Congratulations America

[Juska]

Anyway the UDHR says this:

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.

See, the right to a standard of living, it doesn't actually give you the right for health care.

Please let me fully explain. I will break this into pieces:

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for - ok, this mean you have the right to a standard of living that is at a level that will get you certain things, that is the only right guaranteed in this section of the UDHR.

2.  for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services - ok, now we see what the standard of living should be able to do, it should provide for all of these things. The UDHR doesn't give any level of medical care, it just says access to medical care. Everyone in The United States already can have access to medical care, because first off ER's must treat patients they are seriously injured, but also because they have incomes, which give them money, which they can use for medical care. It says nothing about the level or quality of care, it doesn't even say everyone should have equal care. All it says is that people have a right to a standard of living that can provide (read purchase is so chosen) adequate medical care.



And yes, your country signed into the UDHR by being part of the UN. So it is just as binding as any other piece of historical documentation you choose to bring up - the fact that your country is arrogant enough to ignore it doesn't change that, it just means that nobody else can intervene. And before you say "that it justh medical care, which anyone can get, itll just cost them if they don't have insurance" We can go on to infer from the right to food, shelter, etc that they meant "without bankrupting themselves and thereby sacrificing several of their other basic right"

There is no direct right to food, clothing ect. as I've shown above, there is only a right to a standard of living that can provide for them.  Bare with me, I'm going to make a hypothetical statement: If two people both make $100,000 a year that would be enough to provide all the basic human needs, including medical care. Now one person could choose to spend $100,000 on prostitutes, alcohol, and drugs and the other could choose instead to purchase what he needs to survive. Do we as a society have the obligation to provide for the basic human needs of the first man? When he chose to spend his money elsewhere?

No, I am saying that bureaucrats require a SALARY! and upkeep FOR THEIR WORKPLACES ect.

Say one bureaucrat requires $60,000 in salary a year and he can administer $1,000,000 in taxes to the needy. $1,000,000 - $60,000 = $940,000.

Whereas the people who the $1,000,000 comes from require no salary to provide for their needy neighbors by themselves.

You just pulled that number out of the air. [/b]

It's a hypothetical situation Shadow, I'll do it without numbers.

First, you need to agree with this statement and if you don't there is no reason for you to keep reading: The people who are required to collect, record, and administer taxes require a salary.

Next, you need to agree that people freely giving their money do not require a salary to give their money.

Now look at the following and see if you agree.

Situation 1 (taxes):  Taxes - Salary = Less Money

Situation 2 (giving): Giving - nothing = The same amount of money.


My point is that it works, has worked for years, and will continue to do so, and that having soccizlied health care will not turn you into a drone/slave or whatever it is you are picturing,. Also, straw man argument much? Cheap health care != genocide, by any stretch of the imagination. Which your country has also failed to do anything about and continues to fail, by the way, but that's another story.

Once again, I'm not saying that socialized medicine will turn you into a drone, I am saying that the same line of thought (that they government knows whats better for you than you do and letting them do it) can lead to both.



Personal experience of every people in the world who lives in a socialized health care system, and the well known and documented fact (google it) that the US pays among the largest percentage of its GDP per health care of any nation in the world. Note that since it also has the largest GDP, it means you are paying a [haties] of a lot more than anyone else, period.

We also get a lot more care and use a lot of experimental drugs which cost a lot of money. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's the same quality.


Both my parents have had extended hospital stays in the past 20 years, each twice. In your system, it would have cost us our house and the clothes off our back. Here, we didn't pay a dime, and our economy did not collapse overnight either.

Like I said no insurance is not for everyone Shadow. I also never said socialized medicine directly causes economic collapse.

Article 3.

   * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And socialized health care does not contradict that. The rest of the world is quite happy with their freedom and their socialized health care.[/b]

Socialized health care not necessarily, but forcing people to buy health care and forcing them to pay for someone else's health care does. Please refer to my second post with the definition of liberty.

[Sharptooh]

My point was that there are a bunch of people on here trying to drag America through the mud. I never said America is the best, I simply stated that we are not arrogant assholes.

um . . .

The difference between the US and Canada is in the a case of beer runs you about $20...in Canada its something like $50.

&

I know maybe the rest of the world is just jealous of what we have. We are one of the most dominant and successful nations in the world.

oh and

But the US like always has to try and help all the other nations in the world. Or have you all forgot that? All the groups that do all the work all over the world in poverty stricken countries.

Also

So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

You seem very arrogant Ally, or is it just me?

I wasn't randomly bring illegal aliens up though

Actually I thought no one else in the topic brought it up intil you came a long . . . this reminds me of another topic.

What a surprise...another one of sharptooths highly uneducated posts...(I know I don't do as much research as I should. Say what you want, but we were basically the world leaders at one point. It IS slipping from us as our leaders continue to dig us into deeper holes.(like this healthcare bill)

What part was uneducated? I was offering my opinion, besides I have basic understanding of how your health care works and a good understanding of how the NHS works and how Canada's health care worked.

From what I see hear and know so far this new health care system seems like it will work much better, the only defecit I see is the amount of money it would cose your government.

Seriously when the NHS was brought in in England everyone hated it for the first few years, then they became accustomed to it and saw the many benefits it had to offer them . . . they never looked back.

And don't tell me that was unedicated I know my history.

[Shadow]

We are the biggest aid contributor though, in absolute terms. Ally probably was just talking out of his rear, but I was pointing out that you were too, since you didn't bother to do the research either.

Yes I did. I said you were not the largest aid contributor by GDP percentage, and that is perfectly true.

[Gorak]

I'm wondering what Canadian liquor store clerk saw Ally coming and got him to pay $50 for a case of beer
you got ripped off man

but seriously
Juska has started using good founded arguments instead of the liberty crap
Volkov makes good points, this debate has gotten interesting
Ally, your not helping your cause any
Shadow makes most of the points I would bring up,
so
*grabs popcorn*

[Shadow]

Juska, you said earlier that the UDHR is irrelevent. Now you are using it in your argument. You can't have it both ways. Either acknowledge that it is relevent, or stop using it to back up any point you are making. I will reply to  your hypotheticals once we get this out of the way.

I'm wondering what Canadian liquor store clerk saw Ally coming and got him to pay $50 for a case of beer

:D

[Juska]

Lol, I don't see how it has any effect upon me as an American.

That being said you seem to put a lot of stock in it and as such I decided it was useful to show how it doesn't even provide for the absolute right to health care and how at the same time it protects the liberties that are being taken away from me.

The UDHR effects both me and you as citizens of the world, but it effects me not at all as a citizen of The United States. Honestly, I had to google UDHR because I had no freaking clue what you were talking about when you brought it into this discussion.

The Constitution is what really matters in this case as the UDHR has no power to make a government do anything, for example Sudan is a member of the U.N. and yet it lets genocide happen in it's country.

So what I'm saying is as a U.S. citizen it is irrelevant, but as a point of mutual ground (seeing it's the closets thing we have to a shared constitution) it has some merit to be discussed.

A further point with Sudan and even the UDHR in general, things needs to be enforced in order for them to matter at all. The U.S. Constitution needs to be enforced in this case or will soon no longer matter at all (like the UDHR, although that really never mattered much at all to begin with, the U.N. has no power except for what it's member states choose to give it.)

On another point, sending aid to countries really isn't the best way to help them. I encourage you to read the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo. The basic idea is foreign direct investment in capital goes a lot farther to bettering a nation than aid and the U.S. as a country is the largest provider of FDI of any country in the world.

[Gen. Volkov]

Yes I did. I said you were not the largest aid contributor by GDP percentage, and that is perfectly true.

No, you said: "The US donates a VERY small portion of its GDP to development of other countries compared to the average percentage donation."

It is true that as a percent of GDP, we donate less, but that is not what you said. You said we donate far less than other countries as a percentage of GDP. That is not true. You even admitted you didn't do the research, when I gave you the exact numbers.

[Shadow]

My apologies. Alazar implied that you are the biggest and most active aiders and further implied that you were the only country that gives aid. I suppose I exxagerated a little bit, but his point is no less invalid.

About the UDHR - the document implies that no right should have to bo compromised in fulfilling another. Sure you guys have access to medical care regardless of insurance, but for large problems and ongoing illness, you are going to have to sacrifice many things (your shelter?) in order to cover the costs of keeping yourself alive. Not in all cases, but it is not all that uncommon. In that respect, your current system does not provide as the UDHR says it must, since someone is then forced to choose between several basic human rights.

On another point, sending aid to countries really isn't the best way to help them. I encourage you to read the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo. The basic idea is foreign direct investment in capital goes a lot farther to bettering a nation than aid and the U.S. as a country is the largest provider of FDI of any country in the world.

There are many theories about how to be most effective about aid. In this case it comes down to the fact that in the poorest areas, there is nothing to invest in, so FDI is pretty much useless and grassroots projects are needed.

[Firetooth]

I know im gonna get flamed to all [haties] for saying this, but i fully agree with Juska. I am a poor college student who works his [Behind] off to pay bills. I am uncovered, and I am in huge disagreement with this bill and any other socialized medicine. It doesn't help that I am in my party years and like to get drunk ocassionally. The difference between the US and Canada is in the a case of beer runs you about $20...in Canada its something like $50. Not to mention all the taxes, I don't need or want healthcare(like many americans). So how is it fair that I have to pay for some other lazy [stoat's behind] to get it? I give money to people who need it alot. I do my best to help people and my community out. Being forced to give things is a violation of what this country was built on.

You people can say what you want about other countries that had dictators. I am sorry, it's sad, it really is, but there is nothing I can do about it. I know maybe the rest of the world is just jealous of what we have. We are one of the most dominant and successful nations in the world. This has happened with our CURRENT healthcare system. Our country was built on liberty and freedom, I for one would like to show our founding fathers the respect of keeping that in place.
The high health costs come from stupid use of healthcare. Another way to lower costs(here comes a lot more flame) is to not give health care to illegal aliens. I am sorry, but they don't belong in our country, so if they come here illegally then they better get their asses back to Mexico if they want to be treated. It's ridiculous that we have to spend all that money on people who are not Americans and do not belong here. We have enough of our own problems. But the US like always has to try and help all the other nations in the world. Or have you all forgot that? All the groups that do all the work all over the world in poverty stricken countries. So seriously stfu before you go bad mouthing one of the greatest countries in the world.

Haha, cool story bro.

What a surprise...another one of sharptooths highly uneducated posts...(I know I don't do as much research as I should. Say what you want, but we were basically the world leaders at one point. It IS slipping from us as our leaders continue to dig us into deeper holes.(like this healthcare bill)

The illegals not only get free care in emergency rooms from us, but also take many AMERICAN jobs.

Seriously, nobody has the RIGHT to a job-you have to earn the job. Immigrant's aren't stealing jobs, they're earning them themselves.

[Gen. Volkov]

My apologies. Alazar implied that you are the biggest and most active aiders and further implied that you were the only country that gives aid. I suppose I exxagerated a little bit, but his point is no less invalid.

Alright then. You are both making half-valid points, as I see it. Ally has a point that the US does give a lot of aid to other countries, for a variety of reasons, and that we are the biggest contributors in absolute terms. You are right that other countries give a slightly larger percent of their GDP out as aid, and that we are far from the only country to give out said aid. However, you are completely correct in your statement that our generosity has absolutely nothing to do with health care.

Oh, and Firetooth, you really didn't add much to the conversation.

[Alazar is Back]

Sharptooth: I said your post was uneducated because most of yours are. But you didnt contribute anything at all. Just called me a hypocrit basically and said that we should help illegals. Firetooth did much the same thing. They are stealing our jobs because they are AMERICAN jobs, not mexican ones. The only reason you guys don't agree with me is because you don't have similar problems.

For the record it wasn't a random thing. Illegal immigration has an effect on our healthcare costs. When they go the emergency room they are given care. This raises costs.

To be honest I was told by a kid who I graduated with last year that there was some large difference in prices of alcohol. I thought he said $50. And that is why in my post i said "something like" $50.

Shadow I did not imply that the US is the biggest and most active aiders or that our country is the only that gives aid. Please stop putting words in my mouth. My POINT and what I was IMPLYING was that the US does help a lot of other countries. Be it in conflicts, natural disasters, or poverty stricken countries. The US is full of many giving people. And some arrogant assholes too, but every country has them. lol

[Juska]

About the UDHR - the document implies that no right should have to bo compromised in fulfilling another. Sure you guys have access to medical care regardless of insurance, but for large problems and ongoing illness, you are going to have to sacrifice many things (your shelter?) in order to cover the costs of keeping yourself alive. Not in all cases, but it is not all that uncommon. In that respect, your current system does not provide as the UDHR says it must, since someone is then forced to choose between several basic human rights.

Shadow the UDHR was written in 1948, just so you know medically chemotherapy was in it's infancy, the first organ transplant wasn't until 1955 and the first heart transplant was in 1967.

The people who wrote the UDHR did not mean that every man had a right to every single new medical technique no matter how expensive or experimental if it had to chance to save their life. The UDHR was written after WWII and the holocaust, when in the midst of concentration camps easily preventable diseases ran rampant killing thousands in the camps, they were trying to ensure adequate (read basic) rights for every man in a world where the citizens of most countries had nothing to protect them from their governments (read the Jews in Germany and German held territory.)

When the UDHR says a standard of living that will provide for adequate health care it means preventative health care and emergency care, which every American already has access to. (Everyone must be treated in an ER and people who can't afford health insurance for preventative care are already covered by state low income programs and medicaid.)

To think that every man has the right to millions of dollars if it has even a small chance to save his life is preposterous!  Every man has the right to medicine that will keep him healthy and free from disease and let him heal after trauma, but not every man has the right to years of cancer treatment.

Now please address my hypotheticals.

[Shadow]

but not every man has the right to years of cancer treatment.

I disagree, quite simply. There is a sustainable system in which that man can have his years of cancer treatment free of charge. I m part of it. It exists, so it can be done, so it should be done.

Your hypotheticals mostly depend on people being basically good and giving. Now, that is all very nice, but the fact is that it isn't doing anything now, and there is nothing I see to indicate that that will change. Being an idealist is very nice, but it is generally not applicable to the real world.

[Juska]

No, my hypotheticals are based upon the fact that people want to give.

If over "half" of Americans want to insure the "uninsured" and are prepared to do it with their tax dollars, then why don't those people simply give the money that would be taxed from them to charitable organizations focused on providing insurance for the uninsured?

It achieves the exact same end, except the government isn't in control.

I believe people are capable of freely helping other people, you believe that people must be forced to help others.

[Shadow]

No, my hypotheticals are based upon the fact that people want to give.

If over "half" of Americans want to insure the "uninsured" and are prepared to do it with their tax dollars, then why don't those people simply give the money that would be taxed from them to charitable organizations focused on providing insurance for the uninsured?

It achieves the exact same end, except the government isn't in control.

I believe people are capable of freely helping other people, you believe that people must be forced to help others.

If your idea worked, why is there even a problem to begin with? Why isn't everyone covered by charity already?

I don't think that people must be forced to help others, not at all. Some people do do it freely and I commend that. But not enough to provide health insurance to everyone, not even close. And your current situation is direct evidence of that.