View Poll Results: Health Care and Abortion which do you choose

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Against socialized medicine and abortion let the baby die

    1 11.11%
  • against socialized medicine for abortion let the baby die

    0 0%
  • for socialized medicine and against abortion let the baby live

    3 33.33%
  • for socialized medicine and for abortion let the baby live

    5 55.56%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

  1. #11
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Letting a sick baby die is not abortion. However, it would be immoral to let the baby die.

    This is, in fact, one of the reasons I think we need socialized health care. Right now we have a hodge podge of laws that achieve care for the poor in an extremely expensive and inefficient manner. It would be better if we had a coherent scheme that could actually bring costs down, causing everyone to pay less (whether its taxes or private payments, it's still money out of your pocket). The short sightedness of people amazes me.

    (disclaimer: I do understand that certain people have a problem with it based on their idea of rights and responsibilities of society and individuals, that at least makes sense.)
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-15-10 at 07:37 AM.

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    So you tend to support socialized medicine then?

    Meaning the government should step in and pay for medical conditions for people who need help?
    Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.

    This of course is ludicrous.

    Believing perhaps that a child, born into this world without any choice on its own needing medical attention right off or dying and having no ability to support itself, should have its medical expenses cared for does not equate to having to believe in all of socialized medicine nor that those who need help must be supported.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is 25years old and chose that having money to for a new video game every few weeks and happy hour every night instead of buying insurance and then gets cancer.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is sick and someone needing medical attention and can't pay for it because he's made no strong effort in the past months to get a job.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who can't keep a job because they continue to drink, smoke pot, or do hard drugs that causes them to either repeatedly miss work or fail drug tests causing them not to be able to keep down a job.

    There is a large difference even between a newborn baby and a person who just unfortunantly has fell on a stretch of "bad luck" and can't afford care.

    In just about every single one of the situation above those individuals at some point in their life did things that likely lead to the situation they are in. The young guy chose to go for leisure over insurance. The next guy chose to coast in life rather than focus completely on finding a job, any job, until he got one. The next guy chose to take his substance of choice. And even the one with "bad luck" chose to not take time to save previously in case of situations where "bad luck" may happen.

    The baby made no choice. The baby was born and then had issues. One could blame the parents, but that is no different than blaming the parents of the drug addict or the irresponsable youth for bad upbringing.

    Your attempt at equating two things that are largely different, hoping and praying to prey on peoples emotions by using the example of a baby, is a disgusting debate tactic and one that frankly is plainly transparent.

    Does the situation we have currently work 100% of the time or with utmost efficiency? No. Are there situations, like the one you describe above, that throw it out of whack? Definitely. Does that magically mean that the only answer, or the main answer, to solving those situations where there are issues is to socialize the entire system for everyone? Absolutely not. The dishonest attempt to present the situation in such stark either or options is based in anything but reality.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Cool Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I am against abortion and I think the government should pay for this child. What society would let a child die over dollars? You can't put a price on human life. It's not the child's fault that the parents can't afford to pay for treatment, why should that be its death? The government should absolutely pay the tab and lend assistance.
    Digs, You just bought into a Red Herring argument.

    Medical decisions such as these aren't (legally) made as economic decisions. In a scenerio such as the one described, the procedure would be performed and the financing would be dealt with after the fact.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Cool Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    So your option is to force the medical providers to pay for the sick and ill?

    What if they decide to do the bare minimum which will result in the death of the baby?

    I believe most medical care providers will not buy the expensive drugs that certain types of cancer require, but they will provide medical care as the person dies (from the lack of the expensive drugs)
    As you said, the baby is going to die regardless.

    Aren't we all?

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Cool Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Correction, these costs get added onto the bills for those who actually can pay... including the insurance companies, the government, and the patients who actually have money.

    This is why I support requiring all people to have health insurance. At least then everyone will be paying into the system.

    I don't care if the government runs health care... it will still be the doctors making the recommendations both for individual patients and for major policy changes.

    And I am against abortion... not to the point of considering it a crime; I simply think that if you screw up in life you need to deal with the consequences. Life is too precious. However I am OK with abortion in a rape case or when the mother's life is threatened by the birth.
    I agree with many of your points but wanted to add tat when a hospital does "pro-bono" procedures they can also "write them off" and (in my opinion) should get tax incentives (rewards) for doing so.

  6. #16
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.

    This of course is ludicrous.

    Believing perhaps that a child, born into this world without any choice on its own needing medical attention right off or dying and having no ability to support itself, should have its medical expenses cared for does not equate to having to believe in all of socialized medicine nor that those who need help must be supported.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is 25years old and chose that having money to for a new video game every few weeks and happy hour every night instead of buying insurance and then gets cancer.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is sick and someone needing medical attention and can't pay for it because he's made no strong effort in the past months to get a job.

    There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who can't keep a job because they continue to drink, smoke pot, or do hard drugs that causes them to either repeatedly miss work or fail drug tests causing them not to be able to keep down a job.

    There is a large difference even between a newborn baby and a person who just unfortunantly has fell on a stretch of "bad luck" and can't afford care.

    In just about every single one of the situation above those individuals at some point in their life did things that likely lead to the situation they are in. The young guy chose to go for leisure over insurance. The next guy chose to coast in life rather than focus completely on finding a job, any job, until he got one. The next guy chose to take his substance of choice. And even the one with "bad luck" chose to not take time to save previously in case of situations where "bad luck" may happen.

    The baby made no choice. The baby was born and then had issues. One could blame the parents, but that is no different than blaming the parents of the drug addict or the irresponsable youth for bad upbringing.

    Your attempt at equating two things that are largely different, hoping and praying to prey on peoples emotions by using the example of a baby, is a disgusting debate tactic and one that frankly is plainly transparent.

    Does the situation we have currently work 100% of the time or with utmost efficiency? No. Are there situations, like the one you describe above, that throw it out of whack? Definitely. Does that magically mean that the only answer, or the main answer, to solving those situations where there are issues is to socialize the entire system for everyone? Absolutely not. The dishonest attempt to present the situation in such stark either or options is based in anything but reality.
    Ask him how many conservatives does he know that walk away from their children because their children are unable to provide for their own healthcare.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #17
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Correction, these costs get added onto the bills for those who actually can pay... including the insurance companies, the government, and the patients who actually have money.
    You're right to a certain extent. It does add a financial burden to all of us who do pay. However, requiring everyone to carry insurance will add a larger burden. The way social welfare systems are set up in this country, adding millions more to the insured rolls is going to cost us much more in the long run, because people who "can't afford it" are going to have it paid by the half of us who are paying all the bills, especially if the pre-existing conditions portion of insurance is taken out.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I agree with many of your points but wanted to add that when a hospital does "pro-bono" procedures they can also "write them off" and (in my opinion) should get tax incentives (rewards) for doing so.
    Drives me nutz!

  9. #19
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.
    Yep- it was pretty obvious based on the poll options.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Question Re: Health Care Question (and Abortion)

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    You're right to a certain extent. It does add a financial burden to all of us who do pay. However, requiring everyone to carry insurance will add a larger burden. The way social welfare systems are set up in this country, adding millions more to the insured rolls is going to cost us much more in the long run, because people who "can't afford it" are going to have it paid by the half of us who are paying all the bills, especially if the pre-existing conditions portion of insurance is taken out.
    Very well stated.

    And if I can only add one thing,... "Imagine adding 20-30 Million new patients to the rolls and with no significant increase to the numbers of doctors and other staff."

    You could probably say it better than I.

    I don't have your way with words... But do you see my point?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •