Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Tea baggers take over Maine Repugs
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Maverick
Skeptic Friend

Sweden
385 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  11:03:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Maverick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's pretty amazing how they came up with lots of stupid ideas that would not benefit society at all, and they seem to think all those things are actually great.

And yes, I consider healthcare, as well as basic education, access to information and news, clean water and so on, to be rights, in well-organised, wealthy societies which can provide such services by contributions from everyone. Why would anyone want to live in a society that provides such services only to some? Why would we want to actively leave some people out, or behind? Why would anyone want a society where not everyone gets the chance to be educated, or to receive proper treatment for an illness or injury, or the chance to eat every day?

If we are to have a common society where we all contribute after ability, why should we leave out important services such as healthcare, or education? What kind of society would that be?

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  11:11:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Or is it that it's never okay for it to be legislated at any level, and communities "coming together" has to be entirely voluntary (in which case, it's not communities coming together, but people)?

I like this, I like it a lot.

Shit, I was in the middle of responding to Dave when I read Kil's
story and it Kiled me.
I am speechless for the moment. It's hard for me to be a hardass when reading someones personal heart felt story.

Actually Kil, about a year ago my job was in danger. Fortunately we pulled through. I do feel for you.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9665 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  11:24:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Originally posted by Kil
How is denying health care based on the ability to pay not an exercise in social Darwinism?

I am not denying that it would be an excercize in social Darwinism. The whole idea of social Darwinism is a new one for me to think about. Altruism is not one of my strong points. I don't know which side of the idea I will end up on yet. Go ahead and try to convice me to see your side. I promise to consider your thoughts.

Start with the Golden Rule.
Imagine yourself being in excrutiating pain for a few months from cancer. All your finacial means are depleted, so you can't even pay for pain killers, let alone the drugs that have a 75% chance of restoring you to full health. But no one will give it to you because you can't pay for it.
What if your child gets cancer, and you can't pay for it? he/she dies a slow death because no one else will help you pay for it.
What about watching your childhood friend, while you're unable to help him, except putting him out of his misery? Especially when you know there's a cure?



I don't want it to be forced on me to have to help out though.

It's about pooling the resources, and spreading out the cost over a longer time period. Universal health care is way cheaper than your private insurance scheme, because of rationalization in handling costs and administration. And of course, a government (or other organization) mandated to do this without profit certainly reduce the cost even more.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/11/2010 11:27:37
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  12:11:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As I've mentioned before, my health care through the VA is free. I don't bother with medicade (or medicare -- I don't know the difference), but I pay into it nevertheless. I do not complain about the $$ out of pocket from my modest Social Security check because I know that many others are reaping some benefit from it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm living in socialist paradise.

I feel that health care is a right that should be extended to all citizens, even the ones I despise.

The Teabaggers can go piss in their hats.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  12:22:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
....but anyway to get back to responding to Dave
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

I have a feeling that my opposing point of view comes from the fact that I was raised where these things were not rights,they had to be worked for or else we would DIE! It would be logisticly impossible for government to provide these things to us.

It might have been, then. But is it still impossible now?


Yes, still impossible. My hometown hasn't changed one bit in probably 70 years. That is the reason I still love visiting there. It would be considered paradise if it weren't covered in snow half of the year. The only thing government really has anything to do with is road construction. The only time you will see police is if there is a car accident.
It's called the food chain and I'm standing on top of it smiling.

Yup, that's the "I got mine, everyone else can fuck off" attitude that dominates among social darwinists. It stands in such stark contrast to the preamble of the Constitution that one might even call it "unamerican."

I hear ya Dave. You and Kil have given me much food for thought.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25971 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  12:43:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Yes, still impossible. My hometown hasn't changed one bit in probably 70 years. That is the reason I still love visiting there. It would be considered paradise if it weren't covered in snow half of the year. The only thing government really has anything to do with is road construction. The only time you will see police is if there is a car accident.
Sorry to hear that. Seems a waste if the town isn't pooling resources to do things like dig wells. Cheaper for everyone, and keeps a few of those damn kids employed.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  13:00:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Yes, still impossible. My hometown hasn't changed one bit in probably 70 years. That is the reason I still love visiting there. It would be considered paradise if it weren't covered in snow half of the year. The only thing government really has anything to do with is road construction. The only time you will see police is if there is a car accident.
Sorry to hear that. Seems a waste if the town isn't pooling resources to do things like dig wells. Cheaper for everyone, and keeps a few of those damn kids employed.


No, thats a good thing. Progress would destroy the natural beauty of the place. It's not really a town as much as it is a wide spot in the road next to a lake with a couple of taverns. Everyone has a well with beautiful uncontaminated water. It's realy a beautiful place. year round population.......about 200.....Memorial Day thru Labor Day.....probably 2000.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  13:22:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh, and by the way fellas. Seeing as how it has been suggested that I might be a sociopath twice in the past couple of weeks I'd like to give you some information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath
Cuz we know that Wiki knows everything.
I do not meet any of the criteria for being a sociopath.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  13:58:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
I don't know of any times this has happened. If it did I am sure the hospital would have Hell to pay.

But according to you they shouldn't have to, right? Because health care is not a right. Your words. If health care is not a right, the hospital cannot be at fault for turning away somebody who needs it. So which is it?

This is a good example of a time where the community would step up and help....and I'd be right there doing my part. I'm not completely heartless.

Great, but the question I am asking you is not whether the community would step up, but whether they should. If the community doesn't want to save that child, let him die right? Because health care is not a right according to you.

True in too many cases.

Yup. That's part of the problem right there.

You are using your own definition of "Right to life". I'd like to see other definitions.

What's wrong with the definition I give?


How does that fact that I am perfectly capable of taking care of my family without government assistance, Hell, I even have the skills to do it without electricity or running water, make me a sociopath?

And if people cannot, let them die, right? Living is not a right, health care is not a right, food is not a right, shelter is not a right. If you cannot procure them, well, sod off then. Crawl in a corner and die, preferably somewhere where I don't see. I'll take care of me and the people directly around me, you take care of you and your people. That is how what you write comes over to me, and while perhaps not completely sociopathic comes over as severely lacking in empathy.

What you are basically seem to be saying is: "Yes, it is horrible. I feel for them. Now what's for lunch?" To me, just saying that your sorry doesn't mean much if you don't want to act on that.

Am I putting your words in the most extreme scenario? Well yes I am. The reason we assert these rights is because we, as a society, have agreed at some point that we are better than that. That we have to act whenever these kinds of situations occur. That we feed the weaker in society, provide them with shelter and care. I think we're better for it.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  14:19:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
My wife and I work long hours and pay a good portion of our income for health care. It should be the responsibility of each family to do so. If communities want to come together to help those who can not afford health care on their own when they have a major problem then I think that is wonderful. I even help out with these kinds of things sometimes. I don't want it to be forced on me to have to help out though.

So it should be you who decides who deserves help and who doesn't? Because that's what this comes down too. Kid of your best friends gets cancer, you help. Kid of the neighbours gets cancer... Well, it was a brat anyway. And you're sure the neighbour's dog crapped in your yard last week. So sorry Bennie or Billy or Bob, or whatever you name was (I'd swear it was "Stupid Brat!" but that can't be right), not pitching in for you. You didn't make the cut.

I don't want people to make this decision on a case-by-case basis, because people are jerks 9 times out of 10. Given the number of people, especially the number of hard working but not well-to-do ones, in the part of town I live in, I'd probably have someone over collecting for a cancer treatment every week. Meaning that every time someone gets cancer, their immediate family has to set-up fund-raising actions instead of spending time with their loved one and then has to hope that I have money when they come collecting and don't have any unexpected payments to make for myself.

What you propose is a nice ideal, but that's all it is. It's not something that I would see could practically work.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  14:21:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Oh, and by the way fellas. Seeing as how it has been suggested that I might be a sociopath twice in the past couple of weeks I'd like to give you some information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath
Cuz we know that Wiki knows everything.
I do not meet any of the criteria for being a sociopath.



Okay, I'm sorry. I was overstating...



...


A bit...



Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  14:39:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
But according to you they shouldn't have to, right? Because health care is not a right. Your words. If health care is not a right, the hospital cannot be at fault for turning away somebody who needs it. So which is it?

You have pointed out a contradiction of my own philosophy that I need to re-evaluate.
Great, but the question I am asking you is not whether the community would step up, but whether they should. If the community doesn't want to save that child, let him die right? Because health care is not a right according to you.

They shouldn't be required to but they will. I know that most people are basicly good. Again I must re-evaluate my position.
What's wrong with the definition I give?

If I'm following you it seems you think that everything needed to sustain life should be provided by the government. I disagree. This is a position that I don't need to re-evaluate.
And if people cannot, let them die, right? Living is not a right, health care is not a right, food is not a right, shelter is not a right. If you cannot procure them, well, sod off then. Crawl in a corner and die, preferably somewhere where I don't see. I'll take care of me and the people directly around me, you take care of you and your people. That is how what you write comes over to me, and while perhaps not completely sociopathic comes over as severely lacking in empathy.

What you are basically seem to be saying is: "Yes, it is horrible. I feel for them. Now what's for lunch?" To me, just saying that your sorry doesn't mean much if you don't want to act on that.

This sounds terrible right? I see your point but everyones needs are never going to be fully taken care of.
Sounds like I'm lacking empathy? In certain cases you are damn right I lack empathy. My wife is in a line of work where she sees the worst of the worst of the lazy good for nothing people that are out there. I really do have no sympathy for certain people. People have to be trying to help themselves before I have sympathy for them. I hear horror stories every single night at dinner about these people. When my wife graduated college she was all full of hope that she could help people. After 15 years in her line of work she has developed contempt for these same people she once wanted to help. If it weren't for the children involved she would have left her career long ago.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  15:22:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
They shouldn't be required to but they will. I know that most people are basicly good. Again I must re-evaluate my position.

As far as I can see, people are only partially basically good. They will often do the right thing, but far to often they will not, based on petty arguments. I don't share your optimism that they would in a sufficient number of cases.


If I'm following you it seems you think that everything needed to sustain life should be provided by the government. I disagree. This is a position that I don't need to re-evaluate.

Sustain life at the most basic level, yes. I agree that this will be exploited by some bums. But personally, I rather have that than seeing hard-working folks he happen upon misfortune die because they run into a stroke of bad luck.

This sounds terrible right? I see your point but everyones needs are never going to be fully taken care of.

I don't think everyones needs need to be fully taken care of. Just to a sufficient degree that we don't let them die in the street. We shouldn't use government funds to give everybody their own villa, private jet and holidays.

Sounds like I'm lacking empathy? In certain cases you are damn right I lack empathy. My wife is in a line of work where she sees the worst of the worst of the lazy good for nothing people that are out there. I really do have no sympathy for certain people. People have to be trying to help themselves before I have sympathy for them. I hear horror stories every single night at dinner about these people. When my wife graduated college she was all full of hope that she could help people. After 15 years in her line of work she has developed contempt for these same people she once wanted to help. If it weren't for the children involved she would have left her career long ago.

I agree with you there. Problem is, whatever system you put into place, there will always be people exploiting it. Just as there will always be people who fall by the wayside. In the Netherlands on the one hand there are people who exploit social benefits, basically the lazy bums you describe above. While at the same time, there are people deserving those benefits, living below the poverty line because they cannot find their way through the bureaucracy to obtain those same benefits.

But this will always be the case. Whatever system you put in place, you will have people exploiting it and people falling through the cracks of it. No system will be perfect. In my system possibly Jimmy's father gets a benefit for sitting on his ass all they, but Jimmy gets his asthma meds. In your case, Jimmy's father has to get of his lazy bum, but the whole neighborhood knows Jimmy's father is a lazy bum so Jimmy will die unnecessarily because dad couldn't afford and people didn't want to give money to dad. Perhaps Jimmy's dad will be very good at hiding that he is a bum, so he'll trick you into giving him money because you think he just has a hard time. Whatever the system, there will be winners and losers in it.

We have to strike a balance here. Personally I rather err on the side of compassion.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Edited by - tomk80 on 05/11/2010 15:26:46
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25971 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  15:54:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

I see your point but everyones needs are never going to be fully taken care of.
It's not a matter of fully meeting everyone's needs. It's a matter of meeting everyone's needs minimally.

With a concerted, cooperative effort and not all that much money, we (as a species) could see to it that every man, woman and child on the planet has access to clothing, 1200 calories a day, clean water, a roof over their heads, some security, unbiased sources of news and education, and, yes, health care. This certainly will not "fully" meet all of their needs, but it will provide everyone with the opportunity to get the rest of their needs fulfilled. This wouldn't make everyone equal, but it would give everyone an equaler chance at meeting their potential.

I'm not talking about forcing these things on people (if you'd prefer to kill something to feed your family, fine), and I'm not talking about delivering these things to people (they might have to move to get them). I'm talking about publicly supported access to these basic needs, for everyone, with no shame or stigma attached. Don't feel like hunting? It should be no problem if you go to your local food bank and pick up a bunch of meals (after all, your taxes would be paying for them). The only reason this is act would be a problem now is that very few are willing to put up more resources than are needed for only the neediest of people, so that non-needy people using those resources would literally be taking food from babies. This would have to change.

I think that the only reasons this sort of utopia hasn't happened yet are greed and xenophobia.

And yes, there will always be people who won't appreciate that their basic needs are met, and feel irrationally entitled to more than their fair share. That doesn't mean they're less deserving of food, shelter, health care and the rest, it only means that they're assholes. It's unlikely we'll ever be able to breed the jerk genes out of Homo sapiens, but we don't need to let them drive our societal programs, either.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2010 :  16:58:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
unbiased sources of news and education


Alright Dave, you must be living in a fantasy world if you think this is possible.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.25 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000