No.13671
File: 1719295264260.jpg (40.45 KB, 704x396, 16:9, cropped_using_insulin_on_c….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
If somebody has come down with a serious medical condition such as diabetes, pneumonia, tuberculosis, or even a form of cancer, and they simply don't have the funds to pay for treatment, then what in exact detail should happen to that person? Particularly given that those four major ailments still now kill a large number of people?
For more information about the cost of managing diabetes in particular, see:
https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/diabetes/true-cost-of-diabetes No.13677
>>13671There's a variety of different treatments, varying in cost, effectiveness, and expected value (EV). Lot of cancer treatments have terrible side effects and don't increase expected lifespan by much. Canada might have the right idea with MAiD here.
Type 1 diabetes is very unfortunate. Type 2 diabetes, if it arise from excess body fat, can sometimes be successfully treated by eliminating seed oil from one's diet and drastically reducing consumption of linoleic acid.
No.13689
File: 1719676789942.jpg (255.1 KB, 2048x2048, 1:1, cab6ce7f0b77eb776a60cfc123….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The state should fund their treatment because universal healthcare is a basic human right.
Where does the state get the money from? I don't know, taxes. Or maybe in America's case spending less on invading random fucking Middle Eastern countries. I don't know, I'm not an economist.
A state exists to take care of its people. If it only takes care of those who have money, it has failed completely and utterly to serve its purpose and should either be reformed or dissolved.
No.13690
>>13689Health care being viewed as a "basic human right" only works as an idea if you accept your neighbors who're fundamentally different than you because of their race, religion, disability status, sexual orientation, physical appearance, and so on as having common ethical connection to you as fellow citizens such that you've all got moral duties to each other in a shared civilization.
That really doesn't exist in the U.S. Like at all. Straight white men don't want to pay for the, say, chemotherapy treatments of gay black men. Young Protestant Christians who aren't disabled don't want to pay for, say, the replacement wheelchairs of physically disadvantaged elderly Muslims. Americans for the most part think of each other as part of a shared mass population on a large territory and don't feel any moral connection to those who's house happens to be on the same street as their own or whatever.
Granted... I personally think that health care is a matter of human rights anyways, and my instinct is to force Americans to be integrated with each other via violent coercion with the government forbidding segregation. Still, I'm just saying that universal medical programs are a tall order in the U.S. Keep in mind that across the country we still have former public pools that people filled with concrete and other materials to destroy the areas rather than have to integrate them with racial and religious minorities.
No.13691
File: 1719685412061.jpg (6.52 MB, 2894x4093, 2894:4093, fd0a71f8c2facf0d5998e22b3a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13690OP didn't ask me if it was a realistic proposition in America or anything. They asked me what should happen to seriously ill people. That's what I think should happen to seriously ill people.
Regardless,
>Straight white men don't want to pay for the, say, chemotherapy treatments of gay black men. Young Protestant Christians who aren't disabled don't want to pay for, say, the replacement wheelchairs of physically disadvantaged elderly Muslims.My stance on that is 'too fucking bad'. They're all citizens and they're all grown adults who should realise that saving lives is more important than whatever stupid prejudices they may or may not have. If they can't accept that then there are plenty of uninhabited islands on the planet they could move to and not have to care about anyone but themselves.
Again, I'm aware that that's not realistic in present-day America. But ideally that's how it'd work.
No.13692
File: 1719687977879.png (611.5 KB, 1200x1550, 24:31, 1499539095988.png) ImgOps Google
>>13689>The state should fund their treatment because universal healthcare is a basic human right.Huh? How do you leap from "healthcare is a basic human right" to "the state should force other people to pay for your healthcare"? The right to bear arms and the right to free speech are also basic human rights, but nobody suggests that the state should force other people to pay for your guns or your paper & pencil.
No.13693
File: 1719688237514.jpg (375.74 KB, 1342x1817, 1342:1817, Screenshot_20210118-113034….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13690>>13691To add to this, it's especially frustrating how so many people who call themselves Christians so vehemently opposed and still oppose the idea of social integration or even a social safety net as simple as a universal public health insurance option given Jesus's big emphasis on caring for one another as the core of moral values.
If one wants to make pragmatic argumentum for why universal healthcare wouldn't work because of the logistics of it, or for seeing it as coercive charity and thus not 'true' charity, that's one thing. But at the end of the day the primary reason most Americans seem to oppose it comes down to a "I got mine, fuck you" sort of attitude, and are most often the white, bible-belt residents who explicitly identify as Christians (with a
convenient 'faith alone' theology) and attend factory churches preaching prosperity gospel that teaches them to believe other's poverty and other's misfortunes are their own fault for not believing what rxactly as they do and thus
deserve to suffer. It's like they're living proof of the old biblical quote that the love of money is the root of all evil.
No.13694
File: 1719688832687.jpg (239.81 KB, 1167x1152, 389:384, Screenshot_20210427-101108….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13692>Huh? How do you leap from "healthcare is a basic human right" to "the state should force other people to pay for your healthcare"? The right to bear arms and the right to free speech are also basic human rights, but nobody suggests that the state should force other people to pay for your guns or your paper & pencil.Our declarations of independence states the three basic inalienable rights of all people are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights to vear arms and freedom of expression regard the second of those three, while healthcare involves the first. This means that it's right there with the right for food and shelter. It's why things like welfare exists, why we have welfare programs like food stamps and housing subsidies. It's the same principle that informs other nations with developed economies to provide the same for their citizens.
No.13695
File: 1719689701639.jpg (30.25 KB, 433x479, 433:479, 1458425999649.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13694> It's why things like welfare exists, why we have welfare programs like food stamps and housing subsidies.Nothing like those existed at the time of the founding.
No.13697
>>13671Ideally, I'd like to see a state funded medical option.
I think we pay enough in taxes to do such a thing.
Certainly in America, where military budgets are through the roof. Though, really, ending medicare alone probably'd solve that matter. Why make a state-funded "insurance" program instead of just funding hospitals, directly, with the mandate that they are free?
Quality and speed'll always keep private options around, but the existence of a free option'll even drive those prices down.
Seems a practical solution across the board.
No.13698
File: 1719692070894.jpg (277.55 KB, 1595x1141, 1595:1141, Screenshot_20210301-191115….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13695And how is that relevant? Chatel slavery was also legal in the southern colonies and a number of signers of the declaration and ratifiers of the constitution owned slaves as well
despite the declaration. American history is a story of progress towards actually
realizing the values espoused in the opening of the declaration of independence.
No.13699
>>13689>universal healthcare is a basic human right. How so?
Perhaps you're using a different definition of rights than I, here. But, for myself, being handed something for free is never going to be a right. Something we should have? Sure. But, not a right.
If you were stranded on an island, you'd have all the major rights of free speech, self determination, expression, ownership of property, and so on.
But, you wouldn't have healthcare. Would that mean God is violating your rights? Perhaps nature itself, or the sands of the island, refusing to give you what you are entitled?
Such things as healthcare are best viewed as a benefit to having a state. Something that our putting money in to nets us. Not something we are obligated, regardless of circumstance.
>A state exists to take care of its people.Perhaps this is the root of the disagreement on this;
As I see it, states exist first and foremost to protect its citizens' rights.
Whether from foreign threats in the form of a military, or domestic threats of thieves and murderers.
All else is a bonus; Something we can negotiate, depending on our culture and circumstance, but not necessarily needed to be universal inherently for the state to function.
No.13700
>>13694Is your stance that if someone commits suicide, they're violating their own rights?
Or if someone's struck by lightning, God or nature has violated their rights?
What of old age? Is old age itself an inherent violation?
The declaration of independence is not a legal document for good reason;
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sound good on a piece of paper. They are not, however, tangible.
At least 'happiness' was quantified with 'pursuit'. But as it pertains to life, there is certainly no right to such a thing, inherently.
The right is your determination, your agency. Self-ownership, essentially. Dying because you wanted to eat 20 big macs isn't a violation. Dying because the state put you against the wall, is, for the same reason as it'd be a violation if they torched your home, in essence.
No.13701
>>13693Probably because there's distinction between voluntary charity, and a gun to the head forcing you to give up your coin.
To be honest with you, I blame that heavily on the "i got mine fuck you" attitude.
Because why would I donate to the homeless, when the state's supposed to already provide for them?
No.13704
>>13700>Is your stance that if someone commits suicide, they're violating their own rights?>Or if someone's struck by lightning, God or nature has violated their rights?What of old age? Is old age itself an inherent violation?
Oh wow this is bonkers. Old age and natural disasters are
not human run states. This is a weird equivication.
As to suicide being a violation of one's own life, the
right to one's life implies that in
situations where it can be helped, the only person who has any right to decide if you live or die is yourself
>The declaration of independence is not a legal document for good reason;>"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sound good on a piece of paper. They are not, however, tangible.It's not a legal document but it is a symbol of the values and aspirations and intentions that drove support for independence in that time and symbolize the aspirations that still inform a lot of the goals of most of Americans.
And even if those things are not 100% realistically attainable, that doesn't contradict any reasons to not strive to get close as possible to ensuring those rights.
>>13701>Probably because there's distinction between voluntary charity, and a gun to the head forcing you to give up your coinLike I said here
>>13693>If one wants to make pragmatic argumentum for why universal healthcare wouldn't work because of the logistics of it, or for seeing it as coercive charity and thus not 'true' charity, that's one thing.I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the attitudes of those who would claim to be Christians who follow a spiritual leader that preached for universal human compassion while being opposed to supporting someone else's survival. And you're right it
is because of the 'fuck you I got mine' attitude as reflected in all these popular theologies that all conveniently absolve people of any moral responsibility to their fellow human beings.
>Because why would I donate to the homeless, when the state's supposed to already provide for them?How is that functionally any different than 'why should I donate to the homeless if they caused their own homelessness' in denial of the fundamentally random nature of reality?
Also I am not even addressing
my own reasoning for support of something like Medicare for all. Just commenting on the moral hypocrisy of those who oppose it while being Christian.
No.13705
Without social security, you're doomed to end up in a caste ike society, where those well off live in the fancy places and an ever growing mass of poor people live under dire circumstances in a slum-like society.
Poverty begets poverty, so those who face issues on their health, don't have access to fix things and by not fixing it, they are unable to work or maintain themselves, so they grow even less in chances to keep a job and earn money.
And if the person needing to maintain their family gets ill, the rest sinks into poverty as well.
And for a society, a large population living in poor quality is not great.It breeds more desparation, so more crime, it breeds unhygienic circumstances, it doesn't make for a good society, even for those living up in the Cloud District.
No.13706
>>13704>Old age and natural disasters are not human run states.Are states what determines rights, to you?
>the only person who has any right to decide if you live or die is yourselfWhich is distinctive, and contrary, to the notion of a right to life, itself. Yes.
>t it is a symbol of the values and aspirations and intentions that drove support for independence I agree; Flowery words and emotional appeals oft give rise to such things.
They are not, however, philosophically coherent things. There's rarely much logic to them. They
sound good, but there's a reason such a thing isn't codified into any law; It'd be nonfunctional from the getgo.
> that doesn't contradict any reasons to not strive to get close as possible to ensuring those rights. Sure. Attainability is a poor reason. I agree.
Though the bigger issue here is that the rights are outright inconsistent and meaningless.
"Pursuit of happiness", for instance, is such an asinine blanket statement, it verges on the absurd.
If someone finds pleasure in the slow knife raking across a woman's body, do they have a "right" to such a murderous practice?
Of course not.
"Liberty" is at best a redundant item, and frankly poorly defined in the best of times.
And I've already expressed the problems of something so basic as "life".
The issue at hand with these items isn't attainability;
They are flowery words with little meaning, is the issue, that fall apart the moment you examine them with any level of logic.
They are, bluntly put, propaganda.
That is, after all, what the declaration of independence was;
A propaganda piece to garner support and legitimacy for a secession.
No.13707
>>13704>while being opposed to supporting someone else's survival.The question is the "why", though.
As I pointed to, I think the reason for a lack of support to state-funded items ultimately comes down to the idea of coerciveness inherent to any state funded action.
At least, as a general aspect, anyway;
For those who don't donate to charity generally, like I said, I'd suggest the state's funding of such things makes it so the question sits "Why bother? It's already taken care of". Even more than that, there's the problem of "I've already paid for that", again, given the coercive state taking money through taxation to pay for such things.
>How is that functionally any different than 'why should I donate to the homeless if they caused their own homelessness'...Do I really need explain such a thing?
If you have a loaf of bread already at home, you don't need to buy another loaf of bread, right?
Unless by 'functionally' you're meaning to ignore the rationality and reasoning, and just talk about the effect, in which case... Well, honestly, I have no idea how to respond to that.
I guess for me the reason matters. The effect, less so.
No.13708
File: 1719708506219.jpg (96.98 KB, 646x1212, 323:606, Fy4B3saaAAA2Ili.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13692>How do you leap from "healthcare is a basic human right" to "the state should force other people to pay for your healthcare"?It doesn't just appear out of thin air.
Someone has to pay for it, and the current state of the American healthcare system proves that it can't be patients themselves. The state of affairs where you can wind up homeless or crippled if you're unlucky enough to break your leg is nothing short of sadistic.
>The right to bear arms and the right to free speech are also basic human rightsThe right to bear arms is a
constitutional right, not a
human right, and in many other first-world countries it's not even a thing. Free speech is a thing that technically doesn't require anything for you to exercise and you're not going to die in poverty if you need to buy paper and a pencil.
>>13693It's incredible how many American Christians forget the basic Christian tenet of 'love thy neighbour'. But honestly the whole 'people in poverty deserve it' thinking goes beyond Christianity and is probably one of the main reasons America's so fucked up right now.
>>13699The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states verbatim:
>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.Not only is healthcare a human right, but not being crippled financially because you're sick is also a human right. This was literally stated by the people who codified human rights into international law, and they did it way back in the late 1940s. You know it's fucked up when even people 80 years ago thought it was fucked up.
>As I see it, states exist first and foremost to protect its citizens' rights.Yes, like the right to not die of sickness or get financially ruined by being sick and die that way. You might have a slightly different definition but it doesn't fundamentally change the point I'm trying to make.
>>13705>Poverty begets poverty, so those who face issues on their health, don't have access to fix things and by not fixing it, they are unable to work or maintain themselves, so they grow even less in chances to keep a job and earn moneyYeah. People seem to forget poverty is a vicious cycle.
No.13710
>>13708>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states verbatimI don't care.
This is even more brainless, illogical, and flowery, acting as little more than an emotional appeal.
"A stanbard of living adequate for the health and well-being"? What the hell does that actually mean in practicality?
And what, is food supposed to fall out of the sky, as though it comes from nothing? To say nothing of clothing or housing.
This is an illogical propaganda piece. There is no moral philosophy backing it. It makes no sense with even the slightest bit of thinking.
Don't think to regurgitate such trite to me as though its source is sufficient to make it unchallenged.
No.13712
File: 1719720189506.jpg (151.43 KB, 850x1202, 425:601, sample_cf1d2275396faf5f020….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13699>>universal healthcare is a basic human right.>How so?I'd say healthcare is a human right in so far as the govt shouldn't be able to imprison people for providing or receiving healthcare. (Perhaps the right to refuse healthcare should be included too, e.g., no vaccine mandates.) Unfortunately, the FDA is a major violator of that right, denying people life-saving medicine because it hasn't been officially approved yet.
No.13713
>>13712>I'd say healthcare is a human right in so far as the govt shouldn't be able to imprison people for providing or receiving healthcare.Reasonable, but that's less a matter of healthcare itself, and more a matter of free, voluntary trade between individuals.
I'm inclined to agree about the FDA's practices, either way.
No.13714
File: 1719724048742.jpg (278.97 KB, 1379x1072, 1379:1072, Screenshot_20210427-101404….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13706>Are states what determines rights, to you?Are you just ... incapable of acknowledging the topic of this conversation?
>Which is distinctive, and contrary, to the notion of a right to life, itself. Yes.It ... isn't? That doesn't even come close to logically following what I stated, it means each individual is the only authority over whether or not they live or die and no one else should have the power to decide that. It's like how property rights theoretically confer sole authority of how that property can be used.
>They are not, however, philosophically coherent things. There's rarely much logic to them. They sound good, but there's a reason such a thing isn't codified into any law; It'd be nonfunctional from the getgoI mean, it's a statement of the broad principles and values and intented ends that inform the goal of later legal documents like the constitution and the bill of rights. Arguing about whether the statement itself is something that can be meaningfully implemented is irrelevant, especially not in this conversation when I am pointing to it as a symbol of the most popular ideals of Americans over the centuries. Plus I already said this.
>>13706>They are not, however, philosophically coherent things. There's rarely much logic to them. They sound good, but there's a reason such a thing isn't codified into any law; It'd be nonfunctional from the getgo.Again, I never said anything about
direct codification, but pointing to it as the ethical value behind the drive for independence. So it doesn't make any sense to me why you'd respond to an argument I didn't make. And it was in reference to the idea that healthcare is a human right.
>>13706>If someone finds pleasure in the slow knife raking across a woman's body, do they have a "right" to such a murderous practice?>Of course not.Again with the arguing against arguments I never made nor even implied. It's just part of a statement of principles, why would you assume that means I am advocating for direct implementation of them
>They are flowery words with little meaning, is the issue, that fall apart the moment you examine them with any level of logic.>They are, bluntly put, propaganda.That is, after all, what the declaration of independence was;
A propaganda piece to garner support and legitimacy for a secession.
Again, I was never advocating for direct implementation of them as if they could be given that they're just a declaration of a principle.
In fact as I stated, it's not even
my reason to support something like a universal public health insurance option like medicare for all, even if I broadly agree that one has the right to survive regardless of the profit motives of the healthcare industry.
>>13707>that.>I guess for me the reason matters. The effect, less so.>not reading the rest of the sentence No.13715
>>13714>It ... isn't?A right to life is absolutely contradicted by a right to kill yourself, no.
>it means each individual is the only authority over whether or not they live or die and no one else should have the power to decide that.This is a whole heaping helping different from mere 'right to life'.
It's much more workable. But notably, doesn't entail a right to Healthcare, beyond that you can treat yourself perhaps.
>Again, I never said anything about direct codification, but pointing to it as the ethical value behind the drive for independenceI've already agreed it was the emotional propaganda used to drive justification for the war, yes.
I just find it poor philosophy.
>'s just part of a statement of principlesWhich is what I'm arguing against.
They're shit principles. Poorly thought out.
No.13723
I'd like to point out that people in most countries don't have a right to compel others to defend their safety, and yet police forces that will step in to keep a victim from being raped, kidnapped, killed, and so on still exist.
You also don't have a right to avoid being injured by acts of nature. And yet fire departments rescuing screaming innocents from being burned by volcanoes, wildfires, arson attacks, and the like are additionally a core function of civilization. One can go on.
Just because a thing as an idea must exist, and does, doesn't necessarily logically imply that it's a part of a framework of human rights. They can be linked. They often are. Just not always.
Honestly, most matters of ethics don't entirely involve rights alone per se. It's immoral to, say, lie to romantic partners. Yet that isn't a matter for the courts and legislature to solve. Medicine being a human right is a complex issue.
No.13912
File: 1721135634749.jpg (198.84 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, Yuno gasai smile blood.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13699>Perhaps you're using a different definition of rights than I, here. But, for myself, being handed something for free is never going to be a right. Something we should have? Sure. But, not a right.Rights are arbitrary and subjective concepts as it is. If you really want to get into it, the only right you have is your own survival based upon how much power you have to change the world around you.
No.13922
File: 1721233423894.png (295.68 KB, 680x383, 680:383, clawthorne.png) ImgOps Google
>>13913Even that is subjective. Some people would argue that violence even in self defense is unjustifiable.
No.13923
>>13922To an extent, but all philosophy and politics are.
There is logical underpinning, nonetheless.
No.13970
>>13965I have no qualms agreeing that "intellectual property" is bullshit, and hurts the small creator far more than the big corpos, despite them being who it was supposedly to protect.
I think you've made a mistake here presuming most on the right, let alone libertarians, support the idea.
No.13975
File: 1721313845076.jpg (256.5 KB, 1080x1647, 40:61, Screenshot_20240718_094149….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>13970Ahem.
Note that this is just big pharma alone a few years ago and not the whole crony capitalist edifice.
No.13977
File: 1721314167435.jpg (54.36 KB, 720x1433, 720:1433, 1720444147022.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
According to corporations? Ignore them until they gain the funds or sign up for indentured servitude.
But that isn't the right thing to do in my opinion.
I say treat them and let them on their way.
No.13981
>>13975>>13976I don't get your point.
I don't like this either.
No.13992
>>13981My point is that the U.S. Republican Party and the U.S. conservative movement both view "defending property rights" as a thing that can't just naturally exist but instead requires a gigantic, heavy handed form of statism. Which unfairly benefits connected companies. And unfairly hurts many.
Claims that "property rights" are inherent and simple while the "right to water access", "right to health care", "right to shelter", and son are instead socialist, artifical inventions of recent times are lies. The claims aren't true. The "right to maintain your property" in the U.S. is a synthetic and highly statist concept that involves an activist government doing everything from killing open market competition to mandates forcing people to buy certain products and services to laws banning expressions of free speech criticizing certain businesses and more.
In a state of nature, property rights (as modern Americans define them) don't exist. Same as the right to getting health care (ditto) not not being there. You would have something like freedom of speech (ditto). In contrast.
No.13997
>>13992Again; rights are moral justification.
It's the point by which I am justified in using violence to resist, whether that be for a state, an individual, or an organization.
Property as a moral right exists just fine without the state as consequence.
It's simply backed up by a rifle.
No.14002
>>13999Did you honestly think rights were a magical law of the universe that defaults such things as true?
I find it ironic you tell me to consult a history book when they'll all tell you the same as well.
Rights are not something absolute and inherent in this world. They only function as a matter of moral philosophy. Which of course is the basis for most those whom explored and examined such things.
No.14021
>>14002Is it possible for you to open up a book of some kind and understand what the word "rights" means?
You seem to think that all forms of all ideas expressed throughout time are all just empty and arbitrarily found opinions that're all equivalent.
Which I guess would make sense if you're somebody who's cynical to the point of mental illness, but me and the other normal people out there don't live like that.
Stalin claiming to have the "right" to kidnap the Tatar children during the early 1900s versus the NRA claiming to have the "right" to resist an absolute state ban on handguns are not the same thing. For example. It's not just a matter that everybody has opinions and all opinions are the same. Jesus Christ. Get over yourself.
