Yeah, I saw that article.
So I guess everything in the film isn't a lie like all the cons are suggesting. Interesting that most of the anti-Moore replies have been personal attacks and not reasonable alternate viewpoints.
But, attacking anyone they disagree with is the conservative mantra these days and what they do best. They certainly can't run the country worth a *****.
Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate;*more context needed - CNN.com
Everything else aside...
Imagine one of your better friends was diagnosed with leukemia and needed an expensive bone-marrow transplant but did not have health insurance. They also do not have the necessary funds to pay for the procedure. Do they deserve the treatment even though they don't possess the resources to consume it?
I would volunteer to raise money for my friend to help pay for the surgery. I don't rely on government for all of my needs.
Some might pass this next comment off as a left of center statement but shouldn't everyone have the right - provided by the government or not - to healthcare? Is this not an inalieable right? Shouldn't healthcare options be made available to all persons living in this country regardless of their status. Obviously obtaining and sustaining this goal would be impossible in the near future due to several factors. As far as the other political debates occuring in this thread it would seem to me that many of us do not know how to argue/debate correctly. Labels are being misused, people are attacking people and not ideals, some are oblivious to other opinions and sides and some of us are even acting like Hawk fans. OK OK I know, Hawk fans wouldn't be intelligent enough to carry on such heated debates so let us at least pat ourselves on the back for that. Just to make another point - people need to be careful when calling others liberals (whether flaming has anything to do with it). Liberalism stems from a book by John Stuart Mill - called "On Liberty." It is actually, by today's standards, a Libertarian book of sorts calling for less government intervention. Although, it should be noted that in our current vernacular Liberal relates to those that are left of center or left leaning on the politcal spectrum. Another point, socialists strive towards equality - not to keep everyone poor - and not to be confused with communism. Read up on your Marx/Engels. So, do not let emotions cloud your thoughts and hamper your discourse - try to see all sides of an issue it may even bolster your own arguement.
ISUboi and Musicboy have hit the nail on the head...namely, is health care a 'right'.
I would obviously argue that it is not a right. There can be no such thing as a right which would force someone into an obligation to fulfill that right. While it may sound harsh, making health care a 'right' would be no different than slavery. It is requiring one man to do something against his will. Its really that simple; rights cannot force obligation upon another man. Rights are only those which are negative, meaning they outline what no other may do to you, rather than positive which would outline what people must do for you. Thus, healthcare is not, and should never be considered a right as it requires a forced obligation upon another man.
And as an aside to Musicboy, lets not delve into JS Mill and the like, I don't think this thread has enough time to go through Utilitarianism and how awful Mill's ideas were. For the means of this discussion though, I'd say Mill is irrelevant because his Utilitarian argument for why Capitalism is the only moral social organization was wrong in the sense that it argues that Capitalism is best simply because it serves a "greater good" to a greater extent than any other system. The more powerful argument for Capitalism is a moral one in which it is the only system fully compatible with individual rights and more profoundly is the only system compatible with a non-contradictory system of philosophy and morality. But like I said, not to get off topic...
I have a question. (devils advocate)
Why does is seem like the people that are for the seperation of church and state are the same people that are for universal health care?
In the same light, why are the people for religion being favored against universal health care?
Common sense would say that those that are for religion would be for helping everyone, or those that wish to keep moral aspects from others should also be against helping others.
Help me understand why these are on different sides of the political spectrum.
The Hippocratic Oath makes healthcare a moral obligation to physicians. Of course the legal obligations are another entirity. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of physicians want what is best for any of their patients regardless of their ability to pay. In this regard healthcare truely is a right, you do not discriminate.
When non-physicians enter the mix for treatment options you have a clash between those who are driven by the well-being of their patients (physicians) and those who are profit-driven by the consumers (insurance companies).
Thats just my personal opinion why healthcare is a right.
Liberals tend to think that a lot of people are incapable of helping themselves, and that those who are, are responsible to make up the difference. "Give a man a fish. Or more exactly, take from the man who has two fish, and give a man a fish. Come back the next day and repeat."