Daheavy, I think it's reasonable to submit that if we're going to disqualify people due to their "abusing their bodies", we're going to eliminate upwards of 80% or more of the population.
And that's not offered in jest.
Speaking for myself at age 49, I'm confident I treat myself a whole hell of a lot better than I might have at earlier age.
But I've seriously and honestly considered the question you pose and have concluded long ago that collectively we as a society have given our defacto approval to not passing judgement on what The Other Guy is doing to himself. Because the moment we start down that path, we're quite likely eliminating numerous family members, friends and maybe even ourselves at various times in their/our lives.
And lest you (or I) feel a bit fudgy about The Other Guy getting over in some way, rest assured that they (or we) cannot escape the very real consequences of whatever level of self-abuse they may put upon themselves.
To elaborate - so The Guy seems to get over when the collective steps in to subsidize his hospital stays made neccesary due to his crappy eating habits.
But let's not forget he's still having to live day after day with the results of said habits. And that very real reduction in quality of life is clearly sufficient to balance the kharmic scales when compared to The Other Guy who eats more healthy, takes no subsidies from the collective, but enjoys most of his days in good or above average physical condition. Not to mention, the latter fellow likely lives longer and enjoys more years of good life.
And that's not offered in jest.
Speaking for myself at age 49, I'm confident I treat myself a whole hell of a lot better than I might have at earlier age.
But I've seriously and honestly considered the question you pose and have concluded long ago that collectively we as a society have given our defacto approval to not passing judgement on what The Other Guy is doing to himself. Because the moment we start down that path, we're quite likely eliminating numerous family members, friends and maybe even ourselves at various times in their/our lives.
And lest you (or I) feel a bit fudgy about The Other Guy getting over in some way, rest assured that they (or we) cannot escape the very real consequences of whatever level of self-abuse they may put upon themselves.
To elaborate - so The Guy seems to get over when the collective steps in to subsidize his hospital stays made neccesary due to his crappy eating habits.
But let's not forget he's still having to live day after day with the results of said habits. And that very real reduction in quality of life is clearly sufficient to balance the kharmic scales when compared to The Other Guy who eats more healthy, takes no subsidies from the collective, but enjoys most of his days in good or above average physical condition. Not to mention, the latter fellow likely lives longer and enjoys more years of good life.
To put my last post in a bit more succinct form:
Say I have two brothers aged a year apart. One is Mr Healthy, eats balanced diet, no smoking, drinking, drugs...exercises regularly.
The other is Mr Excess - eats too much, currently smokes, drinks, drugs (or perhaps not now, but earlier in life)...rarely or never exercises and so is clearly overweight.
Both encounter a medical situation requiring subsidy from me and/or the collective.
Who is more worthy of help from me and/or the collective?
Answer - Both are equally worthy, because both are my brothers.
Thus circling back to the New Testament scripture shared by KTV within a post earlier in this thread.
Say I have two brothers aged a year apart. One is Mr Healthy, eats balanced diet, no smoking, drinking, drugs...exercises regularly.
The other is Mr Excess - eats too much, currently smokes, drinks, drugs (or perhaps not now, but earlier in life)...rarely or never exercises and so is clearly overweight.
Both encounter a medical situation requiring subsidy from me and/or the collective.
Who is more worthy of help from me and/or the collective?
Answer - Both are equally worthy, because both are my brothers.
Thus circling back to the New Testament scripture shared by KTV within a post earlier in this thread.
LOL, funny how lefties lined up behind this one
1) abortion anyone?
2) citing scripture / using religion in a policy debate?
3) since conservatives as a whole give more time, money and blood, it's obvious conservatives do give more of their own to those in need. We tend to honor such sound advice more so than libbies, it doesn't mean we need to support policy that we believe will disaster.
4) The Looney Left wants to give more and do more with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, does anyone think that's the spirit of KTV's cite?
5) The OP correctly stated that it was not a "right" in anything the founding fathers established. I'm pretty sure they had health care issues in 1776. Having said that, I support a plan to cover the small fraction of Americans that are unhappy with their healthcare, 15%. I don't support the garbage put on the table to date. Increased government, increased costs & increased deficits.
please
I'm not an expert on the Holy Bible, but as far as I'm aware there is no mention whatsoever of the termination of pregnancies.
As for the use of a scriptural cite by KTV, I think it's unreasonable to presume that because he agrees with that particular sentiment that he is therefore a true believer and follower of each and every scripture in the Holy Bible.
I myself find the Holy Bible to be replete with literally hundreds of very useful and apt philosophical messages. But I can just as easily refer to similar philosophical messages from dozens of other Master Teachers and smart thinkers who have lived during the past two millenia. Using a Bible scripture can be useful because often that's a version of a well-known attitude that is familiar to more readers than not.
But make no mistake. Like many Christians and non-Christians alike, I do not embrace all the content of the Holy Bible because it is (to us) clearly full of historical inaccuracies and countless inconsistensies.
===
The OP did astutely note that health care is not a "right" enumerated within the US Constitution, either originally or even among the couple dozen Amendments.
However, several posters (before my own post) made reasonable segues to the related question of whether having access to needed health care might be a moral right.
And the answer to that would of course depend on how the respondent defines his or her moral code.
As for the use of a scriptural cite by KTV, I think it's unreasonable to presume that because he agrees with that particular sentiment that he is therefore a true believer and follower of each and every scripture in the Holy Bible.
I myself find the Holy Bible to be replete with literally hundreds of very useful and apt philosophical messages. But I can just as easily refer to similar philosophical messages from dozens of other Master Teachers and smart thinkers who have lived during the past two millenia. Using a Bible scripture can be useful because often that's a version of a well-known attitude that is familiar to more readers than not.
But make no mistake. Like many Christians and non-Christians alike, I do not embrace all the content of the Holy Bible because it is (to us) clearly full of historical inaccuracies and countless inconsistensies.
===
The OP did astutely note that health care is not a "right" enumerated within the US Constitution, either originally or even among the couple dozen Amendments.
However, several posters (before my own post) made reasonable segues to the related question of whether having access to needed health care might be a moral right.
And the answer to that would of course depend on how the respondent defines his or her moral code.
hehehehe
I guess civilized nations let people die before they can benefit from treatment that might cure their ills
I guess civilized nations refuse care for people some politician deems to be too ill and / or too old
:lol:
imposing morality now?
citing scriptures, but only scriptures you like
when citing scriptures, only apply them to situations you choose
it is the classic liberal logic, no foundation, it's a living, breathing changing thought process, guided by emotions and the end result they desire.
Bar I agree with most of what you're saying...but at the same time, the guy having to live day after day with the results is probably also not working and not contributing to the good of the community. It's the live for today type that have no future plans.
I see a parallel between health and finance. When people blow any cash they have, I don't feel compelled to bail them out...just like those that abuse their bodies. However, people that have been layed off and are trying to land on their feet I would gladly support as I would those that have a genetic defects or just plain bad luck with their health.
I'm not sure what the correct solution is, it just pains me to think we couuld be on the hook for all the reckless ones.
I'm not sure if you're delusional or simply uninformed, but there's a mountain of evidence out there
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf
the 5 myths about healthcare
take a look at the chart about elderly people and their wait time on page 5 of 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Problems With Socialized Healthcare
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
this link has hundreds of links to stories and statistics about healthcare from
UK, Canada, Cuba and many other nations. The evidence is so overwhelming one simply has to be sleepwalking to miss it.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
this link has hundreds of links to stories and statistics about healthcare from
UK, Canada, Cuba and many other nations. The evidence is so overwhelming one simply has to be sleepwalking to miss it.
Do you think you're going to actually legislate utopia? Doctors and people will always make mistakes, they'll always make poor decisions. Minimizing those mistakes is the goal.
Anyhow, take this girl's tragedy, multiply it some factor in the thousands, and then you have the impact of socialized medicine.
yes, and ignore the fact that 85% of Americans are happy with their healthcare.
ignore the fact that anything put on the table to date increases healthcare costs and increases the federal deficit according to the CBO
ignore the fact that we have healthcare on demand, unlike any other country
KTV posts one story about a person dying from neglect, while ignoring the fact that there are significantly more such stories from countries that have socialized medicine and a fraction of our population
KTV links a story of an interview with a former insurance executive, once again there are scores more complaints from professionals within socialized medicine countries (found in the links I provided)
also ignore the fact that healthcare professionals in this country oppose socialized medicine because of restrictions & waits & healthcare decisions being made by politicians as opposed to healthcare professionals. Of coursem the loonies simply dismiss such arguments as being influenced by greed (one of their favorite bailouts).
WOW
ignore the fact that anything put on the table to date increases healthcare costs and increases the federal deficit according to the CBO
ignore the fact that we have healthcare on demand, unlike any other country
KTV posts one story about a person dying from neglect, while ignoring the fact that there are significantly more such stories from countries that have socialized medicine and a fraction of our population
KTV links a story of an interview with a former insurance executive, once again there are scores more complaints from professionals within socialized medicine countries (found in the links I provided)
also ignore the fact that healthcare professionals in this country oppose socialized medicine because of restrictions & waits & healthcare decisions being made by politicians as opposed to healthcare professionals. Of coursem the loonies simply dismiss such arguments as being influenced by greed (one of their favorite bailouts).
WOW
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama told the nation Saturday that his health care overhaul is financially sound and Congress should not squander the chance to make meaningful change. Republicans didn't relent in their criticism of his plan as a costly burden unwisely on a fast track.
The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.
NEW YORK — Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?
Conservative House Democrats are balking at the cost and direction of Obama's top priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system. A key Senate Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, complains that Obama's opposition to paying for it with a tax on health benefits "is not helping us."
Another Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, tells his local newspaper that Obama is too liberal and is "very unpopular" in his district.
The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.
NEW YORK — Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?
Conservative House Democrats are balking at the cost and direction of Obama's top priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system. A key Senate Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, complains that Obama's opposition to paying for it with a tax on health benefits "is not helping us."
Another Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, tells his local newspaper that Obama is too liberal and is "very unpopular" in his district.
Willie I agree the elderly here recive excellent healthcare. My wife and I are elderly and we will testify, however it has nothing to do with free market capitalism. We are on medicare, if it were up to capitalism we would not have health insurance. (well, I would because of veterans benefits)
How long do you think that medicare should keep covering for the private insurance companies while they cherrypick the profitable clients?
