• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fines for abortion?

Do you feel the government should be allowed to do this?

  • Total voters
    21
Kandahar said:
To which, again, you have not presented any workable alternative.
Click to expand...
One need not present a workable alternative to a position to legitimately argue against that position.
 
Goobieman said:
One need not present a workable alternative to a position to legitimately argue against that position.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes you do. Because saying "Policy X is bad because of A" doesn't mean a goddamn thing if all the alternatives are worse.
 
Kandahar said:
Let me translate all of these options for you:
Hospitals, hospitals, and hospitals.

They all result in increased expenses for the hospitals.



Those simply aren't enough to cover the tab.



Any of your incredibly diverse solutions boil down to the hospital paying more money.



So the hospitals aren't responsible for it. The taxpayers aren't responsible for it. I agree. Hmm. Remind me again why you're opposed to making everyone cover their OWN expenses by mandating health insurance?



Translation:
Not if the hospitals just pony up the cash for it.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Simply repeating yourself does not make you correct.

All your lip service to taxpayers "not being responsible" is bull****, and you know it is. If you truly thought they weren't responsible, you wouldn't want to make them responsible in the first place. And it's only because you make them responsible that they are.

So yeah, let's put it out there -- if you can't pay, you don't get care -- and providers should be shielded from any liability on that score. That's putting responsibility where it belongs. Now, argue against that without making taxpayers responsible. Tell me about social contracts, responsibility to your fellow man, compassion, all that, in such a way that doesn't make taxpayers responsible.
 
Kandahar said:
Actually, yes you do. Because saying "Policy X is bad because of A" doesn't mean a goddamn thing if all the alternatives are worse.
Click to expand...
In what fantasy world?
Its -perfectly- possible to describe how your idea is terrible, regardless of ANY alternatives, as your idea stands on its own merits.
 
Goobieman said:
As I said and as you conveniently left out:

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the state.

How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
Click to expand...
Still looking for an answer to this.
 
jallman said:
The tired, the poor, the sick were here to advance their futures with determination and hard work. They weren't subject to abortion so I am not sure how you draw the parallel there.

I also don't understand how you think that a dependent, damaged undesirable born to a crack addicted mother, neglectful father, and with a host of illnesses relating to it's birth that will burden the state with high costs of medical treatment will stimulate the economy.

I'm also not sure how a 4th or 5th baby born to an unwed mother who will become an 18 year recipient of state assistance is supposed to stimulate the economy. I'm also not sure how the child born to the mother who didn't want her and ends up a ward of the state is supposed to stimulate the economy. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You are making a rather erroneous assumption, one of which is not supported by empirical evidence.

From the study: An Economic Analysis of Abortion: The Effect of Travel Cost on Teenagers.

The authors find that a teen with a higher wage (i.e., a higher opportunity cost associated with time out of the labor force to raise a child) is more likely to have an abortion. In addition, teenagers who live in poverty are shown to be less likely to abort a pregnancy. Leibowitz et al. (1986) use individual data on the first pregnancy of unmarried teenage women in Ventura County, California: teens who are enrolled in school and those who perform well in school are shown to be more likely to have an abortion; since schooling is a measure of the opportunity cost of giving birth in terms of future wages, this result implies that the value of a teen's time is a factor in the teenage abortion decision. Ohsfeldt and Gohmann (1994) use state-le vel data to show that the price of abortion services and income are negatively related to teenage rates of abortion and pregnancy. Hass-Wilson (1996) gives evidence that U.S. states with parental notification and consent laws and those with more Medicaid funding restrictions have lower teenage abortion rates; because these laws effectively raise the cost to a teenager of obtaining an abortion, these results imply that abortion cost is important in the abortion decision process for teens. Lundberg and Plotnick (1995) use the NLSY and find that teens who live in states that offer funding for abortions have a higher probability of aborting a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

The literature shows that abortion restrictions lead to fewer abortions among teenage women, possibly due to an increase in the monetary or psychic cost of obtaining an abortion. There can be legal restrictions, such as parental consent laws, or geographical restrictions in the number or location of abortion facilities. The research on parental consents laws implies that raising the cost of abortion services, either by reducing teens' accessibility to abortion services or by increasing the psychic cost associated with gaining parental consent, reduces the number of teen abortions. Likewise, reducing the availability of abortion services effectively raises the travel cost associated with acquiring an abortion; if the demand for abortions is sensitive to this price increase, then restricting availability will reduce the quantity of abortions demanded. Results from Haas-Wilson (1996) and Lundberg and Plotnick (1995) suggest that teens who live in states with greater abortion availability are more likely to have an abortion. In a related study, Kane and Staiger (1996) use county-level data from U.S. states to show that local abortion availability affects the teen birthrate; however, the authors do not estimate the relationship between local abortion availability and the teen abortion rate. Dayek and Smith (1976) and Brown and Jewell (1996) investigate the connection between local abortion availability and abortion demand, but neither study focuses on teenage women.
Click to expand...

Source: The Social Science Journal:January 01, 2000 : JEWELL, R. TODD; BROWN, ROBERT W.

An abstract of the entire source can be found here: ScienceDirect - The Social Science Journal : An economic analysis of abortion: the effect of travel cost on teenagers

So while your assumption is that abortions are preventative of lower income/drug dependent families having children, the evidence points to the contrary.

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

The major contributor to the sudden stagnation in economic growth is due to the flattening of the population growth rate. This can be caused by a multitude of factors, namely birth rate, although immigration rate/policy is also integral to the discussion. Although common among developed economies, increasing population has been considered the most effective way to spur economic growth.

Which is my point BTW...:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
You are making a rather erroneous assumption, one of which is not supported by empirical evidence.

From the study: An Economic Analysis of Abortion: The Effect of Travel Cost on Teenagers.





Source: The Social Science Journal:January 01, 2000 : JEWELL, R. TODD; BROWN, ROBERT W.

An abstract of the entire source can be found here: ScienceDirect - The Social Science Journal : An economic analysis of abortion: the effect of travel cost on teenagers

So while your assumption is that abortions are preventative of lower income/drug dependent families having children, the evidence points to the contrary.

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

The major contributor to the sudden stagnation in economic growth is due to the flattening of the population growth rate. This can be caused by a multitude of factors, namely birth rate, although immigration rate/policy is also integral to the discussion. Although common among developed economies, increasing population has been considered the most effective way to spur economic growth.

Which is my point BTW...:2razz:
Click to expand...

You confine your research to teenage women. Broaden the scope to all abortion and I think the numbers may pan out differently.

Either way, it's not the woman's responsibility to be so much breeding cattle for the economy.
 
jallman said:
You confine your research to teenage women. Broaden the scope to all abortion and I think the numbers may pan out differently.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although there is a strong correlation between teenage abortion and the lack of birth control be it access, ignorance, or a combination of the two.

Either way, it's not the woman's responsibility to be so much breeding cattle for the economy.
Click to expand...

I do agree. But, it is also highly irresponsible for abortion to be used as a form of birth control.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Perhaps, although there is a strong correlation between teenage abortion and the lack of birth control be it access, ignorance, or a combination of the two.



I do agree. But, it is also highly irresponsible for abortion to be used as a form of birth control.
Click to expand...

I agree on that count. However, that's between her and her doctor and not the federal treasury.
 
Harshaw said:
So yeah, let's put it out there -- if you can't pay, you don't get care -- and providers should be shielded from any liability on that score. That's putting responsibility where it belongs.
Click to expand...

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now I expect you to actually defend that position, since you are asserting that it is a more practical alternative to requiring people to buy health insurance. Please answer the following questions about your system where hospitals can pick and choose who gets ER care.

1. When someone is brought into the ER unconscious, should doctors be expected to treat them immediately? Or should be able to fish around the patient's pockets for an insurance card for a few minutes first?

2. Let's say that someone in the ER is stabilized but unable to walk due to their illness/injury. It is then determined that the patient does not have insurance. What should hospitals do with them? Wheel the bed out to the street corner, put the patient on the curb, and wheel the bed back in?

3. If doctors cannot find an insurance card on the patient, should they be allowed to assume the patient does not have insurance? If so, what happens when they do nothing and allow a patient to die...and it turns out the patient did have insurance? Are they liable for malpractice?

4. Should hospitals ONLY be allowed to pick and choose ER patients based on their ability to pay (or perceived ability to pay)? Or should hospitals be able to reject patients for any reason they want / no reason at all?
 
Goobieman said:
In what fantasy world?
Its -perfectly- possible to describe how your idea is terrible, regardless of ANY alternatives, as your idea stands on its own merits.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of Churchill's famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Sadly, it seems obvious that the humor in this goes right over your head.

No, political policies do NOT exist in a vacuum. If you don't have any BETTER solution, go away and let the adults talk.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I agree on that count. However, that's between her and her doctor and not the federal treasury.
Click to expand...

There is evidence that states policy applications have been successful in reducing teen abortion. :twocents:
 
Kandahar said:
That reminds me of Churchill's famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." But I don't suppose you see the humor in this quote, since in your mind all policies are just ideological matters that either fit your dogma or don't, rather than real-world ideas with real-world consequences. :roll:
Click to expand...
None of this in any way negates anything I said.
 
Goobieman said:
As I said and as you conveniently left out:

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the state.

How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
Click to expand...

For the same reason your state government can punish you for drunk driving, even if you don't have an accident: Because your irresponsible behavior carries the strong potential of causing harm, even if that is not your intent.
 
Kandahar said:
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now I expect you to actually defend that position, since you are asserting that it is a more practical alternative to requiring people to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

No. I didn't. :roll:

What I asserted is that it puts responsibility where it belongs.


Please answer the following questions about your system where hospitals can pick and choose who gets ER care.

1. When someone is brought into the ER unconscious, should doctors be expected to treat them immediately? Or should be able to fish around the patient's pockets for an insurance card for a few minutes first?

2. Let's say that someone in the ER is stabilized but unable to walk due to their illness/injury. It is then determined that the patient does not have insurance. What should hospitals do with them? Wheel the bed out to the street corner, put the patient on the curb, and wheel the bed back in?

3. If doctors cannot find an insurance card on the patient, should they be allowed to assume the patient does not have insurance? If so, what happens when they do nothing and allow a patient to die...and it turns out the patient did have insurance? Are they liable for malpractice?

4. Should hospitals ONLY be allowed to pick and choose ER patients based on their ability to pay (or perceived ability to pay)? Or should hospitals be able to reject patients for any reason they want / no reason at all?
Click to expand...

Read what I said. I already dealt with these issues and the liability.

But you did NOT answer MY question. That, however, is a recurring theme with you.

For your convenience, here it is again. You say you don't hold taxpayers responsible; I say that's a pool of pure, unadulterated, yellow, steaming, liquified bull****.

Thus, I said:

So yeah, let's put it out there -- if you can't pay, you don't get care -- and providers should be shielded from any liability on that score. That's putting responsibility where it belongs. Now, argue against that without making taxpayers responsible. Tell me about social contracts, responsibility to your fellow man, compassion, all that, in such a way that doesn't make taxpayers responsible.
Click to expand...

So, deal with it, or don't -- but I'm not interested in changing the subject.
 
Kandahar said:
1. When someone is brought into the ER unconscious, should doctors be expected to treat them immediately?
Click to expand...
No. If they choose to do so before determining if someone can pay, they then accept the risk they might not get paid for the goods/services they provide. Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?

2. Let's say that someone in the ER is stabilized but unable to walk due to their illness/injury. It is then determined that the patient does not have insurance. What should hospitals do with them?
Click to expand...
Determine if he can pay.
If not, then they either release th epatient or accept the possibility that they migh tnot get paid for the goods/services they provide.
Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?

3. If doctors cannot find an insurance card on the patient, should they be allowed to assume the patient does not have insurance?
Click to expand...
Absent any information to the contrary, that's exactly what they should assume. Why would they not? Should they assume that he does have insurance?

If so, what happens when they do nothing and allow a patient to die
Click to expand...
The patient dies.

and it turns out the patient did have insurance? Are they liable for malpractice?
Click to expand...
No, as they acted on the information they had at the time.

4. Should hospitals ONLY be allowed to pick and choose ER patients based on their ability to pay (or perceived ability to pay)?
Click to expand...
If they do not want to run the risk of not getting paid, yes.


There. You now have an alternative to your argument, as you requested.
You no longer have an excuse to not defend your argument.
 
Harshaw said:
No. I didn't. :roll:

What I asserted is that it puts responsibility where it belongs.
Click to expand...

If you are not going to state your views on the issue and explain how they are BETTER than what I am proposing, I am done talking to you.

Of course, you won't do this. You know goddamn well that there aren't any alternatives to mandated health insurance that actually make sense. So you'll just point out ridiculous alternatives, and then refuse to defend any of them under questioning. That is NOT how a rational debate works. If you're interested in actually discussing the policy rather than being contrary for the sake of being contrary, let me know. ;)

Harshaw said:
Read what I said. I already dealt with these issues and the liability.
Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't. You offered the stiff-the-hospitals solution, then refused to defend it. Just like now you're offering the hospitals-can-pick-and-choose solution, and are now refusing to defend it.

If you have an opinion or policy suggestion that can actually stand up to scrutiny, by all means I'm listening.

Harshaw said:
But you did NOT answer MY question. That, however, is a recurring theme with you.

For your convenience, here it is again. You say you don't hold taxpayers responsible; I say that's a pool of pure, unadulterated, yellow, steaming, liquified bull****.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of requiring people to buy their own insurance, so that the taxpayers (or hospitals or whoever) DON'T get stuck with the bill when they end up in the ER. What is so difficult to understand about this?
 
Goobieman said:
As I said and as you conveniently left out:

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the state.

How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
Click to expand...
Still looking for a response to this.
 
Goobieman said:
Still looking for a response to this.
Click to expand...

To limit the risk. This is the major premise behind mandating auto insurance, and yet you dodge the context at any and all costs....
 
First of all, these questions were directed at Harshaw, not you. I already know your absurd utopian answers, but I'm interested in seeing if any OTHER opponents of health insurance mandates are willing to go on the record defending them. As I suspected, Harshaw is not.

Goobieman said:
No. If they choose to do so before determining if someone can pay, they then accept the risk they might not get paid for the goods/services they provide. Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?
Click to expand...

The person is dying in front of them and seconds count. It compromises the quality of ER service for EVERYONE if this is the first thing hospitals do.

Goobieman said:
Determine if he can pay.
If not, then they either release th epatient or accept the possibility that they migh tnot get paid for the goods/services they provide.
Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?
Click to expand...

You ignored the question. How exactly do they "release" someone in critical condition who can't walk?

Goobieman said:
Absent any information to the contrary, that's exactly what they should assume. Why would they not? Should they assume that he does have insurance?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't HAVE to assume anything, because they should be required to treat people in the ER. :roll:

Goobieman said:
The patient dies.
Click to expand...

So if someone in your family is taken to the ER and doesn't have their insurance card on them, you're cool with it if the hospital refuses to treat them and they die? You won't sue the hospital?

Goobieman said:
No, as they acted on the information they had at the time.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why this solution is completely ridiculous. Not only does it compromise the QUALITY of care by delaying treatment, it will prevent some people (including insured people) from getting care at all.

Goobieman said:
If they do not want to run the risk of not getting paid, yes.
Click to expand...

Once again, you ignored the question. Should hospitals be allowed to reject ER patients for any reason they want, or only because of a perceived inability to pay?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To limit the risk. This is the major premise behind mandating auto insurance, and yet you dodge the context at any and all costs....
Click to expand...
You miss the point:

Civil fines are levied to compensate the government for its costs associated with the 'wrongful' actions of the individual being fined, with said fines being commesurate with that cost.

What costs did the governemt incurr if it has not paid for any of my medical expenses, and if it has not incurred any such costs, what justification is there for levying a fine?
 
Goobieman said:
You miss the point:

Civil fines are levied to compensate the government for its costs associated with the 'wrongful' actions of the individual being fined, with said fines being commesurate with that cost.

What costs did the governemt incurr if it has not paid for any of my medical expenses, and if it has not incurred any such costs, what justification is there for levying a fine?
Click to expand...

I have asked you in another thread: Are you opposed to pigouvian taxation?
 
Kandahar said:
For the same reason your state government can punish you for drunk driving, even if you don't have an accident: Because your irresponsible behavior carries the strong potential of causing harm, even if that is not your intent.
Click to expand...
Drunk driving is a CRMINAL act, and your punishment is based on your actions -- thst is, what you ACTUALLY did, not what yu MIGHT have done.

Here, we're discussing CIVIL penalties, which are based on what your action ACTUALLY (not POTENTIALLY) cost the government. As such, your response here does not address the issue put to you.

I therefore ask again:
How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
 
Kandahar said:
I am in favor of requiring people to buy their own insurance, so that the taxpayers (or hospitals or whoever) DON'T get stuck with the bill when they end up in the ER. What is so difficult to understand about this?
Click to expand...


You know, we've spun this merry-go-round so many times it's sickening.

The taxpayers are not stuck with the bill unless YOU STICK THEM WITH THE BILL. That's a choice, never an inevitability.

So, you DO hold the taxpayers responsible. You know you do. You're lying, bald-faced, when you say you don't. Whether or not it's BETTER to stick the bill to taxpayers doesn't even enter into it. It's what you're doing.

And that's that. I've given up on your honesty in this matter; it's clear you're not capable of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom