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.

Great question. Well I do love people in spite of what others think of me. Outside of that, everyone assumes I want to be an RN. That's an option for sure. However, without a doubt assuming I complete my BScN, I'll do graduate work. I currently do have a goal of NP. I'm also REALLY interested in nursing theory!!! If you ask specifically why nursing theory, don't have a specific answer, just really fascinated by it.

I'll look further into this MunoRN! Thank you for the link. :)

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about my political worldview, and myself in general. I'm hardly far right, I'm right leaning on some issues, left leaning on others. When did I ever suggest that I'm interested in discriminating against anyone?? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single post.

Well, I don't think I'm going to breeze through school or anything, it'll be hard work, but I'm very academically competitive. The work ethic of the kids at school is brutal already. We're 1 week in and they just Facebook in class. lol

Shibaowner, my arguments were in regards to the nature of rights, and socialized health care. There is tons of stuff I don't know, in health care and otherwise. I'm not opposed to learning, if you have information, fill me in. So in a two tier system like Canada, some here are saying privatized health care is offered for already insured services. Does that mean I can pay to queue jump? If so, do you feel that's immoral? While wiki is a terrible source to use (I know), it states: "Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In a complex legal decision in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in some circumstances, such bans can be illegal if the waiting period was unduly long." Two-tier healthcare - Wikipedia No citation seems to exist for that quote, but I'd be curious to know what information others have on that.

Don't know if I agree entirely. Laws can only be passed to recognize or protect human rights, they can also instantiate positive rights. However, it would require mutual consent to "give them up", and that would require you ever having them in the first place. I get what you're saying though, we'll have to agree to disagree on it being something you ever had to begin with.

How can you give up rights that are inherent to your existence? That doesn't even make sense. I suppose you could contractually waive them.

What's odd is that I wasn't making it up, my friend actually flew to Florida for his shoulder because he was waiting too long. So it must not be pushed here, or there's a catch I'm missing? Why would people leave if they have privatized health care here?

I may very well be. Please correct me if I'm wrong Dishes... are the services covered by OHIP at private clinics OR are Ontarians allowed to pay for OHIP insured services themselves without OHIP involved?

Just so I understand you correctly, paying out of pocket yielded the better result for you?