Greater Equality: How Equality Effectively Determines a Nation's Social Aspects

I know it was really jumbled and I apologize. I was just trying to throw together a very brief response to the last page's comments. Not to mention I got 2.5 hours of sleep last night. I'll be back with something that isn't all over the place tomorrow hopefully.
 
Colleges often offer large scholarships to kids in situations like this. My cousin grew up with a dad addicted to meth and spent their family into over $60,000 of debt, she did well in school, straight A's, not much participation in clubs or anything else, but Stanford gave her a full ride scholarship. Although this is probably not necessarily what always happens, colleges do like to give to those that try hard in tough situations.
 
I say post a source, you post one from the government. I don't believe it because the government lies about things all the time(example actual unemployment vs. what they qualify unemployment as)

I ask for a private source, thinking you'll just send me a normal one. You send me a source from an advocate for single payer, they're obviously going to fudge the facts to suit their aim.

I ask for an unbiased one, you don't provide it. It's that simple. I want the facts, the numbers nigga! THE STATISTICS! I don't want some dickwads opinion(though I have been guilty of this myself, simply because I'm not on my computer).

Shaky reports, I must admit are my fault. You do have me there, I could have better documented sources. Shitty insults are simply because we have such a drastic ideological difference I cannot comprehend your point of view no matter how hard I try(I guess my experienced has numbed me to the efficiency of single payer). Though I'm sure your experience with the American system has made you think that single payer is much more effective.

I'm going to be an adult about this and respond with this. There is no perfect, final system that will sufficiently supply everyone with the care they need. If it exists...we haven't found it yet. Single payer doesn't work from an economic point of view, and in my humble opinion, a human point of view. You think a privatized system doesn't work from an economic point of view(though I will point out that medicaid and medicare do add to the overwhelming amount of money the American government spends on healthcare). Proportionally, I think if you compared Americans covered by insurance waiting for care with Canadians waiting for care covered by OHIP..you would find the percentage of people dying in Canada to be higher(simply an educated assumption on my part, not basing this on any study)

I don't believe healthcare is a right, and you do. It's as simple as that. I'll respect your opinion, and I'll defend to the death your right to say it ;). This argument simply isn't going to be solved over the internet, it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

Have a good day man.

 
If you understood economics you'd understand how unemployment works with a natural rate and all that, so I wouldn't quality that as a lie until they're actually fudging the numbers instead of just modifying them for what the actual definition of unemployment is. (But who knows, right?)

Especially with this issue, it's pretty damn hard to fined an unbiased source. Not too many people will go out of their way these days to simply post the numbers without their point of view attached, so I just found a few without too loud of opinions. I apologize.

For the rest, fair enough. You believe healthcare is a luxury, I believe it's a right. Guess we're done here.
 
you're right, they do. but, like an business, schools don't have an unlimited amount of money to give away to people who need it, even if they would like to. when it comes down to it chances are that, if they have to choose between accepting a kid who can pay on his or her own, or one who needs financial aid, they will let the kid who can pay in.
 
This is kind of funny coming from you. Reading Paul Krugman's blog does not constitute an understanding of economics.
 
i think it's hard to define one or the other. there's the whole thing in the dec. of independence about the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. it's not too hard to argue that access to health care ties right into "life"
 
In the name of equality how come some people are better looking than others? Being good looking will bring a better q of l to someone. If you understand anything about innate prejudices you will understand that. So is the solution to beat good looking people in the face until they are as ugly as everybody else? We need equality right?
 
Not exactly, there's a clear distinction between negative and positive rights.

You have a negative right to life (all people do, barring some exceptions), meaning that other people are prohibited from taking your life or harming your health. Others have an obligation to refrain from actions that affect your right to life.

If you believe that you have a positive right to life, you believe that you have the right to lay claim to the property of others to keep yourself alive. This means you believe you have the right to have your food, healthcare, and shelter paid for by others. Which means that others have an obligation not to refrain but to act.

It is quite obvious which one the founders' meant.
 
isn't the government there to protect society and its people? so how can it idly stand by and let someone die because they don't have the money?
 
Here's a quote from an interview taken in 2001 that may shed light on it,

"But the supreme court never ventured in to the issue of redistribution

of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic

justice in the society. And to that extent, as radical as people try to

characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical, it didn't break

free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding

fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and the

Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the

constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states

can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you,

but it doesn't say what the state or federal government must do on

your behalf."

- Barack Obama

While there's probably nothing I could say that would convince you, maybe that will.
 
my point is it is very much up to each individual's interpretation, right? it's very hard to tell how the founders meant it, or even if it matters how they meant it.

you may think it means negative liberties, someone else may say positive. how can we say who is definitively right or wrong?
 
I knew this was where the discussion was headed.

I can definitively say one person is wrong based on studying the intent of the founders. Lets take a closer look at the part of the declaration in question.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

In writing this Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" in which Locke outlines the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, given to each man by God. These rights have been given to each man by God, and not by their fellow men, meaning that they cannot be taken away by others. These natural rights (or liberties) can be understood as negative rights, and never as positive rights. I think I can say with certainty that Locke never intended for the right to life to be interpreted as one man having a God-given right to the property of another.

This is opposed to alienable (or positive) rights, which can be taken away. On one year you may have the right given to you by government contract that you may ride the bus for free. The next year the government may decide you no longer have that right. These rights are not natural rights, they are not God-given rights like those to life, liberty, and property.

I hope I was able to somewhat clarify, it's almost 1 am in my time zone and I'm falling asleep.



 
If the man behind obamacare believes the right to life is a negative liberty, than anybody who thinks its a positive liberty is smoking some really cheap crack
 
those were really good points and a really good post, but there is the "think" again. someone else may think differently and i am sure could find evidence to back up why they think that the way you did. doesn't make either opinion any more or less valid than the other.

personally, i don't know what the answer to the question of whether health care is a right or not is. but why does it matter? who cares whether or not it was one of the rights the founders intended us to have? why not just do what we feel is the correct, best thing for the most people? i don't know what that is either, but it seems to me that discussing what we and don't have a right to, based on a document written over 200+ years ago, isn't getting anyone anywhere.
 
A doctors labor is worth something. You could consider it property. So if the right to life is a positive right then that means one man has a right to take another mans property. How can you possibly think the right to life is a positive right or that the founding fathers intended it to be viewed as a positive right? For health to be considered a positive right you must consider anybody who is not a doctor treating people for free VIOLATING another persons right to health. Does that make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER? No it does not. So please stop bullshitting this thread with you positive right detritus.
 
like i said, i'm sure you could find plenty of evidence to make that argument.

and, again, i don't care about that. why are we so focused on rights? why not just try and do what we think is best for us an everyone around us instead of worrying about what the founding fathers though? and, before you attack me again (not that this will stop you), i don't know what that is. i'm just saying arguing about what are and aren't our intended rights isn't going to get us anywhere.
 
Did you not read this?

"For health to be considered a positive right you must consider anybody who is not a doctor treating people for free to be VIOLATING another persons right to health. Does that make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER?

Please keep this in mind when thinking about your futile argument for what the founding fathers meant. There is 0 logic to your position
 
that depends on people considering the ability to treat someone as a property, which is debatable.

and, again (third or fourth time now i think), who cares what rights we were or were not intended to have? why not just decide what we think is best for us now instead of worrying what the founding fathers wanted us to do.
 
Also I can live with socialized healthcare. As long as it is appreciated as a generosity rather than a right that has been kept from people. It's the same argument as taxes. I can live with higher taxes. What I can't live with is people complaining that the rich need to pay "their fair share". The rich already pay 10 20 100 times more taxes than the poor pay. The rich already pay the MAJORITY of taxes that are collected. If you want to say the rich should pay more that is a fair argument. It's the insidious class warefare-infused statements like "fair share" that do nothing but make people assume the victim perspective. If taxes on the rich increase people need to show some fucking gratitude about it rather than believing that society owes it to them to have the rich paying more taxes, as if they weren't already paying their fair share. Who the fuck decides what a fair share is? The tyranny of the majority? Fucking Barack Obama? You see the problem with one person or a tyrannical majority spewing bullshit about what is fair or what are a persons rights as if their words should be considered as fact rather than simply an opinion
 
You keep dodging my point. If a person has a right to medical treatment as a positive right, then you yourself are violating a persons right to health by not being a doctor and treating them. It isnt rocket science. I agree that a society with socialized medicine could be ideal. But there are many problems that will come with it that are hard to address. And with a socialized medicine society, the public should show gratefulness for the sacrifices that doctors etc must make to confirm to this structure rather than claim that it is a right that they have until now been deprived of.
 
agreed. i think, generally, the upper and lower class have very bad, very incorrect views of each other i.e. the poor as all being lazy bastards who could easily make millions if they tried even just a little, and the rich as selfish snobs who care for no one but themselves. there's nothing productive about stereotyping the other side to the point of making caricatures out of them; we're all human, we all more or less want the same things.

this is all so off topic...
 
Still. Many rich people grew up poor so they know what it's like to be both poor and rich while the poor only know what it's like to be poor. So there is a marginally better perspective to come out of some rich people. Some rich people might do better as poor people than poor people themselves. When I grew up if I asked my parents for a pair of 200 Jordan's theydve told me to get lost. While alot of poor people blow half their welfare check on Jordan's and designer t shirts. One has to wonder sometimes why some poor people remain poor and if they should really be complaining about social mobility and equality in the face if so many poor people who break out into the middle class and higher
 
A graduated income tax is necessary for this simple reason: (And the numbers I use are not intended for actual use, I'm just using them rhetorically) A 20% income tax affects someone making 60K a whole lot more than it does someone making 10M.
 
And do you think we need an even more progressive tax so the rich pay there fair share? Haha. Your a fucking loser dude. You'll be teaching a pol 210 precept at some shit college soon. You're argument about healthcare being a right got annihilated on this page. Give up already. According to your logic, you are violating my right to health by not becoming a doctor and treating me cuz I have a cold... Figure that one out you entitled fucking loser
 
Btw I realize your trolling for effect. I know your not that dense that you don't realize you lost your argument that healthcare is a right.
 
The healthcare debate is starting to become stale. We've hit just about everything and no one in changing their views as usual. Bottom line is you're okay with people not having care because they can't afford it for whatever reason, and I believe everyone should get care based on what they need. I'd say we're done here.
 
Actually a ton of people's views changed regarding healthcare being a negative right and not a positive one. Your the only passive aggressive asshole pretending you didn't get put in your place. And btw it looks like this isn't your thread anymore
 
oh and zimmerman you were right about one thing, facts dont lie, people make up facts that are incorrect.
 
There is no such thing as an "incorrect fact"

You can't make shit up when you're citing reputable sources (Just look in the pamphlet, everything is cited to well known databases.

I wouldn't say I was "put in my place." The bottom line is, your side is perfectly okay with people dying because they can't afford healthcare for any reason, and mine isn't okay with that.
 
Bleeding heart nonsense.

Unfortunately for you an economy does not run on good intentions. Healthcare is a service like any other, some governments have the ability to provide this service to their people, most do not. This is not a "right" but rather a privilege and should be treated as such.

 
Not at all. Healthcare is something everyone needs regardless of financial standing. It just isn't fair that someone who got laid off may not get the care they need while someone with a trust fund can. A healthy population is an able population. We cannot afford to leave people without care. I mean that. Not to mention that single payer lowers the overhead cost, but it seems you'll just never accept that.
 
uhm yes there is

barack obama is white- fact not true. seems pretty incorrect to me unless you believe what anyone tells you, but you are that stupid.
 
If it weren't true it wouldn't be a fact. I'm not saying that some people mislabel things by calling them "facts" but no matter what, if something is a fact, it is true. It's pretty simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top