RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 12:35:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

quote:
Why healthcare, or healthcare funding comes under the heading of personal responsibility is unclear to me.
Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?
Be careful what you wish for.

lt's very clear that you have failed to understand the argument being put to you. I was contrasting the "personal responsibility" model you advocate with the collective responsibility model for healthcare funding used in just about every Western country bar the USA.
There's ample evidence to demonstrate beyond dispute that the collective responsibility model is far more successful at every level - it saves more lives, it delivers better health outcomes, it provides universal coverage, it's financially fairer to consumers and it costs about half the price of the insane US model.
The gap between the two models is so huge that is defies logic to oppose the 'collective responsibility' model. To oppose this model on ideological grounds, as you do, is to insist that ideology is more important than peoples lives or health. The net result of such opposition is the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths of US citizens that occur annually due to inadequate or no health care coverage. These unnecessary deaths appear to be an exclusive property of the US healthcare system - they don't happen elsewhere. Nor do medical bankruptcies.
You can choose to live with the responsibility for such a disastrous outcome but I would rather not tyvm.


So, let's play a little game here, tweakabelle. Let's say there's a rule in baseball that everyone despises and is unpopular. Would you rather A) ignore the rule and let's play ball, or B) get rid of the rule?

If you want the United States to provide health insurance for everyone, and still be following the Constitution, make an Amendment. Pass that amendment. Ratify it in 38 states and enact rules and laws accordingly to your heart's content. Until then, it will not be constitutional.

It makes no difference how "good" or "moral" or "beneficial" something is if it's not authorized to the Federal Government.

Why is our health care so expensive anyway? Wasn't PPACA supposed to reduce the costs? All it's done is increase costs. You want to provide coverage for people who are more expensive to cover and not increase premium costs? How the fuck does that work? Rates are based on risk pools. People at a higher risk increase the overall risk pool, raising premiums for all in that pool. Yet, insurance companies aren't going to increase premiums to cover their increased risks?!? That's blissful thinking, but also damn wrong.

What is driving the cost of care? Isn't that what needs to be addressed? I think we're going to have to start a new thread, btw. This tangent doesn't exactly fit with the original topic.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 12:39:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?
Be careful what you wish for.

My tax dollars go to train those Doctors, build those hospitals and clinics.
One of those government funded health care programs is the funding for training physicians in this country.
What I am saying is that health care has been priced out of reach because of greed.
As far as tweak, she isnt in the US.
As far as me... I am all for national health care.

Some of your tax dollars go towards training those physicians. We agree on that. We disagree on what that means. You want national health care. I want to stop funding their educations. Government funding their educations (and, while we're at it, how about we open up the credentialing process to more than just the AMA? A Government created monopoly that can limit the amount of doctors in the country, maintaining an undersupply to keep demand up, resulting in.....?) is a terrible reason for Government funding health care, btw.
But, Greed on who's part? Should the Government use taxpayer money to build hospitals and clinics? I say, 'no,' unless it is a VA or tricare only hospital/clinic. Most hospitals are not built using Gub'mint money.
How has health care been priced out of reach? Who has done it? How can it be fixed?

Now its my turn to laugh.
Do you understand that there are limited number of residencies?


Why is it limited?

quote:

and those are based upon tax dollars?
Hospitals get federal grants and loans for all sorts of things, from building to extensions, IT assistance, training programs, incentives.


Under what authority does the Federal Government do that?

quote:

quote:

How has health care been priced out of reach? Who has done it? How can it be fixed?

Tsk tsk, now you are playing stupid. It sure isnt the working man who has put health care out of reach. 200 for a Dr's visit... Of course that is perfectly affordable for someone making minimum.... something else I am sure you would love to get rid of.
I do enjoy the laughs you are giving me thus far. I do hope they continue.


I see, so you're not even going to give an answer. I suspect it's because you don't know. I have my very own ideas, but I don't know that they are correct. If you could, between the guffaws, chuckles, and snorts I am providing, answer the question to the best of your ability.

Who has priced health care our of reach and how can it be fixed?






mnottertail -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 12:44:30 PM)

Do you understand that there are limited number of residencies?
Why is it limited?

and those are based upon tax dollars?
-----------------------
give it a think.



Hospitals get federal grants and loans for all sorts of things, from building to extensions, IT assistance, training programs, incentives.


Under what authority does the Federal Government do that?

----------------------------------------------

Constitutional, at least in two places, give it a think.






SoftBonds -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 3:14:50 PM)

quote:

New thread requested? Request granted:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_4048040/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4048040




DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 5:31:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

New thread requested? Request granted:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_4048040/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4048040



I wouldn't have quite named it that, but I'll move over and leave this thread on this note:

No, women getting abortions should not be sterilized to prevent future abortions.




xssve -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 11:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, let's see, the US Constitution states that the Federal Government is tasked with raising the military and has the power to declare and wage war.

What part of "Promote the General Welfare" don't you understand?


I don't understand the part where the liberals/progressives twist it into "personal welfare."

Got any other myths for me to bust?
Because we've tried dystopia, many times, and every time, nobody fucking likes it except a few boated plutocrats.

Rejection of the labor theory of value is where conservative go wrong every singe time, they keep doing the same thing over and over again and it never works, it why you have to construct this mythology of a host invisible enemies dragging you down, the enemy is easy to find, look in the closest mirror.




xssve -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/1/2012 11:04:30 PM)

quote:

Under what authority does the Federal Government do that?
The commerce clause.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Sterilize all woman getting abortions? Pro or Con? Discuss. (3/2/2012 5:41:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
quote:

Under what authority does the Federal Government do that?
The commerce clause.


The Interstate Commerce Clause? The clause that was in the Constitution to prevent one state from taking economic advantage of another state based simply upon geographic location? That clause? The clause that was put in so NY couldn't place tariffs on non-NY or non-NY-bound shipping vessels (as one example) going through Long Island Sound or any other waters deemed to be NY?

No, sorry, that clause has been bastardized to the nth degree, too.

Between the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, the Federal Government can do anything, at any time, to anyone, for any reason, using the Necessary and Proper clause. Plus their power to tax to pay for their actions, programs, and policies, means they can tax whoever they want, however much they want. And, you honestly believe that the very men who fought a war to get us out from a tyrannical monarchy would institute this? You really believe that?

I do not. Plus, a conservative interpretation supports my contentions. The Founders being classical liberals (closer kin to libertarians and conservatives than to today's liberals) would not have intended the Constitution to be interpreted liberally.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 [13]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125