Effect of Presidential debates?

[GoPackGo]

Frankly I think the "people content to sit on their asses all day" image is a red herring concocted by Reagan that doesn't fit reality. Are there people like that? Of course, and they can be found in all classes and walks of life. But that extremely patronizing image doesn't fit the majority of poor and lower-middle class people/families any more than the companion image of the poor as the salt of the earth.

I don't think you can hold a meaningful, intelligent national debate over something this fundamental with positions that are based on extremely superficial stereotypes like yours.

I agree. These stereotypes shouldn't even be in the discussion. (admittedly, I used to buy into said stereotypes, then I had a family of my own and it opened my eyes)

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

[hoosier]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

I think you and I are looking at "responsibility" somewhat differently. You are looking at it as the responsibility of the individual to provide it for themselves. I questioned whether what was meant was that it was the responsibility of all people to provide it for everyone. A collective responsibility as opposed to an individual responsibility. We have lots of collective responsibilities now, for things like schools, police and fire protection, etc. It allows for local variations with some minimum standards.

Under my definition, A and B are not options because everyone should be entitled to some level of basic care. The problem becomes, what level of care? If you expect everyone to have the right to whatever they need, regardless of cost, it's unworkable. There is a reason that euthanasia is an accepted practice in some socialized medicine programs.

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

[Patler]

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

That is where a real political debate would help, not the "debates" the candidates agree to.

[Cheesehead Craig]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

True indeed.

To make the biggest impact though in helping the poor with health care, wouldn't having the government create a "universal" health care program be what to strive for? You then in one stroke help millions of people, both young and old. Granted, I'm fully aware at the difficulties this would encounter, but I'm just arguing the ideal here, not the implementation.

[mraynrand]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

[mraynrand]

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

Rather?

Anyway, I think they were mostly talking about personal responsibility, but it would be fine to regard both aspects - personal and societal. We can be responsible personally and societally without assuming health care is a 'right.'

[HowardRoark]

but I'm just arguing the ideal here, not the implementation.

The implementation is the hard part. And history shows that when competition is lacking, the quality of product goes down, and the prices go up.

For the record, I think the system is VERY flawed right now. We are at a crossroads right now. I think we need to go more towards true free markets in healthcare. With, of course, oversight.

[mraynrand]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'

[LL2]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

Yes, that is the Christian thing to do. I implore every Christian and every other citizen to help provide for the poor, the sick, for the people who really need help.

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'

Well, that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, but I'll give it to you.

But what about the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, would not health care fall under that?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.

I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

[LL2]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.

I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

Yes, I will agree with that. I guess it depends on how you define "less fortunate." I already mentioned those with with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic as examples, but do you include that family with a decent job but the employer offers a really crappy health care plan and the out of pocket cost to the employee is high?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.

I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

Yes, I will agree with that. I guess it depends on how you define "less fortunate." I already mentioned those with with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic as examples, but do you include that family with a decent job but the employer offers a really crappy health care plan and the out of pocket cost to the employee is high?

Now you're getting into specific cases and on that I have no definate answers. As I said before, I'm arguing ideals, not implementation and that as HowardRoark pointed out earlier is the hard part and I am in complete agreement on that. I guess you could say that if we give the same access and cost of health care to all, then this example would fall under that.