Do you believe free health care (or at least virtually free health care) should be a basic human right? I personally do.
There's no such thing as free health care, I assume you're talking about universal health care. It takes resources (labor, equipment) which have to be provided at someone's expense, so it isn't free by any means. Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense.
[QUOTE=Noble;36369630]There's no such thing as free health care, I assume you're talking about universal health care. It takes resources (labor, equipment) which have to be provided at someone's expense, so it isn't free by any means. Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense.[/QUOTE]
" Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense."
As long as the moral benefit or relocating the resources justifies it, it's OK. It's OK to take $10,000 from a rich person with a $1 million per year income to save the life of someone who requires this money for a surgery.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369645]" Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense."
As long as the moral benefit or relocating the resources justifies it, it's OK. It's OK to take $10,000 from a rich person with a $1 million per year income to save the life of someone who requires this money for a surgery.[/QUOTE]
and here you go again with the goddamn "moral benefits", what the fuck does that even mean?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369645]" Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense."
As long as the moral benefit or relocating the resources justifies it, it's OK. It's OK to take $10,000 from a rich person with a $1 million per year income to save the life of someone who requires this money for a surgery.[/QUOTE]
In my view, if it's wrong for me to take someone's property (money) by force, then it has to be wrong for everyone else too. If it's morally wrong at the individual level then it's morally wrong at every level, including the state level.
Charity is good, but it must be voluntary, not mandated through force/threats of imprisonment.
[QUOTE=Cone;36369676]and here you go again with the goddamn "moral benefits", what the fuck does that even mean?[/QUOTE]
It's the reason why I support this. Utilitarian ethics. Far more advanced than the primitive moral codes, which evolved from self-assembled laissez-afire cultures.
The reactivity with which people of the old world defend their static and inefficient code system is astonishing. They don't understand the arguments, but they still keep on defending it.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36369729]In my view, if it's wrong for me to take someone's property (money) by force, then it has to be wrong for everyone else too. If it's morally wrong at the individual level then it's morally wrong at every level, including the state level.
Charity is good, but it must be voluntary, not mandated through force/threats of imprisonment.[/QUOTE]
See? That's exactly what I mean. A perfect example of the outdated reactionary society.
[QUOTE=Noble;36369729]In my view, if it's wrong for me to take someone's property (money) by force, then it has to be wrong for everyone else too. If it's morally wrong at the individual level then it's morally wrong at every level, including the state level.
Charity is good, but it must be voluntary, not mandated through force/threats of imprisonment.[/QUOTE]
i'm going with genpol on this one. healthcare should be a universal right, simply because acquiring money in this world can sometimes be down to little more than luck. nobody chooses to be born in a poor family without healthcare, and without a view for a viable education - nor can they be born into an intellectually stimulating environment where they can acquire success off of the back of the capitalist system.
everybody has the right to be brought in this world, nobody should suffer health problems simply because they have less money than somebody else, it's just not fair.
Why do you think that? What do you mean by [B]free [/B]healthcare? What is virtually free healthcare? How is it free? Who will fund it if it is free?
[QUOTE=Robbi;36369823]Why do you think that? What do you mean by [B]free [/B]healthcare? What is virtually free healthcare? How is it free? Who will fund it if it is free?[/QUOTE]
he means that it would come entirely from your taxes that you already pay. the UK has free healthcare, and is largely considered one of the best healthcare services in the world; a proportionate taxing system (the rich pay more towards healthcare, while those who make little to nothing would pay very little in comparison) is a very easy solution to creating 'free' healthcare.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369861]he means that it would come entirely from your taxes that you already pay. the UK has free healthcare, and is largely considered one of the best healthcare services in the world; a proportionate taxing system (the rich pay more towards healthcare, while those who make little to nothing would pay very little in comparison) is a very easy solution to creating 'free' healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Not only the taxes that you pay. There should be a progressive tax system in all the countries. The top should be taxed far more than the bottom.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369861]he means that it would come entirely from your taxes that you already pay. the UK has free healthcare, and is largely considered one of the best healthcare services in the world; a proportionate taxing system (the rich pay more towards healthcare, while those who make little to nothing would pay very little in comparison) is a very easy solution to creating 'free' healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Then it's not really free healthcare if its funded by taxes.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369872]The top should be taxed far more than the bottom.[/QUOTE]
Hah, why? Why should someone because he's been more successful than some other guy pay more?
Also you haven't answered [B]why[/B] you think this.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369872]Not only the taxes that you pay. There should be a progressive tax system in all the countries. The top should be taxed far more than the bottom.[/QUOTE]
i agree entirely. thats pretty much what i was trying to get at anyway
[QUOTE=Robbi;36369875]Then it's not really free healthcare if its funded by taxes.[/QUOTE]
the semantics of the word 'free' is not the subject of debate, sadly.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369889]the semantics of the word 'free' is not the subject of debate, sadly.[/QUOTE]
That's right because there is no such thing as free healthcare. It's called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care]universal healthcare[/url].
[QUOTE=Robbi;36369875]Then it's not really free healthcare if its funded by taxes.
Hah, why? Why should someone because he's been more successful than some other guy pay more?
Also you haven't answered [B]why[/B] you think this.[/QUOTE]
"Hah, why? Why should someone because he's been more successful than some other guy pay more?
Also you haven't answered why you think this. "
Because of the law of diminishing marginal utility of income. Taking an equal amount of money from the top makes it lose less marginal utility than taking the same amount from the bottom.
Proven to be beneficial in practically every nation that uses it and has the resources to actually pull it off properly. America's disturbing chimera abomination is hardly a good example to go by for anything.
Think of it this way, everyone involved in healthcare still gets money (some less than they can get away with in less regulated countries, but still), and many businesses benefit from having healthy customers and workers; the customer has more money to spend on nice things rather than having their wallet ripped out via their arse by extortionate prices and business practices, and lives longer to work and spend money.
Canada just has universal health care because they tax you up the ass?
[QUOTE=Robbi;36369875]
Hah, why? Why should someone because he's been more successful than some other guy pay more?
Also you haven't answered [B]why[/B] you think this.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think wealth = success?
Take a look at Mitt Romney, his father started up a bank which he inherited. The only success he's had is not running it into the ground. I know janitors who've worked harder than that bozo.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Secondly, you have to use society to become rich. If it weren't for the janitors or the folks paving the roads you would never become rich. Why is it such a bad thing to pay a little bit back to those who have enabled you?
[QUOTE=Noble;36369630]There's no such thing as free health care, I assume you're talking about universal health care. It takes resources (labor, equipment) which have to be provided at someone's expense, so it isn't free by any means. Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense.[/QUOTE]
So we should scrap the military? I'm forced to pay for something that is providing services for someone other than myself. While I prefer protection, I don't get anything from invading Iraq. And what if I think I'm capable of defending myself anyway? I do have the right to bear arms. I don't want a military service protecting me; I shouldn't have to pay for it!
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Although I do think there should be corporate options in addition for unnecessary things like boner pills and hair replacement.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369732]It's the reason why I support this. Utilitarian ethics. Far more advanced than the primitive moral codes, which evolved from self-assembled laissez-afire cultures.
The reactivity with which people of the old world defend their static and inefficient code system is astonishing. They don't understand the arguments, but they still keep on defending it.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory is tremendously badly defended (although this is true of most normative ethical theories). Most arguments in favour of it are merely stubborn restatements. I'd like to hear your arguments for it, since you seem so sure other ethical theories are so "primitive".
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
This is coming from someone who basically had the same staunch view of utilitarianism being the only good moral theory; but I outgrew it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36379474]To be honest, utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory is tremendously badly defended (although this is true of most normative ethical theories). Most arguments in favour of it are merely stubborn restatements. I'd like to hear your arguments for it, since you seem so sure other ethical theories are so "primitive".
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
This is coming from someone who basically had the same staunch view of utilitarianism being the only good moral theory; but I outgrew it.[/QUOTE]
Because utilitarianism allows for the most rational moral decisions to be made by applying mathematical cost-benefit analysis. One can calculate the net moral benefit of an action by subtracting the moral benefit from the moral cost. If the moral benefit outweighs the moral cost, the action should be taken.
In other words, utilitarianism allows for the most moral benefit to be produced.
Also, nice Ad-Hominem variant:
[b]Ad Hominem Variants[/b]
...
[b]YOU'LL GET OVER IT:[/b]
[i]"I used to think that way when I was your age."
"As you mature emotionally (or mentally, or spiritually), you will grow out of your present way of thinking, and you will eventually come around to my point of view."
"You're new here, aren't you?"[/i]
...
[b]Source:[/b] [url]http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html[/url]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36378317]What makes you think wealth = success?
Take a look at Mitt Romney, his father started up a bank which he inherited. The only success he's had is not running it into the ground. I know janitors who've worked harder than that bozo.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Secondly, you have to use society to become rich. If it weren't for the janitors or the folks paving the roads you would never become rich. Why is it such a bad thing to pay a little bit back to those who have enabled you?[/QUOTE]
How do you know he doesn't work hard? Have you ran a business? You begging the question of this debate by pointing out bullshit with no facts. People are stuck in this myth that wealthy people didn't work hard and it was all given to them. I know people who have started with nothing and make well into the six figures.
And no, there is nothing wrong to giving back to society, but being forced to through taxes isn't the right way in my opinion.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36380859]Because utilitarianism allows for the most rational moral decisions to be made by applying mathematical cost-benefit analysis. One can calculate the net moral benefit of an action by subtracting the moral benefit from the moral cost. If the moral benefit outweighs the moral cost, the action should be taken.
In other words, utilitarianism allows for the most moral benefit to be produced.[/QUOTE]
That's question begging. It's not completely rational because there's a step missing: proof that utility is the only intrinsic moral good. If we all believed that it was the case, there wouldn't even [I]be[/I] ethical disagreement because we'd all universally adopt utilitarianism. I don't think utility is the only intrinsically valuable thing in the world, so your argument falls a long way short of persuading anyone/proving anything. This is what I mean about defences of utilitarianism; they're always just restatements of the same assumption which objectors have already said they disagree with...
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
also, sorry about the ad hom
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36381002]How do you know he doesn't work hard? Have you ran a business? You begging the question of this debate by pointing out bullshit with no facts. People are stuck in this myth that wealthy people didn't work hard and it was all given to them. I know people who have started with nothing and make well into the six figures.
And no, there is nothing wrong to giving back to society, but being forced to through taxes isn't the right way in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
[I]Obviously[/I] there are a great many people in the world who haven't made their riches without exploitation; that's the point he's trying to make. I'm sure there's plenty of wealthy people who genuinely do deserve their gains, but that's not universally the case, is it now?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36382162]That's question begging. It's not completely rational because there's a step missing: proof that utility is the only intrinsic moral good. If we all believed that it was the case, there wouldn't even [I]be[/I] ethical disagreement because we'd all universally adopt utilitarianism. I don't think utility is the only intrinsically valuable thing in the world, so your argument falls a long way short of persuading anyone/proving anything. This is what I mean about defences of utilitarianism; they're always just restatements of the same assumption which objectors have already said they disagree with...
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
also, sorry about the ad hom
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[I]Obviously[/I] there are a great many people in the world who haven't made their riches without exploitation; that's the point he's trying to make. I'm sure there's plenty of wealthy people who genuinely do deserve their gains, but that's not universally the case, is it now?[/QUOTE]
True, but why should all the wealthy people pay for the few who exploit?
Edit:
Before we go any further, what do you/everyone here consider wealthy?
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;36379127]So we should scrap the military? I'm forced to pay for something that is providing services for someone other than myself. While I prefer protection, I don't get anything from invading Iraq. And what if I think I'm capable of defending myself anyway? I do have the right to bear arms. I don't want a military service protecting me; I shouldn't have to pay for it![/QUOTE]
Yes, I actually agree with that. I don't think there's any moral justification for the state to take your money by force in the first place. It doesn't matter if what they use the stolen money on happens to benefit me in some way, because a valid debt contract isn't created as a result of the voluntary actions of another person coincidentally happening to benefit me.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36382162]That's question begging. It's not completely rational because there's a step missing: proof that utility is the only intrinsic moral good. If we all believed that it was the case, there wouldn't even [I]be[/I] ethical disagreement because we'd all universally adopt utilitarianism. I don't think utility is the only intrinsically valuable thing in the world, so your argument falls a long way short of persuading anyone/proving anything. This is what I mean about defences of utilitarianism; they're always just restatements of the same assumption which objectors have already said they disagree with...
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
also, sorry about the ad hom
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[I]Obviously[/I] there are a great many people in the world who haven't made their riches without exploitation; that's the point he's trying to make. I'm sure there's plenty of wealthy people who genuinely do deserve their gains, but that's not universally the case, is it now?[/QUOTE]
But there are many forms of utilitarianism. I don't believe that utility is the only intrinsic moral good, but rather the cost-benefit analysis that utilitarianism uses. I believe that all kind of moral benefits and drawbacks have to be analyzed, not just utility.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36378317]Secondly, you have to use society to become rich. If it weren't for the janitors or the folks paving the roads you would never become rich. Why is it such a bad thing to pay a little bit back to those who have enabled you?[/QUOTE]
That's nonsense. Society is a group of individuals interacting with each other. No other individual in the society has the right to take away someone else's inalienable rights. A majority doesn't either, because if it's wrong for one individual to violate another's inalienable rights, it doesn't magically become right when two people do it, or 200, or 200,000. "Inalienable" means they can't be taken away, not by one person, two people, or any number of people. You have a right to interact with other individuals, and a right to refuse to interact with others too. However no one has the right to prevent other individuals from interacting, if they freely choose to do so. Individuals in society do not have any right to own or control the other members, and they don't have a right to coerce a debt out them for simply interacting with the group (because again, they don't have the right to prevent other individuals from interacting if they freely choose to do so- this is an inalienable right). No one owes anything to society or is obligated to "pay back" a non-existent debt simply for interacting with the other individuals in a group.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36382490]But there are many forms of utilitarianism. I don't believe that utility is the only intrinsic moral good, but rather the cost-benefit analysis that utilitarianism uses. I believe that all kind of moral benefits and drawbacks have to be analyzed, not just utility.[/QUOTE]
All utilitarian theories dictate that utility as the only moral good. There are some related theories, for example justice-adjusted utilitarianism, but that just attaches a multiplier to utility based on whether utility is gained justly or not.
It sounds like you're confused with consequentialism, which is a normative schematic to build an ethical theory out of. You combine it with a axiological theory, and a complete normative ethical theory pops out (hopefully). Utilitarianism is consequentialism + hedonism. If you don't think utility isn't the only moral good, [I]you are not utilitarian.[/I] If you think there's more than one intrinsic moral good, you're a pluralist, and there's absolutely no literature which suggests utilitarianism and pluralism are the same thing. They're incompatible.
Pluralism has a huge host of problems all of its own, however.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36382209]True, but why should all the wealthy people pay for the few who exploit?[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think they should. I don't think anyone should pay anything they don't want to. In a system where this is the case, exploitation would be a great deal more difficult.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36383074]All utilitarian theories dictate that utility as the only moral good. There are some related theories, for example justice-adjusted utilitarianism, but that just attaches a multiplier to utility based on whether utility is gained justly or not.
It sounds like you're confused with consequentialism, which is a normative schematic to build an ethical theory out of. You combine it with a axiological theory, and a complete normative ethical theory pops out (hopefully). Utilitarianism is consequentialism + hedonism. If you don't think utility isn't the only moral good, [I]you are not utilitarian.[/I] If you think there's more than one intrinsic moral good, you're a pluralist, and there's absolutely no literature which suggests utilitarianism and pluralism are the same thing. They're incompatible.
Pluralism has a huge host of problems all of its own, however.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Well, I don't think they should. I don't think anyone should pay anything they don't want to. In a system where this is the case, exploitation would be a great deal more difficult.[/QUOTE]
That's why we need some sort of compromise between universal healthcare and still enabling private insurance companies, without the huge tax on the companies.
Canada here, while our healthcare is "free" we pay a shit load of stupid taxes and have fun waiting for hours in the hospital.
On a moral level I'm leaning towards not supporting it. Why is [I]your[/I] health a human right? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I never really delved super deep into the logistics of it but I'd assume dollar for dollar the US system of healthcare is cheaper on the tax payer (well since they aren't paying the taxes) so I'd prefer that system. It revolves around personal responsibility rather than others unjustly carrying your dead weight.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36383074]All utilitarian theories dictate that utility as the only moral good. There are some related theories, for example justice-adjusted utilitarianism, but that just attaches a multiplier to utility based on whether utility is gained justly or not.
It sounds like you're confused with consequentialism, which is a normative schematic to build an ethical theory out of. You combine it with a axiological theory, and a complete normative ethical theory pops out (hopefully). Utilitarianism is consequentialism + hedonism. If you don't think utility isn't the only moral good, [I]you are not utilitarian.[/I] If you think there's more than one intrinsic moral good, you're a pluralist, and there's absolutely no literature which suggests utilitarianism and pluralism are the same thing. They're incompatible.
Pluralism has a huge host of problems all of its own, however.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Well, I don't think they should. I don't think anyone should pay anything they don't want to. In a system where this is the case, exploitation would be a great deal more difficult.[/QUOTE]
Utilitarian calculus was still made and adapted to be used with many intrinsic values. I'm not a supporter of the utilitarian philosophy, but I approve the use of utilitarian calculus. Utilitarian calculus wasn't made to be used only with utility as being the only intrinsic value.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.