Tetra

You're just pointing out what my thread is really about. I'm just using science as the basis for my argument, and you're drawing the conclusion. I noticed leveraging science seems to decrease the probability of getting hassled around here. So if what you're suggesting is true (which I'd agree), what is the agenda in your opinion, and why aren't others pointing it out?

Correct, I got hassled here before when I suggesting nursing school is now indoctrinating students... so if you're now suggesting that, have fun. Regardless, if it has a basis in science, I'm down for discussion. Trust me when I say, I simply cannot find ANY correlation between patient outcome improvement and "emancipatory knowing" in peer reviewed journals, and I looked for quite some time. Again, if someone has the data, I'd love to see it.

I couldn't find any research showing a correlation... is that wrong to say?

I checked out our LRC and looked pretty hard to find any peer reviewed journal article proving a statistical correlation between outcome improvement, and "emancipatory knowing"... found nothing. It's almost as though there isn't any actual science behind this concept in nursing. I may very well be wrong though, so if you know of anything, can you please link the journal article, because I'd love to read it.

What the heck, when have you ever heard of anyone making a criticism, not on the basis of morality? If we thought the system we lived in was moral, there would be nothing to criticize. So your argument is that I can only critisize the health care system if I agree the health care system is right? How does this even make sense? What you're talking about is a rejection of the definition of positive rights. The distinction of positive and negative rights might be popular among libertarians, however, the distinction is accurate. You just seem to simply dislike the definition. The entire article was actually a good read, but it's incorrect. Libertarians are not against positive rights... with a single caveat, the positive rights were established though mutual consent. The article presupposes libertarians are just simply against positive rights in general, and it's not true. This is why I said in my OP, positive rights being a form of contractual right. I actually answered this very question regarding the nature of positive rights from the beginning. Anyways, got to go to school. Peace.

If you've actually read all 25 pages, you'd see this argument comes up countless times. You're argument is essentially that I can't be critical of the Canadian system because I benefit from the Canadian system. That's silly. In your mind, when can a Canadian be critical of the Canadian health care system? They have to relinquish their citizenship, fly to another country, and now they're permitted?

I've dealt with the majority of these arguments at some point or another in this thread... I mean jeepers, it's 25 pages long. Not to sure what you mean by "point by point" specifically, but I did respond to you in the manner I'm guessing you're looking for a half hour ago: https://allnurses.com/nursing-activism-healthcare/health-care-is-1117311-post9566592.html#post9566592 You might not like what I wrote, that's fine, but I most certainly responded to you. However, right now I'm super tired and have class in the morning. I'll be more than happy to respond tomorrow. Anyways, have a good night.

I would argue justice goes hand in hand with equity. That is a debate for another thread though. Either way, I value equality. Just wanted to know your stance is all.

Question @shibaowner, by "social justice" (I think you've mentioned this a couple times?), are you referring to identity politics? If so, what does that have to do with nursing?

I pay taxes here in Canada, some of that goes to health care... doesn't mean I can't lobby for change, vote, and disagree with how things are. Lot's of people think health care is a right, doesn't make it one either.

So your argument is essentially whenever someone can't pay for something, it's a form of discrimination?

Well I don't make money doing it, so that's most likely very accurate. Yes I have the burden of proof, but not for the reason you stated. I've already stated, just because "the majority of developed countries believe that it is", does not make it a right. That's a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Since I do have the burden of proof though, I laid out the following argument: 1) Fundamental human rights are not dependent on the actions of others. 2) Health care is dependent on the actions of others. 3) Therefore, health care is not a fundamental human right. Of course I did, you just didn't read the thread. I made a distinction between fundamental human rights (or natural rights) as being negative rights, and health care as a positive right. Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia Well, I've never really had an actual objection other than "I disagree with the first premise". I mean... okay, that doesn't really make the initial premise wrong though. Of course that's the purpose of argumentation. Don't know what your point is here though. I'm sorry if I missed it, what follows is the privatization of health care. Cool. Stating I don't know the answer to something means I'm trying to "weasel out of it"? Am I expected to be omniscient or something?

I would say that whether or not it's discrimination is dependant on if it's a right.

Has anyone here seen someone refused care in the US due to lack of insurance?

I've been fairly respectful and polite the whole time... that's not common behavior for someone trying to simply get a rise out of people. What's with the obsession with focusing on my character, over simply giving me an argument as to why you think health care is a fundamental human right? This keeps coming up over and over.