"Health Care is Not a Right" (LONG)

[bbrown]

Health Care Is Not A Right

by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit -- to a certain type of action on your part and its result -- not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history -- and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it -- period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens -- to their individual rights -- to their real rights -- in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights -- and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism (this is the right name for Clinton's medical plan) is clearly evident in any field at all -- you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops -- it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course -- but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services -- the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? -- having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen -- it is already starting to happen -- under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now -- the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Clinton Administration's new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it -- under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service -- as e.g. in Somalia -- neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off -- charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Clinton calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still -- though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession." [The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, NAL Books, c 1988 by the Estate of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.]

"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."

The Clinton plan will finish off quality medicine in this country -- because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope -- for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us -- is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights -- their real rights in this issue -- their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against the Clinton plan, in my opinion, depends on the doctors speaking out against the plan -- but not only on practical grounds -- rather, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self- preservation. If they can do it, all of us will still have a chance. I hope it is not already too late. Thank you.

[bbrown]

That is the best statement for my position that I've seen.

Bill

[kaaryn]

Wow. Now, THAT was a thought-provoking article. Agree with it all or not, there's a lot to chew on in there. The hair cut analogy is actually pretty good...

[Zanoog]

Too much.

:sad

[Kitka]

I think comparing health to a haircut is absurd. no, I do not find it a compelling argument. I find it a straw man argument. Doctors defending their moral right to make a shitload of money? Nah. Can't get worked up over that. Universal care would not make them serve any more patients than they already do. It would just means that if they needed a test or procedure done they would have paid taxes toward it and could get it. Doctors will still be able to pay their mortgage.

This article again operates on your incorrect assumption that socialized health care is this magical plan where you and I will pay the same but all the deadbeats in the country will use the services. Get it through your heads - EVERYONE WILL PAY TAXES (UNDER ONE PLAN) OR PAY A PREMIUM (UNDER ANOTHER) TO GET TO PARTICIPATE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It's dishonest to continue to argue that it's charity.

It's immoral to deny someone life if you can give it to them. Any argument to the contrary is selfish to me. That's what universal health care is about.

[AnnEsthesia]

I think comparing health to a haircut is absurd. no, I do not find it a compelling argument. I find it a straw man argument. Doctors defending their moral right to make a shitload of money? Nah. Can't get worked up over that. Universal care would not make them serve any more patients than they already do. It would just means that if they needed a test or procedure done they would have paid taxes toward it and could get it. Doctors will still be able to pay their mortgage.

This article again operates on your incorrect assumption that socialized health care is this magical plan where you and I will pay the same but all the deadbeats in the country will use the services. Get it through your heads - EVERYONE WILL PAY TAXES (UNDER ONE PLAN) OR PAY A PREMIUM (UNDER ANOTHER) TO GET TO PARTICIPATE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It's dishonest to continue to argue that it's charity.

It's immoral to deny someone life if you can give it to them. Any argument to the contrary is selfish to me. That's what universal health care is about.

Amen!

[Saguaro]

The right to life as defined by this guy,is his opinion. What would you call it if a man needs a certain medication to save his life, but cannot possibly afford it,nor can he afford insurance . Another man with the same condition,can well afford it through insurance he has. Is that not the right to life ?

[AnnEsthesia]

They would call it tough luck, I would guess. Or maybe that he should just try harder.

[Rockin Rodney]

I think comparing health to a haircut is absurd. no, I do not find it a compelling argument. I find it a straw man argument. Doctors defending their moral right to make a shitload of money? Nah. Can't get worked up over that. Universal care would not make them serve any more patients than they already do. It would just means that if they needed a test or procedure done they would have paid taxes toward it and could get it. Doctors will still be able to pay their mortgage.

This article again operates on your incorrect assumption that socialized health care is this magical plan where you and I will pay the same but all the deadbeats in the country will use the services. Get it through your heads - EVERYONE WILL PAY TAXES (UNDER ONE PLAN) OR PAY A PREMIUM (UNDER ANOTHER) TO GET TO PARTICIPATE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It's dishonest to continue to argue that it's charity.

It's immoral to deny someone life if you can give it to them. Any argument to the contrary is selfish to me. That's what universal health care is about.

Sounds great, sounds compassionate, BUT I think if you study Canada & England, you will see they started as Universal Health Care and it progressed to Socialized Medicine thanks to Liberalism!

Is everything a "strawman" argument with you, whereas YOUR arguments are SOUND & CORRECT? Just checking?

[kaaryn]

It would just means that if they needed a test or procedure done they would have paid taxes toward it and could get it.

See, that's where it falls apart. Oh yeah, you WILL pay taxes. If they copy our system, you'll start paying taxes through the nose. Our sales tax is 15% on everything but books (7%), basic groceries (exempt), and I think prescriptions. Our income tax rate depends on your income but works out to about 25%. But if you want a test or procedure, the sad but true answer is you'll get it... eventually. It's not bad for basic care, particularly if you have a family doctor. But when it comes to bigger stuff, the waiting lists can be months or years. While Moore was making his movie making places like Canada look good, Canadians were making travel plans to go get their biopsies and surgeries done in the US because they would be dead before it got done here. :(

And it's at best an unequal system - if you're on welfare, unemployment, etc, or if you make less than the basic exemption, then you're not paying income tax but you're still entitled to the same services.

I'm not saying I totally agree with that article, just that there's some food for thought in it. My heart says that it's only right to provide health care to everyone. My eyes tell me that even when they try to achieve that, it doesn't work out so well. :(

[Zanoog]

AND A WORSE CRUTCH than ACTUAL RELIGIONS :boyhowdy

and you KNOW its true........women put DOCTORS above their husbands GOD and themsleves.

whats thet comandment about NO FALSE GODS :pisslaugh

all doctors should have to become veterinarians before being allowed to PRACTICE on humans.

and don't get me going on SHRINK CLOWNS......If you think you need a THERAPIST.......you are FUBAR'ed.

:aliens

Sheesh! :roll That's quite a judgement you are making on quite a few people Look.

It's just wonderful that you are adept at conflict management, and have never in your life needed a mediator, perhaps a lawyer, to help you resolve an issue.

I don't know how I could have missed it that you are such a person. :wink :lmao

:panic

[issac the dragon]

Health care is not a right under the Constitution. If anyone says it is they are wrong. But, if we pass a universal health care system, we will make health care a right.

I don't know anything about Clinton's plan. When, not if, we pass a plan, it will be worked out by the Senate and House, with imput form the people, and doctors and pharmacies.

Canada and England are not the only countries with health care plans. Germany and France have excellent plans, with no waiting. We have plenty of waits in this country. And we are denied tests, and surgical proceedures. At the whim of our insurance companies.

It is a moral right to have access to medical care, in my opinion. Maybe some people think allowing children to die for lack of care is moral. But in my atheist opinion, it is immoral. Bush, on the other hand, compassionate conservative that he is, has no problem with dead babies. If God loves you, he makes you rich.

We will have a health plan in this country. If only because big business is supporting it. It is now a Republican idea. Not neo-con. And we all know that what ever big business wants, they get.

[April15]

In 1775 health care was very simple, you get cut bad you die from blood loss. Every accident was fatal, just about.
Medicine as we know it today has many cures for diseases that are communicable. Vaccinations are required by public health boards to prevent Polio, diptheria, tuburculosis, et cetera. These are done for the PUBLIC good. A certain minimum standard should be imposed to ensure people are healthy enough to mingle in crowds and work. This is not entitlement but requirement!

[Zanoog]

:dunno2 A lot of 'natural' moms, try and avoid the vaccination trip. Vaccines, like everything else, are no longer considered safe.

[quiet man]

health care for all is a right when the government says it is . affordable or not! :drevil :tequila :hotdog

[Zanoog]

It is a moral right to have access to medical care, in my opinion. Maybe some people think allowing children to die for lack of care is moral. But in my atheist opinion, it is immoral. Bush, on the other hand, compassionate conservative that he is, has no problem with dead babies. If God loves you, he makes you rich.



You said it!! That is exactly the point of view of the elitists.

And I completely agree that it is a moral right to have access to medical care.

I do volunteer work, why not the doctors? Of course, there are some doctors that do this sort of thing, volunteer.

[Trueblue]

The right to life as defined by this guy,is his opinion. What would you call it if a man needs a certain medication to save his life, but cannot possibly afford it,nor can he afford insurance . Another man with the same condition,can well afford it through insurance he has. Is that not the right to life ?

Fantastic post.

See, that's where it falls apart. Oh yeah, you WILL pay taxes. If they copy our system, you'll start paying taxes through the nose. Our sales tax is 15% on everything but books (7%), basic groceries (exempt), and I think prescriptions. Our income tax rate depends on your income but works out to about 25%. But if you want a test or procedure, the sad but true answer is you'll get it... eventually. It's not bad for basic care, particularly if you have a family doctor. But when it comes to bigger stuff, the waiting lists can be months or years. While Moore was making his movie making places like Canada look good, Canadians were making travel plans to go get their biopsies and surgeries done in the US because they would be dead before it got done here. :(

And it's at best an unequal system - if you're on welfare, unemployment, etc, or if you make less than the basic exemption, then you're not paying income tax but you're still entitled to the same services.

I'm not saying I totally agree with that article, just that there's some food for thought in it. My heart says that it's only right to provide health care to everyone. My eyes tell me that even when they try to achieve that, it doesn't work out so well. :(

There are pros and cons to any system.

Our own health care system doesn't work too well, either.

[Cookie Parker]

I've always felt health care should be a bargaining chip for the employee when engaging in a contract to work. The employee gives up 40 hours a week, and part of that is that the employer pays for health care for he and his family....or her family.

The nation has an obligation to ensure we are a healthy nation...and we are not a sick nation. We take care of the poor if we are what many want to do , including Bush, declare we are "under God." We also allow persons to have affordable health insurance through laws of employment or taxation......

If we are indeed a compassionate nation, then the answer is doctors may charge what they want, but everyone should have health care and they should be able to freely choose the doctors they want....

Doctors now as INcorporated, Personal Corporations, etc. Since they are businesses, they should be regulated by the government to ensure they are not price gouging as the rest of corporate america should be.....

<amen>...LOL!!!

[Deadshot]

I have a question to those who are against Universal Health care.

Now I'll go with you, hold your hand and watch your back, when you tell a deadbeat adult that they don't deserve squat. But what do you tell the kids?

It seems that so many want to argue and discuss this in a simplistic way, haircuts for example :roll. There are people out there who will NEVER have a job that will get them healthcare. But regardless of the adult in their life, children deserve and HAVE A RIGHT to health care.

A five year old with a brain tumor has a right to health care whether his parents are just not smart and the best they can do is waiting tables or his parents are a prostitute and a drug dealer. Don't you agree?

One last question. The Conservative Republican seems to really attach themselves to religion. Doesn't religion ask that you take care of the poor and downtrodden?

[Zanoog]

I have a question to those who are against Universal Health care.

Now I'll go with you, hold your hand and watch your back, when you tell a deadbeat adult that they don't deserve squat. But what do you tell the kids?

It seems that so many want to argue and discuss this in a simplistic way, haircuts for example :roll. There are people out there who will NEVER have a job that will get them healthcare. But regardless of the adult in their life, children deserve and HAVE A RIGHT to health care.

A five year old with a brain tumor has a right to health care whether his parents are just not smart and the best they can do is waiting tables or his parents are a prostitute and a drug dealer. Don't you agree?

ABSOLUTELY!

One last question. The Conservative Republican seems to really attach themselves to religion. Doesn't religion ask that you take care of the poor and downtrodden?

Churches used to do alot, I believe they still will go the distance for their parishioners, if possible. Certainly there are plenty of prayers offered, but I believe assistance too - though probably not as much as the state can provide.

However - the churches in my neighborhood seem to be lacking in parishioners these days. Parking lots are not full in most, some are looking down right dilapidated.

[issac the dragon]

In the Reagan era, there was some big religious movement that actually told people that if God loved them, he made them rich. I didn't invent that saying. I can't remember who it was, because I try not to listen to those people. But he preached to the neo-cons, and they no doubt still believe that philosophy. It would sound right to them, that if God loved a person, He would heap goodies on them.

Relatives used to take care of families too. But they don't any more. Even rich Senators talk about "Mom" being on Medicare. Mainstream churches are being abandoned, but right wing churches are doing well.But they spend all their money fighting gays, and abortion. Caring for the born is not a priority.

[Deadshot]

I'm not arguing for or against churches. I"m just saying that on the whole most, if not all, religions say that you take care of people. Be they poor, sick or whatever.

If you're talking about a deadbeat's then fine let's kick'em in the can and move on. But more and more we're discovering people from the lower middle class, children and those considered well off having their lives destroyed by medical bills. It's simply wrong. But if that's not good enough for you, it's also against the laws of God - be he Allah, Jesus or Yaweh!

How 'bout some compassion and stop bitchin about the tax burden. What ever happened to simple human kindness...:headshake

[April15]

In the Reagan era, there was some big religious movement that actually told people that if God loved them, he made them rich. I didn't invent that saying. I can't remember who it was, because I try not to listen to those people. But he preached to the neo-cons, and they no doubt still believe that philosophy. It would sound right to them, that if God loved a person, He would heap goodies on them.

Relatives used to take care of families too. But they don't any more. Even rich Senators talk about "Mom" being on Medicare. Mainstream churches are being abandoned, but right wing churches are doing well.But they spend all their money fighting gays, and abortion. Caring for the born is not a priority.

Jerry Falwell

[issac the dragon]

Many conservatives want to live in a world where people are like pioneers in the wilderness. Everyone is self-sufficient, and independent. That world existed in the US for a short time.

We don't go out and cut our own logs to build our own homes anymore. And there are masses of rules about building a home. That conservatives don't approve of. Life for the majority of people has never been like that conservative dream, but they won't give it up.

We are all inter-dependent. And we all owe each other. If we don't fix it so that we have a minimum standard, we will have people at each others throats. The passive people who may have lived once are gone. Too much information is available. People will not accept being shit upon forever.

Those conservatives are going to have to be jerked into the real world. Americans are not going to keep allowing children to be sick or die, just because their parents can't afford to pay the outrageous prices that medical care costs today.

[issac the dragon]

Jerry Falwell

Thank you April15. That would be the Jerry Falwell that the neo-cons mourned the loss of recently. No wonder. He told them God was what they wanted Him to be.

[bbrown]

I think comparing health to a haircut is absurd. no, I do not find it a compelling argument. I find it a straw man argument.

Straw man? No, that was an analogy. A straw man would be misrepresenting my argument as defending a doctors' right to earn a "shitload of money" and then dismissing it out of hand...

Doctors defending their moral right to make a shitload of money? Nah. Can't get worked up over that.

Oh, but you should. You should get worked up whenever some group is singled out for enslavement. Oh, but it's not enslavement, you guys say. It's just forcing someone to accept terms for their labor that they don't want and wouldn't agree to if it weren't for the fact that it was against the law. But it's different because they make a lot of money while they're doing it. As if taking away someone's liberty is okay if they're rich. Oh wait, you guys are perfectly fine with that.

Universal care would not make them serve any more patients than they already do. It would just means that if they needed a test or procedure done they would have paid taxes toward it and could get it. Doctors will still be able to pay their mortgage.

I am talking about the right of doctors (and really everyone, but doctors in this case) to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to do the same. Rights are strictly restrictive, not prescriptive. Health care is not a right because it infringes on another's rights, and rights don't come at the expense of other people's rights.

Get it through your heads - EVERYONE WILL PAY TAXES (UNDER ONE PLAN) OR PAY A PREMIUM (UNDER ANOTHER) TO GET TO PARTICIPATE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It's dishonest to continue to argue that it's charity.

Sorry, but you are so wrong on this one. If you don't think that the poor are going to get a free pass one way or the other on this one, then you're out of touch with political reality. Sure, more people are going to get access to health care and a lot of them are going to pay premiums for it (likely less than they would under a private-run health plan) but those who can't afford to pay the premiums will not pay for them and they are also the people who don't pay taxes (they even have negative taxes with the Earned Income Credit and such).

It's immoral to deny someone life if you can give it to them. Any argument to the contrary is selfish to me. That's what universal health care is about.

We have different views of morality. The difference is that I'm not trying to legislate my morality into law. I am simply defending the view of individual rights that started this country and has been in effect (diluted occasionally) since that inception.

Bill

[bbrown]

What would you call it if a man needs a certain medication to save his life, but cannot possibly afford it,nor can he afford insurance.

An unfortunate circumstance? An opportunity for charity? I don't know what you're looking for. One man's need is not a blank check on society's resources. For me, I'd value my life highly and would pay nearly anything if it would mean continued life.

Another man with the same condition,can well afford it through insurance he has. Is that not the right to life?

Is what not "the right to life"? I don't get what you're trying to say here. I think you're not very clear on what you mean by "right to life." Wikipedia has a great, simple statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life) of it:

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.

Bill

[bbrown]

While Moore was making his movie making places like Canada look good, Canadians were making travel plans to go get their biopsies and surgeries done in the US because they would be dead before it got done here. :(

I just posted an excellent analysis of Moore's movie (http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showthread.php?p=124306) in another thread that covers this specific example.

Bill

[bbrown]

It is a moral right to have access to medical care, in my opinion. Maybe some people think allowing children to die for lack of care is moral.

Won't somebody think of the children! Talk about a straw man! "Bill and Leonard Peikoff want babies dead!"

Bill

[bbrown]

It seems that so many want to argue and discuss this in a simplistic way, haircuts for example :roll. There are people out there who will NEVER have a job that will get them healthcare. But regardless of the adult in their life, children deserve and HAVE A RIGHT to health care.

Simplistic? Geesh, it's an analogy. His point is that you shackle doctors because they're charging too much and no occupation is safe from price controls.

Children have a right to health care? I'm not familiar with that. Parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, which would include providing health care, but there is no right that I'm aware of to health care.

A five year old with a brain tumor has a right to health care whether his parents are just not smart and the best they can do is waiting tables or his parents are a prostitute and a drug dealer. Don't you agree?

Nope, I don't. It would be inconsistent of me to say that you can't enslave doctors unless children are involved. I would, however, happily support private charity to help just this sort of situation. And so would everyone else in America. We have incredible generosity and charity today even when the government programs exist as they do. If health care were set free from government interference, incomes would rise and so too would philanthropy.

Bill

[Trueblue]

Straw man? No, that was an analogy. A straw man would be misrepresenting my argument as defending a doctors' right to earn a "shitload of money" and then dismissing it out of hand...



Oh, but you should. You should get worked up whenever some group is singled out for enslavement. Oh, but it's not enslavement, you guys say. It's just forcing someone to accept terms for their labor that they don't want and wouldn't agree to if it weren't for the fact that it was against the law. But it's different because they make a lot of money while they're doing it. As if taking away someone's liberty is okay if they're rich. Oh wait, you guys are perfectly fine with that.

My wages are set by the county, state, and federal government.

I never considered it slavery. :lmao

We have different views of morality. The difference is that I'm not trying to legislate my morality into law. I am simply defending the view of individual rights that started this country and has been in effect (diluted occasionally) since that inception.

Bill

Actually, you are defending the current legislation of your moral views into law. That's what this discussion is about.

Won't somebody think of the children! Talk about a straw man! "Bill and Leonard Peikoff want babies dead!"

Bill

IF she had said that, it would be a straw man.

But she didn't. She simply said that this hurts children.

You CANNOT deny that reality.

Simplistic? Geesh, it's an analogy. His point is that you shackle doctors because they're charging too much and no occupation is safe from price controls.

Children have a right to health care? I'm not familiar with that. Parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, which would include providing health care, but there is no right that I'm aware of to health care.

It's a poor analogy.

Nope, I don't. It would be inconsistent of me to say that you can't enslave doctors unless children are involved. I would, however, happily support private charity to help just this sort of situation. And so would everyone else in America. We have incredible generosity and charity today even when the government programs exist as they do. If health care were set free from government interference, incomes would rise and so too would philanthropy.

Bill

Philanthropy simply can't cover the current costs.

[Ringo]

In 1775 health care was very simple, you get cut bad you die from blood loss. Every accident was fatal, just about.
Medicine as we know it today has many cures for diseases that are communicable. Vaccinations are required by public health boards to prevent Polio, diptheria, tuburculosis, et cetera. These are done for the PUBLIC good. A certain minimum standard should be imposed to ensure people are healthy enough to mingle in crowds and work. This is not entitlement but requirement!

This has been handled for years, by the Counties, Health clinics, private Doctors etc...so we have no use for IDIOTA Liberals to stick their greedy asses into another Entitlement program!

Will science ever get a cure for Liberalism? I know its more difficult to cure MENTAL diseases, but hell lets try?

April you first!!!:lmao

[issac the dragon]

April is busy, but I'm not. Just pissed off. After reading the rather leanghty lecture on the glories of the free market and dog eat dog capitalism. If you are not rich, it's your job to shut up, and go away and quietly die. The capitalist owe you nothing.

I'm old enough to remember when businesses were willing to share some of the wealth with their employees. Not any more. They want it all. There is no end to the greed of the rich. They never have enough. More, more, more.

Americans are the hardest working, productive people in the first world. And they get less and less of a share of the nations wealth. So some people don't have a problem with that. I do. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." A principle that Henry Ford ascribed to. His descendents don't. Give them enough to keep them from rebelling and the rich get the rest.

Yes, this is class warfare. And it was started by the rich. They have declared war on the working people in America. And every time we complain, we are accused of class warfare. It is our job to suck it up.

We can watch children die because their parents make too much to get assistance, but not enough to pay for insurance. Too bad. It is capitalism at it's finest.

[issac the dragon]

The biggest welfare abusers in this country are the rich. Every one of them is sucking on the public tit. And pay taxes. No way. They have exemptions for every cent they earn. Nor do they send their children to defend this country. It is the working classes job to die to defend their way of life. And the Democrats had to fight tooth and nail to provide decent health care to the wounded warriors. As always in the Republican world, once they have done their job, the country has no further use for them. Suck it up.

Okay. Some people are willing to pay however much is necessary to get good medical care. The middle class is too. But they can't afford insurance, and don't qualify for assistance. Too bad. Suck it up. Their kid can die. Its the capitalist way.

Capitalism is a great system, as long as it is on a short leash.

[Zanoog]

April is busy, but I'm not. Just pissed off. After reading the rather leanghty lecture on the glories of the free market and dog eat dog capitalism. If you are not rich, it's your job to shut up, and go away and quietly die. The capitalist owe you nothing.

I'm old enough to remember when businesses were willing to share some of the wealth with their employees. Not any more. They want it all. There is no end to the greed of the rich. They never have enough. More, more, more.

Americans are the hardest working, productive people in the first world. And they get less and less of a share of the nations wealth. So some people don't have a problem with that. I do. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." A principle that Henry Ford ascribed to. His descendents don't. Give them enough to keep them from rebelling and the rich get the rest.

Yes, this is class warfare. And it was started by the rich. They have declared war on the working people in America. And every time we complain, we are accused of class warfare. It is our job to suck it up.

We can watch children die because their parents make too much to get assistance, but not enough to pay for insurance. Too bad. It is capitalism at it's finest.

The biggest welfare abusers in this country are the rich. Every one of them is sucking on the public tit. And pay taxes. No way. They have exemptions for every cent they earn. Nor do they send their children to defend this country. It is the working classes job to die to defend their way of life. And the Democrats had to fight tooth and nail to provide decent health care to the wounded warriors. As always in the Republican world, once they have done their job, the country has no further use for them. Suck it up.

Okay. Some people are willing to pay however much is necessary to get good medical care. The middle class is too. But they can't afford insurance, and don't qualify for assistance. Too bad. Suck it up. Their kid can die. Its the capitalist way.

Capitalism is a great system, as long as it is on a short leash.

:clap :clap2 :clap :clap2 :clap :clap2 :clap :clap2

Even those that have the bare minimum health coverage, if the insurance company says you can only have 2 pills and doctor prescribes 3 pills - you'll get the 2 pills and too bad what your doctor wants. It happened to me.

You're new doctors name is MetLife, BlueCross, Unicare, whatever....

[Deadshot]

Nope, I don't. It would be inconsistent of me to say that you can't enslave doctors unless children are involved. I would, however, happily support private charity to help just this sort of situation. And so would everyone else in America. We have incredible generosity and charity today even when the government programs exist as they do. If health care were set free from government interference, incomes would rise and so too would philanthropy.

Bill

So you would be ok if the child dies, right? Because believe it or not, while Americans are very generous and charitable, they also give money where they see fit. PETA, and I'll get my liberal card revoked for this, is a fucking joke, but they get a lot of charitable dollars. The money spent by Americans donating to campaigns this Presidential season will probably be more then that donated to the Red Cross :doh

Bill, with the Government in charge we KNOW the little 5 year old will get the brain tumor operated on. If we depend only upon charity then one child, who's parents are good about gettin the word out, get's the treatment and the followups...the other, who has no parents, has to hope that it all works out.

Universal Health care is coming for one pretty simplistic reason, too many old and too many young don't have it. Better get ready!

[April15]

This has been handled for years, by the Counties, Health clinics, private Doctors etc...so we have no use for IDIOTA Liberals to stick their greedy asses into another Entitlement program!

Will science ever get a cure for Liberalism? I know its more difficult to cure MENTAL diseases, but hell lets try?

April you first!!!:lmaoI have a card that declares me to be sane, do you? I am certifiably sane!

[issac the dragon]

I have done private care for rich people. Without exception their charitable donations were for wild life parks, and the opera. Not one cent for the sick kids. The rich, like other conservatives think that anyone who isn't rich is lazy, or stupid, or both.

[bbrown]

I have done private care for rich people. Without exception their charitable donations were for wild life parks, and the opera. Not one cent for the sick kids. The rich, like other conservatives think that anyone who isn't rich is lazy, or stupid, or both.

I can't speak for them, but I do know that your one anecdote is not particularly relevant. So you knew their charitable contributions exactly and can say that none of their funds went to medical charities? How many rich people's books did you keep? Did you have access to all rich people's accounts in order to make such an assessment? Did you ask all those rich people who entrusted you with their funds a series of questions in order to determine their view of the poor or the middle class?

Not that it really matters because there's no independent way of verifying however you answer those questions. All I can say is that your statement that they only paid for "wild life parks and the opera" is so cliched that it sounds apocryphal.

I do know that I've seen rich people pay for hospitals that wouldn't exist otherwise and fund charities whose sole purpose was to assist financially in the medical care of children. I, however, won't make any sweeping statements because I just don't know enough to make them.

Bill

[Trueblue]

I'm sure that rich people contribute to research for care. I also know that they give a lot to charities such as music.

However, charity just won't meet the needs. There are too many uninsured people and health care is too expensive.

[April15]

I'm sure that rich people contribute to research for care. I also know that they give a lot to charities such as music.

However, charity just won't meet the needs. There are too many uninsured people and health care is too expensive.That is all well and good but what about those who have health care but are denied service because of one trumped up reason or another?
Until I couldn't walk anymore Kaiser said I wasn't in bad enough condition to require knee surgery. When I finally got the surgery all the doc could do was say he was sorry but the cartilage was gone because I waited so long. So now I am waiting for a new knee. I am sure I will be dead before that happens.

[Trueblue]

That is all well and good but what about those who have health care but are denied service because of one trumped up reason or another?
Until I couldn't walk anymore Kaiser said I wasn't in bad enough condition to require knee surgery. When I finally got the surgery all the doc could do was say he was sorry but the cartilage was gone because I waited so long. So now I am waiting for a new knee. I am sure I will be dead before that happens.

I hope not. :(

[April15]

I hope not. :(Me too, cause the pain is unfuckingbelievable.

[issac the dragon]

I'm sure that rich people contribute to research for care. I also know that they give a lot to charities such as music.

However, charity just won't meet the needs. There are too many uninsured people and health care is too expensive.

I don't question that some rich people give money for research and to hospitals. I said in my post that the people I personally cared for were leaving there money to those organizations. And I took their word for it.

That was the charitable organization; most of their money went to their kids. And I don't have a problem with that.

People who have worked with the elderly and the sick learn something quick. They love to talk, and talk about themselves, and they will tell their caregiver things that the caregiver has no right to know. And, they'll tell the same story every day, day after day, after day. I think that is why thier kids and grandkids limit their visits.

[quiet man]

when a person lives in a state or nation that offers national health care to all it's citizens it becomes their right. here it is so highly commericalized and riddled with litigation it's unbelievable. a health care plan will be only the first step to a workable system for all. :hotdog :drevil

[Trueblue]

Once rich people built hospitals as a charity, but I haven't heard of that in a long time. Even if built on donated money, the patients there are not treated for free.

[Deadshot]

I do know that I've seen rich people pay for hospitals that wouldn't exist otherwise and fund charities whose sole purpose was to assist financially in the medical care of children. I, however, won't make any sweeping statements because I just don't know enough to make them.
Bill

Yet you make the sweeping statement that you would not agree that we need Universal Health care to help a 5 year old with a brain tumor. Post 32 (A five year old with a brain tumor has a right to health care whether his parents are just not smart and the best they can do is waiting tables or his parents are a prostitute and a drug dealer. Don't you agree?)

If you wish to berate someone for their portrayal of the rich then you must certainly realize that, while generous, there are not enough charities in the USA to help all the sick and suffering.

Also you have failed to realize that the medical profession talks about prevention as being the best medicine. See the doctor when the cancer is small and they have a better chance to do something about it.

Taking my five year old with the brain tumor into consideration, under your advice we collect money for her once the problem has become overwhelming and life threatening, and only then, are the actions taken by the private citizen. I say we give the child regular check ups and catch the tumor when she's 3, not five. But what charity would Americans contribute too that simply offers yearly checkups and physicals for kids?

We don't have that charity now...:headshake

[Trueblue]

Access to the necessities of life seems like a human right to me.

[issac the dragon]

The right to life works for me. It always amazes me that many of those who work hardest for the right of a 2 cell organism to life, also believe that America must look the other way while people who are already born starve, freeze, or die from lack of medical care.

[Deadshot]

Access to the necessities of life seems like a human right to me.

What's funny is that Jefferson originally wrote "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property." He scratched out property and put in happyness.

I do have a question for those against Universal Health care. Would you agree that all children have a right to "Live, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?" If so, then shouldn't we give them the best Life possible, i.e. a healthy, long life?

[Deadshot]

The right to life works for me. It always amazes me that many of those who work hardest for the right of a 2 cell organism to life, also believe that America must look the other way while people who are already born starve, freeze, or die from lack of medical care.

To add to your amazement, and mine, I find it sickening that people will fight for the rights of the unborn, but wouldn't give you a nickel to help someone with child care.

In other words, in the minds of many pro-life/anti-health care crowd, one MUST have the child, AT ALL COSTS have the child, then...now that you have it I don't care about the child or you - make your way through the world on your own.

[bluedog]

To add to your amazement, and mine, I find it sickening that people will fight for the rights of the unborn, but wouldn't give you a nickel to help someone with child care.

In other words, in the minds of many pro-life/anti-health care crowd, one MUST have the child, AT ALL COSTS have the child, then...now that you have it I don't care about the child or you - make your way through the world on your own.

What I find amazing it the fact that after a child is born they assume that it must become the responsibility of the state to provide for. What happens to the parents responsibility? Freedom is not really free, it is purchased with blood and responsibility. If a person is responsible enough to spread open their legs and make a child they are, according to natures measure, responsible enough to care and nurture it. And regardless of what opinion is espoused there is absolute no reason for any to go hungry in this nation, unless they are mentally unstable or just to lazy to walk down to the local welfare department and sign up on food stamps.

You want to blame all the problems in this nation on conservative values, but are quick to forget that it is the lack of values that are made mainstream and taught to our children by the secular progressives that have produced this generation of unfettered sexual activity without being taught the consequences of their actions, as we merely promote child sex with the offering of condoms and teach that it is natural while all the while leaving out the moral responsibility that comes along with "acting" adult. Then try to do away with this responsibility by condoning the killing of a gestating human, The one of few rights that anyone could read in our constitution, THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.....every law that is judicially legislated to amend this document by opinion only is dictating to "we the people", without representation. BD

[April15]

very well scripted republiscum talking points. Now try to think for the first time on your own. What do you really think?

[issac the dragon]

Just a tad bit of sexism there? "If a person is responsible enough to spread open their legs and make a child " But I am only pointing that out, not really bitching, because I'm sure you meant to say "and her partner."

I agree with you that people shouldn't have kids if they can not afford them. But exactly what can we do to stop them. I don't think letting the child die is an option.

We are not going to decide who may and who may not have children. The nazis really killed off most peoples desire to do that. And we have hissy fits about the Chinese even trying to regulate how many children. So what ideas do you have to stop people from having children they can't support?

[cassandra]

What's funny is that Jefferson originally wrote "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property." He scratched out property and put in happyness.

I do have a question for those against Universal Health care. Would you agree that all children have a right to "Live, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?" If so, then shouldn't we give them the best Life possible, i.e. a healthy, long life?



BTW Jefferson used the word happiness. I think you are thinking of Will Smith. :wink

Unfortunately children are in a difficult situation. They are born to people and as such are those people's property. Why else do we leave them in homes of abuse and worse? There is no cure to this problem. We cannot prevent the people not willing to take child rearing seriously from having children.

To add to your amazement, and mine, I find it sickening that people will fight for the rights of the unborn, but wouldn't give you a nickel to help someone with child care.

In other words, in the minds of many pro-life/anti-health care crowd, one MUST have the child, AT ALL COSTS have the child, then...now that you have it I don't care about the child or you - make your way through the world on your own.

You have no idea how much money I, or anyone else for that matter, give to help unborn or born children. Unborn children issues, such as prematurity, is a very big issue to me. Welfare of children living in less than desirable situations is a serious issue to me.

I am one of the conservatives that you are lumping in there. I know lots of other conservatives like me as well. I am pro-life. Of course if someone doesn't want to raise that child I know handfuls of people who would take it. I currently have 2 friends who are actively searching for their next child. Praying that someone will give them what they cannot make themselves.

[Trueblue]

What I find amazing it the fact that after a child is born they assume that it must become the responsibility of the state to provide for. What happens to the parents responsibility? Freedom is not really free, it is purchased with blood and responsibility. If a person is responsible enough to spread open their legs and make a child they are, according to natures measure, responsible enough to care and nurture it. And regardless of what opinion is espoused there is absolute no reason for any to go hungry in this nation, unless they are mentally unstable or just to lazy to walk down to the local welfare department and sign up on food stamps.

You want to blame all the problems in this nation on conservative values, but are quick to forget that it is the lack of values that are made mainstream and taught to our children by the secular progressives that have produced this generation of unfettered sexual activity without being taught the consequences of their actions, as we merely promote child sex with the offering of condoms and teach that it is natural while all the while leaving out the moral responsibility that comes along with "acting" adult. Then try to do away with this responsibility by condoning the killing of a gestating human, The one of few rights that anyone could read in our constitution, THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.....every law that is judicially legislated to amend this document by opinion only is dictating to "we the people", without representation. BD

Legally, the child is the parent's responsibility, but common sense tells me that as a society, we need to be sure that kids are healthy. Or at least try.

[bluedog]

Just a tad bit of sexism there? "If a person is responsible enough to spread open their legs and make a child " But I am only pointing that out, not really bitching, because I'm sure you meant to say "and her partner."

I agree with you that people shouldn't have kids if they can not afford them. But exactly what can we do to stop them. I don't think letting the child die is an option.

We are not going to decide who may and who may not have children. The nazis really killed off most peoples desire to do that. And we have hissy fits about the Chinese even trying to regulate how many children. So what ideas do you have to stop people from having children they can't support?

There should not be any children to die, we have failed our children in directing their life in the proper direction by the apathetic nature of our parenting as we simply have given our parental duties over to the village and the results of the secular direction are much apparent, and getting worse. Many of these problems could be solved at home. BD

[Trueblue]

There should not be any children to die, we have failed our children in directing their life in the proper direction by the apathetic nature of our parenting as we simply have given our parental duties over to the village and the results of the secular direction are much apparent, and getting worse. Many of these problems could be solved at home. BD

Historically, the village has always had responsibility towards the children. :wink

The trouble with saying that the problem could be solved at home it that it's pretty much a cop out.

[issac the dragon]

There should not be any children to die, we have failed our children in directing their life in the proper direction by the apathetic nature of our parenting as we simply have given our parental duties over to the village and the results of the secular direction are much apparent, and getting worse. Many of these problems could be solved at home. BD

I agree with you. But I don't think these problems just started occuring. Everything I have read about history tells me that we have invented nothing new. We are not all good, or intelligent people. Never have been. And I wish, as I'm sure you do, that there was some way of stopping people from having children when they are clearly unfit to do so. But that isn't going to happen. At least not until they get those chips in all of us, and start regulating every aspect of our lives. I am grateful I'll be dead then. You know BD, one of the foremost reasons old people are ready to die is that we know it will never change. It gets tiring.

[cassandra]

There should not be any children to die, we have failed our children in directing their life in the proper direction by the apathetic nature of our parenting as we simply have given our parental duties over to the village and the results of the secular direction are much apparent, and getting worse. Many of these problems could be solved at home. BD

Great post.

TB how is it a cop out to make it a personal responsibility of the person who is the adult. That person beats that child to death and we find out about it that person is prosecuted. Why is that their responsibility and not the other??

[Trueblue]

Great post.

TB how is it a cop out to make it a personal responsibility of the person who is the adult. That person beats that child to death and we find out about it that person is prosecuted. Why is that their responsibility and not the other??

You are right, the primary responsibility is the parent's. But IMO, we all have a responsibility to each other. When I say a cop out, I mean that it is a complaint that absolves the complainer of any responsibility towards others in their society.

[bluedog]

very well scripted republiscum talking points. Now try to think for the first time on your own. What do you really think?

Did you ever even stop to think, that maybe these thoughts are not scripted but actually transcend the pragmatic nature in which all secular people deal with "real life", as they fail to have any "standard" at all in which to live and relate to others, as they(secular liberals) do whatever feels good. BD

[cassandra]

You are right, the primary responsibility is the parent's.

As long as we can agree on this point.

[AnnEsthesia]

Did you ever even stop to think, that maybe these thoughts are not scripted but actually transcend the pragmatic nature in which all secular people deal with "real life", as they fail to have any "standard" at all in which to live and relate to others, as they(secular liberals) do whatever feels good. BD

Excuse me, but are you generalizing that anyone who is "secular" does not have a moral code by which they live their life?

[bluedog]

Historically, the village has always had responsibility towards the children. :wink

The trouble with saying that the problem could be solved at home it that it's pretty much a cop out.

Hey you may consider "HOME" a cop-out, that is exactly the difference in our ideologies. Home is were the Ideas of American values gestate, not in the halls of congress but in the homes of "we the people", for it is our country you know, at least at this time it still belongs to us and not the state that you so proudly profess knows better than us, how best to raise our children. BD

[bluedog]

I agree with you. But I don't think these problems just started occuring. Everything I have read about history tells me that we have invented nothing new. We are not all good, or intelligent people. Never have been. And I wish, as I'm sure you do, that there was some way of stopping people from having children when they are clearly unfit to do so. But that isn't going to happen. At least not until they get those chips in all of us, and start regulating every aspect of our lives. I am grateful I'll be dead then. You know BD, one of the foremost reasons old people are ready to die is that we know it will never change. It gets tiring.

But as I have been espousing, our "root" problem stems from our rules of law. As our rules of law have "morphed" from punishments handed out due to the breaching of laws that were placed there at the direction of "we the people" and their ideas of just what is moral and acceptable to the majorities of the people, to the following ideologies of law.

Secular pragmatic rules of law, where punishments are NOT defined by their "absolute rights or wrongs" but by the opinion of some sitting judge with a variance of punishment to be handed out by his reasoning of what is right or wrong and just how right or wrong something is in relation to the actions of others within our society. Much, much to complicated with morality or the lack thereof resting squarely right between the ears of some bleeding heart judge and not on the transcending rights or wrongs of words written with the same punishment for "ALL". When law is practiced in this manner it ceases being law and starts being suggestions of opinion. As many times people simply appeal until they get the "right" bleeding heart judge, that has had some "personal" experience with a COUSIN, NEPHEW, SON, DAUGHTER, or etc. and projects sympathy with less than "honest" judgment. This is not fair and equal treatment as according to our constitution, this is biases and selective treatment and it reflects unto our society. BD

[Saguaro]

Do you want a robot judge ? We expect our judges to be human.

[bluedog]

Excuse me, but are you generalizing that anyone who is "secular" does not have a moral code by which they live their life?

No what I am saying, not implying, is that their moral values have no transcending authority behind them, as they change in relation to what is acceptable to society with no absolute rights or wrongs. BD

[bluedog]

No what I am saying, not implying, is that their moral values have no transcending authority behind them, as they change in relation to what is acceptable to society with no absolute rights or wrongs. BD

Hell even a dog has some sense of morality, as he refrains from biting the hand that feeds him, but his moral action is based upon the need of future foodstuff, he sure would not care to bite you if you made him angry enough. He does not base this moral action of not bitting his master on some transcending absolute written law that states, it is wrong for him to bite his master, it just feels like the right thing to do, just as liberals are lead by their emotions and not by their environment. They change the laws to meet their wants. BD

[AnnEsthesia]

No what I am saying, not implying, is that their moral values have no transcending authority behind them, as they change in relation to what is acceptable to society with no absolute rights or wrongs. BD

Really? And how many people do you really know who have no absolute right or wrongs to their moral code? I am pretty sure most liberals, even the ones who are not religious, think that murdering someone in cold blood is wrong. I am pretty sure that most people feel that cheating on your spouse is wrong. I could go on, but we could look around and see examples of Conservatives who do not exactly stick to a strong moral code... religious men who murder, commit adultery and other sins.

So perhaps you can explain again how believing in a higher power has anything to do with moral code? You have to admit that there are as many 'religious' people who sin as there are non-religious... and that there are as many upstanding and moral people within both ranks. The only difference is that one group uses God to shield their sins from view and their fall from public approval is generally harder felt.

[issac the dragon]

I know evangalicals who believe it is ok to violate any law if they believe it is God's will. And they get to decide what God's will is. The people who bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors are like that. And I have listened to their defenders.

I have never heard a secularist defend murder for any reason. So I guess we have more morals that the moralists do.

[cassandra]

Excuse me, but are you generalizing that anyone who is "secular" does not have a moral code by which they live their life?

Great post! I think that it really depends on the person/family. I have seen Families from all different backgrounds. Some with high moral codes and some with very low. "Christian" families that had no moral code and secular families with the highest moral codes. I think that you are correct to question Bluedog's thoughts on this one.

[Deadshot]

BTW Jefferson used the word happiness. I think you are thinking of Will Smith. :wink

Yeah, I know Jefferson used happiness, but he was equating happiness = :money

Unfortunately children are in a difficult situation. They are born to people and as such are those people's property. Why else do we leave them in homes of abuse and worse? There is no cure to this problem. We cannot prevent the people not willing to take child rearing seriously from having children.

"No cure to this problem?" Do you really feel that way? I have friends that work at child welfare who've pulled kids out of bad homes and placed them with good foster homes, then off to adoption. It doesn't work every time, but here in Missouri we've got a better then 70% positive record. Seven out of every ten is still bad, but hardly "no cure."

You have no idea how much money I, or anyone else for that matter, give to help unborn or born children. Unborn children issues, such as prematurity, is a very big issue to me. Welfare of children living in less than desirable situations is a serious issue to me.

:think Did I call you out? Sandi, that's great that you give to those causes. But I'm sorry the hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands you and others give does not match the power and wealth of the United States Government.

As I explained earlier, the charities don't kick in until the last minute. Universal Health care would bring the little girl to the doctor at 3, not 5, when a less costly and less life threatening procedure could take place.

I will ask you, however, the same question I asked bb. Do you know of a charity that has a lot of money to give for child PREVENTIVE health care? Because most charities I know of usually kick in for the operation or tried to help here and there, during and after the operation, but I know of none that off PREVENTIVE care

I am one of the conservatives that you are lumping in there. I know lots of other conservatives like me as well.

:think I've read the post numerous times, where do I mention "conservative" or even "Republican"? I'm not "lumping" you or anyone else for that matter in on anything. :shrug

I am pro-life. Of course if someone doesn't want to raise that child I know handfuls of people who would take it. I currently have 2 friends who are actively searching for their next child. Praying that someone will give them what they cannot make themselves.

Hey, Sandi I'm adopted, I wish more would adopt and put their kids up for adoption. But as you mention above, we can't control everyones actions.

[bluedog]

Really? And how many people do you really know who have no absolute right or wrongs to their moral code? I am pretty sure most liberals, even the ones who are not religious, think that murdering someone in cold blood is wrong. I am pretty sure that most people feel that cheating on your spouse is wrong. I could go on, but we could look around and see examples of Conservatives who do not exactly stick to a strong moral code... religious men who murder, commit adultery and other sins.

So perhaps you can explain again how believing in a higher power has anything to do with moral code? You have to admit that there are as many 'religious' people who sin as there are non-religious... and that there are as many upstanding and moral people within both ranks. The only difference is that one group uses God to shield their sins from view and their fall from public approval is generally harder felt.

Da, that is why they have been legislated into law as absolute wrongs. The thing that we need is absolute punishments without regard to ones wealth, friends, or what mood the judge happens to be in.

And in fact you are forgetting or perhaps with purpose omitting that these same moral ethics had to have some origin, and that origin was primarily inherited from western religion, as "you" certainly were not born with them, you in fact were "taught" by society what is right or wrong, for these values certainly are not naturally inherent to mankind. BD

[April15]

Did you ever even stop to think, that maybe these thoughts are not scripted but actually transcend the pragmatic nature in which all secular people deal with "real life", as they fail to have any "standard" at all in which to live and relate to others, as they(secular liberals) do whatever feels good. BDThen why do they sound just like the talking points of the conservative mantra? As for libbys doing what feels good that too is a republican talking point. So is the assertion that liberalism is mental disease.
See there are conservatives that can and do think for themself, Cassandra is one that comes to mind. Even Ringo thinks for himself. And you have to admit he is a little conservative!

[April15]

I know evangalicals who believe it is ok to violate any law if they believe it is God's will. And they get to decide what God's will is. The people who bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors are like that. And I have listened to their defenders.

I have never heard a secularist defend murder for any reason. So I guess we have more morals that the moralists do.Speak to me Jimmy swaggert, James Baker, and that other religious fool, George Bush.

[bluedog]

Then why do they sound just like the talking points of the conservative mantra? As for libbys doing what feels good that too is a republican talking point. So is the assertion that liberalism is mental disease.
See there are conservatives that can and do think for themself, Cassandra is one that comes to mind. Even Ringo thinks for himself. And you have to admit he is a little conservative!

Because these thoughts are inherent to the process as to how conservatives deal with their environment or surroundings, we do not need to be coached by some air-headed liberal journalist so that some can claim them as an original thought. Simple, or I can say it slower if you wish. I can and do think for myself, but I use logic not emotions to debate. But I must admit to playing on your emotions sometimes, its your weak point. BD

[April15]

Because these thoughts are inherent to the process as to how conservatives deal with their environment or surroundings, we do not need to be coached by some air-headed liberal journalist so that some can claim them as an original thought. Simple, or I can say it slower if you wish. I can and do think for myself, but I use logic not emotions to debate. But I must admit to playing on your emotions sometimes, its your weak point. BDYou do a good job of baiting and I know when you are.

[toxic]

And in fact you are forgetting or perhaps with purpose omitting that these same moral ethics had to have some origin, and that origin was primarily inherited from western religion, as "you" certainly were not born with them, you in fact were "taught" by society what is right or wrong, for these values certainly are not naturally inherent to mankind. BD

Partly right. If your read ancient philosophers like Plato, Sacrotes and Aristotle, you will find they were identifying the optimal rules for civilization. Their pros and cons listing is very entertaining.

For example, should women and children be maintained in common or should they have individual households. They noted that commonly maintained children received extra attention "only" if the father recognized the child was his.

Another example, women in Sparta had achieved equal rights as men and were sometimes in charge of the military protection of the city. They noted that the women leaders "caused more confusion than the enemy" when in charge of repelling attacks.

Final example, they decided that children should have no responsibilities nor training till they reached the age of 5 years. Other than the Headstart Program, this seems to have held for 2000 years.

[cassandra]

Unfortunately children are in a difficult situation. They are born to people and as such are those people's property. Why else do we leave them in homes of abuse and worse? There is no cure to this problem. We cannot prevent the people not willing to take child rearing seriously from having children.

"No cure to this problem?" Do you really feel that way? I have friends that work at child welfare who've pulled kids out of bad homes and placed them with good foster homes, then off to adoption. It doesn't work every time, but here in Missouri we've got a better then 70% positive record. Seven out of every ten is still bad, but hardly "no cure."

Even in your retort you mention how this is not always possible. 70% is horrible by my standards, and is what makes me believe there is no cure. There are still 30% children living these hellish lives. They are the property of those adults. I am sure your friends can tell you plenty of stories of children who are continually put back in harms way. If not I can. Having worked in inner city schools, I have plenty of stories to tell.


You have no idea how much money I, or anyone else for that matter, give to help unborn or born children. Unborn children issues, such as prematurity, is a very big issue to me. Welfare of children living in less than desirable situations is a serious issue to me.

Did I call you out? Sandi, that's great that you give to those causes. But I'm sorry the hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands you and others give does not match the power and wealth of the United States Government.

Good to know Robin Hood is still alive and well. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. A gift such as this means so much more if the giver has an open heart.

As I explained earlier, the charities don't kick in until the last minute. Universal Health care would bring the little girl to the doctor at 3, not 5, when a less costly and less life threatening procedure could take place.

I will ask you, however, the same question I asked bb. Do you know of a charity that has a lot of money to give for child PREVENTIVE health care? Because most charities I know of usually kick in for the operation or tried to help here and there, during and after the operation, but I know of none that off PREVENTIVE care

Since we are speaking of children, yes there is preventative health care offered to these children.

Hey, Sandi I'm adopted, I wish more would adopt and put their kids up for adoption. But as you mention above, we can't control everyones actions.

:heart Adoption is one of the most beautiful things in life.

[Deadshot]

I admit that 30% is a horrible number, but it's better then 100%. You said there was "No Cure", 70% cure is better then 0%, right?

I agree about the open heart of the giver. But you do realize that no charity in the world has the power to get things done and money to spend like the U.S. Government, right?

What preventive health care? The reason that the stat is quoted at all is because there are so many children without health care.

Yeah, adoption is a good thing. Never will figure out how you can kill at kid, but not give one up for adoption. :shrug

[cassandra]

To me a cure means fixed. 30% leaves a lot not fixed. 70% is better than nothing, of course. But in the end this will never be eradicated.

The US Governement already takes far too much from the people it is supposed to protect. They wouldn't spend it on this anyhow. You need only look at how much money they are spending in war daily to know that children would not be high on the list of things to spend money on.

The only thing I can see about adoption is that people want to just forget about it. Abortion is final. The child in question will never pop up in their life again. :( So sad really.

[Deadshot]

To me a cure means fixed. 30% leaves a lot not fixed. 70% is better than nothing, of course. But in the end this will never be eradicated.

But in the end, if you think it will "never" be eradicated, wouldn't it be better to try and fix 70% or better?

The US Governement already takes far too much from the people it is supposed to protect. They wouldn't spend it on this anyhow. You need only look at how much money they are spending in war daily to know that children would not be high on the list of things to spend money on.

Universal Health care would dictate money be spent on childrens health care.

The only thing I can see about adoption is that people want to just forget about it. Abortion is final. The child in question will never pop up in their life again. :( So sad really.

I see their point, I met both of my birth parents, but it's still a life....

[cassandra]

Hey you are preaching to the choir. I would love to meet someone tomorrow who would give me or one of my friends their unwanted baby. It would bring any of us joy that is overwhelming. I can never express the deep joy in my heart for what my daughter's birth parents gave to me. :heart

Sure 70% is good. I am just not willing to call it a cure.

[Trueblue]

No what I am saying, not implying, is that their moral values have no transcending authority behind them, as they change in relation to what is acceptable to society with no absolute rights or wrongs. BD

So do yours. :wink

Because these thoughts are inherent to the process as to how conservatives deal with their environment or surroundings, we do not need to be coached by some air-headed liberal journalist so that some can claim them as an original thought. Simple, or I can say it slower if you wish. I can and do think for myself, but I use logic not emotions to debate. But I must admit to playing on your emotions sometimes, its your weak point. BD

You have no more played on April's emotions than you've flown in the sky.

[issac the dragon]

Since conservatives are so big on free enterprise, do like many rich people do, and hire someone to have a baby for you. And I think women should be able to charge whatever the market will bear. Why is it that the things only women can do, it is illegal to market.

Men get paid very well for donating sperm. But a woman gets damn little for a live birth. I've heard," it's too wonderful and sacred to debase it with money." Bull shit. If women could make money having babies, there would be plenty of babies.

:focus It is immoral to allow people to die for lack of money.

[AnnEsthesia]

Da, that is why they have been legislated into law as absolute wrongs. The thing that we need is absolute punishments without regard to ones wealth, friends, or what mood the judge happens to be in.

And in fact you are forgetting or perhaps with purpose omitting that these same moral ethics had to have some origin, and that origin was primarily inherited from western religion, as "you" certainly were not born with them, you in fact were "taught" by society what is right or wrong, for these values certainly are not naturally inherent to mankind. BD

So you feel that all morals come from religion? Does it matter to you which religion? Because almost all societies have had the same moral basics, if not the same religion.

Yep, you can find the roots of some laws in religions. And those religions came from other religions. Pagans believed in a very high moral code as well, even though they were supposedly 'primitive'.

But just because some religion states that killing another human is bad and we also have a law about it, that does not mean that a secular person cannot feel it is wrong without ever stepping foot in a church and without caring about the laws.

You assume we all get our morals from religion and that is just false. If it was true, then the more one was indoctrinated into the religion, the stronger your morals would be. Clearly that is not the case.

[Deadshot]

Hey you are preaching to the choir. I would love to meet someone tomorrow who would give me or one of my friends their unwanted baby. It would bring any of us joy that is overwhelming. I can never express the deep joy in my heart for what my daughter's birth parents gave to me. :heart

I understand and respect that, but you can only take so many kids. As you said above we can't control those in our society that have kids and forget about them. We can only do so much, we need help...hence our government helps us.

Sure 70% is good. I am just not willing to call it a cure.

70% is better then nothing...it's not a cure but it's a damn site better then the alternative.