Then the current talk of bailing out mortgage industry should cease and desist. If more and more people lose their homes let the chips fall where they will. And we should discontinue the FDIC. Why should banks be insured by the government? If they can’t survive let them fall.That’s a more legitimate way to phrase it, but I think that’s an untrue blanket statement.
That’s a normative statement, with which I disagree.
Why do you feel that person A is entitled to the services of person B? We do have basic human rights, but the unalienable right to someone else’s services cannot be one of them.
None of that changes the fact that I have never managed to save a dime in my life, every cent goes to medical bills. I’ve been homeless because of them, because keeping myself healthy interfered with rent, so health came before rent.Professor Oscar can now adjourn the class, everyone has just been schooled.
Don’t give up pathia. I want you around to continue teaching these people a lesson. The world needs you even if one person denies that. Don’t let anyone ever tell you suicide is an option and I don’t consider you a burden. If that’s how anyone wants to see you and me then I suggest they go back and read the gospel again.None of that changes the fact that I have never managed to save a dime in my life, every cent goes to medical bills. I’ve been homeless because of them, because keeping myself healthy interfered with rent, so health came before rent.
I guess this is somewhat pointless to even try at this point. I’m not neither likely to live to retirement age nor be capable of working a job that would get to a retirement point. This means I am going to be a drain on the system due to health, and then again because I’ll never be able to save enough to support myself at any point, ever.
Do you know how shaming this is? How degrading it is, that I’m going to have to rely on charity and government for every aspect of my life? Suicide is going to become attractive again at this rate.
There’s no real need anymore, that’s the irony of my situation. I qualify for disability now. I had to get so sick, I can no longer contribute to society anymore, thus I get support.I challenge people on this board who can do so to put their money where their mouth is. Let’s start sending money to pathia. Otherwise we are all talk and no action. I’ll find a way to send something.
Exactly! That’s what the free market and capitalism are all about. If a business can’t hold itself up, then why should it continue to exist? It is just a drain on the economy. Some people (this is not the major epidemic that it is played up to be) are losing their homes because they made an irresponsible decision and are paying the consequences. The banks are in trouble because they made loans to people who they knew they shouldn’t have because they were under pressure to do so. That’s an irresponsible business decision. Why should we reward irresponsible decisions?Then the current talk of bailing out mortgage industry should cease and desist. If more and more people lose their homes let the chips fall where they will. And we should discontinue the FDIC. Why should banks be insured by the government? If they can’t survive let them fall.
Then you might just as well accept that people who can’t afford to will not have children. You can’t expect them to do so and not have a home to put them in. Maybe if we weren’t driving up the prices of homes so much we wouldn’t have had this problem. Are you suggesting housing is not basic human necessity?Exactly! That’s what the free market and capitalism are all about. If a business can’t hold itself up, then why should it continue to exist? It is just a drain on the economy. Some people (this is not the major epidemic that it is played up to be) are losing their homes because they made an irresponsible decision and are paying the consequences. The banks are in trouble because they made loans to people who they knew they shouldn’t have because they were under pressure to do so. That’s an irresponsible business decision. Why should we reward irresponsible decisions?
NOTE: the first part of that doesn’t apply to you, pathia. Human life is sacred, businesses aren’t.
No one is entitled to someone else’s services. That idea doesn’t hold water. Our unalienable rights are given by God, not a doctor.This argument of person A not entitled to the services of person B is getting plain stupid. If someone’s health deteriorates they are entitled to the same care as anybody else regardless of ability to pay. It’s not taking someone else’s services. It is finding a way to give them to both. Otherwise we must feel that healthcare again is only for those fortunate enough to afford it and the rest of us can just waste away.
Then I guess even the air you breathe is not a basic human right. I in o way suggest they take away your right to a necessary procedure. But if it will save your life and the same procedure will save theirs why should they not have the right to the same procedure? It’s not taking away yours to provide it for both.No one is entitled to someone else’s services. That idea doesn’t hold water. Our unalienable rights are given by God, not a doctor.
If the services of a doctor are a right, then isn’t food? Suppose you work in the food preparation industry. I argue that because food is a right, You must provide me with a meal whenever I feel hungry regardless of my ability to pay. If all people are equal then, wouldn’t everyone have a right to your food? What do you think would happen as a result of that? You would be bankrupt in a week.
“From each according to his ability to each according to his needs” may seem like a good idea, but it can’t survive economically.
I think it is very irresponsible to have children if you know you cannot support them. There is a difference to not being able to support children and having your children living a hard life of necessity. The latter is just fine.Then you might just as well accept that people who can’t afford to will not have children. You can’t expect them to do so and not have a home to put them in. Maybe if we weren’t driving up the prices of homes so much we wouldn’t have had this problem. Are you suggesting housing is not basic human necessity?
Necessities and rights are not the same thing. Necessities are things we need to survive. Rights are things that we absolutely cannot be without because if we are, someone has committed an injustice against us and must be held accountable.I can understand the church’s teaching on the necessity of healthcare to take care of even the dying but why should that not include healthcare for all as a basic human right?
Uh…so we’re not entitled for police protection, or fire protection by the fire department? Maybe they should refuse to assist us because we didn’t buy a ‘protection plan’.No one is entitled to someone else’s services. That idea doesn’t hold water. Our unalienable rights are given by God, not a doctor.
Again, you confuse rights and necessities. If I am deprived of air and air is a right, who has violated my rights?Then I guess even the air you breathe is not a basic human right. I in o way suggest they take away your right to a necessary procedure. But if it will save your life and the same procedure will save theirs why should they not have the right to the same procedure? It’s not taking away yours to provide it for both.
Didn’t say they have a right to my food. I do have a God given rsponsibility to make sure they don’t starve because they have a right to some food or they will die. If they refuse to work then they shouldn’t eat. If they can’t work then they deserve to eat and not to starve hence the food stamp program. You know the ocnservatives always accuse the liberals of thinking in zerosum philosophy. Well that is what is taking place with the conservatives here. They think that by providing a service to one it by default takes away from another.No one is entitled to someone else’s services. That idea doesn’t hold water. Our unalienable rights are given by God, not a doctor.
If the services of a doctor are a right, then isn’t food? Suppose you work in the food preparation industry. I argue that because food is a right, You must provide me with a meal whenever I feel hungry regardless of my ability to pay. If all people are equal then, wouldn’t everyone have a right to your food? What do you think would happen as a result of that? You would be bankrupt in a week.
“From each according to his ability to each according to his needs” may seem like a good idea, but it can’t survive economically.
I was talking about fundamental human rights, not rights granted bu the US Constitution. We have a right to protection from the fire department and the police because the Constitution says we do. That changes when we leave the country, though. Fundamental human rights do not change because they are divine.Uh…so we’re not entitled for police protection, or fire protection by the fire department? Maybe they should refuse to assist us because we didn’t buy a ‘protection plan’.
And fundamentalhuman rights are food, water, clothing, housing and healthcare. Human rights are much more important than any constitutional rights.I was talking about fundamental human rights, not rights granted bu the US Constitution. We have a right to protection from the fire department and the police because the Constitution says we do. That changes when we leave the country, though. Fundamental human rights do not change because they are divine.
Peple need food to survive, but that doesn’t give them a right to to it. We have a responsibility to aid starving people precisely because they absolutely need food to live (and life is sacred), not because we would be in violation of their rights if we didn’t give them food.Didn’t say they have a right to my food. I do have a God given rsponsibility to make sure they don’t starve because they have a right to some food or they will die. If they refuse to work then they shouldn’t eat. If they can’t work then they deserve to eat and not to starve hence the food stamp program. You know the ocnservatives always accuse the liberals of thinking in zerosum philosophy. Well that is what is taking place with the conservatives here. They think that by providing a service to one it by default takes away from another.