Print This
Email This
This post is Part I in a series exploring reasons to support universal health care.
The moral argument in favor of universal health care dictates that ensuring equality of access to health care is a moral imperative. This moral imperative can stem from religious beliefs or through secular channels such as natural rights and human rights.
Religion and spirituality play a strong role in social activism, stressing personal development in faith as well with a call to improve the state of the world. James 2:26 says that, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” It is not merely enough for believers to profess their faith. Those beliefs are supported, sustained, and demonstrated through the social conscious actions of believers.
Activism and social justice are not restricted to Christianity. The religious call to social justice says that people should treat people the way they would like to be treated, also known as the Golden Rule. You can find a version of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions, encouraging respect and urging individuals to take personal responsibility for addressing injustices in basic human needs.
Given the prevalence of religious duty to upholding justice and equality, it is hard to justify the strength of one’s faith while supporting a system that has 45.8 million people without health insurance and many others underinsured. To do so institutionalizes practices, policies and systems that favor people who have the resources to meet their needs. Universal health care ensures that health, a fundamental need, is accessible to everyone regardless of how much money they make or where they live.
Moral obligations can come outside of religion through the concept of human rights. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a comprehensive document that enumerates the rights of every person regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, income, and national laws. Given the recent anniversary and the push to meet the Millennium Development Goals, there is a renewed focus on increasing knowledge and awareness of human rights.
Article 25 specifically addresses the right to health care stating,
“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.”
The article really does not leave wiggle room for a health care system that ensure the right to medical care to the majority of the population. Ensuring that every person has access to health care truly protects the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” boldly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Lack of insurance complicates health outcomes; people who are uninsured get sick more often, earn less money, and die sooner as a result of the disadvantage of not having sufficient access to health care.
The real question is what are you willing to do to fulfill your moral duty?
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Recent Comments
Popular Posts
47 RESPONSES TO "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: THE MORAL ARGUMENT"
@Norcross ERs are not socialized medicine. They are a last resort for millions who have no where else to go. Often all ERs can do is tell them to see their primary care provider which of course they do not have.
@Tim I figured I would play nice if everyone else would. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean I have to agree with it.
@Neil Universal health care is not a desperate solution but rather the acknowledgment that no one should be deprived of their health. I have a hard time believing that the rise in immigration was for free healthcare rather than the abundance of economic opportunities that living in the UK offers. Great job knocking down the straw man argument of Saudi Arabia oil. I was talking about the United States having control over its own human rights issues rather than those of other countries.
@Scott The profit incentive has not exactly been driving down the costs of health care. Research and development takes place in the private sector and the public sector with government funding for research. Budgets for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have steadily been cut. Meanwhile, the US spends more than any other country per capita on health care and sees little impact for it. I think the question is not can we afford to do it, but rather can we afford not to do it.
@
As a country, we should want to take care of each other in terms of health. Not to mention, I cannot believe that certain things (like my health) are to be treated as a marketable, profitable item.
And let's not forget we already have 'socialized' medicine, every time someone shows up to the ER without money.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Be ready for some kind of wild backlash from people who are opposed to universal healthcare. Then again, I did tell them to go f themselves and you didn't. We'll see.
Universal Health Care is born of desperate times. The British NHS is also 60 years old this year and that was born due to the desperate need to rebuild Britain from great damage with a depleted workforce. The free healthcare kept those still still left well enough to work on the rebuilding process. It also encouraged many immigrants to join this workforce from former British colonial territories, as they too could have the health care for free. (Stealing all the workers from other countries) What seems like a very socialist concept of free healthcare for all, was actually a very smart capitalist idea to get more work out of the working classes.
In an indirect way, it may have been a major factor in determining Britain's current economy. An economy where almost nothing is manufactured in this country. Britain is a country rich in coal, but it's cheaper overall to buy the coal from other continents, rather than mine it and look after the worker who's health will deteriorate from the unsafe job of being a miner.
If you truly believe in the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps you should stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia before you ask for a cheaper healthcare system for yourself.
The profit motive causes the greatest advances in any field. Medicine is no different. Take away the profit motive, and you take away much of the incentive for anyone to produce new treatments.
This leads unfortunately to rationing health care based on ability to pay.
I don't know the answer to this. All I have is questions.
Can we afford to pay for universal healthcare? Other countries are finding that their state health care is operating deeply in the red and are cutting back services. They still offer more services than the US, but how long can it continue?
Will companies be reluctant to research new treatments if they can't make enough profit? Will government-sponsored labs take up the slack?
Will people be willing to give up some freedom of choice of which doctors to see and when to see them? Will they be willing to put up with waiting lists and the restrictions of government healthcare?
I don't know. But too often in this argument, I hear opinions instead of facts.
No system is perfect. I don't have a real guess as to what UHC would cost, but I bet that if we didn't spent 56 percent of our budget on defense, funding it would be a hell of a lot easier.
Is it moral to force me to pay for something, at the threat of violence or theft if I choose not to cooperate?
Is that moral?
This is of course a heated topic. I appreciate your desire to keep things civil.
What is going on here is a disagreement over means, not ends. I'm doubtful most people would disagree that there is a moral imperative to provide for those in need.
You are right in calling people out on the shortfall in providing healthcare - however you cannot ignore the means to get there. Universal healthcare is built upon taxpayer dollars. For taxpayers whose personal morality opposes medical care, how do you justify taking their money? Additionally, for taxpayers who wish to use a private system, they will certainly be free to do so, but will pay double as their public contribution is obligatory.
Canada's system won a landmark case towards privatization of their health system to improve it. What can we learn from that? They now enjoy a 70% public, 30% private system, which they consider far improved.
Let's get down to the real issue: the means whereby you propose universal healthcare. What is the most moral way to provide it?
@Vanessa: The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is a multinational agreement isn't it? So why use that when the point you want to get across is concerning the improvement of the people of just the US?
Finding the USA lacking in it's implementation of the Declaration of Human Right will find you little support for your cause. No nation can or will implement every part of the Declaration. In regards to health care, those with the money will need persuading that there is benefit to them to give away what they have earned for the benefit of others. Those people didn't get rich because people gave them anything for free.
Excellent response Milena!
Here's the problem as I see it: as long as there is a governing body that requires millions of dollars (I don't know the exact amount but I know it's a LOT) and a decade or so of waiting time to have them allow you to sell your medicine or cures, there can be no such thing as "private" health care. We in the USA have the worst of both worlds: just socialized enough to run the private sector up in price, and just private enough to keep poor people from being covered.
The solution, of course, is to free it all up, get rid of the FDA (which would allow competing private companies to fill that void), and watch the prices drop and quality increase.
But... that's probably not what's going to happen, at least in the US.
you suggest ending regulations on pharmaceutical companies. As it is -- Big Pharma is known to manipulate data and lobby for approvals of drugs -- you might as well we eliminate cliinical trials.
While all products sold by Big Pharma will be at least 30% effective (the placebo effect), at worst, people will die from adverse reactions that could have been brought out in rigorous reviews of trial data. Eliminating the FDA is not a very smooth move.
Matt- that argument would allow you to get away with cheating on your income taxes every year. Give me a break.
Tim - I don't follow, please elaborate?
"Is it moral to force me to pay for something, at the threat of violence or theft if I choose not to cooperate?
Is that moral?"
I don't want my taxes to pay for the war in Iraq, but I pay them anyway. If I didn't, I would be thrown in jail.
The extra cost of providing health care for everyone is part of civilized society. We pay taxes to protect your health with a military, with roads, with police departments. UHC is just another major step towards protecting Americans. It's not a travesty or an infringment of your right to not give a shit if other people get sick. It's just another social program that we need.
@Matt -
You are right. Efforts to move towards privatization will provide improved efficiencies and provide choice for consumers.
@Zak - I think you're opinion "elminating the FDA is not a very smooth move" is based on a fundamental belief that only the governmental should or would regulate private industries.
I believe you are a pilates instructor, correct? I'm assuming you (or your colleagues) received some sort of certification to do so? Did the government force you to do so?
Most likely the place of business you teach in required it, or you did it of your own volition to differentiate yourself from other pilates instructors. This is a perfect example of private, individual choice in the matter. If, in Matt's example, the FDA was eliminated, you wrongly assume there would be no governing or regulatory body over "Big Pharma."
Drawing a parallel to pilates, while you or other pilates instructors could probably teach pilates without a certification, you will find yourself hard-pressed to find business if you don't, correct?
Similarly, consumers will have the right to demand certain standards be upheld for pharmaceuticals and their could be any number of self-created boards and non-related governing entities.
The government doesn't have to have the job, nor are they the most efficient candidate.
@Tim:
We're not discussing the status quo, we're (or at least I am) discussing the morality of forcing people to pay for things at the point of a gun.
You're absolutely correct that we all pay for the war because if we don't, we get thrown in jail.
The question is: is it moral to force me to pay for something that I find morally reprehensible (like I find the war to be)? How "against" something can I possibly be if I'm forced to pay for it?
Finally, in regards to taxes being a part of civilized society... how civilized are we if we're getting money TAKEN from us for "services" we may or may not need but certainly did not choose? And if we don't let them take our money, they try to take *more* money, and if we refuse that, they come back with *guns*?
This might be a minor derailment, and I apologize for that, but I don't like being forced to do something under the threat of theft or violence if I don't comply with your (or the majority's) wishes.
@Tim -
You say, "I don’t want my taxes to pay for the war in Iraq, but I pay them anyway. If I didn’t, I would be thrown in jail." Exactly the point here. You shouldn't be forced to pay for a war you do not support.
You say, "The extra cost of providing health care for everyone is part of civilized society." You have to elaborate on this and provide justification.
"We pay taxes to protect your health with a military, with roads, with police departments." You are stretching the definition of health quite a bit here. The military is to protect personal freedoms, which of course include defending against bodily harm. However, health care and a strong military are not comparable on an equal basis in terms of a civilized society's needs.
You say, "UHC is just another major step towards protecting Americans." Of course universal health care protects people. No one is arguing against that. Again, we must discuss the means of attaining our goals.
You say, "It’s not a travesty or an infringment of your right to not give a shit if other people get sick." This is an emotionally-based argument to distract from legitimate discussion. You continue, "It’s just another social program that we need." While your claim that universal health care is a need is dubious and not based in logic, let's say it is. You'll have to prove that we need it to be paid for by the government.
Do you truly believe that there is no other entity besides the government which can provide for a better system of healthcare?
Most U.S. citizens already subsidize other social services and programs(such as roads, schools, and Medicare/Medicaid) through property, income and federal taxes.
The "I don't want to have to pay for other people" argument just doesn't fly. Parents who pay to send their kids to private schools are essentially "paying twice." That's their choice and no one seems to make a big deal about that. People who drive cars pay to subsidize mass transit and people who don't drive pay to subsidize road repairs.
Basically what this issue boils down to is not whether we want to become a "socialist" nation (because we already are) but whether we want to add health care to the already long list of services we prioritize for public funding.
Milena,
Objective outside parties should be regulating the health care industry. The primary interest of Big Pharma is make a profit (selling drugs) and the primary interest of the insurance industry is making a profit (by denying care). Someone needs to look out for patients' best interests.
I teach mat pilates in a gym that doesn't "require" any certifications. They expect you to take their workshops to ensure continuity in programming. I've taken it upon myself to shell out big bucks on a certification I'll likely renew for the foressable future because I personally care that I have quality anatomy and fitness certifications backing my teaching. I've never been asked by anyone taking my class who certified me and why I'm qualified to teach. Students assume the gym wouldn't hired me if I wasn't qualified. I have no trouble pulling in 20-30 bodies every Saturday and Sunday morning. The gym's SOP is good for hiring large numbers of instructors, but not necessarily at a guaranteeing quality. There's a huge differnce between someone who's had hundreds of hours of instructor training versus three weekends at their gym.
The general public doesn't necessarily know enough to judge for themselves what is in their best interests. And self-regulation w/in the industry can put profits ahead of people, until a nasty lawsuit checks that preference. Thus outside regulation that can be trusted (not that I think the FDA isn't somewhat corrupted by ideologues and lobbyist money) is necessary to keep people safe.
Who would serve on this consumer-run board? How would those individuals get chosen. How would you ensure objective panelists who use science, not ideology, to set the bar for the American people. Who would screen those candidates.
I should clarify because I see your rebuttal coming:
"The general public doesn’t necessarily know enough to judge for themselves what is in their best interests."
I'm talking about when evaluating scientific data and complicated industry nuance in regards to the FDA For instance, I wouldn't ask a kindergarden teacher to evaluate the safety of a new chemo formula.
Oncologists and cancer researchers, not employed by for-profit entities focused cancer treatments, those are the person I want evaluating the chemo formula and human trials. They're more objective and have the expertise to handle the evaluations.
@Office Newb:
You said: Parents who pay to send their kids to private schools are essentially “paying twice.”
The question isn't "do they pay twice?" the question is "should they be forced, again, by threat of violence or theft, to pay twice?"
@zak
I don't claim to speak for Milena, but I definitely think there should be outside certification boards for food, drugs, and everything else. They just shouldn't be run by the government. The FDA is a violence-enforced monopoly, and therefore doesn't have to compete to produce the best quality service for the lowest price.
Private sector FDA's would work. Think Consumer Reports, or Computer Shopper, or things like that.
The question I'm posing, and I think Melina might get behind this too is: how can we provide universal health care without guns? That's the thing that's exciting to talk about! Brainstorming ways to get things to work without violence! :)
@Zak - You seem to be getting needlessly upset with me.
I am not trying to put you on the spot, my only intention with my pilates/pharma example (in which I clearly said "you or your colleagues") was to provide an easily-relatable parallel. Nevertheless, even though your gym doesn't require it, I'm sure you agree that there are many instructors and gyms that do require additional certification. The fact that such certification is available indicates (private) demand for it.
Furthermore, I'm not specifically interested in trying to debate the particulars of your job description or employer requirements for purposes of my example, which still stands.
To answer your question, a great example of private regulation is J.D. Power and Associates. It is an independent, trusted source which reviews automobile standards for consumers. Automobile companies comply with their regulations due to consumer demand and trust in J.D. Powers ratings, not because the government has mandated such requirements.
There are many more examples of such organizations.
You also offer that the FDA is subject to corruption. You also rightly point out that laws are in place to protect individuals against such corruption, which would be the same for private regulatory bodies.
@Matt
Could you please give an example of how people are being forced to pay for public services through theft and violence?
Maybe I'm a bit slow but I read through all your comments again and I'm not understanding exactly how guns, theft and violence are coming into play.
Are you refering to jail or threat of state action?
I think we're overlooking The Office Newb, which reminds me of my forever harping on the idea of privilege. Government services we take advantage of are typically taken for granted, but ones that provide support that we don't need are the ones we complain about.
@Office Newb:
Here's sort of the way I've found to best explain it, and this may suck wildly, so I apologize if that's the case.
With a non-governmental agency, if you stop paying for a service that you're not using, they cut off that service. You may owe for the remainder of the month or whatever, but they just cut it off, and you get a knock on your credit report for cutting your contract (that you voluntarily entered by the way) short.
With the government, if I decide that, for example, the government schools are a horrible waste of both money and children's minds, and I decide not to pay for a thing that I find morally reprehensible, they don't just stop charging me.
They send me a letter. Then they send me an increased bill. Remember this is for a service that I never signed up for, never agreed to, and never used. The problem escalates and escalates until finally, they send in guys with guns (cops) to take me off to jail for "tax evasion." If I defend myself on my own property, I'm likely to be shot and killed.
@Matt If you want to disagree, use reason. I am not suggesting that theft is okay. Your taxes pay for schools, roads, and other things that you may or may not use, but you pay for them anyway. What exactly is morally objectionable about ensuring that people have access to health care?
Costs are high because medical is expensive. The costs are high for the consumer because private companies want more profit. They have no incentives to keep consumer prices low; their only incentive is to reduce expenses which sacrifice the health of the people who should have coverage. Keep in mind that millions of people are underinsured meaning they have insurance that doesn't actually pay for a significant portion of their medical expenses.
Getting rid of the FDA is not a solution to pharmaceutical prices. Shortening the length of the patents that Big Pharma gets would get generics to market faster.
@Milena You agree with me that there is a moral imperative to provide for those in need, but not to those who need medical care. Is that not contradictory?
It is true that the pharmaceutical industry COULD police itself if there were no FDA. I just do not think that they WOULD. The industry has not been willing to be more consumer-friendly if with the weak pressures of the FDA. If there was no regulatory body compelling them, there is no incentive for them to spend profits self-regulating.
Your pilates example is not analogous because consumers can choose not to take pilates classes to show their dissatisfaction. In health care, people do not have the luxury.
@Neil The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a multinational agreement for each nation to protect the rights of the people within each country's borders. Since the US is signed the document, it has also made this commitment to protect human rights.
@The Office Newb -
You say, "Most U.S. citizens already subsidize other social services and programs(such as roads, schools, and Medicare/Medicaid) through property, income and federal taxes." Correct. Why add to the burden when many of these programs are run inefficiently?
You say, "The 'I don’t want to have to pay for other people' argument just doesn’t fly. Parents who pay to send their kids to private schools are essentially 'paying twice.' That’s their choice and no one seems to make a big deal about that." I do not understand your point here. I don't think that because people who choose to send their children to private schools "don't make a big deal about that." I think there are many people who consider public funding of education also a dismal and failing proposition, but are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes despite the double-burden. Furthermore, Vanessa, in her original post mentions that many, if not most people feel moral obligation to help out their fellow man through some personal moral code. Each individual is free (and many do choose) to give of their money, time, and talents to help others. The government is not the only way in the world to provide for social programs that people could provide for themselves. A single individual cannot provide for national infrastructure or defense, which is why those are rightly subsidized.
You say, "People who drive cars pay to subsidize mass transit and people who don’t drive pay to subsidize road repairs. Basically what this issue boils down to is not whether we want to become a “socialist” nation (because we already are) but whether we want to add health care to the already long list of services we prioritize for public funding." Almost. I'd agree that your statement is correct, however I think no one has yet identified the primary source of the ailing healthcare system. What exactly is the problem? What is the fundamental flaw? Whose fault is it?
@Milena--You can expect emotion from people on this issue who come from the perspective that health care is a "right".
@Zak--I would argue that you don't need a third party to look after patients' best interest. Individuals look after their best interest by choosing the care providers (hospital, doctor, insurance company).
@All--Within this whole argument is whether health care should be deemed a public good, a good that we should all pay for collectively. In economics, a public good is defined as a good that is non-exclusive and non-rival, examples include defense and law enforcement (including the system of property rights), public fireworks, clean air and other environmental goods. These are goods we have to fund by taxes because of a host of issues.
I want to know why we have to fund health care collectively when there are a huge number of issues associated--rationing of services, less incentive to stay personally healthy and avoid excessive costs, more bureaucratic tape, less freedom.
We need to also remember that outlays for Medicare/Medicaid look like they will bankrupt our government in the future already. Putting a number of additional people on the public tab will only make things dramatically worse (as well as raise taxes).
Vanessa, good to hear from the article writer!
Nothing is objectionable about having everyone get medical coverage. We're discussing the means, not the end, as Melina said.
The problem with a government solution is that gov't only has one way to do things: force. They can force people, at the point of a gun if necessary, to pay up for health care. That's the only answer they have to any problem society presents them.
Also, there is an inherent contradiction in providing health care by shooting people that don't want to pay.
I would love for everyone to have awesome, affordable health care, and the solution (the non-violent one) is not an easy one. That's exactly why we need the free market (with potentially billions of minds working with and against each other) to provide the best solutions possible, and not just have the govt stomp in, say "this is how it's going to work" and point guns at people that disagree.
@Vanessa -
You say, "You agree with me that there is a moral imperative to provide for those in need, but not to those who need medical care." Those in need includes those who need medical care. I don't understand your confusion and my statement is not contradictory.
You say, "It is true that the pharmaceutical industry COULD police itself if there were no FDA. I just do not think that they WOULD." A person's whims, feelings, and inclincations do not provide an accurate basis for reality. There is already proof of such organizations, as there are many organizations that have self-regulatory bodies.
"The industry has not been willing to be more consumer-friendly with the weak pressures of the FDA. If there was no regulatory body compelling them, there is no incentive for them to spend profits self-regulating." You have to qualify that statement, you are begging the question here. There is no way to discuss something when you beg the question.
You say, "Your pilates example is not analogous because consumers can choose not to take pilates classes to show their dissatisfaction. In health care, people do not have the luxury." I understand your opposition to this idea, to clarify: my example is absolutely analogous for a proposed health care system which would and should allow for such choice. I do not argue that the current system provides it.
@Tim -
I understand emotion - it is not required to have a logical discussion.
@zak It is difficult to see how a consumer-run board would be an improvement. Even industries like medicine who do self regulate to a degree have overlapping laws and regulations that guide their code of ethics and regulations.
Supporting this largely private system is nothing more than protecting privilege.
@Vanessa
Does Article 25 clear then that everyone in the world should be given access to American style health care? Is it essentially our moral duty to provide whatever operations, whatever drugs, whatever health services an individual feels that he/she needs regardless of cost?
If yes, do you have any estimate on the cost of this proposal?
@Milena The fundamental flaw is that our health care system is a private enterprise. Companies' first and foremost goal is the generation of profit rather than the wellbeing of the consumer.
Please give me an example of a private regulatory organization that does not have a government regulatory body that enforces safety measures.
I don't understand what you mean by begging the question. How can people choose not to buy health care? Everyone needs medical expertise, medication and occasionally surgery, so I do not understand how the consumer can boycott in this instant. That is why I said your example was not analogous.
@Matt You are the only one talking about guns. Please explain.
The right to health care is not about making sure that people can get a nose job. It is our moral duty to provide access to health care that allows people to earn a living and take care of their families.
Vanessa,
I totally agree that consumer run boards would not be enough protection -- my comments were to ask Milena et al. how they'd envision such a non-program being set up.
I am forever bringing up the notion of privilege in my discussions on many a social issue because your race/socioeconomic status/gender, etc do affect how you are perceived and treated, as well as what options are available to you. I believe it was Animal Farm that, ""All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"."
@ Vanessa: I've already explained the guns reference, see above... 7:08pm. :)
Anyways, you say "It is our moral duty to provide access to health care that allows people to earn a living and take care of their families."
Here's the core of my problem: what if I don't want to? Let's say, hypothetically, that UHC goes through, and everyone has to pay another, let's just say 20% of their income to it.
What if I don't want to? What would you propose to be done to people who refuse to pay for universal health care for whatever reason?
I think one solution would to be not to ask the federal government to do a thing.
This should be a state issue. Allow each state to vote on the matter and it will be done. After that we can all "vote with our feet" and move where we feel. That way we wont have to pay for services we don't think should be offered.
On top of that we will finally have a large scale experiment on the economics of the whole situation.
IMO the federal government purpose should only be 1) represent states abroad, 2) defense, 3) lightly regulate interstate commerce.
Thanks for reading my 2 cents!
@Vanessa - please see my above comment to @Zak on your question re: J.D. Powers
@Vanessa - begging the question: where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
When we start with: "everyone needs universal health care" as a premise, the logical (fallacious) conclusion is "everyone needs universal health care."
This is exactly how the conversation is going in the comments. We'd have to start from a different place to get to your conclusion.
@Matt Considering that public health care systems are funded through taxes, you would be guilty of tax evasion. What is your point?
@Brandon If people can not afford a doctor's visit, do you really think that they can afford to move to a new state? The states already play a role in compelling degree of coverage for insurance coverage. This is why in some respects that more consumer-protection oriented states like California have healthier populations than states like Texas.
@Milena J.D. Powers is not the sole regulatory body for automobile safety because there are government crash safety tests. Do you know an example that does not have a government counterpart?
I'm not begging the question; everyone needs universal health care is my conclusion. The moral imperative is just one of many reasons why I think that is true.
@ Vanessa
I seem to be having trouble getting my point across. I blame... the internet. :)
Anyways, let's try it from a different angle. I'm going to ask a question, and don't take it personally, it's not meant as an attack.
Should I be allowed to disagree with the idea of universal health care? More to the point, do you support having me robbed, possibly beaten or shot, for disagreeing with you about how health care should be distributed?
This is one of the most engaging comment threads in which I've participated on Brazen Careerist.
Vanessa, I look forward to parts 2,3,4, etc.
@Vanessa -
You asked for an example. I gave you one. The fact that the government has its hands in every industry is not an argument for the fact that they needn't.
Sorry, I got my example wrong, you were begging the question with your FDA comment. When you start with the premise, "there will be no regulation without the government" we cannot move the conversation past it. That is a false premise.
@Vanessa - it's late and my writing is sloppy. What I meant was: just because our government feels the need to regulate every industry isn't an argument for such involvement. There is no reason they must be involved.
Anyways - great debate and we'll pick up tomorrow?
Of course. I enjoy it and you are right. Wanting involvement and needing to be involved are two different things.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?