6 ms·

Ahh, HN, where someone doing a good deed is an illustration of how the United States is secretly a third-world hellhole.

by pluto9 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lewisflude 8y ago
What is the good deed you're referring to?
- pluto9 8y ago
  Is that a rhetorical question, or did you really not read the GP comment?
  - lewisflude 8y ago
    I did read, but didn't understand the parent comment. Apologies!
kerbalspacepro 8y ago
It isn't a good deed when the deed is something that every other developed country expects from society as the most basic right.
- pluto9 8y ago
  > every other developed country expects from society as the most basic right But they're wrong, at least by the American definition of a "right". We understand a "right" to be synonymous with a "liberty" or a "freedom"--things you're allowed to do, not things others must do for you. Unfortunately healthcare is something that someone else must do for you. Saying you have a right to it is saying you have a right to someone else's labor, or someone else's money to pay for it. Of couse, even though healthcare isn't a right, maybe universal healthcare is worth implementing as a public service, like roads or a military. But maybe not--that debate is still unsettled in the United States. I suspect this is because we have at least one political party that actively resists framing it as "free healthcare". It is of course not free--it is taxpayer funded, and there are costs and tradeoffs associated with that that we have to honestly consider. If other Western countries have decided that universal healthcare is worthwhile for them, then so be it, but it does not follow that it is necessarily the correct course of action for the United States.
  - kerbalspacepro 8y ago
    As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". So, when I say "Healthcare is a right" I mean that "healthcare is something that the government owes to its people". The debate is unsettled in the United States, correct. We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good. There are other unsettled debates in the United States. Climate change is an example. So is the evolution. A debate being "unsettled" doesn't tell you much about the debate, but in the context of every other country having settled on the issue, it may tell us that whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      > As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. You can consider it whatever you like. You can consider the moon to be made of cheese. You're wrong, unless you have some basis for this statement. If so, let's hear it. > The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". That is absolutely incorrect. It's the "Bill of things the government can't do" or the "Bill of things the government cannot stop you from doing". Name one thing that the Bill of Rights says the government has to provide you, other than a fair trial with representation, which is an implementation detail of the idea that they can't unilaterally decide to incarcerate or otherwise punish you. Go ahead, I'll wait. > We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good. > whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith. And now I realize we can't actually have a productive conversation about this, because you presume that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because they're morally deficient. You're not interested in the other side of the debate.
      - dang 8y ago
        You took this thread straight into flamewar. That's not what this site is for and we ban accounts that do it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.
point78 8y ago
This shouldn't even have to be done is the point

Ahh, HN, where someone doing a good deed is an illustration of how the United States is secretly a third-world hellhole.

by pluto9 8y ago

Ahh, HN, where someone doing a good deed is an illustration of how the United States is secretly a third-world hellhole.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lewisflude 8y ago

What is the good deed you're referring to?

pluto9 8y ago
Is that a rhetorical question, or did you really not read the GP comment?
- lewisflude 8y ago
  I did read, but didn't understand the parent comment. Apologies!

kerbalspacepro 8y ago

It isn't a good deed when the deed is something that every other developed country expects from society as the most basic right.

pluto9 8y ago
> every other developed country expects from society as the most basic right But they're wrong, at least by the American definition of a "right". We understand a "right" to be synonymous with a "liberty" or a "freedom"--things you're allowed to do, not things others must do for you. Unfortunately healthcare is something that someone else must do for you. Saying you have a right to it is saying you have a right to someone else's labor, or someone else's money to pay for it. Of couse, even though healthcare isn't a right, maybe universal healthcare is worth implementing as a public service, like roads or a military. But maybe not--that debate is still unsettled in the United States. I suspect this is because we have at least one political party that actively resists framing it as "free healthcare". It is of course not free--it is taxpayer funded, and there are costs and tradeoffs associated with that that we have to honestly consider. If other Western countries have decided that universal healthcare is worthwhile for them, then so be it, but it does not follow that it is necessarily the correct course of action for the United States.
- kerbalspacepro 8y ago
  As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". So, when I say "Healthcare is a right" I mean that "healthcare is something that the government owes to its people". The debate is unsettled in the United States, correct. We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good. There are other unsettled debates in the United States. Climate change is an example. So is the evolution. A debate being "unsettled" doesn't tell you much about the debate, but in the context of every other country having settled on the issue, it may tell us that whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    > As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. You can consider it whatever you like. You can consider the moon to be made of cheese. You're wrong, unless you have some basis for this statement. If so, let's hear it. > The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". That is absolutely incorrect. It's the "Bill of things the government can't do" or the "Bill of things the government cannot stop you from doing". Name one thing that the Bill of Rights says the government has to provide you, other than a fair trial with representation, which is an implementation detail of the idea that they can't unilaterally decide to incarcerate or otherwise punish you. Go ahead, I'll wait. > We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good. > whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith. And now I realize we can't actually have a productive conversation about this, because you presume that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because they're morally deficient. You're not interested in the other side of the debate.
    - dang 8y ago
      You took this thread straight into flamewar. That's not what this site is for and we ban accounts that do it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.

point78 8y ago

This shouldn't even have to be done is the point