I don't personally believe that the purpose of government is ONLY to protect people from other individuals. Why on earth should that be the case?

And anyway, that's irrelevant, because those two situations are not the same at all, because protecting someone from disease is not the same as protecting them from "good living choices".

Of course some diseases (lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease to some extent, type 2 diabetes) have contributory factors which could be related to "good living choices", but the majority are just bad luck, or bad genetics. Women who have lived healthy lifestyles all their life still get breast cancer, and people who have never smoked, always exercised and eaten healthy diets still get heart attacks.

Protecting someone from disease (something usually totally outwith their control) is not the same as protecting them from bad lifestyle choices. Both protect life, but one involves personal choice, and the other doesn't. Why should one person die just because they have bad genetics, even when the medications are available to save them?

So are lifeguards over there paid by the people who they save from the water then? And surely under your belief stated above, the coastguard shouldn't be rescuing anybody, since they're not being paid by those who they rescue?

They both involve personal choice. I, the individual, should have the personal choice on how to spend my earned income. I, the individual should have the option to purchase health insurance when and where I see fit. I should not be made to purchase into a government run system that is likely highly inefficient and corrupt.

There has never been a case where more government made things better. And regardless of what you believe, our Founding Fathers wrote into the U.S. Constitution a general guideline to make this a liberty-based union, not a heavily-governed populist regime. The purpose of OUR government is to protect people from other people.

As always in a debate about healthcare, when someone can't answer the question, they change the subject. You haven't answered any of my actual questions from above.

What you said before was that if you counted healthcare as equivalent to the right to life then you also had to prohibit harmful personal lifestyle choices also. You tried to claim they were the same thing. I clearly explained why they were not the same, hence dismissing your whole argument (so therefore you moved away from that subject and are trying a different approach).

NOW you're talking about 'personal choice' in a whole different situation. We were not discussing personal choice in the sense of distribution of personal money and taxes... we were discussing personal choice in the sense of a right to life, and a right to healthcare. If you're going to try and make a point, please stick to it (unless of course, as I said you're trying to steer away from that now that I've pointed out how incorrect it is).

You've also still not justified the point you made that "The purpose of government is to protect the individual from other individuals". Why? Where is it written that the government's purpose is to protect the individual from other people, but not from other threats to life? And as I've already stated, if indeed you do believe that, then you surely shouldn't support the use of your taxes by coastguards or lifeguards, nor the life saving roles of the police and firemen (who as I already said do more than protect property). But you've also yet to confirm that. Again, avoiding the difficult questions.

To take your NEW point... personal choice on how to spend an individual's money... what if I don't WANT to spend MY money funding the fire service... what if I believe I live safely enough that I don't believe there will ever be a fire in my property and so don't see why MY taxes should fund a service I don't use (I don't feel that way obviously, it's just a hypothetical example). I STILL have to pay my taxes to fund that service... so why is it any different? Surely if one of these LIFE SAVING/PROTECTING services is privately funded, they all should be? (Or better still, as in the UK, they should ALL be government funded)

Of course there has been cases where more government made things better. The UK has had public healthcare for over 50 years and the British public has benefited hugely from it.

And if indeed the purpose of your government is ONLY to protect people from other people (and NOT from OTHER threats to life), please specifically show me where this is written.

Oops, sorry, forgot close brackets. That isn't all supposed to be in bold! Only the I.

You claim that healthcare is a "right" but I argue it is not. A persons livelihood is and should be solely determined by the efforts and work put into it. Simply stating that healthcare is a right is a preposterous notion. You are confusing privileges with rights. As always, in a debate about healthcare, liberals begin to blur the lines between rights (liberties) and privileges. Medical care is not a right. It is indeed a right to receive care provided such care has been paid for, as it is the right of the individual to receive goods or services fairly in exchange for money. It is not, however, a right to force another to pay for ones' healthcare and costs associate therein.

Your argument is that healthcare "protects life" so therefore, should be provided by the government. Doesn't anti-abortion law also protect life, and therefore, abortion should be illegal? Doesn't mandatory treatment of diseases, even at the protest of the afflicted (such as in the case of mental illness), protect life, and therefore, treatment should be mandatory? Your belief that healthcare is a right because it "protects life" is not only unfounded, but wishful thinking at its best.

The police force was created to protect negative rights. They serve the function to protect the rights of the individual from being infringed upon by others. A government health care system is not the same. It does not protect the rights of the individual. Does not serve the purposes set forth in the United States Constitution. It is not a right, in the same way free housing, free clothing, and free food are not a right. Surely without housing, those in cold regions would die. Surely without food, all will die. Therefore, since such things prevent death, should they also be "rights" and therefore, all should receive free food, clothing, and shelter?

If you're looking for where it is written that the government serves to protect the individual rights of the people, look no further than the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

*cough*
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
/*cough*

You took that way out of context. If someone is taxed, they're taxed because of a public service offered to them. Public health care would fall under this category.

I don't believe it is out of context. Note the part about just compensation -- the public systems are (and in the case of healthcare, would be) far from just compensation for tax dollars. It is not just compensation to pay inordinate amounts of taxes for a health care system which would fail to provide the payers with a reasonable system, which the government cannot and will not provide. Seizure of assets i.e. tax dollars for public welfare programs is not justifiable.

How is it a fair system to tax someone with an unduly burden to pay for the needs of many others, when the individual may do all that is necessary to avoid using the system through good living choices and maintaining good health, while still paying for independent health insurance, and yet be forced to pay for others whom pay little or nothing, and abuse the system constantly?

when the individual may do all that is necessary to avoid using the system through good living choices and maintaining good health

I have to single that out, because you can not expect that in this country. You just can't. That's not even including the people who are unintentionally doing something that can harm their health, such as staying for long periods of time in an asbestos-filled building, or accidental injuries, or unpreventable diseases.

I agree that lots of these social welfare programs are in the shit, and health care would be no exception, but it's simply better than nothing for most people. We can't shout "BOOTSTRAAAAPS!!!" at these people and expect them to lead stable lives.

I was making an example that a person could do everything right to reduce their cost to health care, and yet be forced to carry a heavy tax burden due to the irresponsible choices of others. Which is precisely what will happen -- the few, responsible carry the burden of the rest.

The problem is that people expect the middle and upper classes to bear the burden of the growing lower class. While this has happened in the past, there is an eventually -- a complete breakdown of the system. The initial idea of the public option I was not against -- a buy-in system where the individual purchases health insurance (purchases!) from the government paying a premium, but under the leverage of the government. However, this is no different than if they simply removed the nonsense regulations which do not permit purchasing insurance across state lines. If health insurance companies had to compete nationally against other companies, we would see premiums very quickly fall. As for the tort reform issue, a very simple, very elegant solution can be proposed: Any person that attempts to sue for malpractice, if they lose, are forced to pay all court costs, lawyers fees (including those of the defendant), and a compensatory fine for loss of time. Problem solved.

I look at the big picture, and the increase of the peoples' reliance on government can only result in the dissolutions of liberty, and a complete welfare state. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but not to me. All welfare should be run privately, through donations and the church, and not through publicly funded programs. It is likely these programs would be run much in the same way, with better efficiency, and actually giving the donor a choice, rather than demanding their money.

While this has happened in the past, there is an eventually -- a complete breakdown of the system.

It's interesting you mentioned this. In Microeconomics, my professor was going over how every 7-10 years, there's a recession in this country, and we're on the 49th year, the year that everything goes up shit creek, and things basically begin to reboot themselves.

Anyway, public social programs wouldn't have nearly an acceptable amount of income to remain stable and operational. It's not realistic to even attempt. Especially when most people don't even trust private organizations with their money. Even less so than the government.

I think people trust their churches and the American Red Cross and other non-profit organizations, don't you? Considering the US Government generally runs at about 20% efficiency (for every $1.00 collected, only $0.20 actually makes it to the intended program), any private non-profit institution would likely need much less money, while actually provide more and better services. It's the simple fact they know the have limited money, and want as much "bang for their buck" as possible, while the government free misspends, knowing they can always gather more money either by printing it, or taking more in taxes.

I don't trust the church. I trust the Red Cross. I don't trust that anywhere near the amount of money that goes to make the programs work will go to private programs.

Source for the efficiency claim, please?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/spec.pdf

In that case... why are those programmes not being run now? If it was so easy to produce such programmes through charitable means, there wouldn't be so many Americans (and CHILDREN!) suffering with health problems which are not getting treated because they don't have the money or insurance!

And charities and churchs most certainly suffer from corruption too. And no charity would EVER recieve enough money to provide healthcare to those who need it, because ultimately most people are selfish (the whole reason people are making a fuss about this to begin with. They want to keep their money for themselves and if others suffer it's just tough) and won't choose to donate.

Not that it invalidated your point, but it still applies.

If life is a right then healthcare HAS to be a right because you cannot have life without health. Food and housing are already rights, seeing as we have council housing (I assume you have some sort of government funded housing or shelters too for the poor) and unemployment benefits (to pay for essentials such as food). My understanding is that there are similar benefits provided to the unemployed and poor in the US too.

The issue with abortion is about at what point life begins. For the most part those who are pro-choice do not consider a fetus in the early stages to be a life (pro-lifers obviously do). You can only protect a life if you believe it is a life to being with. So that's a whole other kettle of fish, and not what we are discussing here.

Doesn't mandatory treatment of diseases, even at the protest of the afflicted (such as in the case of mental illness), protect life, and therefore, treatment should be mandatory?

Mental illness can be treated against the patient's wishes, under the mental health act in the UK, and I believe the US has something similar.

That said, it's actually irrelavant because a right to something is not the same as meaning it is mandatory to receive it. If a person commits a crime against another person, it is not mandatory for the victim to phone the police and press charges and receive police protection.

AND, you've STILL failed to answer my earlier questions! While I respect your personal opinion that healthcare shouldn't be a right (although I disagree. My opinion.), you've still been unable to show any logic behind the arguments you provided earlier. You just ignore the questions and move on. A person confident in their stance would be able to answer even the tricky questions.

So do you believe that coastguards, lifeguards and firemen should charge privately the individual involved if they save their life?

And what about public education? Based on the arguments you've provided, would I be correct in assuming you're also against public education? (Since that too is a service, and not one which protects the individual from others) I mean that would only be logical.

And actually I've been looking at the Bill of Rights. The exact wording is... nor shall any person be... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Where does it specify that the 'deprived of life' part applies only to offences against an individual by another individual? It looks pretty open to me. And the only way to ensure an individual be not deprived of life is to provide them with healthcare.

Life is a right in as much as it is a right to live free from the unwanted intrusion of others. It is not a right to demand one's livelihood at the cost of others. Therein lies the difference.

I do not believe lifeguards should be publicly funded, and the fire service should exist as it does in many areas, such as here -- based on volunteers, with donations made through public fundraisers and such. People will support such programs, at their own interest, and on their own choice. The difference is the compulsory nature of taxes to support programs.

I've already stated my stance on public education.

As for the the "deprived of life, liberty or property," that is quite obvious that it can only be to protect the individual from other individuals. If one argues that health care is a right to life, it comes at the cost of property of others. Therefore, for life, liberty, and property to be equally weighted in a fair society, the right to life comes only as the to be protect from the intrusion of one's own liberties in one's life -- not a collection of "ought to haves" but a collection of negative rights, "to be free from." Life in this context implies right to earn one's own livelihood.

As for your whole, "You never answer my questions," I felt I have answered them repeatedly, perhaps just not with the answers you want. Re-iterate them, then, if they are so dire.

You give answers, but often not to the questions asked. You'd make a great politician. ;)

One of my questions was about life guards and the fireservice and you have now answered that. I'll find the others tomorrow because I need to go to bed.

As for your argument about right to life coming at the expense of property, well if you're going to equate property to taxes then ANY service funded by taxation is at the expense of an individual's property, so then you'd surely have to be against ANY service funded by taxes, including the police (who as I've already said, do more than just protect property).and clearly you aren't.

I suggest you re-read my statements, as you appear to missed the point I was stating.

The function of the police is to protect the individual against others through the enforcement of negative rights, protecting property, life, and liberty. Government healthcare does not do this -- it may benefit the quality of life of some, but it will most certainly abridge the rights of others through undue taking of property. Therein lies the difference.

I got your point quite clearly. You said healthcare couldn't be a right, because that would mean that a 'right to life' is at the expense of another individual's 'right to property', equating property to a person's money and possessions. But in that case ANY government funded programme (INCLUDING the police force) comes at an expense to others, in the form of taxes. Therefore to claim that you only support services which are not provided at the expense to others property HAS to mean you don't support taxation to fund ANY service.

Do please explain how being prone to a disease due to a genetic defect (or just bad luck) is a personal choice?

I did not state that in any place. Irrelevant.

What I did state is that if one makes the argument that protecting people from diseases is necessary to protect life, then enforcing good living choices is also necessary to protect life. The largest contributing factor to health care burdens is obesity, which is without exception based on personal choice. A person can have a "large frame" or "be genetically disposed" toward being overweight, but that is no excuse for sedentary lifestyles and bad eating habits. It is very much personal choice. Seeing how obesity is the leading cause of heart disease, heart attack, Type 2 Diabetes, and other medical complications, if we are to accept that health care is a right to treat these diseases, then shouldn't it therefore be compulsory to stamp out the prime cause -- obesity?

I said Protecting someone from disease (something usually totally outwith their control) is not the same as protecting them from bad lifestyle choices. Both protect life, but one involves personal choice, and the other doesn't. Why should one person die just because they have bad genetics, even when the medications are available to save them?

YOU replied with... They both involve personal choice.