Healthcare is not a right!?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Yes, in general, people who have better educations and who worker harder/smarter will be wealthier than those who do no work at all. One can hardly disagree with that.

I’m referring to generalities of the outliers in the set of people who work. Of people who work and who have equivalent educations, I think networks (including familial wealth and/or social standing) will affect a person’s wealth/income far more than their work ethic or productivity.[/quote]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Yes, in general, people who have better educations and who worker harder/smarter will be wealthier than those who do no work at all. One can hardly disagree with that.

I’m referring to generalities of the outliers in the set of people who work. Of people who work and who have equivalent educations, I think networks (including familial wealth and/or social standing) will affect a person’s wealth/income far more than their work ethic or productivity.[/quote]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Yes, in general, people who have better educations and who worker harder/smarter will be wealthier than those who do no work at all. One can hardly disagree with that.

I’m referring to generalities of the outliers in the set of people who work. Of people who work and who have equivalent educations, I think networks (including familial wealth and/or social standing) will affect a person’s wealth/income far more than their work ethic or productivity.[/quote]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Yes, in general, people who have better educations and who worker harder/smarter will be wealthier than those who do no work at all. One can hardly disagree with that.

I’m referring to generalities of the outliers in the set of people who work. Of people who work and who have equivalent educations, I think networks (including familial wealth and/or social standing) will affect a person’s wealth/income far more than their work ethic or productivity.[/quote]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Yes, in general, people who have better educations and who worker harder/smarter will be wealthier than those who do no work at all. One can hardly disagree with that.

I’m referring to generalities of the outliers in the set of people who work. Of people who work and who have equivalent educations, I think networks (including familial wealth and/or social standing) will affect a person’s wealth/income far more than their work ethic or productivity.[/quote]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.[/quote]

Agreed.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.[/quote]

Agreed.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.[/quote]

Agreed.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.[/quote]

Agreed.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]

I’m not sure if networks will affect a person’s wealth/income MORE (but it’s possible), but I agree that such networks will affect wealth/income more than they *should.* Also, I’d say that Luck and Personality (“Social IQ”) play large roles.[/quote]

Agreed.

[patb]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”

[patb]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”

[patb]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”

[patb]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.[/quote]

“You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will appoint one for you”

[Author]

Posts