The Virginia government did redefine the reason for the ultrasound - and it had nothing to do with safety or diagnosis. It does take the argument against government involvement in healthcare and turn it on it's head.Originally Posted by alan
The Virginia government did redefine the reason for the ultrasound - and it had nothing to do with safety or diagnosis. It does take the argument against government involvement in healthcare and turn it on it's head.
Actually it's more curiosity than ideology. Sure, I think abortion is wrong at a certain point, but I'm not sure where that point is so would prefer to err on the side of life.
What I find curious is the way this debate is always discussed in such a one sided manner. Lately we've heard lots of talk about "invasive procedures" bordering on "rape" when discussing everyday medical practices. I've read that many in the medical industry are now concerned about their ability to provide care without being accused of rape as a result of the irresponsible language so many are promoting.
I'm also concerned with the long term effects of our failure to address the issue of abortion in a reasonable manner. A group of medical ethicists are now promoting the idea that there is no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and performing a legal abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1309985.html
In an atmosphere where the only part of the equation you're allowed to talk about is the woman, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly gives me pause to wonder.
I know it's an election year and the other side absolutely must be criticized and extreme rhetoric must be manufactured and distributed, but is it really worth the damage to society that it brings?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Government controlled healthcare is sure going to be interesting. Many may find they don't like the power it gives to those in control.
The one saving grace about this issue and all of the discussion about government interference, is that it IS a state doing the legislating. Big Nanny G (the Feds) are not involved and thank god for that. At LEAST the discussion is at the place it should be--the state of Virginia.
It's been going on for a long time. Standards, regulations, licensing, unfunded mandates (government is why an emergency room has to admit everyone). Should we dump all of it?
Last edited by creaker; 3-8-12 at 12:40pm.
As difficult as it is to arrive at a yes or no answer to such a complex issue, I think it would be interesting to treat this as true/false rather than an essay question just to see where it comes out. If pushed, I have to say "yes" precisely because of examples like this. It's interesting Alan, this is one debate where you and I do not share a core belief, but still tend to agree on a desired level of government participation (I think).
And i must buy insurance that covers motorcycle riders, who WILL eventually have an accident, although I don't ride a motorcycle, and insurance that covers heart issues, even though I don't want to pay for someone else stuffing their faces with twinkies and ho ho's. I don't plan to have a vasectomy but I'm pretty sure insurance covers that too. Welcome to the real world Alan. Each of us has to pay for a lot of things we may not believe in, or plan to personally use, but that's just life in a modern, progressive country. And until you can think of a way to pick and choose all your health care coverage, including all the things that will happen in the future, for you and your wife, then we have to work with what we have. And, oh by the way, no one is asking for FREE birth control pills, GYN or anything. These people pay for insurance, as in coverage.
Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistently to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good. And I suppose you can justify in your own mind the whole "government is bad, except of course when it's forcing my beliefs'.
Yea, we pretty much see where you are coming from. Not a whole lot of nuance there.
Where would you get an idea like that?
Let's try discussing instead of throwing out baseless accusations, OK?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well most people are not such hardcore propertarians (property absolutist) that they believe that having to pay for healthcare they don't use is as bad as being forced to have medical procedures done with their body. I.e. ownership of one's body is at a higher level of ownership than that of property (which isn't necessarily to take the extreme opposite position that all property should be abolished or anything either). So really the only analagous thing we have currently would be vacines and they have strong public health rationale. There's other loose analogies that could be made but none 100%.Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
Eliminating all government mandates? I'm not sure it would be all bad, though again a few things have public health rational (ie protecting the whole community from contagious disaeses). I guess taken to a libertarian extreme no mandates would also mean no liscensing even. Ok I'm not sure how that would work out, but I'm not absolutely certain it would be bad either. I'm only absolutely sure you have market failures in cases of externalities.
Well there is a pretty severe contradiction in the liberal position arguing insurance companies bad therefore .... things that are not currently done through insurance should be done through insurance companies. My personal opinon: insurance companies @#$# everything up and the less things done by them the better.Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistantly to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good.
As for abortion as such: I don't believe it's ok and all fine and dandy or anything, I have some moral problems with it. I just think there is no *legistlative* solution.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 3-8-12 at 2:38pm.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote