By: Lu

Lu — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:22:12 +0000

oh, and yannick, if thats the best attitude you can entertain, you’d best be leaving the rest of us alone. because without the “drags”, you wouldnt be able to do shit in this world.
get over it.
or i can assure, you will die rich but friendless. =]

By: Lu

Lu — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:20:15 +0000

i think that if all of you would stop cussing and listen to each other, you might actually accomplish something. one person expresses their opinion, and 17 people get all bent out of shape over how he’s “wrong”. chill. freedom of speech sound familiar? btw, i really dont think every one of you asking “wtf is wrong with u?” is getting anyone anywhere. and since you really dont give a crap about who you’re talking to,its probably best if you cut the bs and discuss this like men.

By: Premed

Premed — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:48:30 +0000

And if you had any intelligence whatsoever you would realize that is, in no way, what I am saying. Moron.

By: Yannick

Yannick — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:51:49 +0000

Screw the poor, if they were worthy of life than they wouldn’t be poor. Survival of the most fit to survive, if your not than to hell with you, your a drag on the rest of us.

By: Premed

Premed — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:36:09 +0000

Is health care a right or a privilege? This moral argument for socialized medicine is by far the strongest and most difficult to rebut. But here goes. There is a moral obligation for people to help others in need. Peter Singer in his the New Internationalist (1997) gave an example of the “Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle,” in which one should pretend that he/she is walking a job interview per se. You are dressed in your best suit and this interview could land you a great new job. On the way, you take a shortcut through a park with a pond in the middle. There alone is a small child playing next to the water’s edge; you watch the child slip and fall into the water. The child appears to be drowning. There is no one around but you. What do you do? Few, if any, would do nothing, and Singer would say this is due to an inherent moral obligation to save the life of the child, regardless of any losses incurred. Contrarily, I believe there is an inherent altruism in many people, which in this scenario would invoke an instinctive response to save the child. This distinction between altruism and morality is crucial in the argument between socialized medicine and private. Now pretend that you are at the edge of the park and there is a fence between you and the child, who is now 100 yards away. Does your “moral” obligation change? Many would again say no, Singer goes on to ask “would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?” Now here is the problem with the scenario, the above question is impossible and unrealistic and therefore impractical. So in a more applicable case, what if you are at home watching the news and see that there has been a 12 car pile up on a nearby interstate(say 30 minute car ride or hour walk). Would you go and help? I can guarantee a fraction of those who would save the child would step out of their homes, hop in their car, and speed off. But why? Inconvenience, preoccupation, laziness, impracticality…But here is what is important. Are those people morally wrong for not immediately jumping out of their seat and heading out the door? Here is another scenario. Imagine there is a homeless shelter down the road giving away free meals to hobos. You saw a flier on the way home but do not even contemplate going to help or donating money. Again have you committed a moral fault? I do not believe in either case one has offended ANY moral code. But why not? Because people do not have a innate moral obligation to assist any and all in need, regardless of their ability to do so. In other words, whether you are wealthy, poor, young, old, smart, or stupid; morality does not dictate that anyone has a right to HELP from others. To this one might say,”Well, what about the right to life?” The right to life is highly ambiguous. Besides the enigmatic beliefs of liberals that a convicted criminal has more of a right to life than an unborn innocent child, there must be some clarification of the right to life. As stated in Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” One could say that by depriving people of health care, the private system of the US is depriving them of their right to life. But that does not occur in the US. No one is denied a right to actively acquire insurance, health care, or primary care. Their own personal/financial ability to do so determines the accessibility of the system. Therefore, if the blame does not fall on other individuals of a society or the system itself, the responsibility rests on the individual to procure the means to sustain his or her life. The current problems with private health care are not the exclusion of the minority but the overall cost of health care. I want to make it clear that I do not personally believe we should just willingly let other people die. However, I do firmly believe that it is not my moral obligation nor the government’s right to force me to do so. Therefore the answer for the uninsured is the attack on high health care price and the altruism of others combined with the active attempt of the uninsured to acquire health insurance. So in summary, there is no moral offense committed by not actively paying for or directly delivering health care or any other care to an individual in need. The absence of action does not conclude the perpetration of a crime. Therefore private medicine is not an immoral system and most importantly Health care is not a right.

Comments on: Socialized Medicine From One That Has Experienced It

By: Lu

By: Lu

By: Premed

By: Yannick

By: Premed