The NHS really is something to be proud of.

[User removed 4]

Don't let bushy and co know that Trig..........

Has he contributed is the question ?

 

[DTES]

I also have a right to my property. I have a right to my car. You cannot steal my car, you cannot damage my car. But if it breaks down I cannot come to you and claim that you must fix it or you will be denying my right to my property.

Strange analogy. Your example would be a better fit to having the right to your own body, whether you are dead or alive.

If your car breaks down and I don't fix it, it is still your car - it just won't get you anywhere. If you die from an injury that I won't heal, your life is gone. Unless I've misread you, and you are stating that you have the right to have all of your property in fully functioning condition. I disagree with this.

Maybe we're reaching a dead-end, but I still can't see past the contradiction between having the right to life, and it being up to you to provide the money to maintain that life. If you can't afford it, tough - you lose out on your life, even though it's a right to have that life. Circles, just circles...

 

[dingodan]

no, you are confused. in this country, we fortunatly have certain rights. some times, an individual will be brought into the country for the purpose of service and kept against their will, without pay or the freedoms we enjoy. their rights are clearly not being protected, because we dont know about the situation (only after they have managed to escape their "employers").

go elsewhere in the world and these rights sadly do not exist. especially women, in certain countries and societies they have fewer rights than men, they can not earn money or possess property, they cannot choose who they marry. other countries do not recognise the right to free speech, or free a press. some, even in the western world, would not recognise the same rights to property that we in the UK would expect. basic human rights have only been recognised widely for 60 years, even then not applied universially.

i will stop insulting you when you stop being so blindly ignorant.

No, elsewhere in the world these rights are not upheld. Crucial difference.

 

[sten_super]

No, elsewhere in the world these rights are not upheld. Crucial difference.

No it's not a crucial difference, it's just an indication that your understanding of rights is built upon your belief system. Can you really not see that?

 

[dingodan]

Strange analogy. Your example would be a better fit to having the right to your own body, whether you are dead or alive.

If your car breaks down and I don't fix it, it is still your car - it just won't get you anywhere. If you die from an injury that I won't heal, your life is gone. Unless I've misread you, and you are stating that you have the right to have all of your property in fully functioning condition. I disagree with this.

Maybe we're reaching a dead-end, but I still can't see past the contradiction between having the right to life, and it being up to you to provide the money to maintain that life. If you can't afford it, tough - you lose out on your life, even though it's a right to have that life. Circles, just circles...

If you are a doctor and you are forced to treat me, to protect my right to life, what happened to your rights? You probably would treat me, because people ususally become medical professionals out of compassion for others. But if I lose my life it is not that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right not to have someone interfere with my life, certainly not take my life. But you cannot turn that into an obligation on someone else to save my life, that is something else, for me that is something that should come about either through voluntary action (you see that you can help me and you want to) or through private contract, but never through force.

You cannot deny one persons rights in the name of upholding someone elses. No rights are ever defended through the abrogation of anothers rights, if you are in a position where you think you need to deny someones rights to uphold someone elses, be sure you have made a wrong turn somewhere along the road. All people are equal and all people deserve to have their rights protected.

 

[El Presidente]

Has he contributed is the question ?

My son hasn't contributed and he has higher functioning autism, spent a lot of time when younger at a special unit at hospital, and they were BRILLIANT. Is it EL Pres Jr OUT though?

 

[Triggaaar]

Don't let bushy and co know that Trig..........

I wasn't sure what that meant until:

Has he contributed is the question ?

I'm not sure how relevant that is really. If I was a tax dodger, it would be a fair point, but if I was just someone young that hadn't yet earnt much, what difference would it make? But yes, I've paid a fair whack over the years. Personally not as much as my kids have cost though.

 

[dingodan]

No it's not a crucial difference, it's just an indication that your understanding of rights is built upon your belief system. Can you really not see that?

What you are saying is that because these peoples rights are not upheld, these people do not have rights.

I disagree, I say they do have rights, despite the fact that those rights are not being upheld.

That is the difference.

 

[User removed 4]

My son hasn't contributed and he has higher functioning autism, spent a lot of time when younger at a special unit at hospital, and they were BRILLIANT. Is it EL Pres Jr OUT though?

You know full well what I mean.

 

[DTES]

If you are a doctor and you are forced to treat me, to protect my right to life, what happened to your rights? You probably would treat me, because people ususally become medical professionals out of compassion for others. But if I lose my life it is not that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right not to have someone interfere with my life, certainly not take my life.

But you cannot turn that into an obligation on someone else to save my life, that is something else, for me that is something that should come about either through voluntary action (you see that you can help me and you want to) or through private contract, but never through force. You cannot deny one persons rights in the name of upholding someone elses. No rights are ever defended through the abrogation of anothers rights, if you are in a position where you think you need to deny someones rights to uphold someone elses, be sure you have made a wrong turn somewhere along the road. All people are equal and all people deserve to have their rights protected.

The thing is, my point here isn't that this is an obligation. My point that everyone has the right to healthcare of course is based on the assumption that there people willing to work as doctors as their "labour", to use your terminology.

The point of highlighting this contradiction (that maybe I should have made clearer as you seem to be missing it) is that you cannot have it both ways. If it is entirely your obligation to maintain your own life (i.e. that no-one else is obliged to help you, and if you can't afford it then you lose that life) then you obviously do not have a right to that life, do you? Alternatively, if you do have an automatic/self-evident right to that life, then there should be no obligation on you to maintain said life/right.

How is anything a right if you are obliged to part with money to maintain it?

 

[Triggaaar]

Ok. You have a right to life. Nobody can come along and take your life. You own your life. If you need healthcare, you dont own healthcare. You dont have healthcare as a part of your humanity, as a product of being human. Healthcare is going to be provided to you by someone else. A doctor for example. You do not have a right to his or her [the doctors] life. You do not have the right to force someone else to do anything.

Who is talking about forcing a doctor to help you? Some of us believe you have the right to healthcare, do you disagree with that?

You are responsible for your body and your health and you are the protector of your right to life. Healthcare is not your life.

Not everyone can be responsible for their body and health. So if someone looks after themselves, pays their way etc, and has a child that needs medical treatment which the parent can't afford, what should society do for that child? Do you think that child has no right to treatment?

 

[sten_super]

What you are saying is that because these peoples rights are not upheld, these people do not have rights.

I disagree, I say they do have rights, despite the fact that those rights are not being upheld.

That is the difference.

But your argument throughout (unless I'm mistaken) has been that these rights are based on some unquestionable truth, that there can be no arguing that these rights are due to all people. If you asked a conservative Muslim woman whether she had the right to be free and to make her own decisions, there would be some that would say this is not true. They do not view it as a right. This is my point - that what we view as rights is largely the result of some combination of natural/genetic makeup and partly to do with our surroundings, our upbringing.

 

[User removed 4]

I wasn't sure what that meant until:
I'm not sure how relevant that is really. If I was a tax dodger, it would be a fair point, but if I was just someone young that hadn't yet earnt much, what difference would it make? But yes, I've paid a fair whack over the years. Personally not as much as my kids have cost though.

and so do you.( see my answer to el pres)

 

[dingodan]

The point of highlighting this contradiction (that maybe I should have made clearer as you seem to be missing it) is that you cannot have it both ways. If it is entirely your obligation to maintain your own life (i.e. that no-one else is obliged to help you, and if you can't afford it then you lose that life) then you obviously do not have a right to that life, do you? Alternatively, if you do have an automatic/self-evident right to that life, then there should be no obligation on you to maintain said life/right.

This relates to what you said about the car. As you pointed out my having a right to my property does not give me the right to my property being in perfect condition. That is my responsibility. Same goes for my health. Your right to life means nobody can take it away from you or have claim to it themselves. It does not mean that if you have it and its in good condition then your right is upheld and if you dont have it or its in bad condition your right is being denied. It is still your responsibility.

When it comes to those less fortunate in society I believe that medicine, like any other product or service, is best delivered through the market place. If this was the case medicine would be better quality and more affordable. There would still be those who would be unable to afford it, but it is my belief that medicine would be so readily available that anyone who could afford to live independantly would be able to afford healthcare (like most people can afford the internet or a mobile phone or water) and those who cannot work or have no income etc probably depend on friends and family, community, charity etc and I think that provides for the few who geniunely cannot support themselves. I think in a free society, with people keeping the fruits of their labour, there would be even more charity than there is today.

I believe it is the only way that medicine is made affordable, and choices about care are made by the patient, and there is not government force used undermining individual freedom, and it avoids all the other ills that come from central planning like targets and cuts and beaurocracy.

"How is anything a right if you are obliged to part with money to maintain it?"

You are right. But you dont maintain your life, you maintain your health. Life is a right, health is not.

 

[Triggaaar]

Has he contributed is the question ?

I assumed this is taking a stance against tax dodgers or something, but given your latest posts, I now have no idea what you're talking about.

You know full well what I mean.

and so do you.( see my answer to el pres)

I don't know who you are or what your point is

 

[dingodan]

But your argument throughout (unless I'm mistaken) has been that these rights are based on some unquestionable truth, that there can be no arguing that these rights are due to all people. If you asked a conservative Muslim woman whether she had the right to be free and to make her own decisions, there would be some that would say this is not true. They do not view it as a right. This is my point - that what we view as rights is largely the result of some combination of natural/genetic makeup and partly to do with our surroundings, our upbringing.

So those people in those countries that you talked about, are you saying that they dont have rights?

You are effectively talking relativism here, yes I believe rights are absolute and even someone who does not know or believe that they have rights, still has them.

 

[User removed 4]

I assumed this is taking a stance against tax dodgers or something, but given your latest posts, I now have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't know who you are or what your point is

well you commented on my post, so you must have some view.My point was, as you've decided to be difficult, is have you contributed, vi a tax, NI etc , or were you someone who'd just flown in to take advantage of the NHS, like the nigerian woman , pregnant with quins recently, who'se husband incidentally turned out to be a wealthy businessman back in nigeria.

 

[sten_super]

You are effectively talking relativism here, yes I believe rights are absolute and even someone who does not know or believe that they have rights, still has them.

Yes, absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. The idea of rights are IMHO entirely relative. Which is, I think, at the root of what we disagree on. Your view is that there are a small number of absolutely enshrined rights which should be preserved, and mine is that there are only rights that we are given by our society, that evolve over time. Therefore I can see healthcare as a right, which we have been bought up to believe is a positive thing and should maintain.

 

[The Large One]

That Dingodan is a VERY confused individual.

Anyway, back to the action...

 

[Triggaaar]

Your right to life means nobody can take it away from you or have claim to it themselves. It does not mean that if you have it and its in good condition then your right is upheld and if you dont have it or its in bad condition your right is being denied. It is still your responsibility.

Where are you getting your version of 'rights' from? You seem to think there are rights that are nothing to do with society, but that have existed since the dawn of time. Rights are something created by society. Do you think humans had the same rights 100,000 years ago as they do today?

I believe it is the only way that medicine is made affordable, and choices about care are made by the patient, and there is not government force used undermining individual freedom

With respect to healthcare, can you explain what you think the government does to undermine individual freedom, that would be better with private/charity run healthcare?