1. At least in my town anyone in an emergency situation gets treated on the spot. Does not matter about if they can pay or not. That is just common courtesy.


2. Also it is impossible for me to go from 1 > 2, since life is not just black and white it is full of colors. You can't make a case for life that just hinges on one if. There are too many other ifs...

3.
For example consider these circumstances.

What if that person that is denied treatment wants to die?

What if there are no more resources necessary for the treatment?

What if on and on...

What I think you are implying is that the government should force people to give things away for free and if they don't we should kill them.

1. If you have a son, and some madman came to your house, and kill your son. Under this situation, you would want the court/judge to sentence this madman to prison. How is that possible? Intuitively, because we value life over death. We( as a people) value your son` s life over the life of an ant, so we sentence this madman to jail. If your son do not have the right to life, then why should the court convict this madman to prison? .

2. I said 3 follows from 2. Even so, i have no clue what you are driving at..

3. My example don ` t involve a police. It involve a regular layman, so, does not have any obligation to help you at all. Why should this regular person ( conducting his daily routine) help you, when a madman is slaughter your family?.

4 Given the fact that you misread many of my examples, i am not surprise you are confused.

1. What does this have to do with healthcare?
The court/judge is possible because we pay for it.
Of course we have a right to life, that was decided long ago.
If you want "help" preserving your life, it's gonna cost you something, one way or another.


2
Your inference implies that if I find you bleeding on the street and don't want to get involved I am somehow denying you of your right to live. Not so, your right to live does not obligate anyone to rescue you.


3
You plainly stated your layman to be ( by analogy:government) so your example does involve ,by analogy ,the police, i.e. government. If you don't like what you said anymore, issue a retraction ,don't expect me to ignore it because you wish to.


4
I don't even know what to tell you here, you appear to be out of touch with reality, or maybe from some planet where words and sentences have whatever meaning you choose to assign at any particular moment in time

1. This specific passage that you are referring to do not have anything to do with healthcare at all. I am just claiming that there is a right to life. The significant of this idea will have to come later.


2. In analytic philosophy, it is common to reason from a few basic intuition, to generalizing it to theories. The basic intuition is that if some one sees your bleeding on the street, they ought to help. The " right to life" is an explanation for the act itself. There are many different explanations. If you reject such basic intuition, then i have nothing to say to you. we will not agree at all.

3 No! My example involve a layman, and not the government. When i say " by analogy" i don` t mean "not analogy".

4. Are you sure you are not talking about yourself? You seem to be from a planet where words can be rearranged to fit your particular point of view. I can` t win against people like you.

..as I just told you TuringEquivalent? Others seems to agree with me.

I must agree with you, I will never be able to understand whatever basic intuition you are talking about, I don't even know what language you are writing, it certainly is not english. .

Just what do you think "by analogy" means? If you don't mean to be analogous don't use the term.

Invest in a dictionary, they don't cost much and won't interfere with your right to live

In this whole thread, all you done is gesturing that i am wrong, and you are right, but what have you done? You have given no reason for your position.

---------- Post added 04-30-2010 at 06:17 AM ----------



Are you sure it is not you own problem?



I do mean "analogous". So? There is difference between analogy, and the actual example. My example is the "layman". Do you understand?



Sure, but only if you have your head examine.

In this whole thread, all you done is gesturing that i am wrong, and you are right, but what have you done? You have given no reason for your position.

You really shouldn't drink and post. There should be a "d" at the end of examine, if you mean I should have my head "examined" of course that probably doesn't matter to you because we should all just understand.

Since you don't seem to have that dictionary yet, Analogous means similar in some way, so your layman is similar to the government, but I suppose that won't matter to you either, Analogy means similarity in some way, I see about 3 letters difference there. It is proper to say "your own" rather than "you own" as you have stated.

You remind me of some utterly psycotic person, that demands an answer spelled out for his satisfaction, when it's both illogically and unreasonable.

It's such behaviour I digust and can't dignify any direct answer.

No. How much is your life worth?

Suppose your son has cancer, and there is a 20% chance that he will live, if treated by treatment X. Treatment X cost P dollars. You don` t have the money. Would you take out a loan to save your son? If the answer is yes, then by analogy( gov ` t = you, son= normal people), we ought to spend the money.

Well, unfortunately resources are not unlimited. The US for instance already spends 16-18% of GDP on healthcare. Doing everything for everybody from which they might possibly benefit is not possible and would consume resources that are necessarily devoted to other concerns (education, transportation, justice, military, etc.). No nation with national health care devotes unlimited funds to health care. They all ration and they all make decisions about what services will be covered, and how much of the nations resources or GDP will be devoted to health care. This necessarily involves cost effective calculations and placing a value on life and years of productive health. One can claim to be above such practical details but for those in the trenches, rationing and prioritizing are necessary and inevitable.

Sure, we don` t have unlimited resources. If a billion dollar of tax payer money is used to save a boy ` s life then this is obviously unreasonable. I think we ought to make our present system more efficient by making it less costly. eg: A simple doctor visit ought to be less then 500 dollars, and not over 5000 dollars on minor things. America should be more like Europe in terms of the cost.

Story:

You are a doctor, and you see a person X that is about to die from a disease that can be prevented given sufficient care. The problem is that the treatment itself is too expensive, and regular insurance does not cover the patient ` s treatment.

As a society, if we were to deny patient X treatment, then it follows that:

1. An agent( by analogy: government) knowing person X can be saved from disease, and not doing anything about it.

If 1 is true, then it follows that:

2. It is acceptable to denying patient X the right to live.( ie: there is no right to life).

If we accept 2 as true, then it follows logically that:

3. You do not have the right to life.

If 3 is true, then it follows that:

4. The government do not have any authority to protect you from violent acts against you, and your family.



Since 4 is unacceptable, then we reject 4, thus implies, we reject, 3, and 2.

added:

Here is a more illustrative example. If i am a layman( by analogy: government), and i see you, and your family being slaughtered by a madman. Do i interfere? I think it is right to interfere. If this example succeed, there there is a good reason for us to help others, and others to us.