Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

Right.... you do know that Mankiw supported his declaration that health care was a normal good? I mean, I read your article, did you read my sources? Not only that, but citing an expert's authority is hardly fallacious, logically, if somebody is better educated than I am then their opinion will hold more weight than mine will, even if their arguments aren't explicit.

Well, ok, but what kind of healthcare do they have a right to? Herbal remedies? A quick cut? Chemo therapy? A combination of methods? All of that plus plastic surgery to correct the damage? Follow ups from an oncologist? Psychological therapy for those related to a cancer sufferer and for the sufferer him/herself? I do not believe in a positive right to life. Hmm... interesting, I would call food a commodity. Do you support a universal food system that provides food for all freely? To me, such an idea sounds absurd, and I'd rather have a private food system like the ones I see in place right now.

The man is known for being one of the best minds in the field for the 20th century, he revolutionized conceptions of our ideas, and even invented a new statistical method that has even been applied to fields outside of his such as physics. He even taught a number of other Nobel Prize winners as well, and was the major thinker of one of the top schools in economics. He was a popular author, a presidential advisor and was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a National Medal of Science. It is arguable that he was a crackpot, but he was also a genius.


Where the heck do you even see that I am a Christian?? You pulled that out of nowhere. Not only that, but Christianity is not a governmental position, there are Christian anarchists you know, and Christian anarcho-capitalists, and so on and so forth. Heck, if you look at the sermon on the mount or any Christian teaching, you will note that the emphasis is upon personal morality, not so much acts of government.

I believe that everyone has a right to life and so does just about everyone on this planet. The UN Declaration of Human Rights was accepted by every member state including your country and Iran, China, Syria.

If people cannot afford food, they should be given food by the government. I believe your government does this. To suggest otherwise is frankly immoral in my opinion and tantamount to advocating manslaughter.

Would you advocate letting millions of people starve because the "market" dictates that they have failed to provide for themselves and are therefore less deserving of life than wealthy people?

You can replace starving people with sick people for the same point to be made.

You clearly state above that you do not think people have a positive right to life, did you not?

Seems like your a bit angry or agitated Awesomelyglorious wanna tell us why??

Denying the right to medical treatment is wrong, doctors take an oath to do no harm to the patient by not treating because of insurance they are doing harm so really our doctors should be put in jail. Also we have rights to health care it is being denied illegally.

Ok, go on believing that. I think that I have a right to myself, and I think that your notion of rights conflicts with mine. Therefore, I cannot accept your notion of rights. I don't care what other people say, if rights are universal, then can Harry say what rights I have? Then why can the UN?


We don't have a universal food service though, which was my point. Food is a commodity. To be honest, I would not mind advocating manslaughter, but only because I am a misanthrope.

Oh, I could, but that wasn't my point. The "market" includes your actions, so if the poor starve, then you are part of the decision to kill them too, so doubt think that a market is some magical thing abstracted from the human beings making them up.


Ok, but you aren't making a point.

Right, I do not think that such a right exists, I think that a negative right is more correct.

Let's see, because I dislike people in general, and I certainly dislike people who I think seem clueless. Heck, I get the label of ideologue first, but most of the arguments against mine seem naively ideological. I mean, heck, I have even given ideas that suit the moral imperatives being put forward, like Singapore's health care system, or the idea of health care vouchers(I was using the term stipend but voucher is the term used more often).

Umm.... that does not make sense. Not healing a patient isn't doing a harm.

If your government does not happen to agree then who will take it to court? It isn't illegal if they'll never get caught.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 17 Aug 2008, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So you agree that this world is all about "Me Me Me" that its ok for others to starve as you let your greed get the better of you/

You have a right to form your own opinion on these issues but I also have the right to disagree. I am an anarchist and I support the idea that we do not need a market at all.

I think our lives would be better without money and commodities.

However this is unlikely to happen because people appear to be too greedy and selfish as you so aptly demonstrate.

If the US's economists are so good, then why is your economy in such a bad condition?

9 trillion dollars of government debt and an equal amount of private debt does not appear to be a healthy economy.

Should the police and army also be privatised?

Do we need a government at all if everyone is "responsible" for their own welfare?

Because economists don't run economies. And in the USA, contrary to what narrowminded bigots might think, the economistst actually ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER! WOW! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT??????

There is no such thing as a unified opinion that can be attributed to "US economists".

That doesn't answer my question. Why is your economy doing so poorly? Is the government incompetent?

Also what is bigoted about pointing out the obvious.

Also, I think we should all be learning Mandarin in school.

Last edited by corroonb on 17 Aug 2008, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very good points you guys seem to forget the government is a tool of the people. So what you are saying is people don't care about other people is that it??? Or are you trying to say you just want to do your own thing without consideration to the negative affects you have when its all about you and no one else??

Last edited by philosopherBoi on 17 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, it is ok for others to starve if I decide it is. It is ok for them not to if you decide contrary to me. There is a liberty to choose.

Hmm... I consider myself an anarchist of a different nature. Market anarchist, if we do not have markets then we do not have freedom.


And to seek a world without them, we seek either the abolition of freedom, or of choice. People want different things, ergo, money and commodities.


And if you have to free the world of greed and selfishness, then don't you have to free the world of liberty to be greedy and selfish as well? I don't mind a world free of greed and selfishness, but I cannot abide by the world that eliminates the freedom to choose greed and selfishness. If you have to dictate the people's desires so much, then how can you really propose anarchy?


Nobody listens to them. The political system is not designed to create right answers, only expedient ones.


It is not that unhealthy, have you looked at how many other nations have lots of government debt?

I'd like that.

And here you are calling yourself the anarchist? I do not want one.

Yes it is, another good argument for not having universal healthcare.

Just proves my point the spending needs to be addressed when its finished we will have enough money for universal health care oh I have a great idea lets get rid of half the military ^_^ don't really need it.

There is no such thing as "the people" only individuals. What I am saying is that other people are other people, they cannot be reduced to a blob as they are heterogenous, and I do not want to make a choice for them. You seem to pretend that I am only choosing for myself if I want a governmental action, but you know I am not and declare that explicitly when saying that the government has power over "the people". I have already attacked democracy for not being representative of the people, must I do that again? It is absurd that a majority of people tell the minority what they must do, and certainly more so that a minority tell the majority what they must do.

My anarchy is rational. If all people were rational agents, then complete anarchy would be workable. However most people are entirely irrational. They would rather kill or rape than ask or bargain. This is our species unfortunately. I see the government as a tool of the people and in most countries this is so. In France the government fears the people, in the US the people fear the government.