Jocubus' forum posts

Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

[QUOTE="lazzordude"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]1. Yes, you CAN lump situations like that together. The argument in this thread for healthcare not being a right was that it required services from others. That's the case for firefighters, police officers and judges/lawyers too. The counter argument was that society can decide for itself what's a right and what's not. It seems to me like you just jumped sides.

2. Ok, so you just said that even with good reasoning thrown at you you still believe healthcare as a right is not a good idea. I'm getting the idea that's where every republican/libertarian is coming from.

11Marcel

no, you CANT lump situations together. we cant just say "well we sent troops into Vietnam so we should send troops into Afghanistan". thats dumb, you look at things at a case by case situation. things are different and have different costs and benefits.

When the starting point of a thread (and the continuing argument) is that something that requires a service of someone else can't be a right, then you can lump everything that requires a service from someone else together and say that those should not be rights according to the reasoning. Saying that healthcare isn't a right because it requires doctors automatically means the justice system working as it does isn't a right because it requires judges/lawyers. If make a claim about the definition of a right, then it has consequences for all other things we might consider to be a right.

You can't make an argument for one thing, and then dismiss the same argument you just used for a similar thing. You're saying all vegetables are green, and then when someone shows you a tomato you say we should look at it on a case by case basis. It's called hypocrisy. Unless of course you don't support the OP's original claim that a right can't require the services of others.

I don't understand why you are using those as counterexamples. Say, for the sake or argument, I don't believe anything requiring the service of others is a right. That would extend to the justice system (in the form of lawyers), education (in the form of teachers), etc. I only singled out healthcare because it is very relevant at the moment. I agree with what a few others have said in this thread- it is not a right but people like to throw the phrase "healthcare is a right" around pretty carelessly.

Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

[QUOTE="Jocubus"]Well consider this: what is the problem with conferring all the rights of marriage to same sex couples (tax advantages, visitation rights in hospitals, etc.) but calling it a different name (for example: same sex civil union)? It seems to me that the main problem is with semantics. MrGeezer

If the only problem is semantics, then people would be opposed to calling it a "marriage". If the word has enough meaning that it's worth fighting to keep people from using that word, then it's not JUST a word. And a "same sex civil union" would NOT be equal to a "marriage".

Furthermore, isn't it the case that a lot of laws apply to "marriages", but NOT "civil unions"? I'm pretty sure that there have been real cases of this causing people problems. That a "civil union" was treated the same as a marriage in practice, but only in that state. Couples have then gone out of state, and then been deprived of things such as hospital visits because now their civil union isn't recognized as having the same rights and benefits as a marriage.

Well I just chose "same sex civil union" for lack of creativity. My idea is find a different name for the relationship but with the EXACT same privileges as any regular marriage- and make it uniform across states. I think the sticking point is literally over the term "MARRIAGE." Some people believe it has religious connotations and simply don't want homosexual couples to "corrupt" the sanctity of the term (I don't necessarily believe this but I understand others do). I'm sure it would face far less resistance under a different title.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

It's sad that we live in the wealthiest nation in the world and yet we can't afford basic health care for everyone. How would you like it if you had low income with no insurance and any hospitalization can costs you thousands and thousands of dollars? Don't take your life for granted.

dual_boot
This isn't really the discussion at hand but I think you'll find many people actually could afford catastrophic health insurance if they didn't make cable, smart phones with unlimited plans, car upgrades and rims, high speed internet, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. a priority.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts
[QUOTE="lazzordude"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Hence the earlier statement clarifying specifically 'destitute' person. ;)warbmxjohn
hence the argument that health care is a luxury ;).

That is morally and ethically despicable. Healthcare is no longer a "luxury" this is not the dark ages. We have the capacitance to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, so on what grounds would one deny them that? Education should be a luxury as well by that logic. As well as police, firefighters...

I wouldn't go so far to say it is a luxury. Health care is definitely a necessity for some people however just because a person needs or wants something doesn't give them a "right" to it.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts
Well consider this: what is the problem with conferring all the rights of marriage to same sex couples (tax advantages, visitation rights in hospitals, etc.) but calling it a different name (for example: same sex civil union)? It seems to me that the main problem is with semantics.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="poptart"]

As taxpayers we contribute to the welfare of our country and the citizens within, and expect in return the country to provide the necessary welfare for our own well-being.

Frattracide

Well put. It's sad that those who do not need help at the moment, can't understand how anyone else could ever need help.

I really don't think this is about sympathy. Rather, the discussion seems to be about whether or not Healthcare can be defined as a right.

This.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

It's as much of a right as public education is.

If you are opposed to public healthcare, you might as well be opposed to public schools, police stations and fire halls.

Trinners
I'm not opposed to any of those things. I'm just questioning how any of those can be construed as rights. Other rights make sense- they only require others to avoid infringing upon your life. However I don't understand how one person can demand a service from another individual claiming that they have a right to it.
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts

[QUOTE="Jocubus"]

I don't understand how someone can have a "right" to another person's services.

trust_nobody

It's not a right it's a necessity.

This is really what I was arguing towards.

Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts
[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Jocubus"][QUOTE="MetallicaKings"] have u been living in a cave? of course they can!

So you are allowed to force people to do things against their will? That seems to infringe on their basic right to "liberty" doesn't it?

Like not kill their neighbors, like drive a particular speed, pay taxes, fight in a war?

I'm not sure these are all comparable. Avoiding murder, following speed limits, and paying taxes are voluntary concessions people make to live within a society. Fighting in a war is more applicable but I don't think people should be forced to do that either. That being said, I still don't see how you can demand a service from another person (in this case health care).
Avatar image for Jocubus
Jocubus

2812

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

6

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 Jocubus
Member since 2006 • 2812 Posts
[QUOTE="Jocubus"]

I don't understand how someone can have a "right" to another person's services.

MetallicaKings
have u been living in a cave? of course they can!

So you are allowed to force people to do things against their will? That seems to infringe on their basic right to "liberty" doesn't it?