RoR: Forum

I will be the first to admit the caustic nature of this quote. I made it in response to the mindless viral message spreading across Facebook:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day." Health care is NOT and should NOT be a luxury or a privilege!

I am not expecting my message to spread but I still felt good posting it to Facebook. I think one Facebook "Friend" deleted me as a "Friend" because of this Wall post. Oh, well, her loss, not mine. This is an excellent filtering tool. I have seen other variants but purposely chose to create an unsettling one for its shock value. I hope it makes people think twice about ethics.

Post 1

Monday, September 14, 2009 - 4:50pm

I understand where you're going with this, a point by point rebuttal of some a viral status on facebook. It would be nice if there was a bit more involved explanation of the principles involved though. Perhaps an explanation that the principle involved isn't the morality of benevolence, its the morality of violence. The underlying principles involved are so much more complex than any sound bite can explain. I'm not suggesting that you change it, I'm just thinking in type about a potential hole in communication that hasn't been filled to my knowledge.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 10:44am

In a free society one does not "allow" his neighbors to do anything. To speak in terms of allowing one's neighbors to die sounds like you don't disagree with the premise that you could interfere if you did think it were appropriate, you just happen in this case to be on the hawkish, pro-termination side of the death panels.

Post 3

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 2:59pm

The problem I have with this is that I don't actually know if it's morally acceptable without a specific context and argument. A moral claim isn't proof of itself.

Post 4

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 3:35pm

Those points are part of what I was alluding to. The quote is framing the debate in the terms of the opposition. Death vs. Life. When I would think the Oist debate (or at least my understanding of it) is closer to violence vs. non-violence. I also agree with Teresa's statement. There are many scenarios that would make it immoral for me to let my neighbor's go broke or die. It would depend on my own values.

Post 5

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 4:54am

I encourage others to post a better sound bite of similar length if they consider such a thing possible.

Post 6

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 9:48am

I'm not going to call this one "better", as I'm not trying to one up anyone. As I said, I see what you're doing with the original. Here are a few possible alternatives.

"No one should steal because they cannot afford health care, and they shouldn't lobby the government to do it for them. If you agree, please post this as your status. Sickness is NOT and should NOT be a license to steal."

"The issue at hand isn't "How can another be ALLOWED to die?". It is "How can another demand how others are ALLOWED to live?" Post if you feel confident in your ability to help who you choose, how you choose."

"The issue isn't "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.", but "How much of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is on loan from the rest of us?" Post if your life is your own."

Post 7

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 3:07pm

No one should have to give up their freedom and pursuit of happiness because their neighbor cannot afford healthcare. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day. Freedom is NOT and should NOT be negotiable.

Post 8

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 4:08am

This quote and the article about If I had a Thousand Hospitals all relate to health insurance. How about insurance in general. One is forced to buy auto insurance if one chooses to endorse the privilege of owning a vehicle. Home owners insurance is a requisite for a mortgage. Also worker comp insurance is required by contractors hiring subcontractors.
So if in theory I have a neighbor down the street that is smoking crack I can sell them crack insurance to make sure they get the best available. But I would be invading their privacy if I ask them to pitch in say 50 dollars a month for an umbrella policy that would cover their house their car and their ass? For five dollars more I will throw on the pet rider for licenses and shots.

Post 9

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 3:52pm

I took Lee's suggestion, modified it slightly, and updated my Facebook status:

"No one should be compelled to sacrifice one jot of life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness because a neighbor cannot afford medical care. If you agree, please post this as your status for as long as you like. Freedom is NOT and should NOT be negotiable!"

Post 10

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 3:53pm

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Harley. (not sure how you prefer to be addressed in forum). The morality of auto insurance is virtually the same as health. Its immoral for the gov't to compel a person to purchase this service. Homeowner insurance is requisite for a mortgage because the person loaning you money desires to protect their investment in you. At least thats my understanding of the reason. Nothing immoral there, as there is no compulsion. If you want to get the banks product they require protection from you. I'm not up on workers comp insurance, I would say its immoral for the gov't to compel its purchase, not immoral for market forces to make it impossible to hire subcontractors without it. As to the neighbor thing, you can offer them everything from clown insurance to sunny day insurance as long as you, or someone else, doesn't have a gun to their head. Compulsory insurance isn't immoral isn't such because of the insurance part, its the compulsory part. I'm not even sure what you mean by the invasion of privacy statement. Offering a service that someone can choose to take or leave isn't an invasion of anything. Could you please elaborate on your point?

Post 11

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 1:09pm

"No one should die because they cannot outrun zombies, and no one should go broke buying shotgun shells." -- Erika Fisher Lietzan (an old high school classmate on Facebook)

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/23, 1:10pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 5:34pm

That deserves a quote on the front page.

Post 13

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 6:13pm

Hilarious. Its almost not crazy enough to describe the current ideology. If we did have a zombie apocalypse it wouldn't suprise me at all to hear "No person should go hungry just because they have an unquenchable thirst for brains." Of course, someone would make the point that zombies should be afforded representation and be allowed to sue those selfish living scum who hoard more than their fair share of brain matter, when so many are clearly in need.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 6:30pm

Ryan, believe it or not, that's already been done...in SHAWN OF THE DEAD, the members of Coldplay are promoting a ZOMBIE AID, to benefit the "mobile deceased..."

Post 15

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 7:13pm