a violation of freedom of movement. Defamation laws are a violation of freedom of speech. Even in the United States, constitutional rights are violated on a daily basis for reasons that the vast majority of the population agree with. + Show Spoiler +The way rights are designed in most representative republics is based around social contract theory. Rights are not actual forces they are ideas that are supported because we feel them to be good, neither hobbes or locke even attempted to argue ther existance in actuallity. the idea is that they are conditions for you which are legally endowned as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. the only way one could believe your rights are being violated when being justly incarserated is if they felt their rights are godgiven not soley legal. you loose your right to your contructual rights when you violate the contract thus your rights are not being violated. Actually Hobbes specifically wrote about the fact that in the state of nature (lack of society), you have a right to everything, and you enter into the social contract and give up your right to everything because it is in your best interest overall. Furthermore, both wrote about natural rights, which are separate and not given to you by law. + Show Spoiler +yes but locke does not make a logical arguement for the existance of natural rights for obvious reasons, he argues for their existance based on the fact that it would be nice for them to exist. He does argue for them but, but he was not foolish enough to attempt to explain them with a logical foundation. It all depends on your own epistemological views of course, i personally do not believe that rights exist, but i do respect them because i feel their is much to be gained by doing do and that others around me ought to aswell. And what about Hobbes' argument?
the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance.
|
On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life.
No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything).
|
On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life.
How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal?
Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense.
True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.
Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are.
No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything).
According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist.
the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance.
That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical.
|
On March 24 2012 06:06 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything).
So humanity shouldn't have any sort of drive to improve and reach greater heights? A natural part of human existence is the pursuit of a better human experience. Why such low standards for where humanity should end up? Humanity is ambitious. We are always trying to reach higher, do more. Look at humanity 1000 years ago. What if everyone since then had hopes of humanity purely based on what we already had?
|
Stop calling it Obamacare. I don't understand why everyone is so derogatory to President Obama.
|
It is constitutional (which is to be expected given the broadness of the wording of the constitution). Whether or not the Supreme Court will actually recognize that and whether or not the measure will actually help are different things.
|
On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. Show nested quote +No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. Show nested quote +the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical.
nono ur right, its very logical to have rights in the way that they positively affect us. the point is that neither tried to argue that rights exisit in actuallity, and that humans by being humans do posses rights. humans have rights because we feel it is in line with our best sensibilities so we ought have them and enforce them. We do not enforce and defend them becuase we feel humans naturally posses them since one can not seem to give a logical arguement of why this may be the case, whether or not if its true.
|
On March 24 2012 06:17 SuperPro wrote:
Stop calling it Obamacare. I don't understand why everyone is so derogatory to President Obama.
Well they're derogatory because he's the President and people like pointing fingers.
As for the name, I hate it too, but just because I think it sounds stupid.
|
On March 24 2012 06:22 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:17 SuperPro wrote:
Stop calling it Obamacare. I don't understand why everyone is so derogatory to President Obama. Well they're derogatory because he's the President and people like pointing fingers. As for the name, I hate it too, but just because I think it sounds stupid.
Its also shorter and easier to say than the actual name of the bill.
|
On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. Show nested quote +No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. Show nested quote +the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical.
Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die.
Conservatives are only at the top? Really?
|
On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really?
Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional.
If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today?
And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top.
|
On March 24 2012 06:17 SuperPro wrote:
Stop calling it Obamacare. I don't understand why everyone is so derogatory to President Obama.
I don't understand how it's derogatory? He campaigned on it, pushed for it, and signed it into law, and it's easier to say then the Affordable Care Act. Why are people so bothered by the term?
|
On March 24 2012 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really? Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional. If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today? And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top.
"Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are."
Using the wiki definition which I agree with "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans.' whats yours?
Humans would absolutely be alive without healthcare. How is that a fallacy?
|
On March 24 2012 06:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:17 SuperPro wrote:
Stop calling it Obamacare. I don't understand why everyone is so derogatory to President Obama. I don't understand how it's derogatory? He campaigned on it, pushed for it, and signed it into law, and it's easier to say then the Affordable Care Act. Why are people so bothered by the term?
There's an annoying trend for Americans to nickname everything. "Totmom", "_____gate", "Obamacare". Call it personal annoyance, but I can't stand how the media attaches some tacky name onto everything.
|
On March 24 2012 06:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:25 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:04 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 06:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 06:00 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:
[quote]
Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world.
How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life. Yet somehow we are alive today even though healthcare hasnt always existed. You deserve to be smacked across the face for how stupid this comment is. I mean really, can you possibly be serious? Says the guy who believes health care is needed for life. How is it not? If you don't have it, you die or are permanently injured in a life-changing way from a wide variety of things. What, do you think that people just magically survive when they contract a horrible disease or are mauled by an animal? Healthcare, in some form, has existed since humans have. I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "universal healthcare hasn't always existed", since that makes you sound like you're actually saying something that makes sense. True, universal healthcare hasn't always existed. And guess what? Countless people throughout human history have died or had their lives significantly worsened from diseases or injuries that could have been easily cured or treated if they merely had access to affordable healthcare. I don't know why you and conservatives across America want us to regress as a society, but most of the world wants to actually progress towards something better for all humanity.Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are. No it isn't. Everything dies, and that isn't a violation of a right to life. You don't need products to live, even for one second. They prolong life, which has nothing to do with living. Someone can naturally die at 20 or 80 and you wouldn't say the 20 year old was denied their right to life. Life is life, not length of life, or quality. Here is the wikipedia definition of life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life. If you're going to argue that healthcare is necessary for life, you are arguing that any currently assumed living creature without healthcare isn't alive (trees, plants, animals, everything). According to this logic it's ok for me to murder you because I'm not taking away your right to life. And yes, my wording was poor. Healthcare is necessary for continuing life, not for life to exist. the same point stands true. the state of liberty in the state of nature is limited to what you can do as a human being, your rights reach as far as your ability, you have the right to what you can have. HObbes view on natural rights is one in the same as lock in the sense that they are unable to make a concice logical arguement to support their existance. That's exactly the point. Your rights exist for whatever you are capable of, and that is what constitutes a right in the state of nature - whatever you can do. The government puts a limit on what you can do. Thus it takes away a natural right. I don't see how this isn't a logical argument. It's pretty simple and it's pretty logical. Health care isn't need to continue life. You can use it to keep people from dying, your prolonging a persons life. But if all forms of healthcare were whipped out, we wouldn't all die. Conservatives are only at the top? Really? Either we have very different definitions of what healthcare is, or you are delusional. If you went back in human history and removed all types of healthcare that have ever existed, do you really think humanity would be alive today? And stop with the logical fallacies. They make you sound like a prick. I never said that conservatives were only at the top. "Actually, I have a damn good guess as to why conservatives want this. It's so they can keep their cozy positions at the top of society and take advantage of the rest of the world like the greedy bastards that you all are." Using the wiki definition which I agree with "Health care (or healthcare) is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans.' whats yours? Humans would absolutely be alive without healthcare. How is that a fallacy?
If we never figured out bathing we would be fucked.
The government requires that people do things that could leave them unhealthy, it is its duty to do the best it can to make sure they're not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
