Can a Society Without Universal Healthcare be a Moral Society?

[Reverend Rick]

The least ethical and most selfish members of society protest about this the loudest.

I believe everyone is their own advocate. Who is the most selfish, the folks who are responsible and pay their own way through life or folks expecting something for nothing at others expense?

Is it ethical to demand others give you something?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

The entire Legal system is about laws that either force you to do, or not do, certain things. Society requires its citizens to comply.
Most laws are based on that societies understanding of ethics, and morals.
There never has been an opt out for such laws.

So if most of society believes that homosexual acts are unethical, they should outlaw it?

 

[Reverend Rick]

So if most of society believes that homosexual acts are unethical, they should outlaw it?

opcorn: Should we be selective of what morals we are going to force on folks against their will, or just the majority attitudes? Thank God we live in a Republic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So if most of society believes that homosexual acts are unethical, they should outlaw it?

That is indeed how the laws are formulated.
In that specific case the modern majority came down in the Homosexuals favour.
Previous generations thought and voted differently.

Unfortunately the application of Ethical thought is not an absolute.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I believe everyone is their own advocate. Who is the most selfish, the folks who are responsible and pay their own way through life or folks expecting something for nothing at others expense?

Is it ethical to demand others give you something?

Fortunately "society" as a whole does not believe as you do.
People who think it sufficient to serve their own interests before others are by definition selfish.

Your method denies fortune and its effect on individual lives.
Tomorrow a devastating calamity might destroy your business and everything you own including your health and strength... You will of course still have your faith in your own ability to make your own way with out the help of society.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

opcorn: Should we be selective of what morals we are going to force on folks against their will, or just the majority attitudes? Thank God we live in a Republic.

As against a democracy ???

 

[sputnik323]

Do you guys watch FOX News?

Do you watch MSNBC?

See how retarded of a question that is? It would be nice to have people discuss issues and think for themselves instead of trying to find out if others are a republican, democrat, liberal, conservative and not listen to the premises of their thinking because of that label. So if I was a conservative I would have nothing of import to say? If I did watch MSNBC would I then have some ideas worth considering? If I had a PhD. in politics then would my arguments have merit? What if I were 10 years old? if I were Chinese? if I were from Europe? What if I watch Barney the Purple Dinosaur would any of these things make any thoughts less worth considering?

Dismissing people because of viewing habits is a fallacy of logic... please open your mind a little.

BTW I don't have cable, so no I don't watch Fox News... but hey maybe there is some other habit I have that would make my thoughts irrelevant to you.

Even if a million people say a stupid thing, it is still stupid.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you watch MSNBC?

See how retarded of a question that is? It would be nice to have people discuss issues and think for themselves instead of trying to find out if others are a republican, democrat, liberal, conservative and not listen to the premises of their thinking because of that label. So if I was a conservative I would have nothing of import to say? If I did watch MSNBC would I then have some ideas worth considering? If I had a PhD. in politics then would my arguments have merit? What if I were 10 years old? if I were Chinese? if I were from Europe? What if I watch Barney the Purple Dinosaur would any of these things make any thoughts less worth considering?

Dismissing people because of viewing habits is a fallacy of logic... please open your mind a little.

BTW I don't have cable, so no I don't watch Fox News... but hey maybe there is some other habit I have that would make my thoughts irrelevant to you.

Even if a million people say a stupid thing, it is still stupid.

I'm fascinated with the way people who get most or all their news from FOX have more predictable opinions than people who get most or all of their news from other sources. Maybe you don't agree with that, maybe you don't think it's true, but whether you agree with it or not, it seems to make sense of my experiences of people.

You say you don't watch FOX -- and that interests me. You seem to have views that could be derived from FOX. I wonder what reason there might be for that?


By the way, you need to study logic a bit. You are in error when you say "Dismissing people because of viewing habits is a fallacy of logic..."

 

[sputnik323]

I'm fascinated with the way people who get most or all their news from FOX have more predictable opinions than people who get most or all of their news from other sources. Maybe you don't agree with that, maybe you don't think it's true, but whether you agree with it or not, it seems to make sense of my experiences of people.

Well I guess we fascinate each other. Because I'm fascinated by people who use conformation bias to shape their own views. They are not open to all forms of information and only accept information on one side. In other words, when people say an oil company researcher cannot be trusted because of money, and then full heartily trust Al Gore who is making millions off of the green movement. Now both sides are in it to make a great deal of money, yet people often use conformation bias and choose one side and don't accept anything from the other. Another way to put it, is that it seems you would not trust any story from FOX... so why is it you trust other sources? (couldn't FOX have 1 thing that could be correct? How would you defend yourself against someone who accused you of having predictable opinions and sounding like an MSNBC stooge? (my personal view is that both Fox and MSNBC both have valuable information and both skew stories - it isn't mutually exclusive)

I agree with you that many people just seem to 'parrot' things they hear and don't think for themselves and that goes for both republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals.

It is interesting to me that I said there is both good and bad to each system and I get accused of sounding like FOX, which probably likely would say that the public system has no good concepts. - So you cannot accept a balanced view? The public system has no flaws at all?

You say you don't watch FOX -- and that interests me. You seem to have views that could be derived from FOX. I wonder what reason there might be for that?

Well, my views come from all different sources. One main view I have of public health care is that I worked in public healthcare. I worked at the VA; I have seen how the government takes care(and not take care) of its people. Maybe it would be good to ask first instead of assume first.

By the way, you need to study logic a bit. You are in error when you say "Dismissing people because of viewing habits is a fallacy of logic..."

So you are projecting your lack of understanding of logic onto others? Just because you don't know logic doesn't mean everyone else must not know. Look up the Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy (its a real concept in inferential logic). It's what you did when you tried to tie my thoughts to FOX News (thus trying to make it seem irrelevant).

 

[Sunstone]

Well I guess we fascinate each other. Because I'm fascinated by people who use conformation bias to shape their own views. They are not open to all forms of information and only accept information on one side. In other words, when people say an oil company researcher cannot be trusted because of money, and then full heartily trust Al Gore who is making millions off of the green movement. Now both sides are in it to make a great deal of money, yet people often use conformation bias and choose one side and don't accept anything from the other. Another way to put it, is that it seems you would not trust any story from FOX... so why is it you trust other sources? (couldn't FOX have 1 thing that could be correct? How would you defend yourself against someone who accused you of having predictable opinions and sounding like an MSNBC stooge? (my personal view is that both Fox and MSNBC both have valuable information and both skew stories - it isn't mutually exclusive)

How about you quit putting words in my mouth? You seem to have a great thirst to ascribe opinions to me that I don't hold. Why is that?

So you are projecting your lack of understanding of logic onto others? Just because you don't know logic doesn't mean everyone else must not know. Look up the Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy (its a real concept in inferential logic). It's what you did when you tried to tie my thoughts to FOX News (thus trying to make it seem irrelevant).

You've got a good grasp of rhetoric and a lousy grasp of logic. I notice you are not going to the trouble of demonstrating that I committed a fallacy -- you are merely alleging that I have. Are you just lazy or have you never demonstrated a fallacy in your life?

EDIT: After thinking about this a bit, I think you're main problem is you read into things more than is there.

 

[felldestroyed]

How about you quit putting words in my mouth? You seem to have a great thirst to ascribe opinions to me that I don't hold. Why is that?

You've got a good grasp of rhetoric and a lousy grasp of logic. I notice you are not going to the trouble of demonstrating that I committed a fallacy -- you are merely alleging that I have. Are you just lazy or have you never demonstrated a fallacy in your life?

EDIT: After thinking about this a bit, I think you're main problem is you read into things more than is there.

I was one of the duders you directed the Fox News comment towards, and it's kind of an ignorant and irrelevant comment to say considering libertarians and anarchists and whoever are against government etc. Let's not go off topic with snide remarks in a debate. You are in fact committing a logical fallacy by saying "your main problem is..." This thread is about the health plan, not what this guy or gal is doing wrong.

I hate to mediate, but let's get back to the issue.

 

[Sunstone]

I give up on you guys. You're putting words in my mouth and you're not willing to back up your allegations.

 

[felldestroyed]

I give up on you guys. You're putting words in my mouth and you're not willing to back up your allegations.

"You've got a good grasp of rhetoric and a lousy grasp of logic. I notice you are not going to the trouble of demonstrating that I committed a fallacy -- you are merely alleging that I have. Are you just lazy or have you never demonstrated a fallacy in your life?

EDIT: After thinking about this a bit, I think you're main problem is you read into things more than is there."

I ain't placing words into your proverbial mouth -- that is your exact quote. Right there you are avoiding the issue and worrying about what some one said. I am only "calling you out" because I think you have legitimate ideas to contribute, so I just want you to get on the right track for discussion. That sounded patronizing, but I didn't mean to : )

 

[sputnik323]

How about you quit putting words in my mouth? You seem to have a great thirst to ascribe opinions to me that I don't hold. Why is that?

I didn't know that stating an example was ascribing opinions to you. It was just an observation. In what way was I putting words into you mouth... explain it and I will apologize. I'm not trying to ascribe anything but state how you come across to people.
You seem to have a great thirst to try to minimize people you don't agree with. Why is that?

You've got a good grasp of rhetoric and a lousy grasp of logic. I notice you are not going to the trouble of demonstrating that I committed a fallacy -- you are merely alleging that I have. Are you just lazy or have you never demonstrated a fallacy in your life?

Well you obviously didn't even look it up (so I'm the lazy one here? again nice projection). Its not that difficult, but Ill post it anyways because you asked.

THIS IS FROM http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html under circumstantial ad hominem
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

So I make a claim about how both public and private options have both good and bad in each of the systems. Instead of addressing this premise you ask... "Do you watch fox news?" so there are 2 options. 1 this is a red herring (fallacy) where it would be irrelevant... just like asking if I watch the clouds. or 2 it is a loaded question trying to say that Fox news is the source of my information (which you alluded to later on in a post saying I sound just like my opinions came straight from fox). So I could take option 1... and wonder why you are asking me a frivolous question - which isn't related to the topic at all, and you are just being chatty. Or I could take option 2 given the context of an attack on a source - not the premise.

So to spell it out clearly and not be lazy.

I make claim X
You attack me for my circumstances (perceived sources of information - "You seem to have views that could be derived from FOX")
The inference then is that: Therefore X is false.

In all my history I have never had people ask me about what news organizations I watch in a political discussion just because they are interested in my social habits. It has always been in reference to sources of information and trying to counter argue with a ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how to take it any other way when you use that right after I make a point. Can you not see that it is a natural way to see your question "Do you guys watch fox news?"

EDIT: After thinking about this a bit, I think you're main problem is you read into things more than is there.

I think you infer much and when people call you on it, you back off stating that it was never your intention. How are people supposed to read into that?

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't know that stating an example was ascribing opinions to you. It was just an observation. In what way was I putting words into you mouth... explain it and I will apologize. I'm not trying to ascribe anything but state how you come across to people.
You seem to have a great thirst to try to minimize people you don't agree with. Why is that?



Well you obviously didn't even look it up (so I'm the lazy one here? again nice projection). Its not that difficult, but Ill post it anyways because you asked.

THIS IS FROM Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem under circumstantial ad hominem
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

So I make a claim about how both public and private options have both good and bad in each of the systems. Instead of addressing this premise you ask... "Do you watch fox news?" so there are 2 options. 1 this is a red herring (fallacy) where it would be irrelevant... just like asking if I watch the clouds. or 2 it is a loaded question trying to say that Fox news is the source of my information (which you alluded to later on in a post saying I sound just like my opinions came straight from fox). So I could take option 1... and wonder why you are asking me a frivolous question - which isn't related to the topic at all, and you are just being chatty. Or I could take option 2 given the context of an attack on a source - not the premise.

So to spell it out clearly and not be lazy.

I make claim X
You attack me for my circumstances (perceived sources of information - "You seem to have views that could be derived from FOX")
The inference then is that: Therefore X is false.

In all my history I have never had people ask me about what news organizations I watch in a political discussion just because they are interested in my social habits. It has always been in reference to sources of information and trying to counter argue with a ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how to take it any other way when you use that right after I make a point. Can you not see that it is a natural way to see your question "Do you guys watch fox news?"



I think you infer much and when people call you on it, you back off stating that it was never your intention. How are people supposed to read into that?

OK. I'm tired of this. You're right and I'm wrong.

 

[Troublemane]

I think a society which imposes its morality from above, making it a law to be charitable, will see all charities vanish. People will cease to give freely, even as a tax write off, if they feel they already are providing the poor and needy with everything they need, through taxation.

If charity is forced, its not giving of ones own free will, so how is that moral? I personally think society is incapable of morality, as it is not a real person. Its a social construction.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

OK. I'm tired of this. You're right and I'm wrong.

That has been an interesting set of claims and answers... with very little real listening going on.

A great deal of credence is put into "readerships" by political parties. and it is always a prime area of research into attitudes during elections.

I have never read or listened to any American news papers or news channels so I do not know how they stand on issues. However I would be willing to bet that its "readers" views are a close match to the "Media" they follow.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think a society which imposes its morality from above, making it a law to be charitable, will see all charities vanish. People will cease to give freely, even as a tax write off, if they feel they already are providing the poor and needy with everything they need, through taxation.

If charity is forced, its not giving of ones own free will, so how is that moral? I personally think society is incapable of morality, as it is not a real person. Its a social construction.

No one is suggesting that they should make it law to be charitable, though in the past many countries did just that with the poor laws. In Ireland Areas were responsible for funding the services to the poor, your family contribution was based on the size of your House and estate.

Insurance is not charity. A comparatively rich person can quickly become a pauper if his health insurance runs out.
The true argument is not about "charity" but how to establish a fair and all embracing health insurance scheme, that does not drop anyone through the system. That is not based on wealth or the length or seriousness of sickness nor let outs for preconditions.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No one is suggesting that they should make it law to be charitable, though in the past many countries did just that with the poor laws. In Ireland Areas were responsible for funding the services to the poor, your family contribution was based on the size of your House and estate.

Insurance is not charity. A comparatively rich person can quickly become a pauper if his health insurance runs out.
The true argument is not about "charity" but how to establish a fair and all embracing health insurance scheme, that does not drop anyone through the system. That is not based on wealth or the length or seriousness of sickness nor let outs for preconditions.

Insurance may not be a charity, but making some folks bear the lion's share of the costs is forced charity. If all men are equal, why should some folks pay more than others? It is wealth redistribution plain and simple.

Yes, a comparatively rich person can quickly become a pauper if his insurance runs out. So what? Just because you become sucessful does not guarantee your future will hold the same results.

People become sick. That is a fact of life. Many people die of their illness. If you are a survivor and have accumulated a large amount of debt as a result of your illness, you are the lucky one. You are still alive.

I have said this a million times. Becoming sucessful is the easy part. Holding on to your wealth is the tricky part. To me, living a life that has both good and bad is what makes things interesting.

If I had to live a mundane life where I would never have a possibility of success and be protected from failure would reduce me to the life style my cattle live.

Taking risks and knowing each day could be good or bad is what gets me up in the morning. Yes, I enjoy wealth, but I don't take it for granted I will be well off my entire life time. That sounds soooo boring.

The thing is, I enjoy life each and every day and could find happiness regardless of my financial circumstances. Being a spiritual person is far more rewarding than any riches here on earth.

We all are going to die one day. Health care is a small factor.

Life is not measured by the amount of breaths we take. It is measured by the amount of times it takes our breath away!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Insurance may not be a charity, but making some folks bear the lion's share of the costs is forced charity. If all men are equal, why should some folks pay more than others? It is wealth redistribution plain and simple.

Yes, a comparatively rich person can quickly become a pauper if his insurance runs out. So what? Just because you become successful does not guarantee your future will hold the same results.

People become sick. That is a fact of life. Many people die of their illness. If you are a survivor and have accumulated a large amount of debt as a result of your illness, you are the lucky one. You are still alive.

I have said this a million times. Becoming successful is the easy part. Holding on to your wealth is the tricky part. To me, living a life that has both good and bad is what makes things interesting.

If I had to live a mundane life where I would never have a possibility of success and be protected from failure would reduce me to the life style my cattle live.

Taking risks and knowing each day could be good or bad is what gets me up in the morning. Yes, I enjoy wealth, but I don't take it for granted I will be well off my entire life time. That sounds soooo boring.

The thing is, I enjoy life each and every day and could find happiness regardless of my financial circumstances. Being a spiritual person is far more rewarding than any riches here on earth.

We all are going to die one day. Health care is a small factor.

Life is not measured by the amount of breaths we take. It is measured by the amount of times it takes our breath away!

I understand perfectly.
I have not brought my own situation into this argument as it is not about me, my survival, my money, my happiness my cattle or my life style.
I have supposed it was about the society we live in, and what is best for everyone; and that were are all interdependent.
This is where we differ in both our faith , our politics, and our world view.