American Health Care System.

Originally posted by hugoestr In other words, poor people should die.

No; poor people may die, they may not die. I feel neither malice nor benevolence towards them (or any other social group), but am merely apathetic.

Originally posted by hugoestr Yes, it makes you a bit uncomfortable, but when it is time to put money on the line, you prefer to buy a big mac, a playstation, or a car instead of the helping keeping people alive.

(1) I didn't say that is makes me uncomfortable and (2) I wouldn't buy that stuff: there is no need to try to make this a personal issue. As for your argument, why shouldn't I be able to spend the money that I earned however I please? Why is it "wrong", morally or ethically, to let those people die?

Originally posted by hugoestr Of course morality is relative in this point of view: relatively speaking, the death of a child is worth less than buying yourself twinkies. Maybe you can spare the change in a charity box to feel good about yourself.

Morality is relative; and easily proven so. For instance: you believe that allowing the starving to die is immoral, I do not. Both of those convictions are opinions, so neither can be logically proven through reasoning, and thus neither is essentially "correct". The result; nothing is inherently right or wrong; there is no universal morality; and you have no conceivable right to hold others to those moral principles to which to hold yourself. This situation is analogous to the notion of religious toleration; that while you may personally believe in some faith, you cannot reasonably demand that others do the same. I would guess by your economic stance that you are a liberal democrat, and thus should be familiar with this issue, as your party constantly opposes the evangelical right (for good reason). In conclusion, if I want to eat some twinkies, or caviar, or flush my money down the toilet, rather than helping the poor, the government ought not to force me to do otherwise, because it is supposedly the "right" thing to do.
 

Originally posted by hugoestr Again, let the poor die. I don't know if you are a libertarian or conservative, but you are giving an ugly face to either ideology. This is the most anti-life, cynical post I have read in a long time. Come on, please tell me is a joke.

I'm a libertarian, and if you find scrutiny of policy under reason to be ugly, then that�s a shame; reason is the only true virtue.

 

Edited by Herodotus

Originally posted by Maju I really don't understand the Angloamerican way of health system.

Angloamerican? Britain's National Health Service may not be a great example of how to run a healthcare system efficiently, but at least it's free (i.e. paid for from taxation).

I'd certainly agree that the European systems I know of are more  effective than the British.

 

Originally posted by Genghis That's the difference though, private, not public money would pay for health costs.

I don't know what you mean by that.

It's all private money, whether it's taken in taxes, as in Britain, or in the form of compulsory insurance premiums, as in most of Europe, or as non-compulsory insurance premiums and direct payments as in the US.

The difference is that in Britain and Europe (and indeed most of the rest of the world) no-one goes without and everybody is treated equally. No developed country has such a swathe of people who cannot afford medical treatment as the US does.

I know that the US, through the states, makes some provision for the indigent. For instance, in Georgia, as long as you have less than $2,000 in assets, and insufficient income to pay the bills yourself, you can get nursing home costs pay for. As long as you sign over all your income, with the exception of $30 a month, to the state.

Effectively you - in most states - can only get subsidised treatment AFTER you go bankrupt.

 

 

But Angloamerican can also mean most of Canada (and the Bahamas, Bermuda, Jamaica, the Falklands, Guyana, Belize, the Cayman Islands, etc.).  Perhaps U.S. (so: U.S. Healthcare System) is the best adjective for 'United States of America', for it is accurate and already widely used.

Originally posted by Herodotus <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> Originally posted by hugoestr In other words, poor people should die. <O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">No; poor people may die, they may not die. I feel neither malice nor benevolence towards them (or any other social group), but am merely apathetic.<O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> Originally posted by hugoestr Yes, it makes you a bit uncomfortable, but when it is time to put money on the line, you prefer to buy a big mac, a playstation, or a car instead of the helping keeping people alive. <O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">(1) I didn't say that is makes me uncomfortable and (2) I wouldn't buy that stuff: there is no need to try to make this a personal issue. As for your argument, why shouldn't I be able to spend the money that I earned however I please? Why is it "wrong", morally or ethically, to let those people die?<O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"> Originally posted by hugoestr Of course morality is relative in this point of view: relatively speaking, the death of a child is worth less than buying yourself twinkies. Maybe you can spare the change in a charity box to feel good about yourself. <O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Morality is relative; and easily proven so. For instance: you believe that allowing the starving to die is immoral, I do not. Both of those convictions are opinions, so neither can be logically proven through reasoning, and thus neither is essentially "correct". The result; nothing is inherently right or wrong; there is no universal morality; and you have no conceivable right to hold others to those moral principles to which to hold yourself. This situation is analogous to the notion of religious toleration; that while you may personally believe in some faith, you cannot reasonably demand that others do the same. I would guess by your economic stance that you are a liberal democrat, and thus should be familiar with this issue, as your party constantly opposes the evangelical right (for good reason). In conclusion, if I want to eat some twinkies, or caviar, or flush my money down the toilet, rather than helping the poor, the government ought not to force me to do otherwise, because it is supposedly the "right" thing to do.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> Originally posted by hugoestr Again, let the poor die. I don't know if you are a libertarian or conservative, but you are giving an ugly face to either ideology. This is the most anti-life, cynical post I have read in a long time. Come on, please tell me is a joke. <O</O</SPAN> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: 14.55pt"SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I'm a libertarian, and if you find scrutiny of policy under reason to be ugly, then that�s a shame; reason is the only true virtue.<O</O</SPAN> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" ="MsoNormal"FONT face="Times New Roman"> <O</O

Herodotus,

Your position is that people without money should die. You are indeferent about their pain and their tragedy; you said it yourself.

This is a selfish and unethical position.

This position makes libertarianism look ugly; unjustly so, for most libertarians are respectful of individuals and personal liberty and life. Most are pragmatic, and understand that public health is in their own best personal interest.

I sense a touch of trolling or dogmatic ideological thinking in your answers on this thread. Since our exhcange is not advancing the argument a bit, I will not continue it here.

However, I noticed that you have an interest in discussing if ethics are relative or not.

I find it surprising, for someone as rational as you, someone who pities those who fail to analyze things under reason, that you failed to see that you have put forth an inconsistent argument when you stated that ethics are relative.

I will explain my position in another thread.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl If people die on a way that is easily preventable, I think it's quite obvious that it's ethically right to prevent it...

Quite obvious to whom exactly? Is apathy ethically wrong because you said so, because a professor of ethics says so? Are those opinions more valuable than my own, or those of academic notables who are of the same conviction (primarily Hume, the first philosopher to really articulate and name the concept of moral relativity.)?

Originally posted by Mixcoatl With that you can justify every behavior. Why not grab a machine gun, enter a primary school, and shoot every kid you see? Morality is relative, so with your reasoning the government should not forbid you to do so.

 

Those are very good examples: nothing is immoral in a general sense. You may see those things as wrong, but others may not, and so you have no logical reason to expect the enforcement and primacy of your beliefs. However, this does not mean that the law should be abolished, as you claim. Those are totally separate issues, as the law is not designed to punish people when they are �wrong�, but rather to provide justice, �an eye for an eye�� and to make the commission of the crime undesirable in the future.

 

For instance, if I steal $100 from Rick, and am caught and convicted, I should be forced to repay the $100; that is justice. However, that does not provide me, the criminal, with any disincentive to commit the crime again. Thus, the need for the utilitarian measure of increasing the punishment enough past pure equality so as to prevent the crime from being profitable for the criminal in the future.

 

Sometimes it appears as though the law is moralizing, punishing people when they have done something �morally wrong�. This can be explained by the history of morality. This is debatable I�m sure, but in my opinion, human kind developed morals because they were selected for, on the community level.  Before the rule of law, communities that at least vaguely upheld some sort of moral code, would be more likely to survive, less likely to self-destruct. The purpose of modern law is utilitarian in essence, designed to prevent society from imploding, as was the basis for morality in general; thus it is natural that they would sometimes overlap.

Edited by Herodotus

Originally posted by Dawn Originally posted by Maju American is not a valid adjective as it includes all peoples from North and South America, Oh the confusion that term causes as it crosses the big pond. To anyone who lives in the America's the term Americain refers to one group and one group only - a citizen of the United states of America. I am a Canadian , Jelesco is a Mexicain and Tobodai is an Americain.  The prefex Anglo - at least in Canada refrers to something that has to do with the English language, ie: Anglophone - someone who speaks english primarally- Franco on the other hand as in  Francophone - someone who speaks primerally French. but this has little to do with the discussion  and as MixT said it might be best to just refer to it as USA.

Exactly, people in america; there nationality is american. people from cuba ; there nationality is cuban. It is just nationality wise that people from USA are American,