Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329182861' post='2386637']
Write in Ron Paul, any other Libby, the Pope, or Mickey flooping Mouse; it doesn't really matter.

The result will be the same - four more years of Dear Leader.and Marxist banana republic-style dictatorship, while you slap yourself on your backs for your superior righteousness.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware you were a consequentialist.

[Socrates]

Your face is [color=#282828]consequentialist.[/color]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329183103' post='2386642']
Your face is [color=#282828]consequentialist.[/color]
[/quote]
no u

[qfnol31]

Any time you stick an -ism on it, it just sounds bad.

[right]Wait...[/right]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1329183602' post='2386646']
Any time you stick an -ism on it, it just sounds bad.

[right]Wait...[/right]
[/quote]

Catholic-ism.

yup.

[Winchester]

[img]http://www.freshstation.org/gallery/var/albums/Fun-Ays/00194-Owned-Connect4.jpg?m=1289420618[/img]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329186129' post='2386674']
[img]http://www.freshstation.org/gallery/var/albums/Fun-Ays/00194-Owned-Connect4.jpg?m=1289420618[/img]
[/quote]

Why is he dropping another red chip in? He already has connect 4 diagonally, from the lower right corner up to the middle. These guys don't know how to play the game.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329164645' post='2386490']
Not really. I have a right to carry a weapon, as well. I have a right to property. This does not create any obligation for others to provide me these things. This is yet another bad argument we've allowed people to use. I suggest cutting the argument off by agreeing that it is a right, but that there is no right to force people to provide healthcare.
[/quote]

The author was saying by making health care a right, you create a slave class to sustain that right. It creates an undue obligation. I think we can all agree access to health care is a right, but health care services is not.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1329238894' post='2386924']
The author was saying by making health care a right, you create a slave class to sustain that right. It creates an undue obligation. I think we can all agree access to health care is a right, but health care services is not.
[/quote]
Fair enough.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1329238894' post='2386924']I think we can all agree access to health care is a right, but health care services is not.
[/quote]I don't think we can all agree to that, because it's debatable what "acess to health care" is defined to be. Does it mean that anyone can get a kidney transplant for free? Does it mean I can go every month to a Doctor for a health check up or every time I have an ache or runny nose for free? Does it mean I can demand a complet body MRI yearly to screen for tumors, growths, or other physical anomalies? Does it mean a Catholic has to help pay for someone else's vasectomy, tubal ligation, or abortion? Does it mean I have to pay for someone's fertility enhancement or in-vitro fertilization?

There has to be restrictions and limits of some kind and what those may be and how they are implemented is what's debatable, but it's all going to be some sort of restriction on access.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1329243660' post='2386982']
I don't think we can all agree to that, because it's debatable what "acess to health care" is defined to be. Does it mean that anyone can get a kidney transplant for free? Does it mean I can go every month to a Doctor for a health check up or every time I have an ache or runny nose for free? Does it mean I can demand a complet body MRI yearly to screen for tumors, growths, or other physical anomalies? Does it mean a Catholic has to help pay for someone else's vasectomy, tubal ligation, or abortion? Does it mean I have to pay for someone's fertility enhancement or in-vitro fertilization?

There has to be restrictions and limits of some kind and what those may be and how they are implemented is what's debatable, but it's all going to be some sort of restriction on access.
[/quote]
I believe he means that no third party can interfere in that right to access.

[Aloysius]

basically, everyone has the right to "the pursuit of healthcare"

on the flip side, doctors have a moral obligation to assist anyone who presents themselves to them in grave need, if they are able, regardless of their ability to pay. you take on that responsibility when you learn medicine, IMO.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1329258953' post='2387098']
basically, everyone has the right to "the pursuit of healthcare"

on the flip side, doctors have a moral obligation to assist anyone who presents themselves to them in grave need, if they are able, regardless of their ability to pay. you take on that responsibility when you learn medicine, IMO.
[/quote]
Does that mean someone can use force to compel them to provide that care? Where does that obligation end? Must a doctor cause himself serious financial harm? How about his employees, if he runs his own office? And the person in grave need, is he not obliged to make some manner of restitution?

[Aloysius]

I didn't say anyone should compel them, I just said it was a moral obligation. It would not necessarily be unjust for a law to require him to provide help, though such a law would have to protect him against frivilous lawsuits if his help failed, for the sake of justice.

also, I put in the caveat "if he is able". if he is financially incapable of providing that assistance, then he has no obligation, of course.

the person who receives the service certainly has a moral obligation to pay if he is able, or as much as he is able.

it's a moral charitable obligation I am talking about, nothing more necessarily. it is immoral for someone with medical training to leave someone to die if they cannot afford some type of life saving care that the person with medical training is fully capable of providing.

[Winchester]

It's immoral unless it would cause harm to the person trained. No one is morally compelled to cause himself harm. (I'd say it would probably have to be serious harm, but that's merely opinion).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1329260594' post='2387125']
I didn't say anyone should compel them, I just said it was a moral obligation. It would not necessarily be unjust for a law to require him to provide help, though such a law would have to protect him against frivilous lawsuits if his help failed, for the sake of justice.

also, I put in the caveat "if he is able". if he is financially incapable of providing that assistance, then he has no obligation, of course.

the person who receives the service certainly has a moral obligation to pay if he is able, or as much as he is able.

it's a moral charitable obligation I am talking about, nothing more necessarily. it is immoral for someone with medical training to leave someone to die if they cannot afford some type of life saving care that the person with medical training is fully capable of providing.
[/quote]What if someone walks into a Dr office with a child with a fever? Does the Dr office have to fit them into the schedule along with all the paying customers? What if 20 people come in with sick kids? If you are a Nurse and you have a job at a Dr office, do you have to volunteer 40 hours a week besides your paying job because you have the ability to?

It's easy if they were injured and went to the hospital. They get first aid and immediate care. There are many things that are potentially life threatening if they aren't treated.

I'd like to see people who have these utopian ideals come up with practical proposals.

Food is a basic human right and you don't see restaurants feeding whatever homeless people wander in. Nor do soup kitchens serve baked alaska, or grilled salmon.

[Aloysius]

lol am I supposed to respond to that? what utopian are you arguing with? I just proposed a simple moral principle, for consideration, that those who have medical knowledge and are capable of treating someone who is in grave danger has a moral obligation to do so, regardless of the person's ability to pay. if they're not capable of reasonably doing it, then so be it. I proposed no policy, except to say that any law which required doctors to do as much would not necessarily be an unjust law, so long as that law also protected them against frivilous lawsuits if their attempted help were to fail.

and of course we now have mandates that require everyone to get coverage for a whole bunch of frivilous medical products and procedures, such as contraception or in vitro fertilization. it's nutty. just because one has a moral obligation to help fellow human beings when they are in grave need if one has the necessary expertise and reasonable capability (an obligation which they take upon themselves by going to medical school) does not mean that all of these insane and inane mandated policies are in any way reasonable or just.

[qfnol31]

Everyone thinks I'm a Democrat the moment I start talking about various moral obligations.

I don't think that all moral obligations have to be regulated by the government. Such a good Thomist am I! But what does this make me?

This is a short, flippant way of agreeing with Al.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1329268674' post='2387224']
What if someone walks into a Dr office with a child with a fever? Does the Dr office have to fit them into the schedule along with all the paying customers? What if 20 people come in with sick kids? If you are a Nurse and you have a job at a Dr office, do you have to volunteer 40 hours a week besides your paying job because you have the ability to?

It's easy if they were injured and went to the hospital. They get first aid and immediate care. There are many things that are potentially life threatening if they aren't treated.

I'd like to see people who have these utopian ideals come up with practical proposals.
[/quote]

I dont think you are familiar with the concept of preventative care. Ie, going to see a dentist every year for a clean up/check out costs less than fdrilling and filling later. Treating the little things generally is a good thing, financially.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329288696' post='2387372']
I dont think you are familiar with the concept of preventative care. Ie, going to see a dentist every year for a clean up/check out costs less than fdrilling and filling later. Treating the little things generally is a good thing, financially.
[/quote]
Depends on the little things that are treated, and the frequency of preventative care. Going to the doctor for a cold is a pointless and expensive exercise.