NationStates Jolt Archive

Well folks, according to recent reports Medicare will spend more than it takes in this year. While this is separate from Social Security, it shows that the problem is coming sooner than originally thought. Just last year it was said that Medicare wouldn't be overspending until 2013. I wonder how much longer Social Security will last.

People are living longer these days and we need to raise the age limits to reflect this trend. Sadly, the AARP will make this next to impossible and will ultimately cause the downfall of the SS system.


Report Says Medicare to Go Broke by 2019
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/medicare_social_security

I'm assuming you're in the U.S. Y'all need to follow the Canadian example and increase your immigration levels *dramatically* cuz your birth rate's not high enough. Gotta keep bringing in those younger taxpaying working folk to keep your social programmes alive.

There's an even more sobering example than the U.S.: have a look at Japan. Their birthrate's almost stopped and yet they stubbornly refuse to allow immigration (except for guest workers). They are consequently headed for a most spectacular socio-economic crisis fairly soon.

Just so you know, Rand was an irrantional bitch queen of a hack. Objectivism is a joke, even as far as most libertarians are concerned.
public service announcment or something.

Sadly, the AARP will make this next to impossible and will ultimately cause the downfall of the SS system.

Not to be a spokesperson for the AARP, but isn't Social Security more likely to go broke because Congress has taken all the past years surpluses and issued IOU's for it. It's Congress that has spent the money on other REALLY NEEDED important projects. Had that money been invested for future revenue, the program might have made it to 2013, or longer. How do you figure this is the AARP's fault??

My long held premise has been that, come 2015, if you've got any other retirement pension, cash value life insurance, investments/stocks/bonds paying dividends equal to minimum wage or greater, you can kiss any chance of collecting your social security taxes paid in good-bye. The govt. will simply tell you that you're well enough off, and that you don't really NEED it.

I don't like Social Security, and I hate the AARP.

Before we can begin to address that problem, I think we need to get the rest of our balance sheet back in order.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea, Medicare just sucks!! Actually I have a coupla friends in debate who are working upon cases for a 'US providing universal health care' debate

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea, Medicare just sucks!! Actually I have a coupla friends in debate who are working upon cases for a 'US providing universal health care' debate

what really just sucks is when Bush allowes drug companies to price gouge people by denying the Govts ability to get cheaper drug prices and medicare doesnt suck its been a success story since it was created--what sucks is the greed of the drug companies who own the GOP

what really just sucks is when Bush allowes drug companies to price gouge people by denying the Govts ability to get cheaper drug prices and medicare doesnt suck its been a success story since it was created--what sucks is the greed of the drug companies who own the GOP

Don't blame the corporations, the government is the one gouging prices through agencies like the FDA who's "safety" standards cause over 20,000 deaths a year and obviously favor companies that are in bed with teh GOP. Silly FDA regulations prevent reimporations and basically guarantee monopolies by politically influential corporations.

The government doesn't allow corporations to gouge prices--it gouges prices for them.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Care to elaborate?

It's not really necessary...you know the proof I'll give, I know the bullshit of a pitifully failed attempt at a rebuttal you'll give, and we'll both have wasted our time.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

It's not really necessary...you know the proof I'll give, I know the bullshit of a pitifully failed attempt at a rebuttal you'll give, and we'll both have wasted our time.

:? No, I think it is necessary. What's the pitiful attempt you expect me to make? I certainly don't think it's intellectually fair of you to refuse to back up your assertion in any way.

what really just sucks is when Bush allowes drug companies to price gouge people by denying the Govts ability to get cheaper drug prices and medicare doesnt suck its been a success story since it was created--what sucks is the greed of the drug companies who own the GOP

Don't blame the corporations, the government is the one gouging prices through agencies like the FDA who's "safety" standards cause over 20,000 deaths a year and obviously favor companies that are in bed with teh GOP. Silly FDA regulations prevent reimporations and basically guarantee monopolies by politically influential corporations.

The government doesn't allow corporations to gouge prices--it gouges prices for them.

I know--the drug companies own the GOP and the guy Bush just appointed to head medicare was the same guy who supported stealing cheap canadian drugs from seniors

in the 70's certain elements in the government expected the military to have gone bankrupt by 1996 :wink:

what really just sucks is when Bush allowes drug companies to price gouge people by denying the Govts ability to get cheaper drug prices and medicare doesnt suck its been a success story since it was created--what sucks is the greed of the drug companies who own the GOP

Don't blame the corporations, the government is the one gouging prices through agencies like the FDA who's "safety" standards cause over 20,000 deaths a year and obviously favor companies that are in bed with teh GOP. Silly FDA regulations prevent reimporations and basically guarantee monopolies by politically influential corporations.

The government doesn't allow corporations to gouge prices--it gouges prices for them.

Without the safety standards, your poor benevolent corporations would be manufacturing those tonics, from the 1800's. You know, those ones that are a cocktail of narcotic and alchohol, and god knows what else.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

Well I believe its justified in cases where its life-or-death, unpreventable diseases, however I don't want to shell out cash for someone's heart medicine that they need because they ate too much McDonalds on their own accord.

Well I believe its justified in cases where its life-or-death, unpreventable diseases, however I don't want to shell out cash for someone's heart medicine that they need because they ate too much McDonalds on their own accord.

well you pay far more when people cant afford insurance under our current failed health care system--so no matter how you look at it your gonna pay--but its alot cheaper under single payer health care

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.
You're missing the point. Somewhere along the line, you're going to have to force someone to pay for someone else without their consent--if not the doctor, then the people paying for the doctors.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
What's your point? That a right can be created out of thin air by writing it down on a piece of paper? The existence of a right is independent of its enumeration--not being on a piece of paper somewhere does not in and of itself mean that something is not a right, but also just because it IS on a piece of paper does not necessarily mean that it IS a right. Socialized medicine cannot exist without violating individual rights; therefore, it is NOT a right.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.
Incorrect. The UN (and apparently, you) needs to learn some basic philosophy.

You do not have the right to be a professional tax evader. You lose.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

You do not have the right to be a professional tax evader. You lose.

the wealthiest corporations in America pay no taxes so its legal for them

Actually, I do, because no entity, be it government or anything else, can legitimately expropriate what rightfully belongs to me without my consent. Government may attempt to punish me, but it I am still within my rights. Government merely chooses to disregard that particular right--and therefore becomes illegitimate.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Well you're taking slavery well outside the context of it's general definition, but lets examine this issue differently. Your argument (I think) presents a lot of problems in regards to what society is and what it should be. Lets both ignore issues of 'natural rights', because you can't satisfactorily prove them, and I'm not about to accept them unless you do.

Consent is always going to be an issue, no matter how you want to structure government (I assume you're something of a minarchist). Example: I didn't consent to laws concerning property, therefore I shouldn't have to obey them. Of course you're going to claim natural rights, but I think we have to disregards this argument (for reasons discussed before coupled with burden of proof; if you make the claim they exist, you must supply adequate proof). So outside of natural right theory, with the requirement that all laws must be universally consented to in order to be considered binding, how are any laws legitimate? No matter what kind of law you propose someone is going to disagree with you, and to apply coercive force is the ultimate violation of consent. So basically we have to be aware that coercion is always going to be an element of government and lawmaking.

The question becomes, therefore, what constitutes legitimate grounds for this government? I suspect you would again bring up natural rights, and again I'll have to ask you to put it aside. I would argue when we look at what legitimizes laws, we look towards two things- what is reasonable and overlapping consent. We should ask ourselves 'ideally, would a reasonable person agree to this rule?

A reasonable person is someone who realizes they are participating in a cooperative social venture; that is to say, they realiize and identify themselves as part of a society (now this society can be whatever form you care to mention, including minarchist, as long as they feel they are part of this political project). They are willing to discuss and debate openly and freely among people who are free and equal (morally speaking). They are willing to disregard aspects of their own moral comprehensive code that cannot be reasonably accepted by other people in society- it is unreasonable for a fundementalist to try and legislate his or her beliefs, because I as an atheist cannot reasonably be expected to recognize the validity of the bible as a source of justice, knowledge or good. Finally, reasonable people are willing to abide by the general consensus agreed upon without threat of force- they are not obeying laws merely to avoid punishment, but because of a belief in the legitimacy and correctness of those laws.

Now let us invision a scenario: a child is born to destitute parents in our society. Do we let the child starve, or do we provide free health care and assistance to assure it lives and prospers? I feel, given the understanding of reasonable advanced above, it would be very unreasonable to say we would determine it should starve.

Actually, I do, because no entity, be it government or anything else, can legitimately expropriate what rightfully belongs to me without my consent. Government may attempt to punish me, but it I am still within my rights. Government merely chooses to disregard that particular right--and therefore becomes illegitimate.

sigh.

Burden of proof is on you. Can you show these rights exist? I suspect not, judging from past discussions. If you can't show they exist, why do you continue to posit their existence?

You do not have the right to be a professional tax evader. You lose.

the wealthiest corporations in America pay no taxes so its legal for them

Corporations pay taxes. They just pass them off as price increases to the individual consumer, so they might as well not.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Taxes are what you pay in exchange for society's support. That's patently NOT slavery.

And there are no "natural rights", aside from the will to power. That's why we made rights.

Human Rights, as agreed on, are the only rights that that there are. And I demand them.

Additionally, you're taking the Hippocratic oath in your defense? A doctor would be breaking that oath not to treat someone because they could not pay for it.

Burden of proof is on you. Can you show these rights exist? I suspect not, judging from past discussions. If you can't show they exist, why do you continue to posit their existence?

I have. Several times. The nation under which I posted them (Ithuania) was deleted, so I don't know how easy they will be to find, but I have posted them.

Burden of proof is on you. Can you show these rights exist? I suspect not, judging from past discussions. If you can't show they exist, why do you continue to posit their existence?

I have. Several times. The nation under which I posted them (Ithuania) was deleted, so I don't know how easy they will be to find, but I have posted them.

Okay, but I know the argument you presented, as it's a development of Ayn Rand's arguments which I'm quite familiar with. It's flawed, broken, it doesn't follow.

This is a good summation of some of the problems with that argument presented by David Friedman, a well-known and respected anarcho-capitalist.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Taxes are what you pay in exchange for society's support. That's patently NOT slavery.

And there are no "natural rights", aside from the will to power. That's why we made rights.

Human Rights, as agreed on, are the only rights that that there are. And I demand them.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

I don't think this is a very good argument for rights... just because you WANT them to be absolute doesn't make them so.

What stops you from making your own rights? Nothing really, but why should anyone else believe in them? If you could convince society you had the right to stomp kittens, you would have the right to stop kittens. Rights are transient and socially determined, which is part of the reaon the UN's declaration was that well received- different people have different ideas (or no ideas) of rights.

What I think you mean is that if a right is not absolute, it is changable, which I would contend is a good think. At the time of founding, ownership of other people was considered part of property rights. Now it's not.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Taxes are what you pay in exchange for society's support. That's patently NOT slavery.

And there are no "natural rights", aside from the will to power. That's why we made rights.

Human Rights, as agreed on, are the only rights that that there are. And I demand them.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

If you don't want society's support, stop using it. If you're not using society, you're probably not paying taxes either. So it all evens out.

And the UN's rights are enforced. That's about it really.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

I don't think this is a very good argument for rights... just because you WANT them to be absolute doesn't make them so.

What stops you from making your own rights? Nothing really, but why should anyone else believe in them? If you could convince society you had the right to stomp kittens, you would have the right to stop kittens. Rights are transient and socially determined, which is part of the reaon the UN's declaration was that well received- different people have different ideas (or no ideas) of rights.

What I think you mean is that if a right is not absolute, it is changable, which I would contend is a good think. At the time of founding, ownership of other people was considered part of property rights. Now it's not.

And that's about right.

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Taxes are what you pay in exchange for society's support. That's patently NOT slavery.

And there are no "natural rights", aside from the will to power. That's why we made rights.

Human Rights, as agreed on, are the only rights that that there are. And I demand them.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

If you don't want society's support, stop using it. If you're not using society, you're probably not paying taxes either. So it all evens out.

And the UN's rights are enforced. That's about it really.

I can't stop paying taxes legally. If you'd extend the olive branch so far as to make it voluntary, then we could talk.

The UN's rights are enforced? Since when? Last I checked, the Chinese people were still in shackles; the Russians are increasingly being cracked down upon... the North Koreans are living in desperate poverty, with no control over their own destinies... need I say more?

I can't stop paying taxes legally. If you'd extend the olive branch so far as to make it voluntary, then we could talk.

Well actually you can. It's called emigration. Same way if I want the right to beat the shit out of my wife, I'm welcome to move to Iran.

The UN's rights are enforced? Since when? Last I checked, the Chinese people were still in shackles; the Russians are increasingly being cracked down upon... the North Koreans are living in desperate poverty, with no control over their own destinies... need I say more?

The UN declaraion is largely specious. It's only backed by countries that already have those rights anyways.

Sadly, the AARP will make this next to impossible and will ultimately cause the downfall of the SS system.

Not to be a spokesperson for the AARP, but isn't Social Security more likely to go broke because Congress has taken all the past years surpluses and issued IOU's for it. It's Congress that has spent the money on other REALLY NEEDED important projects. Had that money been invested for future revenue, the program might have made it to 2013, or longer. How do you figure this is the AARP's fault??

My long held premise has been that, come 2015, if you've got any other retirement pension, cash value life insurance, investments/stocks/bonds paying dividends equal to minimum wage or greater, you can kiss any chance of collecting your social security taxes paid in good-bye. The govt. will simply tell you that you're well enough off, and that you don't really NEED it.


Sorry to interrupt your debate, but this guy(if your a guy) has a good grip on reality. If your in your thirties now you should invest in your retirement. SS won't be around, considering there won't be a tax base large enough to supporrt it. Invest now and surrive.

I can't stop paying taxes legally. If you'd extend the olive branch so far as to make it voluntary, then we could talk.

Well actually you can. It's called emigration. Same way if I want the right to beat the shit out of my wife, I'm welcome to move to Iran.

The UN's rights are enforced? Since when? Last I checked, the Chinese people were still in shackles; the Russians are increasingly being cracked down upon... the North Koreans are living in desperate poverty, with no control over their own destinies... need I say more?

The UN declaraion is largely specious. It's only backed by countries that already have those rights anyways.

The difference is that your demand to beat your wife is completely unreasonable. I only want to keep what is rightfully mine to begin with.

You're exactly right about the UN Declaration. It is only words. But as far as I'm concerned, China doesn't have those rights. Russia is losing them. If only some of the points are observed, why even defer to the entire document?

Though the idea of universal gov't health care is a great idea,

Uhh...no, it's not.

Uhh, yeah, yeah it is.

Only way to protect people's rights. Private healthcare should be phased out completely.

How so? You mean the right to enslave? Because that's what socialized medicine is--slavery. It is forcing one person (or group of people) to provide for the well-being of others without their consent. That is wrong. That is evil. That is never justified, in any circumstance.

Bwahaha...Bullshit. Firstly, treating the sick is part of being a doctor. Secondly, doctors should be paid fair wages, since they are saving lives, and they would be paid fairly. There is no slavery anywhere.

Thirdly: I draw your attention to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In summary, everyone, without exception, has the right to healthcare.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball completely.
Where does the UN draw these supposed rights from? Do animals give eachother free healthcare? Can you draw examples from natural law? Since when is the United States Constitution subservient to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something its people never instituted in Congress to begin with?

What do doctors getting paid fair wages have to do with anything at all? They would be paid more privately than by the government. In fact, I know I would cease practicing medicine if the government was to nationalize it - and I know many others who would as well. I don't feel like dealing with the red tape involved.

True, doctors do have an obligation to help the sick. This is why they take the Hippocratic Oath. There's no need to make government force them to do something they already do willingly.

Regarding slavery... I didn't see you redress this. Perhaps I misread. Where do you think this money to "pay the doctors" for the patients comes from? It doesn't materialize. If you knew basic economics you'd know it would destroy the economy overnight if the government printed money for this purpose. So where does it come from? Taxes. Taxes you, me, and every other average Joe out there is FORCED at gunpoint to pay. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.

Taxes are what you pay in exchange for society's support. That's patently NOT slavery.

And there are no "natural rights", aside from the will to power. That's why we made rights.

Human Rights, as agreed on, are the only rights that that there are. And I demand them.

As most leftists tout equality and acceptance of less popular viewpoints, I have one for you. What if I don't want society's aid? It would be slavery to me, then.

So if rights are made by people, what stops me from making my own rights? When did every person on this planet gather and decide on these rights? The United Nations declaration of human rights was written by only a few nations, and even then, only by representatives. It takes no consensus. What if people disagree with someone else's interpretation of rights? Since they are man made, they are able to be contested and revoked by man - by the very definition. If a right is not absolute, it is not sustainable.

If you don't want society's support, stop using it. If you're not using society, you're probably not paying taxes either. So it all evens out.

And the UN's rights are enforced. That's about it really.

I can't stop paying taxes legally. If you'd extend the olive branch so far as to make it voluntary, then we could talk.

The UN's rights are enforced? Since when? Last I checked, the Chinese people were still in shackles; the Russians are increasingly being cracked down upon... the North Koreans are living in desperate poverty, with no control over their own destinies... need I say more?

Actually, yes you can. Stop using society. If you use society and don't pay the taxes you are stealing from the State.

The problem in this country is people take for granted Medicare and Social Security exist, so, they don't try to make up for retirement on there own, assuming the two programs will still be there. This is simply a wake-up call.

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

The difference is that your demand to beat your wife is completely unreasonable. I only want to keep what is rightfully mine to begin with.

You claim to ''reasonable'' is only valid within the context of your own beliefs; an Islamic person might rationally deduce from his given premises that beating his wife is indeed a reasonable thing. What is understood as reasonable varies from culture to culture.

You're exactly right about the UN Declaration. It is only words. But as far as I'm concerned, China doesn't have those rights. Russia is losing them. If only some of the points are observed, why even defer to the entire document?

I don't think the document is meaningful in any real way. Rights are decided through democratic reasonable pluralism. The UN declaration isn't important, our own social convinction are what is important. While we should, IMO, seek to spread these convictions, they are not intrinsically more correct.