New Political Party Invites All Conscientious Filipinos to Join

[dubioz]

---

Bro, please explain a little further... mora'g non sequitur lagi ni.

nobody has the moral authority to take away your health or impede your pursuit of health. Why does your Right to Health means that somebody should pay for your exercise of your health?

This is a logical extreme that finds no place in reality, I think.

Just to be very clear, let us make an extreme example to fully understand the folly of your interpretation... Supposed, there are only three of you left in the island, can your version of right to health exists? apparently it can't.

why?
1. Nobody else is there to provide health care, unless one of you is a medical professional.
2. Even if one of you is a medical professional, can it be morally right to say to him " Take care of me, i have right to health!"
3. Since you are conferring an obligation on the other person without his permission, isn't that a violation of his liberties?
4. Suppose two of you voted to have the third one take care of you both, isn't that slavery?

The reality is there are many Filipinos who cannot afford health care, not because they are lazy, but because they have not been given the same opportunities in life as you and me.

I've had a hard working maid whose daughter suffered from lupus. The little money she made went into caring for her daughter. Her daughter eventually died. She herself later died from a brain tumor because she had no money to pay to have it removed.

Are we going to say that she did not deserve to be assisted because she was too lazy to rise above her station? I hope that's not what you're implying, bro. There are many hard working people out there who do not have medical insurance because they can't afford it. Sala diay na nila? Paita pud.

I think we can be more charitable than that. Health care should not be just for the rich.

[dubioz]

Hardly bro. If it were free housing without the obligation to work, yes.

Health care is a different animal entirely. Nobody chooses to get sick.

True, it is a paradigm shift for those who have lived under the idea that health care is a business rather than a right, particularly since we have adopted the American Insurance based health care system rather than the UK UHC system. Rather than seeing it as promoting a society of handout-dependents as you say, they see it as empowering the people because a HEALTHY, educated and confident people are not easily manipulated.

Ugh, promoting a society of handout-dependents!! Ugh!

[emow]

1.)Bro, please explain a little further... mora'g non sequitur lagi ni.



2.)This is a logical extreme that finds no place in reality, I think.



3.) The reality is there are many Filipinos who cannot afford health care, not because they are lazy, but because they have not been given the same opportunities in life as you and me.

I've had a hard working maid whose daughter suffered from lupus. The little money she made went into caring for her daughter. Her daughter eventually died. She herself later died from a brain tumor because she had no money to pay to have it removed.

Are we going to say that she did not deserve to be assisted because she was too lazy to rise above her station? I hope that's not what you're implying, bro. There are many hard working people out there who do not have medical insurance because they can't afford it. Sala diay na nila? Paita pud.

I think we can be more charitable than that. Health care should not be just for the rich.

1.) Simply follow the logic. If your inalienable rights are expressed in negative terms, why does your interpretation of the right to health a positive one?

Right to Life - nobody has the right to take away your life without permission
Right to Liberty - nobody has the right to take away your liberty without consent
Right to Property - nobody has the right to take away your property without consent
Right to Health - somebody has to pay for your health?

By advocating it as a right doesn't change the nature of it, Health is a personal condition of which is highly desirable for one to maintain it as long as possible. It involves personal responsibility.

2. Principles whether at the extreme or in normalcy will not change. It is easier to examine the principles at the extreme.

3. Yes, Life is that cruel, and dili nila sala magkasakit. aw, ang uban tinuyuan, uban dili. Dapat sila tabangan bai, on our own private capacity, on private charities, on communities who can help these people while ensuring that money is not wasted. You must accept reality that resources are finite and health costs a lot of resources. There is no magic moon beam that provides unlimited resources for the government to spend on all health. Ultimately, government will keep on increasing taxes to provide for health care, and it is highly unlikely that government will cut taxes.

4. Free Health CAre is intended for the poor only? will include the middle class? excluding the rich? will it exclude people who intentionally cause their own infirmity? Is it available for non citizens of the community? How is this going to be funded, how much are we going to raise in taxes? All LGUs will get the same amount of support or political allies will get funding first? Do we abort high risk babies just like in NHS and other universal health care country? What are included in free health care? What facilities will cater to free health care? Does it include private hospitals? What if we incur huge budget deficit, do we expect a continuous rise in taxes?

[machinecult]

TS, the way you illustrate puts this party smack on and the far-Left and not moderate and centrist at all. It seems as if everything here is socialized and provided by an enlarged State; free health care, a socialized state-regulated economy, various aspects of welfare, and the State interfering with the family system, etc. There's no such thing as free - people will have to pay (be taxed) more to support these so-called "free" government programs. The fact is that systems like these do not rid off poverty but cause poverty to rise (magsalig gyud ang tao ug ilang mga anak sa "Nanny state") A problem faced by many countries, including the US. This is the impression I get from from reading the link you provided of this party's platform > Political Platform | CDP. Tan.awa lang ang diperensya sa private ug government hospitals - that is a fine example how good things deteriorate once the State entangles itself to it.

Some people resort and point to Scandinavian countries as a proof that socialism works. Even Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt has called this experiment (mixing socialism and capitalism) a failure and has been responsible for moving his country towards the laissez-faire 'free-market' capitalism during his tenure as prime minister. Socialism is expensive, it may work for a few years but it'll suck dry the blood of the 'haves' for the benefit of the 'have-nots' and in the end neither will get anything. A fine example is what took place in Greece recently and I'm sure France is up next.

[dubioz]

Bro, we are not leftist at all. As a matter of fact, when our candidate brought up the possibility of endorsing Teddy Casino as a possible guest candidate, the suggestion was thrown out immediately because he was considered too far left.

Bro, countries that have Universal Health Care include United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium & the Netherlands.

If the idea of UHC is leftist, then why are countries with UHC among the most democratic?

If UHC will promote a mendicant society, then why are we far more mendicant than these countries?

Yah, bad siguro akong illustration dre. LOL

TS, the way you illustrate puts this party smack on and the far-Left and not moderate and centrist at all. It seems as if everything here is socialized and provided by an enlarged State; free health care,

I have to clarify bro, because the term "Social Market Economy " might lead people to believe that we are advocating a socialized one. Basically, a Social Market Economy is the promotion of a FREE MARKET, with the state only acting as a policeman. In order to keep the market free and competitive, we want to break cartels and end monopolies. We are in fact pushing for the passage of the Competition Bill that will help to free up the market. The difference between a Free Market & an SME is that in a Social Market Economy, the winners in the market are reminded of their social responsibility to help the less fortunate e.g. better health care, socialized housing. A successful example of an SME is Germany, again, far more democratic than the Philippines can hope to be currently.

a socialized state-regulated economy, various aspects of welfare

Bro, I'll be back on later, please tell me the exact provision that suggests that we interfere that deeply with the family, aron i explain nato better. Kay mora'g that is not the intent of our platform.

and the State interfering with the family system, etc. There's no such thing as free - people will have to pay (be taxed) more to support these so-called "free" government programs.

Bro, an SME is not the same as a welfare state. We very carefully differentiate ourselves from that. Socialized housing in a welfare state will give housing for free. In our system, unless you are disabled or old, you will HAVE TO WORK for your housing.

The fact is that systems like these do not rid off poverty but cause poverty to rise (magsalig gyud ang tao ug ilang mga anak sa "Nanny state")

Again, the social market economy of Germany has resulted in a far more affluent society than ours. I hope it's clear by now that we do not advocate a socialist nor a welfare state. We recognize the rights of the individual but tempered by the rule of law. We recognize the right of the individual to own property and that every individual is unique. Of course, we also believe in the rule of law.

Hmmmm..... dili mi socialist, ha?

[machinecult]

That's the catch. You don't say it but your platform best describes what it is. To use Europe as an example does not guarantee the Philippines will end up like Europe. It's not that long ago these European countries resorted to a socialized system of government but they are very rich countries to begin with with hardly any employment problems therefore could afford a welfare/entitlement system - the Philippines is far from these. Nevertheless if you really look deeper into these governments you'll eventually figure out socialism is not working for them and will not work in the long run especially when the money runs out. The effects can be seen through the deterioration of quality of various services especially in medical world and people who truly deserve government aid - those with disabililities and senior citizens.

[emow]

Health CAre is not a right... Those who insist that it is must accept that somebody else has no right of his own property to be paid for the health care of others.

[hexo]

Health CAre is not a right... Those who insist that it is must accept that somebody else has no right of his own property to be paid for the health care of others.

Typical callous free market idealist. You do understand that the free market is an inequality producing system right? That means that there will always be the haves and the have nots, not because those people who can't afford healthcare are lazy and stupid, but because contrary to free market idealists, people do not have equal opportunities in a world where business owners are naturally trying to reduce input costs as much as possible. The state is there to mitigate the effects of cut throat competition and profit over people which are the dominant psychology in a free market.

Of course free market idealists would also bring up, volunteerism and non-aggression principles as patchworks for their flawed "ayn rand selfishness is a virtue" ideology. The same way religion was a patchwork and behavior control mechanism in a scarcity driven world.

[emow]

And the State is immune to the failures that you accuse the free market of having? What does "the state mitigate the effects of cut throat competition" mean? I find it amusing how you likened free market to religion as a behavior control mechanism? How did you ever arrive at that contradicting thought? Free market and Control? Wouldn't the State be more appropriate of that comparison? Free market capitalists want lesser control. Statists want more control.

[hexo]

And the State is immune to the failures that you accuse the free market of having? What does "the state mitigate the effects of cut throat competition" mean? I find it amusing how you likened free market to religion as a behavior control mechanism? How did you ever arrive at that contradicting thought? Free market and Control? Wouldn't the State be more appropriate of that comparison? Free market capitalists want lesser control. Statists want more control.

I apologize if my choice of words were very poor.

We all know how destructive the acquisitive mentality is, which is at the forefront in all transactions happening in a free market. State or no state, it doesn't change the dominant mentality. Which leads me to governments and it's primary role. Governments are an outgrowth of an economic system that is so inefficient that it needs these appointed people to serve as arbiters. That is what I meant by "state mitigating the effects of cut throat competition".

Now my statement about religion as behavior control. Every time I read free market/libertarian advocates about how they minimize greed and corruption in a free market, they always resort to canned answers such as " well if only people were educated about the non-aggression or the non-intervention principle then people would never do such malevolent things toward their fellow human beings.". Which is almost similar to religious people when they spout nonsense like "well if only people are more god fearing, then people would never..." . Get what I'm saying when I talk about ideologies as patchworks for a very flawed system? In a system where greed and competition is encouraged, of course you need behavior control mechanisms.

PS. I don't advocate institutionalized power as well.