Healthcare: Right or Privilege?

[Desperate Measures]

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.

You mean to say that Buddhists don't get off on the suffering of others?

[Enadail]

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

I'm not sure what you proved... that roads did start out privately?

Most maintained roads were created by private companies, and years later, many were leased by the government or purchased, not including those built by the government later on. This allowed cheaper travel and transport, boosting business profits and allowing the country to continue growth. Thank goodness roads didn't stay privatized; shit would cost so much more.

[Fintanland]

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

Hell (heh), even LaVeyan Satanism does not forbid you from providing health care for others, as long as doing so makes you feel good. We may have actually found someone who constructed a philosophy MORE selfish than LaVeyan Satanism.

[Mavorpen]

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

You mean to say that Buddhists don't get off on the suffering of others?

I'm sure there's some of us out there who are into BDSM.

[Esternial]

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

No means for what?

[Mexico-Brazilian Empire]

healthcare is one of those things, that are the only reason governments came into existence or continued to. its not a question of right or privilage, but of government living up to the responsibilities of its existence, or demonstrating a lack of moral character by refusing to.

I completely agree. The question of whether it's the government's responsibility to care for their citizen's health can essentially be reduced to the fundamental question of what are the reasons for having organized government. To me, healthcare belongs in the same category as roads. No one would say it is your right to have roads, but to question their existence would certainly earn you some bewildered looks.

[Fintanland]

I'm sure there's some of us out there who are into BDSM.

Well, you pretty much have to be into BDSM to get into a debate with Mr. Pseudointellectual over there. What was the safeword again?

[Enadail]

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

Hardly. I can speak to the history of the NJ Turnpike, from an old school paper. The NJ Turnpike was notorious for being under maintained. However, it was the only efficient means of transportation from central/southern jersey to New York, and so was commonly used. It was very useful, but not really all that "good". And as in my other post, nationalization of roads was necessary for continued growth. As is healthcare.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

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 DEFENSE does.

Fixed.

You're right; private investors DON'T have an interest in building 8 lane freeways to towns of 2000 people.... For a reason. It is a waste of money. And the "national" economy is the private economy. If the market doesn't devote resources to something, it is for a reason.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

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

Hardly. I can speak to the history of the NJ Turnpike, from an old school paper. The NJ Turnpike was notorious for being under maintained. However, it was the only efficient means of transportation from central/southern jersey to New York, and so was commonly used. It was very useful, but not really all that "good". And as in my other post, nationalization of roads was necessary for continued growth. As is healthcare.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/p ... z2O8NDjnML

One example? Not good enough for me.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

I don't know how you made that connection

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

No means for what?

To keep a cure for cancer hidden.

[Fintanland]

Fixed.

You're right; private investors DON'T have an interest in building 8 lane freeways to towns of 2000 people.... For a reason. It is a waste of money. And the "national" economy is the private economy. If the market doesn't devote resources to something, it is for a reason.

I know the interstate system was also built with a view to rapid troop movement. What I meant was that private businesses do not see the big picture. Those 2000 people need to get to work, and quick. Goods need to be transported to them. Both helps the economy, but may not be profitable for a private investor.

[Esternial]

No means for what?

To keep a cure for cancer hidden.

But I don't want you to be cured of cancer D:

[Flaxxony-Setram]

To keep a cure for cancer hidden.

But I don't want you to be cured of cancer D:

So you have no interest in making profit? Odd

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Fixed.

You're right; private investors DON'T have an interest in building 8 lane freeways to towns of 2000 people.... For a reason. It is a waste of money. And the "national" economy is the private economy. If the market doesn't devote resources to something, it is for a reason.

I know the interstate system was also built with a view to rapid troop movement. What I meant was that private businesses do not see the big picture. Those 2000 people need to get to work, and quick. Goods need to be transported to them. Both helps the economy, but may not be profitable for a private investor.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that private enterprise is more shortsighted than government. I do not have the energy to fight that fight today. May we agree to disagree?

[Fintanland]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that private enterprise is more shortsighted than government. I do not have the energy to fight that fight today. May we agree to disagree?

Yeah, let's. I used up all my fight against that sophist anyway.

[Luveria]

I'm sure there's some of us out there who are into BDSM.

Well, you pretty much have to be into BDSM to get into a debate with Mr. Pseudointellectual over there. What was the safeword again?

I don't think all BDSM enthusiasts are into pain for the sake of pain. That's masochism.

[Enadail]

Hardly. I can speak to the history of the NJ Turnpike, from an old school paper. The NJ Turnpike was notorious for being under maintained. However, it was the only efficient means of transportation from central/southern jersey to New York, and so was commonly used. It was very useful, but not really all that "good". And as in my other post, nationalization of roads was necessary for continued growth. As is healthcare.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/p ... z2O8NDjnML

One example? Not good enough for me.

But a link that just says that turnpikes were built by private companies is? In fact, the link you posted says how these roads were necessary to growth, but that the states didn't have money to build them themselves. I fail to see how that's a sign they should stay privatized.

[Fintanland]

I don't think all BDSM enthusiasts are into pain for the sake of pain. That's masochism.

You are right. Oh, and I remembered the safeword again: "Killfile".

[Esternial]

But I don't want you to be cured of cancer D:

So you have no interest in making profit? Odd

Odd perhaps, but not impossible.

WELCOME TO RAPTURE.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

So you have no interest in making profit? Odd

Odd perhaps, but not impossible.

WELCOME TO RAPTURE.

Ok. Well we might as well ditch markets completely due to that logic.

I guess a guy who finds the cure to cancer, according to you, wanted to spend years of his life and tons of money on a cure and then keep it to himself.

Oh, and apparently he got no external funds. Financed it himself.

Give me a break

[Esternial]

Odd perhaps, but not impossible.

WELCOME TO RAPTURE.

Ok. Well we might as well ditch markets completely due to that logic.
I guess a guy who finds the cure to cancer, according to you, wanted to spend years of his life and tons of money on a cure and then keep it to himself.
Oh, and apparently he got no external funds. Financed it himself.
Give me a break

I have no idea what point I was trying to get at, so I guess this is where we must end this line of thought in a disappointing finale.

I forgot to bring the fireworks.

[Enadail]

Odd perhaps, but not impossible.

WELCOME TO RAPTURE.

Ok. Well we might as well ditch markets completely due to that logic.

I guess a guy who finds the cure to cancer, according to you, wanted to spend years of his life and tons of money on a cure and then keep it to himself.

Oh, and apparently he got no external funds. Financed it himself.

Give me a break

Interestingly, I believe Esternial had the opposite idea: that someone would do good with no profit motive.

But I like your slippery slope response.

Interestingly, you argue for public healthcare with your statement: we're all interconnected, and healthy people grow market, sick people do not (for the most part). By keeping people healthy, we grow the economy.

[SaintB]

Basic Healthcare as in treatment for illness, healing injuries, life saving procedures, and emergency care, are a right that every human being should have and if they cannot bear that burden on their own then society as a whole should step in to help. There are hundreds of reasons why and not a single good reason why not.

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.

List as many as you'd like and I'll respond.

Oh yeah your whole 'nihilist' argument about suffering being inevitable. That's not a reason to not have healthcare.

I'll list reasons that directly benefit everyone, I won't even touch on the moral/ethical reasons:
A healthier society is a more productive and wealthy society - More wealth and productivity is a good thing for self explanatory reasons.
If sick people are treated quickly it prevents the spread of sickness - So if you look out for your neighbor when he catches the flu/plague/whatever it lessens your chance of contracting it too.
When the costs of healthcare are spread out wider they become almost negligible on an individual level - Saves everyone a little money.
Saves money in the long term by preventing private individuals declaring bankruptcy - More than 60% of ALL bankruptcies in the United States are caused by medical costs, every bankruptcy costs us all.

There's four that show why its good, as opposed to one that says people will suffer anyway.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

It's a right.