Originally Posted By: Derid
This is even more laughable coming from someone such as yourself who believes that ends justify the means.


You are talking to empty chairs here, again.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: sinij

Society doesn't exist on its own, it has to be maintained with pooled resources. If this makes it slavery, then I am glad to be a slave.


Society has existed for a long time before some people started deciding that health care was a natural right.


So you advocating Amish lifestyle? Sure, people lived in the wood shacks, died before 30th birthday and had 12 kids, with only about 4 making it to adulthood. I didn't know you were such a literal traditionalist. Even back in these days, a visit from a doctor to drain your excess humors would not bankrupt your family.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: sinij
Democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to protect it and make sure that your fellow members of society are not too hungry, too sick or out on the streets to meaningfully participate in it. If this makes it slavery, then I am glad to be a slave.


First of all, we live in a Republic not a democracy. Democracy itself is not inherently just, its actually two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Rules need to be established, reflecting principles that defend an individual's rights for a society to be just.


Are you familiar with hierarchy of needs? It is very basic concept that boils down to following conclusion - if you are hungry, homeless or too ill then you only capable caring about food, shelter or getting better. Participation in democracy does not come until all these basics are fulfilled. By denying these basics to a segment of your society you are denying them an opportunity to participate. While you convinced that healthcare is slavery, I am equally convinced that denying access to healthcare is voter suppression.

Quote:
Because society is comprised of individuals, so if individuals do not have rights.. noone has rights. Individual rights > mob rule.


Then you turn around and deny the right to live healthily, free of medical-bill-bankruptcy? Deny it categorically, regardless of circumstances?!

Quote:
People actively have partaken in society, and in politics for long before health care started being called a "right". So on the face of it, your implied assertion that health care needs to be a "right" for participatory society to function has no relevance in the face of centuries of historical fact contradicting you.


Historically, access to a public highway wasn't a right ether, but I don't see modern society existing without such access. Or you also advocate that highway system should be reserved for a well-off segment of population that could afford to buy-in into the system?

Still, main difference, is that "historically" almost everyone had access to "historical" health care, and it did not bankrupt you. Nowadays, we get much better medicine, but system is set up in a way that there is no way to get some basic level of it - you ether buy into system, with all its "defensive medicine" excesses or you are left out of it. Why should it be a choice of leaving someone bleeding on the street or bankrupting them with medical bills? Why can't we have a universal and basic access to "we won't let you bleed to death, on the house" and what so monstrous about such system that you equate it to slavery?!

Quote:
You seem to think that the necessary level of collectivism required for the common good can be extended and expanded to encompass whatever arbitrary concept your whim deems necessary. What a twisted worldview.


Yes indeed, what an arbitrary concept of not leaving people bleeding on the streets.

Last edited by sinij; 10/04/12 10:06 AM.
[Linked Image]