Originally posted by Devil KingWell, for one responsibility is a side effect of morality. If there is no morality there is no responsibility. You do realize that, right?
WHAT? Explain why it doesn't.
As for "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." that doesn't really say anything about the issue at hand does it? If you can explain to me how it supports either view I'd be interested.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, for one responsibility is a side effect of morality. If there is no morality there is no responsibility. You do realize that, right?As for "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." that doesn't really say anything about the issue at hand does it? If you can explain to me how it supports either view I'd be interested.
Not at all. A cop can find nothing morally wrong with smoking pot, but it's his job to arrest someone he catches doing it.
It isn't part of the governmnets job description to make descisions for the people based on what's best for itself, or in this case, those in the government and private sector who gain teh most from keeping healthcare private.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But he finds this is his responsibility because he thinks that is morally right.It comes down to morality one way or another.
Nein Müllesser, "morality" doesn't have to play a part here; it could though. He does it because it is his job, what he is paid to do; which is to enforce law, which comes from who? The people.
Originally posted by Devil King
No way. Maybe if he caught the kid and let him go. But not if he actually arrested him AND had no personal issues with pot.
You don't seem to understand really. He might not find pot morally wrong (he would find it morally something I am sure), but if he arrests that kid he does it because he thinks it is morally right to do your job, or because he thinks it is morally right to feed your family at all costs. It is certainly a moral decision.
And whether health care should be paid for by the government or not is without a doubt a moral issue.
Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLSWhat don't you see the film SiCKO, then have your opinion about socialised healthcare.
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.
Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.
While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.
The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't seem to understand really. He might not find pot morally wrong (he would find it morally something I am sure), but if he arrests that kid he does it because he thinks it is morally right to do your job, or because he thinks it is morally right to feed your family at all costs. It is certainly a moral decision.And whether health care should be paid for by the government or not is without a doubt a moral issue.
Okay, I'll conceed your point about the cop and the pot because apparently we see it differently(i'm right though) and you'll argue with me until we're both blue in the face.
And perhaps it's a bad example, because it involves only one person. But the reason a government can't operate on it's own morals is because a government is comprised of far too many people for anything to get done on a true basis of morals. This is why obligation and responsability is the crux of the contract between a government and it's citizens. If morals were as concrete a concept as money, I assure you things would be different.
Originally posted by Devil King
Okay, I'll conceed your point about the cop and the pot because apparently we see it differently(i'm right though) and you'll argue with me until we're both blue in the face.
Nah, I lost interest already. I don't enjoy debating with sensible people usually. Makes me feel all self conscious, also makes me consider their points more. I don't like to doubt myself.
Originally posted by Devil King
And perhaps it's a bad example, because it involves only one person. But the reason a government can't operate on it's own morals is because a government is comprised of far too many people for anything to get done on a true basis of morals. This is why obligation and responsability is the crux of the contract between a government and it's citizens. If morals were as concrete a concept as money, I assure you things would be different.
Trying to set a consistent morality is a tool of society. The fact is that all people have their own morals and they try to make the governments as close to theirs as possible. You are right that they work with responsibility. But what one is responsible to, how far it stretches, etc are all moral issues. Health Care is without a doubt one. You might have an odd definition of morals. But that laws are based on moral judgments is hard to deny.