Healthcare: Right or Privilege?

[Fintanland]

Well, I've been giving some reasons why not if you search my name in this thread, and I haven't heard any reasons why this is the case.

First of all, people have been giving reasons (more productivity, less of a drain on relatives/welfare system, simple humanity...). Second, no, you have been giving one reason, and that was a very complicated way of saying "suffering is inevitable, so screw all those who suffer". DEATH is inevitable, too. Why not die right now?

[Augarundus]

Nietzschean? Epicurean? Buddhist? Taoist? All philosophies that advocate this view.

No. Nietzsche I don't know.
Epicureans say to seek pleasure and avoid suffering. Nothing prevents you from helping others to avoid suffering, too. In fact, it gives many people pleasure to do so.
Buddhism teaches compassion towards all living things, so nope.
And Taoism is much too fluid and transcendent to get any "fuck the suffering" message from it.

Epicurean hedonism recognizes that "pleasure" is illusory and "lack" (the lack of pleasure) generates the negative experience of suffering. Schopenhauer, following in the Buddhist-Epicurean tradition, said that an individual can escape from the negative experience of suffering by renouncing the lack-generation of desire-production. If an individual no longer retains the ascetic ideal (the desire to escape suffering), suffering is no longer a negative experience, etc.

Buddhism teaches the renunciation of desire. I, like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, am compassionate. I just do not cower away from pain and death.

While I avoid ad hominem attacks, I really don't think you know very much about Taoism if that is your description of Laozi's view on suffering. Asian philosophy isn't some mystical, hippie trip with ninjas and "fluidity". Taoism is an actual philosophy, and Asians are actual people, with actual beliefs.

[Luveria]

No - that's pathetic. Smile, look back on your life, and value the experience you had.

If you want to go out in pain while smiling, feel free to do that but don't attempt to convince the rest of us how noble it is to suffer.

[Fintanland]

While I avoid ad hominem attacks, I really don't think you know very much about Taoism if that is your description of Laozi's view on suffering. Asian philosophy isn't some mystical, hippie trip with ninjas and "fluidity". Taoism is an actual philosophy, and Asians are actual people, with actual beliefs.

Again with the personal attacks. What I was going on about is that Taoism is mostly concerned not with practical moral guidelines. It is a way of viewing the world, yes, but it is hard to see how you can derive your piece of pseudo-intellectual claptrap from it. You are being insulting and presumptuous.

Si tacuisses...

[Enadail]

Buddhism teaches the renunciation of desire. I, like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, am compassionate. I just do not cower away from pain and death.

Strange definition of compassionate, and reductionist view of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that renouncing desire is how to achieve nirvana, but is only for those on the Eightfold Path. It teaches for those of us not taking that step yet, our goal should be to reduce the suffering around us.

While I avoid ad hominem attacks, I really don't think you know very much about Taoism if that is your description of Laozi's view on suffering. Asian philosophy isn't some mystical, hippie trip with ninjas and "fluidity". Taoism is an actual philosophy, and Asians are actual people, with actual beliefs.

And like most East Asian philosophies, its about how you live, not about how you treat the world. I can't think of any way to interpret your ideas under Taoism. He's dead right that its about "fluidity". Its about adapting and changing to get the most out of life instead of standing hard against what comes your way. In no way does it advocate giving up.

[Fintanland]

Strange definition of compassionate, and reductionist view of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that renouncing desire is how to achieve nirvana, but is only for those on the Eightfold Path. It teaches for those of us not taking that step yet, our goal should be to reduce the suffering around us.

I get the feeling that our...ahem...friend...has a preconceived idea, and reads any philosophy not to change his views, but to learn more complicated words to add bling to this preconceived notion that nothing matters, so we might as well give up.

EDIT: I just noticed my last clause could be read two ways. And I mean it two ways: Let's give up. Here is someone who is too arrogant to even consider different viewpoints, and just absorbs them to lend more complication to his original one.

[Desperate Measures]

Strange definition of compassionate, and reductionist view of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that renouncing desire is how to achieve nirvana, but is only for those on the Eightfold Path. It teaches for those of us not taking that step yet, our goal should be to reduce the suffering around us.

I get the feeling that our...ahem...friend...has a preconceived idea, and reads any philosophy not to change his views, but to learn more complicated words to add bling to this preconceived notion that nothing matters, so we might as well give up.

It'd be nice if it related at all to the cost of a broken arm in America. Fine, I'll embrace the pain and open my third eye. But is it asking too much that I also be able to make the rent?

[Augarundus]

First of all, people have been giving reasons (more productivity, less of a drain on relatives/welfare system, simple humanity...). Second, no, you have been giving one reason, and that was a very complicated way of saying "suffering is inevitable, so screw all those who suffer". DEATH is inevitable, too. Why not die right now?

The first two reasons you've listed are reasons why universal healthcare maximizes utility (which I don't agree with, but may or may not be true. However, they are not reasons why it is a "right" and not just a good policy).

I have given both a Socratic ("Why? The burden of proof for a right relies upon the affirmative") and a Schopenhauerean reason for why healthcare is not a right, as well as a Nietzschean reason for why it is not desirable.

In addition, I never said that someone should desire death. The desire for death in order to escape life only arises out of a dissatisfaction with life - out of a hatred of suffering. I do not die now because I live now. If I were, by some circumstance, to die now, I would not regret having lived.

Which is wholly different from trying to prevent it. But growing up is also inevitable... I'm guessing you oppose letting children behave as children? Change is inevitable, I assume you never use the same thing twice?

Growing up is inevitable, so children should not hate their futures. They should rejoice in their childhood, rejoice in their youth, rejoice in their old age, and face their deaths with fearless joy.

We only seek to prevent suffering because we view it as negative - because we categorically reject it as a positive experience. Just like we would only seek to prevent age because we view "growing up" as negative. I ask why this is the case, and, if we wish to value life, then we should not live in a state where we must reject our lives because we experience inevitable so-called "evils".

Nietzsche might be the closest, but even then, its nihilist. And Taoism is a way of living, not a philosophy for how to treat the world.

Taoism is a philosophy. Individuals act, think, and view existence (that is, they live) according to their philosophy (ontology - their orientation towards existence). Taoism, like Buddhism and Nietzschean philosophy, presents an ontology of accepting suffering.

Schopenhauer writes extensively on his views on suffering, which are essentially similar/westernized Taoist/Buddhist views (probably sharing more in common with Buddhism, whereas Nietzsche shares more in common with Laozi). Nietzsche writes more on Greek tragedies' conception of the Dionysian suffering, but his is a similar philosophy, and Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation instigated his interest in philosophy.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

I think healthcare is a privilege. Why should anyone be entitled to the hard work of doctors and nurses? If you can not pay for something, the responsibility does not then fall on the government to pay for it. Unless it is provided by a private charitable organization, healthcare should absolutely not be free or paid for by the government.

Yah, fuck roads! If someone can't afford to build or repair their own roads, why should they use my money?

Fuck education too... poor kids don't need no learnin, they should just head to a factory and work, right?

Fuck working as a society that depends on each other in order to survive, we're all individuals with no connection to each other!



Or you know, we could accept reality.

You can survive by yourself. Just drink your own piss like Bear Grylls.

[The New Sea Territory]

Absolute Privilege. It started as a private sector invention, and should stay as such.

[Mavorpen]

Strange definition of compassionate, and reductionist view of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that renouncing desire is how to achieve nirvana, but is only for those on the Eightfold Path. It teaches for those of us not taking that step yet, our goal should be to reduce the suffering around us.

In fact, in certain sects Buddhists tend to actually make vows to hold off on their own enlightenment in order to assist in others reach it before they do.

[Fintanland]

In addition, I never said that someone should desire death. The desire for death in order to escape life only arises out of a dissatisfaction with life - out of a hatred of suffering. I do not die now because I live now. If I were, by some circumstance, to die now, I would not regret having lived.

All okay (well, not) as a personal philosophy, but to treat others like they are just objects to fulfill your own weird spin on several philosophies is a violation of the Categorical Imperative so gigantic, Immanuel Kant would probably rise from the grave and punch you for it. Most people do not like to suffer, and it is immoral to force them to adhere to your personal view on the matter.

[Enadail]

Absolute Privilege. It started as a private sector invention, and should stay as such.

So did roads.

Thankfully, over time, things change.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Absolute Privilege. It started as a private sector invention, and should stay as such.

You are right.

Medicine had to be discovered. People seem to forget that poverty and disease was the norm for all of human history.

That is as ridiculous as saying "I am having my right to a spaceship violated because no one made one yet".

[Enadail]

Which is wholly different from trying to prevent it. But growing up is also inevitable... I'm guessing you oppose letting children behave as children? Change is inevitable, I assume you never use the same thing twice?

Growing up is inevitable, so children should not hate their futures. They should rejoice in their childhood, rejoice in their youth, rejoice in their old age, and face their deaths with fearless joy.

We only seek to prevent suffering because we view it as negative - because we categorically reject it as a positive experience. Just like we would only seek to prevent age because we view "growing up" as negative. I ask why this is the case, and, if we wish to value life, then we should not live in a state where we must reject our lives because we experience inevitable so-called "evils".

Because it is negative. It prevents people from achieving their desires and goals. From societies point of view, it prevents growth and leads to destruction.

Nietzsche might be the closest, but even then, its nihilist. And Taoism is a way of living, not a philosophy for how to treat the world.

Taoism is a philosophy. Individuals act, think, and view existence (that is, they live) according to their philosophy (ontology - their orientation towards existence). Taoism, like Buddhism and Nietzschean philosophy, presents an ontology of accepting suffering.

Yah, I'm gonna say you not nothing about Buddhism or Taoism, and leave it there. Anything you've said about either are either twisted or reductionist.

[Mavorpen]

Yah, I'm gonna say you not nothing about Buddhism or Taoism, and leave it there. Anything you've said about either are either twisted or reductionist.

To be fair, he's technically correct. Buddhism DOES present a case for accepting suffering. It does state that the first step to overcoming it is to accept that it is a fact of life, that the physical suffering one undergoes (birth, old age, sickness, and death) cannot be avoided. His conclusions can be disputed though.

[Esternial]

Absolute Privilege. It started as a private sector invention, and should stay as such.

You are right.

Medicine had to be discovered. People seem to forget that poverty and disease was the norm for all of human history.

That is as ridiculous as saying "I am having my right to a spaceship violated because no one made one yet".

So if I discover the cure for cancer, you can't force me to share.

[Fintanland]

To be fair, he's technically correct. Buddhism DOES present a case for accepting suffering. It does state that the first step to overcoming it is to accept that it is a fact of life, that the physical suffering one undergoes (birth, old age, sickness, and death) cannot be avoided. His conclusions can be disputed though.

"Can be disputed" is putting it mildly. He seems not to understand that while accepting suffering may be a good personal philosophy, forcing it onto others by ignoring their suffering is vile. A dying Buddhist would say "I accept my suffering". But what kind of asshole would tell a dying person "accept your suffering already!"?

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Absolute Privilege. It started as a private sector invention, and should stay as such.

So did roads.

Thankfully, over time, things change.

Thankfully?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_ ... of_America

Quote "Turnpikes were also later built in the United States. They were usually built by private companies under a government franchise. They typically paralleled or replaced routes already with some volume of commerce, hoping the improved road would divert enough traffic to make the enterprise profitable. Plank roads were particularly attractive as they greatly reduced rolling resistance and mitigated the problem of getting mired in mud. Another improvement, better grading to lessen the steepness of the worst stretches, allowed draft animals to haul heavier loads."

I will find more data in a sec

[Fintanland]

Thankfully?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_ ... of_America

Quote "Turnpikes were also later built in the United States. They were usually built by private companies under a government franchise. They typically paralleled or replaced routes already with some volume of commerce, hoping the improved road would divert enough traffic to make the enterprise profitable. Plank roads were particularly attractive as they greatly reduced rolling resistance and mitigated the problem of getting mired in mud. Another improvement, better grading to lessen the steepness of the worst stretches, allowed draft animals to haul heavier loads."

I will find more data in a sec

That's not data. It's just how the first private roads were built. Later, that task was largely nationalized, though.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

You are right.

Medicine had to be discovered. People seem to forget that poverty and disease was the norm for all of human history.

That is as ridiculous as saying "I am having my right to a spaceship violated because no one made one yet".

So if I discover the cure for cancer, you can't force me to share.

I don't know how you made that connection

I think intellectual property is not real. Thus there would be no means for that

[Enadail]

Yah, I'm gonna say you not nothing about Buddhism or Taoism, and leave it there. Anything you've said about either are either twisted or reductionist.

To be fair, he's technically correct. Buddhism DOES present a case for accepting suffering. It does state that the first step to overcoming it is to accept that it is a fact of life, that the physical suffering one undergoes (birth, old age, sickness, and death) cannot be avoided. His conclusions can be disputed though.

Well, Buddhism does accept suffering... but it doesn't advocate the idea of allowing suffering. It says that those on the Eightfold Path should accept all that comes to them in life. Its about personal "growth". On the other hand, it advocates easing suffering for others not on the Path. Buddhist monks are encouraged to give up their own gain for others. Its one reason why many monks take vows of poverty... any money they gain is given to others to dissuade their suffering.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Thankfully?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_ ... of_America

Quote "Turnpikes were also later built in the United States. They were usually built by private companies under a government franchise. They typically paralleled or replaced routes already with some volume of commerce, hoping the improved road would divert enough traffic to make the enterprise profitable. Plank roads were particularly attractive as they greatly reduced rolling resistance and mitigated the problem of getting mired in mud. Another improvement, better grading to lessen the steepness of the worst stretches, allowed draft animals to haul heavier loads."

I will find more data in a sec

That's not data. It's just how the first private roads were built. Later, that task was largely nationalized, though.

It was good when it was private is what I'm saying

[Mavorpen]

To be fair, he's technically correct. Buddhism DOES present a case for accepting suffering. It does state that the first step to overcoming it is to accept that it is a fact of life, that the physical suffering one undergoes (birth, old age, sickness, and death) cannot be avoided. His conclusions can be disputed though.

Well, Buddhism does accept suffering... but it doesn't advocate the idea of allowing suffering. It says that those on the Eightfold Path should accept all that comes to them in life. Its about personal "growth". On the other hand, it advocates easing suffering for others not on the Path. Buddhist monks are encouraged to give up their own gain for others. Its one reason why many monks take vows of poverty... any money they gain is given to others to dissuade their suffering.

Pretty much. There's nothing preventing Buddhists from deciding to consider healthcare a right.

[Fintanland]

It was good when it was private is what I'm saying

For a time, yes. Later, however, with the larger roads, which had to lead to less-profitable areas, state-sponsored roads were more efficient. Private investors have no interest in supplying roads to remote locations, but the national economy does.