Heath care
i seem to try and try again but non of you aggree what with im saying i say that people over 50 years old may apply for Health Care and is provided with the medicine we need if you aggree send me a telegram
come on this is a good one
come on this is a good one
United Typos
03-12-2003, 04:26
well, i think everyone should have access to healthcare, not merely the old people, which i suppose i forgot to specify in my proposal (i knew i missed someone) but then they (as well as everyone else) would still be able to get it according to my proposal -.-
Honestly, health=development (and vice versa), development=good -.-
healthy peope=Happy people=unousted leader=rich leader -.-
It's not a "good one".
An entitlement to health care means that you get to force people to provide health care to you--meaning that the freedoms of some are forcibly reduced to provide something for others--meaning you have SLAVERY.
Heian-Edo
03-12-2003, 04:33
Ithuania,
There are rights of a higher nature than the Free Market, such as the inalienable right Mr. Jefferson wrote about some 227 years ago....I do feel Universal Healthcare to be one of these.
Again--free health care equals slavery. So you hold that there is a right to enslave?
Heian-Edo
03-12-2003, 04:42
How are people slaves if given free health care? Besides,if a doctor DOES refuse to help someone who is indigant (i.e. doesn't have the money for health care), he could go up before the Medical Association, as from my understandign,that is against the Hypocratic Oath.
Good health is a right,not a privledge.
You're very ignorant.
It is slavery because some people are having their freedoms reduced and are forced to provide something for someone else. That's slavery, plain and simple.
United Typos
03-12-2003, 04:59
... people choose to provide health care, they are not forced to do so.
health care professionals are professionals because they are paid for their services, and it it their profession to provide health care.
slavery requires being forced to do work against one's will. perhaps it is that way in your possibly despotic nation.
if they wished not to provide health, then they should not have become health care professionals in the first place.
Doctors, Nurses, Midwives, and Health Care professionals, they provide health care 1) because it is their duty 2) it is their job from which they get income from
It is a service, and they can refuse to give it if their personal ethics permits them so, but as for their professional ethics, if they committed to a duty, they should follow it through, and they will be compensated as per the deal they entered.
Abysseria
03-12-2003, 04:59
How are people slaves if given free health care? Besides,if a doctor DOES refuse to help someone who is indigant (i.e. doesn't have the money for health care), he could go up before the Medical Association, as from my understandign,that is against the Hypocratic Oath.
Good health is a right,not a privledge.
Firstly, the Hpyocratic Oath is not law. Doctors must obey the laws of their land, not an oath from centuries past.
Secondly, while I may politically agree with the notion of providing health care for all individuals in a nation, it is presumptous to say that there aren't other ways by which this could be done in individual member nations. The UN does not have the right to mandate health care to governments, but it can encourage nations to develop comprehensive health care policies of some kind.
United Typos
03-12-2003, 05:07
It is in the interest of United Nations and other states to support the establishment of health care in all its aligned nations.
If unhealthy diseased individuals from Nation A goes to Nation B, Nation B can get the diseases of Nation A.
Any outbreaks might have been prevented from spreading into the rest of the UN nations were there a more extensive health care service, and any occurence may have been controlled.
The indigent may not seek health care because they can not afford it. They cohabitate with the rest of the population, a population which may also not seek healthcare service due to its inaccessibility.
Disease spreads, people suffer, the population is unhealthy, production becomes inefficient, economies suffer.
Health is in the interest of every individual, every economy, and every nation.
Health should be and is recognized as a basic human right. The inaccessibility and inaffordability of acceptable and avaibable health care services is a violation of this right.
Abysseria
03-12-2003, 05:16
Abysseria respectfully points out to those nations supporting this bill that:
services and infrastructure already exists in the international community to monitor and help with health around the globe. The WHO, and many, many non-profit organizations offer health care to citizens of the world.
The UN does not have a right to legislate in the affairs of a member nation.
United Typos
03-12-2003, 05:25
But then, does the WHO exists here? -.-
WELL WHAT IF U FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE IT TO UR CITIEN sorry for th caps but what if you want to give it to them the hard working citizens
Then do it in your own damn nation.
... people choose to provide health care, they are not forced to do so.
1) What do you do if all of a sudden no one chooses to do so? Your options are (a) force people to provide it or (b) not follow through on your guarantee.
2) If the doctors are getting paid, how do you expect to pay for them? Taxes? What do you do if no one chooses to work, meaning there's no money to pay taxes with? Or if you don't want to use money, then whatever goods the people produce?
Either way you're up shit creek without a paddle, and the only way you're going to be able to follow through on this guarantee in any situation is if you force people to work--meaning slavery.
It is not the role of the UN to tell a country to become socialistic! It is a country's own priority if they decide to provide health care. A nation wide medical system could be disastrous. Look at the abuses that occur within the welfare and social security systems of the United States, each of these created to "help" people. People need to get off their lazy behinds and stop leeching off the government and their fellow citizens for a free hand out.
Oppressed Possums
03-12-2003, 16:00
If you allow us to keep slaves, we can ensure that they get THE BEST health care we can offer to anyone and not charge anyone.
come on this is a good one
OOC: You might find that you get more support and serious consideration if your posts were a bit more legible. I know that I tend to disregard posts that have rampant spelling, grammar, or syntax errors. You might have some very good ideas, but unless they are presented clearly, the fact is a lot of people will not pay any attention. They may even take the idea, reword it to be more clear and post it themselves (I notice this happened to you yesterday).
_Myopia_
03-12-2003, 19:08
You're very ignorant.
It is slavery because some people are having their freedoms reduced and are forced to provide something for someone else. That's slavery, plain and simple.
Stop flaming people.
slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2. a)The practice of owning slaves.
b)A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
Thus clearly, slavery is not a mere reduction in rights, but a situation in which you are OWNED and forced to work. You have shown that in a ridiculously improbable situation, maintaining free healthcare would necessitate slavery - but if everyone decided to stop working, then we would probably get rid of it before we forced people to work (it would be impossible anyway, as there would be noone working to enforce the slavery).
Everything involoves a trade-off. Personally, I belive that a sentient being's right to life takes precedence over economic rights, thus I feel it justified to tax goods and incomes in order to provide free healthcare. You seem to feel that the right to property etc. takes precedence over most other rights (out of interest, what if anything DO you consider to be more important than economic freedoms such as these?).
It's a matter of priorities not ignorance.
I dont know anything about health care, but I like this talk about slavery. Lets institute that. And I call pretty much all of you as my slaves.
It'll be a fun life, I promise! Who doesnt love cleaning my room and touching me inapropriately? I know I love to.
well its like this guy i just want to tie down for a month let his muscles get soft then let canabels eat him ..... by the way DID YALL HEAR ABOUT THAT GUY THAT GAVE HIS LIFE AND PEOPLE ATE HIM?
No I haven't heard that story, please do tell!
No, wait a minute, this sounds an awful lot like that story about that one Mexican guy...
Well i was in gym class when i walk in to coaches office to ask him something and it was on cnn about some guy who killed him self to save other i think and i think they viedo taped it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
So if you are allowed to kill yourself in order to feed people, why couldnt you sell off your internal organs? Instead of mandatory health care, let people sell kidneys or lungs, or livers, in order to pay for health insurance. I know some companies where part of enrolling in the health plan is giving up an arm and a leg...