U.S Presidential Election | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

U.S Presidential Election

I think you are picking at things now. Its pretty clear what I am saying.

Everyone has the right to access healthcare regardless of economic situation where the economic impact may impact on their decision to undertake non-essential healthcare. No-one anywhere should have to worry about the cost when they are involved in an accident, or if having a baby that they have to ensure they have $40 in order to hold their own baby (this is an actual cost in the US).

This is basic rights for everyone.
I’m not nitpicking, I’m asking you to explain yourself because you’re making some pretty strong claims you should be able to provide some justification besides your subjective preference, which is all you’ve really provided.
I don’t think you’ve really thought through your claims to be honest. I can’t make heads and tails of this sentence:
“Everyone has the right to access healthcare regardless of economic situation where the economic impact may impact on their decision to undertake non-essential healthcare”.

How can this possibility be measured? It just opens up endless claims to what non-essential is.

If someone has a right to healthcare, then they have the right to force someone else to pay for it. And I’m the one accused of utopia?
 
All you have done here is just re-stated your claim, you haven’t justified it. Perhaps I should instead ask “what is a right?” to get at the heart of this? Is it something nice to have? Is it something you can force others to abide by? Is it something that is just magically created all of a sudden when a certain wealth threshold is achieved? Is it universal?
I think you are picking at things now. Its pretty clear what I am saying.

Everyone has the right to access healthcare regardless of economic situation where the economic impact may impact on their decision to undertake non-essential healthcare. No-one anywhere should have to worry about the cost when they are involved in an accident, or if having a baby that they have to ensure they have $40 in order to hold their own baby (this is an actual cost in the US).

This is basic rights for everyone.

What Mr Poshman is asserting is a moral. He is asserting that it is a moral right to have access to healthcare where the service is available and that the ability to pay should not be a determinant to receiving care.

Sounds like a reasonable position. Goes against the far right moral-free dystopia some desire but I reckon most people would think it reasonable.

We live in communities, humans have always lived in communities, humans have always helped each other for no personal gain. It is part of being human despite attempts to coerce us into being rigidly individualistic by the far right.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I’ve heard plenty of assertions and claims David, but little in the way of justification. All I’m hearing are subjective preferences. For something that appears so obvious to some, justifying it with some objectivity shouldn’t be as hard as it appears to be.
 
A typical day for America's allegedly right wing media. In this case, the blatantly-Democrat mouthpiece, New York Times.

vc8lGr9.jpg
 
I’ve heard plenty of assertions and claims David, but little in the way of justification. All I’m hearing are subjective preferences. For something that appears so obvious to some, justifying it with some objectivity shouldn’t be as hard as it appears to be.

I said it was a moral choice.

Now, how about you justify your clear preference that someone wealthy should hold on to all of their wealth at the expense of someone else dying through lack of funds to receive treatment for a condition which can be cured.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A typical day for America's allegedly right wing media. In this case, the blatantly-Democrat mouthpiece, New York Times.

vc8lGr9.jpg


It is the NYT after all. I can see one possibly anti-Trump (anti-right?) story there. The Rihanna one is neutral (without having read it). The others are cases for the Democrats competing in the Primaries.

And here's the kicker - the Republicans aren't having primaries because they are going with Trump - HENCE NO PROFILES FOR REPUBLICANS IN PRIMARIES.

I really don't know what you were expecting to see there Lee
 
I really don't know what you were expecting to see there Lee

Well clearly the message is that voting for Trump is untenable, and here are the reasons to vote for the good guys.

There's plenty of real estate on the front page and I can't see a story about the Taliban peace deal anywhere, or about Trump's offer to help Iran with CV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well clearly the message is that voting for Trump is untenable, and here are the reasons to vote for the good guys.

There's plenty of real estate on the front page and I can't see a story about the Taliban peace deal anywhere, or about Trump's offer to help Iran with CV.

Nah dude, it's because those are the candidates in the Primaries. There are no Republican candidates in the Democratic Primaries.
That's the reality.
 
There's plenty of real estate on the front page and I can't see a story about the Taliban peace deal anywhere, or about Trump's offer to help Iran with CV.

Just had a look at the Breitbart frontpage. Couldn't see those two pieces mentioned there either.

Guess it's just not news.
 
Just had a look at the Breitbart frontpage. Couldn't see those two pieces mentioned there either.

Guess it's just not news.

Searched the page for 'Taliban' and a story titled "USA, Taliban sign deal aimed at ending war in Afghanistan" came up. Couldn't find the Iran offer.
 
Just went to the Fox News site (on mobile).

Top story about Biden, no mention of the Taliban or Iran.

There was a story about Judge Judy though.
 
I said it was a moral choice.

Now, how about you justify your clear preference that someone wealthy should hold on to all of their wealth at the expense of someone else dying through lack of funds to receive treatment for a condition which can be cured.

DS
Moral choices need justification, they don’t just magically exist as known quantities to all. I think without realising it, poshman is making a utilitarian argument but he has yet to actually articulate it.

Say David, while I don’t know what your levels of wealth are, I dare say you would be considered wealthy compared to most people in the world. You do realise there are people dying through lack of treatment right now around the world. How on Earth can you look at yourself in the mirror when you are paying for a computer, electricity and internet when you could have sent such riches to help those poor people instead of sitting on your fat cat arse enjoying such exuberant luxury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Some interesting findings in the World Happiness Report.

The top ten countries were largely Nordic nations with strong social welfare systems and an emphasis on equality.

Money sure can't, and doesn't buy happiness, the USA is the wealthiest country in the world but they are far from being happy in there every day lives.

I say, Viva Social Democracy.........that would make a good song title .


The social democracy of Finland was once again ranked number one on the United Nations' World Happiness Report, released on Wednesday, while the corporate-dominated United States fell one place to rank at 19th.

For the seventh year in a row, the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network released a report ranking 156 countries according to measures including income, freedom, trust in government, and social support.

The United States fell one place from last year, ranking as only the 19th-happiest nation in the world despite being the wealthiest nation in the world.

Finland has less wealth than the U.S., but the UN's report suggests that the country's commitment to ensuring an equitable quality of life for all its residents has led to greater satisfaction among the population.

The top ten countries were largely Nordic nations with strong social welfare systems and an emphasis on equality.

"It's not about Finnish DNA. It's the way life is lived in those countries." —John F. Helliwell, economistFinland was followed by Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands, all of which were highly ranked last year as well. Among the top 20 countries, all but the U.S. has some form of universal healthcare for its citizens.

The study noted that some of the highest-ranking nations ensured that immigrants have a high quality of life as well as native residents.

"It's true that last year all Finns were happier than rest of the countries' residents, but their immigrants were also happiest immigrants in the world," economist and report author John F. Helliwell told CNN. "It's not about Finnish DNA. It's the way life is lived in those countries."

The U.S. ranked 37th for social support, 61st for freedom, and 42nd in the report's measure of corruption.

Healthcare costs, high rates of addictions, socioeconomic inequality, and a poor emphasis on ensuring work-life balance were mentioned in the report as causes of unhappiness in countries around the world, including the U.S. The country's low ranking in "freedom" may stem partially from the out-sized power held by corporations, with the government unwilling to protect its citizenry from large companies intent on boosting their profits.

"The United States doesn't have a privacy law, though reference is made in the Constitution against the use of the government of information that violates privacy," reads a chapter on big data and well-being. "Companies can do what governments cannot in the United States."

The report comes three months after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped for the third year in row, with drug overdoses and suicides both major drivers of the trend.

"The U.S. has had, by now, two startling wake-up calls: back to back years of falling life expectancy and declining measured subjective well-being," wrote Jeffrey Sachs, economist and co-author of the report. "Major studies have documented the rising suicide rates and substance misuse...A public policy response built around well-being rather than corporate profits would place the rising addiction rates under intensive and urgent scrutiny, and would design policies to respond to these rising challenges."

As Katia Hetter noted at CNN, the other countries in the report's top 10 list are not free from problems, but they address their populations' difficulties far differently than the United States.

"Ranking high in happiness doesn't protect a country's people from violence or trauma, as the recent attacks on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand show," wrote Hetter. "But the response of New Zealand's people to the attacks does."

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arder led her country through a period of mourning following the attack on two mosques last week by expressing support and love for the Muslim community, condemning white nationalism, and vowing to reform gun laws.

By contrast, the U.S. government has for decades been unwilling to take concrete action to avoid mass shootings while President Donald Trump has openly sympathizedwith white supremacists following their violent attacks in the United States.

"What stands out about the happiest and most well connected societies is their resilience and ability to deal with bad things," Helliwell told CNN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The Kiwis are so happy that they're preparing to vote out the government.

I'm OK with my lot in life. In my experience, lefties are more likely to be malcontent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Moral choices need justification, they don’t just magically exist as known quantities to all. I think without realising it, poshman is making a utilitarian argument but he has yet to actually articulate it.

Say David, while I don’t know what your levels of wealth are, I dare say you would be considered wealthy compared to most people in the world. You do realise there are people dying through lack of treatment right now around the world. How on Earth can you look at yourself in the mirror when you are paying for a computer, electricity and internet when you could have sent such riches to help those poor people instead of sitting on your fat cat arse enjoying such exuberant luxury.

Nice one, try and personalise it because you can't give a straight answer, I get it, no worries.

You value private property over people's lives, nice of you to make it clear.

You want a justification: I value human life over private property - do you?

I am also of the view that the economy exists for the benefit of humans, not the other way around, you clearly see it the opposite way.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nice one, try and personalise it because you can't give a straight answer, I get it, no worries.

You value private property over people's lives, nice of you to make it clear.

You want a justification: I value human life over private property - do you?

I am also of the view that the economy exists for the benefit of humans, not the other way around, you clearly see it the opposite way.

DS
What you don’t seem to get is how much of a filthy hypocrite you are. You value taking other people’s money to spend it on things you want. But when the shoe is on the other foot, well all of a sudden it is different!

If you value human life over private property, than why are we talking right now? Why aren’t you selling all your material possessions besides those that you need to survive and helping save those poor souls that need that wealth for life saving treatment?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What you don’t seem to get is how much of a filthy hypocrite you are. You value taking other people’s money to spend it on things you want. But when the shoe is on the other foot, well all of a sudden it is different!

If you value human life over private property, than why are we talking right now? Why aren’t you selling all your material possessions besides those that you need to survive and helping save those poor souls that need that wealth for life saving treatment?
For all you know David S might be donating money to Doctors Without Borders, like I do.
 
What Mr Poshman is asserting is a moral. He is asserting that it is a moral right to have access to healthcare where the service is available and that the ability to pay should not be a determinant to receiving care.

Sounds like a reasonable position. Goes against the far right moral-free dystopia some desire but I reckon most people would think it reasonable.

We live in communities, humans have always lived in communities, humans have always helped each other for no personal gain. It is part of being human despite attempts to coerce us into being rigidly individualistic by the far right.

DS

but socialism is bad. And libertarianism is good. especially in a place such as the USA who still fear the myths about socialism 30 years after the end of the cold war.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user