The irony of practicing medicine and having TERRIBLE access to it?

[Boatswain2PA]

11 hours ago, Reality Check 2 said:

This thread derailed into a religious argument.

I would say a part of it has turned into a religious discussion.  We (as in the collective American "WE") should be able to have political discussions. 

If you don't want to partake, just ignore it.

[Boatswain2PA]

16 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Homosexual groups don't exclude heterosexual people, they welcome them. The whole point of their plight is inclusion. They have been excluded and discriminated against, and worse, for a very long time. I can go march at the gay pride parade or go to a gay bar/club, no one is going to kick me out.

Women helping women? In the cases of domestic violence and things if that nature, of course it makes sense for only women to be the ones helping in that sensitive time. It's all about context.

What hospital are you talking about?

Who cares? Because healthcare shouldn't exclude groups, it's basic decency. Especially when it's coming from the largest "group" in the US. I bet you would not hesitate to complain if Christians in a Muslim country were excluded from healthcare, or discriminated against in some way.

1 - There is now apparently a divide between the trans community and the LBG community because of....exclusion.

2. Nope.  Women's shelter in Alaska being sued because, to protect women, they turned away a biological male.  Common sense goes out the window in these kind of scenarios.

3. Just as police shouldn't care what color your skin is or who you are sexually attracted to when they enforce the law,  we shouldn't care about what color your skin is or who you are sexually attracted to when we practice medicine.  But that is practicing medicine, not political beliefs which include who should pay for what.

I wouldn't care one bit if a Muslim nation (or other organization) excluded paying for healthcare for Christians.  But then again, I think that people should mostly pay for their own stuff....

[AbeTheBabe]

I am in no way saying our current system is a good one, but again, you are talking about hypotheticals when all I'm saying is everyone needs insurance. Whether it's through Aetna or UHC or a medi share or whatever else, everyone needs some sort of coverage because you don't know what life will throw your way. Medi share might not legally be insurance, but it's the same concept. You pay a premium each month and cross your fingers that they'll pay out if you need help with medical bills. This isn't a philosophical debate, it's a financial recommendation.

As for the whole religious/political discussion, I really don't care what your religion is (or lack of it) as long as it doesn't discriminate or hurt others. I believe everyone in the US should have a right to healthcare, and no I don't believe Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheist medi share plans have a role. I don't want anyone else deciding what's covered or not, that should be between patient and provider. Don't need other patients or employers or private insurance companies or medi-share to decide what's right for me. I'm not a smoker, but I don't want to deny lung cancer treatment to anyone. I'm not a woman, but I don't want to deny obgyn care to anyone. I'm in a monogomous heterosexual marriage, but I don't want to deny STD treatment or emergency contraception to anyone. If your religion frowns upon something, then don't do it, and don't deny care to others that need it. I would say the same thing to a Jehovah's witness and blood transfusions. I would say the same thing to a Muslim and alcohol detox.

[Boatswain2PA]

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

As for the whole religious/political discussion, I really don't care what your religion is (or lack of it) as long as it doesn't discriminate or hurt others.

This sounds great, but falls apart on the details.  Does that mean a devout Catholic or Muslim gynecologist should be forced to perform abortions simply because someone might get their feelings hurt and declare discrimination?  Would the urologist be required to perform sex changes?

What is your definition of "hurt"?  Feelings?  Potential future feelings?  This isn't some esoteric question - just look at the real world implications in abortion law.  We all know Roe v Wade (well, few of us actually know what the courts said there), but Doe v Dalton the courts said abortion could not be limited by the state if the abortion was sought for maternal health.  Common sense application here is hard to disagree with - if the mother's life is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy then I think almost all of us agree that abortion could be on the table.  But, just like your amorphous "doesn't hurt others" statement can (and has) been expanded to a ridiculous scope, so has Doe v Dalton's "maternal health" as other courts have established "maternal health" can be financial well-being or emotional health.  Suddenly common sense doesn't apply since now any kid can be aborted because kids are expensive to raise.

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I believe everyone in the US should have a right to healthcare, and no I don't believe Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheist medi share plans have a role.

Those who say healthcare is a "right" have not thought this through.  If it's a "right", is it a "human right" like the human right to be free from slavery?  If so, then why is it limited to just Americans?  Why don't the people of Somalia have that same "human right?"  Should we go to war to give them this "human right?"

And what is the definition of healthcare?  Clean water?  Sewers?  Insulin?  Level 1 trauma center within a 1 hour transportation radius?  Sex change operations?  Cosmetic skin care?  ICU care for everyone in their last 90 days of life??

Regarding medi-share plans:  Can I help pay for my niece's CP therapy?  Between my brother-in-law (not her dad) and myself we pay for a lot of her therapy, kind of like a family medi-share plan.  Is that okay?  Can I donate to Saint Vincent de Paul society, who often helps pay for people's medical bills?  How about Shriners?   

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to join, or pay for, whatever I want to?

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I don't want anyone else deciding what's covered or not, that should be between patient and provider.

 That's fine by me if the patient is paying for it.  But when the patient is asking someone else to pay for it, whether it is the government, an insurance company, a medishare plan, the Shriners, or another individual person...then the person/group with the checkbook gets some say in the matter.

If it's just between the patient and the provider, with no regard to who is paying for it, then the patient will want unlimited healthcare, and the provider will be happy to oblige (as soon as they put down the BMW catalog).

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Don't need other patients or employers or private insurance companies or medi-share to decide what's right for me.

Correct.  Only YOU can decide what's right for you.  But then YOU should be responsible for providing for that.  If you want me to pay for it, then I get input on what is right for me to pay for.

As providers we should give the best healthcare we can to each of our patients whom we enter into the patient-provider relationship with.  I don't care if you are black/white/yellow/green, if you're asex/homosex/heterosex/whateversex, young/old, legal/illegal/native, socialist/capitalist, murderer, rapist, infant, or even a politiican...if you are my patient I will give you the best care I can give because of that patient-provider relationship.

But as a citizen who pays way too much in taxes, I will do whatever I can to encourage people to fight for their individual freedoms, and to take the personal responsibility that comes with those freedoms.  Taken to that extreme, that means yes you are absolutely free to have that sex change operation, but YOU are responsible for paying for it.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Boatswain2PA

[Boatswain2PA]

And unfortunately people who would have the immediate gratification of "free stuff now" rather han thinking about the slippery slope ahead of them still vote.

[sas5814]

This has been an interesting, if wandering, thread. Just my .5 cents worth.

Health care isn't a right. If it was the governement could force me and every other health care provider to give it away to anyone who needs it.

We haven't made food and a roof over your head a right. How can something like health care be a right?

Most people need health care. That doesn't automatically entitle them to it.

It would be nice if everyone who needed care got it. Right now the perfect system, including the oft lauded universal health care system, doesn't exist.

The words "fair" and "entitled" and "free" have become trigger words for me.

Fair is you eat what you kill. Fair is taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. Fair is letting people who could take care of themselves but won't devolve naturally.

Free doesn't exist. You can't give something to someone without taking something from someone else. Free things provided by the government are only free to the recipient. The rest of us pay for it in taxes.

You aren't entitled to anything in this life except a fair shot at succeeding under your own power.

 

[AbeTheBabe]

21 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

And unfortunately people who would have the immediate gratification of "free stuff now" rather han thinking about the slippery slope ahead of them still vote.

You realize that slippery slope is a fallacy. It's hilarious that as soon as universal healthcare is mentioned, people go on all sort of tangents. Who mentioned free stuff? Not once did I say anything about healthcare being free. Is it free now? Why would it be free in the future? Is the 800/month my employer pays for my premium and the 200/month that I pay for my premium to a for profit insurance company free? Why would a government option be free? That money has to come from somewhere.

On 9/13/2019 at 5:47 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

This sounds great, but falls apart on the details.  Does that mean a devout Catholic or Muslim gynecologist should be forced to perform abortions simply because someone might get their feelings hurt and declare discrimination?  Would the urologist be required to perform sex changes?

What are you talking about? Who is turning providers into servants? You love talking about personal responsibility, maybe if your religion prevents you from performing your job, you should choose a different career. No one is forcing an obgyn to do an elective abortion, but if you can't do an abortion to save your patients life, then you should not be an obgyn. And as far as I know, sex changes are only performed by very few urologists due to the complexity. Not sure why universal healthcare would change that.

On 9/13/2019 at 5:47 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

What is your definition of "hurt"?  Feelings?  Potential future feelings?  This isn't some esoteric question - just look at the real world implications in abortion law.  We all know Roe v Wade (well, few of us actually know what the courts said there), but Doe v Dalton the courts said abortion could not be limited by the state if the abortion was sought for maternal health.  Common sense application here is hard to disagree with - if the mother's life is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy then I think almost all of us agree that abortion could be on the table.  But, just like your amorphous "doesn't hurt others" statement can (and has) been expanded to a ridiculous scope, so has Doe v Dalton's "maternal health" as other courts have established "maternal health" can be financial well-being or emotional health.  Suddenly common sense doesn't apply since now any kid can be aborted because kids are expensive to raise.

My definition of hurt is not feelings, it's when it adversely affects a group of people. What some one the right don't understand, is that banning or decreasing access to abortion does not decrease abortion rates (which have been decreasing since the 80s). Don't worry, the rich will always have access. All it does is increase back alley and unsafe abortions. The real way to decrease abortions is proper sex education and cheap and easily accessible contraception.

On 9/13/2019 at 5:47 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

Those who say healthcare is a "right" have not thought this through.  If it's a "right", is it a "human right" like the human right to be free from slavery?  If so, then why is it limited to just Americans?  Why don't the people of Somalia have that same "human right?"  Should we go to war to give them this "human right?"

And what is the definition of healthcare?  Clean water?  Sewers?  Insulin?  Level 1 trauma center within a 1 hour transportation radius?  Sex change operations?  Cosmetic skin care?  ICU care for everyone in their last 90 days of life??

I'm not hear to solve the worlds problems, the US has enough problems on its own. The vast majority of developed countries have universal healthcare, whether it's a single payer system or two tier system or insurance mandate. I'm not here to argue what should be covered and what should be elective.

On 9/13/2019 at 5:47 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

Regarding medi-share plans:  Can I help pay for my niece's CP therapy?  Between my brother-in-law (not her dad) and myself we pay for a lot of her therapy, kind of like a family medi-share plan.  Is that okay?  Can I donate to Saint Vincent de Paul society, who often helps pay for people's medical bills?  How about Shriners?   

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to join, or pay for, whatever I want to?

Who is stopping you from joining a medi share or paying for others medical bills?

On 9/13/2019 at 5:47 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

That's fine by me if the patient is paying for it.  But when the patient is asking someone else to pay for it, whether it is the government, an insurance company, a medishare plan, the Shriners, or another individual person...then the person/group with the checkbook gets some say in the matter.

If it's just between the patient and the provider, with no regard to who is paying for it, then the patient will want unlimited healthcare, and the provider will be happy to oblige (as soon as they put down the BMW catalog).

Correct.  Only YOU can decide what's right for you.  But then YOU should be responsible for providing for that.  If you want me to pay for it, then I get input on what is right for me to pay for.

But as a citizen who pays way too much in taxes, I will do whatever I can to encourage people to fight for their individual freedoms, and to take the personal responsibility that comes with those freedoms.  Taken to that extreme, that means yes you are absolutely free to have that sex change operation, but YOU are responsible for paying for it.

Do you have health insurance right now or a medi-share plan? If you have health insurance, did you have a say in what's covered or isn't covered? Why should you personally have a say if my insurance covers my cancer treatment or organ transplant? Maybe my medical team should determine the chance of success, QOL, etc.

Why do you keep bringing up sex changes like it's the most common medical procedure? Does Medicare or the VA pay for sex changes now? If not, why does a universal healthcare option have to pay for it?

When you talk about freedom, you don't see that universal healthcare would be increasing our freedoms. Our healthcare wouldn't be tied to our employer, we can choose our job without worrying about the kind of coverage a small business or non-profit provides. You can start your own business without worrying how you will pay for healthcare.

If all the money we spend on the WC insurance, for profit insurance, and medicaid was transferred to in the form of increased tax to provide universal healthcare, it's my opinion that most people would be better off. Not to mention the uninsured would stop using the ER as primary care visit. You can argue all you want about details and coverage, but I think most people would be better off in that scenario, especially the 40+ million people who don't have health insurance.

Not everyone is going to like it, not everyone is going to be happy, but will it be better for the US a whole? In my opinion, yes. Seems like it works pretty well for basically every other developed country. I never said any system is perfect, but I think it would be better than what we have now. But maybe in the US we care too much about our own situation or our specific group that we won't give up any "personal freedoms" to benefit our society as a whole.

[rev ronin]

10 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

[...]maybe if your religion prevents you from performing your job, you should choose a different career. [...]

My job is to promote my patients' health, NOT do what they ask. As such, there's nothing I won't do that's not against the Hippocratic Oath--you know, that funny thing that defines the practice of medicine for the past 2500 years?  Funny how the ancient and established principles of medicine don't violate any tenets of any major religion. And if I won't do it because it's not in the best interest of my patient's health, referring to someone ELSE to do it would make me complicit in harming my patient, so I won't do that, either.

For example, I won't do boxing or MMA physicals: I will not be party to a full-contact bloodsport; there's simply too much evidence of long-lasting harm from blows to the head.  I'm considering putting a "no football" disclaimer on every school sports physical for the same reason, but haven't started doing so yet.  It would be legal and within standard of care for me to do those sorts of physicals, but it violates the Hippocratic Oath, so I will not.  Autonomy and justice, as principles of medical ethics, are subordinate to beneficence and non-maleficence: the patient can seek something legal, within standard of care, but harmful (or simply risky and unhelpful), and I won't stand in their way, but nor will I assist them.

I won't prescribe controlled substances unless I'm satisfied that prescription is a net harm reduction, for example, no stimulants for weight-loss purposes.

So the idea that religion limits what religious providers would be willing to do is pretty much a red herring.

[Boatswain2PA]

12 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

You realize that slippery slope is a fallacy.

First, I want to say thank you for the way you replied in a respectful way.  We obviously disagree on much, but neither of us are stupid/evil/etc.

Why is the slippery slope scheme a fallacy?  Is not nationalism on top of a slippery slope that can lead to maltreatment of those who are not of that nation? I think history shows that it is.

12 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Who is turning providers into servants? You love talking about personal responsibility, maybe if your religion prevents you from performing your job, you should choose a different career. No one is forcing an obgyn to do an elective abortion

Who is turning providers into servants?  Well, a few thoughts on that point.  If healthcare is a "right", then that infers that people have a "right" to the fruits of our labor.  I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan, but he put forth that argument pretty well here:  

Correct, nobody is (yet) forcing OBGYNs to do abortion (or urologists to do sex-changes), but there ARE laws, courts, and government bureaucracies who are forcing pharmacists to dispense RU-486, forcing states to pay for sex change procedures on inmates (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-must-pay-for-transgender-inmates-sex-reassignment-surgery/), and forcing bakers to create a work of art that defies their religious beliefs.  Yes, that slippery slope exists.

 

13 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Not once did I say anything about healthcare being free.

My comment about the "free stuff" was not toward you, my apologies if that was not clear.  

 

13 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

maybe if your religion prevents you from performing your job, you should choose a different career.

As Rev stated, and I think I clearly stated as well, my religion doesn't prevent me from performing my job of providing the best medical care I can to each patient I enter a patient-provider relationship with.  But that's a separate thing from the politics of who pays for it.

 

13 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

My definition of hurt is not feelings, it's when it adversely affects a group of people.

This is still pretty amorphous.  Let's use developmental cancer drugs for an example.  These are unbelievably expensive (tens of thousands of dollars per dose), but some of them would likely help group of people with cancer.  Should we spend an extra couple of trillion of dollars so we don't adversely affect this group of people?  Well, if we do, we will have to greatly raise taxes, which adversely affects ANOTHER group of people.  Such is politics....

 

13 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

What some one the right don't understand, is that banning or decreasing access to abortion does not decrease abortion rates

That is what the left says, meanwhile the right says that it does.  Unfortunately I think all news/data about abortion is so heavily biased one way or another that NONE of it is reliable.  Will strict abortion laws lead to an increase in backalley abortions?  Yeah, I think that makes sense.  People will ALWAYS find ways to do what they want despite the laws on the books (drug laws, gun laws, murder, rape, robbery, etc ad nauseum).  But yet, it also makes sense that stricter abortion laws will lead to a decrease in abortions.  

 

13 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Don't worry, the rich will always have access

Yes, yes they will.  Because capitalism works.  Always has, always will.  Even if we implement a strict socialist healthcare system like Canada, those with the means to seek the best care will do so.  https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/acutecoronarysyndrome/18279



 

[Boatswain2PA]

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I'm not hear to solve the worlds problems,

I'm not asking you to do that, but this comes from your statement that you think healthcare is a "right".  What kind of right is that?  A God-given right like what our founding fathers described in our declaration of independence and eventually our Bill of Rights?  Is it a "human right" that everyone on the planet should have?  Or just an "American right"?  Is it a "right" given to us by a government?  Where does the "right" to healthcare come from?

And what does it mean to have a "right" to healthcare?  And for that matter, what is "healthcare?"  

Defining these things takes the discussion away from how your or I "feel" about the matter and turns it into objective descriptions that we can take action on.  If you say healthcare is a "human right", then it means that all 6.5 Billion humans on the face of the planet has a right to healthcare.  If it is "just" an "American right", then it's only 350 million of us who have that right.  But then that begs the question of where this "right" comes from?  

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Who is stopping you from joining a medi share or paying for others medical bills?

Well, fortunately for the God-given rights proscribed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution....nobody! 

This part of the thread, I believe, comes from a statement you made that you don't think medi-share plans should be allowed.  Perhaps I mis-interpreted what you said or meant.  

But if I am right and you don't think medi-share plans should be allowed, then can you elaborate as to why I shouldn't be allowed to join one?

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Do you have health insurance right now or a medi-share plan?

I am blessed to have Tricare for Life, along with access to the VA healthcare system.  Both systems are TERRIBLY flawed due to unbelievable amounts of bureaucracy (and utter incompetence), but our out-of-pocket medical expenses are a fraction of what many people pay.  Of course, I did write that check to Uncle Sam payable for "up to an including my life" every year for 20 years....

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

If you have health insurance, did you have a say in what's covered or isn't covered?

I do not, because it is government run.  Funny thing about government run things, you DON'T GET A CHOICE!
However I do have two private options (one through my primary hospital job, another through my wife's primary hospital job), so we are incredibly blessed to have a choice in healthcare insurance, and therefore what is/is not covered.  We also have the choice to pay for a myriad of private insurance or medi-share programs that probably offer various levels of coverage, therefore giving us some say in what is or isn't covered.   That's the glorious benefit of a capitalist market!

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Why should you personally have a say if my insurance covers my cancer treatment or organ transplant?

Well, if I'm paying for it, then I should have a say.  If YOU are paying for it, then I expect no say in the matter at all.

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Why do you keep bringing up sex changes like it's the most common medical procedure? Does Medicare or the VA pay for sex changes now? If not, why does a universal healthcare option have to pay for it?

Because it is an extreme situation (today) that can be used to highlight the strengths/flaws in an argument.  If an argument can indeed hold up to the extremes, then it should be considered to be a strong argument.  But if an argument falls apart with extremes, then it should be re-examined.

I don't know if Medicare or VA pays for sex changes.  I know that the state of Idaho has been ordered to pay for an inmates sex change operation (see above link).  It wouldn't surprise me if the VA paid for them now, but I have no first hand knowledge.

A "universal healthcare option" pays for EVERYTHING, hence the name "universal."  

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

When you talk about freedom, you don't see that universal healthcare would be increasing our freedoms. Our healthcare wouldn't be tied to our employer, we can choose our job without worrying about the kind of coverage a small business or non-profit provides. You can start your own business without worrying how you will pay for healthcare.

I understand this argument.  My Tricare for Life increased my ability to pursue independent contractor status because I didn't need employer provided healthcare, so I really DO understand this argument.  

But I think it is flawed.  FREEDOM is not reliance upon the government.  Because what the government gives, it can take away.  Or threaten to take away.

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

If all the money we spend on the WC insurance, for profit insurance, and medicaid was transferred to in the form of increased tax to provide universal healthcare, it's my opinion that most people would be better off. Not to mention the uninsured would stop using the ER as primary care visit. You can argue all you want about details and coverage, but I think most people would be better off in that scenario, especially the 40+ million people who don't have health insurance.

Yes, in a perfect world, with perfect governmental efficiency.  (Well, except for the uninsured stopping using the ER.  Several studies show that if you give insurance (medicaid) to the uninsured they use the ED even MORE!.  Plus the Oregon study that shows even worse outcomes!)

But the government is one of the LEAST efficient bureaucracies as there is no incentive for efficiencies.

 

14 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I never said any system is perfect, but I think it would be better than what we have now. But maybe in the US we care too much about our own situation or our specific group that we won't give up any "personal freedoms" to benefit our society as a whole.

You're right my friend, no system is perfect.  

The foundational  element of "American Exceptionalism" (a term that used to be taught in school, but now frowned upon by virtually everyone in academia) is EXACTLY THAT....that we have God-given "personal freedoms".  It is the sum of the decisions that we, as Americans made, with these God-given "personal freedoms" that has built America to be the greatest nation (although far from the unattainable "perfect"), who has done the most global good, than any other nation in the history of the planet.  It is the sum of these "personal freedoms" that give the GREATEST benefit to our society as a whole.  

Edited September 15, 2019 by Boatswain2PA

[Cideous]

Not having to worry about going bankrupt because of medical bills sure can open up the "personal freedom" argument against access to care for every American.  Those that face financial obliteration every time they get sick don't have that luxury.  It's life and death every time they must be seen.

[Boatswain2PA]

1 hour ago, Cideous said:

Not having to worry about going bankrupt because of medical bills sure can open up the "personal freedom" argument against access to care for every American.  Those that face financial obliteration every time they get sick don't have that luxury.  It's life and death every time they must be seen.

As I said previously here, I understand that argument because I live it.  But few points - do we financially obliterate the nation in order to cover healthcare for all so that nobody faces that personal financial obliteration?  And "bankruptcy" does not mean "financial obliteration."

[Cideous]

11 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

  And "bankruptcy" does not mean "financial obliteration."

In most states your house can be taken, or at the very least have a lien placed on it for hundreds of thousands of dollars, pay checks are garnished (see recent national articles just this week on the University of Virginia medical system in Virginia and the Carlsbad medical system in New Mexico literally obliterating people's financial lives through law suits.)  Again, something you will not have to worry about, of which I am very happy for you.  You did your time and IMO deserve what medical care and access you have as a Vet.  The general public does not enjoy this benefit and thus are left to suffer in just about everyway someone can suffer.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Cideous

[AbeTheBabe]

12 hours ago, rev ronin said:

My job is to promote my patients' health, NOT do what they ask. As such, there's nothing I won't do that's not against the Hippocratic Oath--you know, that funny thing that defines the practice of medicine for the past 2500 years?  Funny how the ancient and established principles of medicine don't violate any tenets of any major religion. And if I won't do it because it's not in the best interest of my patient's health, referring to someone ELSE to do it would make me complicit in harming my patient, so I won't do that, either.

For example, I won't do boxing or MMA physicals: I will not be party to a full-contact bloodsport; there's simply too much evidence of long-lasting harm from blows to the head.  I'm considering putting a "no football" disclaimer on every school sports physical for the same reason, but haven't started doing so yet.  It would be legal and within standard of care for me to do those sorts of physicals, but it violates the Hippocratic Oath, so I will not.  Autonomy and justice, as principles of medical ethics, are subordinate to beneficence and non-maleficence: the patient can seek something legal, within standard of care, but harmful (or simply risky and unhelpful), and I won't stand in their way, but nor will I assist them.

I won't prescribe controlled substances unless I'm satisfied that prescription is a net harm reduction, for example, no stimulants for weight-loss purposes.

So the idea that religion limits what religious providers would be willing to do is pretty much a red herring.

Rev, I'm not sure if you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said. When did I say you do what the patient asks? Boats talked about forcing a devout Catholic to perform an abortion. I said that if you can't perform and abortion to save your patients life, you should not be an obgyn.

Also, your attitude towards boxing/MMA physicals borders on medical paternalism in my opinion. They are not asking you to stand ringside, you're not assisting by doing a physical and making sure they are healthy. It would likely be a better outcome if you did the physical and discussed the risks of concussion with them.

I also am very cautious with my prescribing, I want the benefits to outweigh the risks. Since I started working 3.5 years ago with my orthopedic surgeon, I've worked with him to decrease post-op pain meds. It is about 25% of what it used to be, and most of the time patients don't need a refill.

[AbeTheBabe]

9 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

First, I want to say thank you for the way you replied in a respectful way.  We obviously disagree on much, but neither of us are stupid/evil/etc.

Why is the slippery slope scheme a fallacy?  Is not nationalism on top of a slippery slope that can lead to maltreatment of those who are not of that nation? I think history shows that it is.

Of course, that's what is great about America. We don't have to agree. It doesn't cost anything to stay civil to each other.

As for why it's a fallacy, I can't explain it better than Wikipedia:

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy^[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.^[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.

9 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Who is turning providers into servants?  Well, a few thoughts on that point.  If healthcare is a "right", then that infers that people have a "right" to the fruits of our labor.  I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan, but he put forth that argument pretty well here:  

Correct, nobody is (yet) forcing OBGYNs to do abortion (or urologists to do sex-changes), but there ARE laws, courts, and government bureaucracies who are forcing pharmacists to dispense RU-486, forcing states to pay for sex change procedures on inmates (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-must-pay-for-transgender-inmates-sex-reassignment-surgery/), and forcing bakers to create a work of art that defies their religious beliefs.  Yes, that slippery slope exists.

This is an awful, awful argument and Rand Paul should be ashamed of equating universal healthcare to slavery. Wow, just wow. Were you FORCED to become a PA or a doctor? No. Do you have ability to change your profession if you wanted to? Yes. Are you FORCED to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or work at the VA, which are examples of socialized healthcare? No. Are doctors in Canada and Europe FORCED to be there? No.

Again, slippery slope. Universal healthcare does not HAVE to include sex change operations. That specific example is from a prison, and they are using an argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment which only applied to people who are in jail/prison. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Does Medicare/Medicaid pay for sex changes? If not, why should universal healthcare?

[AbeTheBabe]

10 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

This is still pretty amorphous.  Let's use developmental cancer drugs for an example.  These are unbelievably expensive (tens of thousands of dollars per dose), but some of them would likely help group of people with cancer.  Should we spend an extra couple of trillion of dollars so we don't adversely affect this group of people?  Well, if we do, we will have to greatly raise taxes, which adversely affects ANOTHER group of people.  Such is politics....

That is what the left says, meanwhile the right says that it does.  Unfortunately I think all news/data about abortion is so heavily biased one way or another that NONE of it is reliable.  Will strict abortion laws lead to an increase in backalley abortions?  Yeah, I think that makes sense.  People will ALWAYS find ways to do what they want despite the laws on the books (drug laws, gun laws, murder, rape, robbery, etc ad nauseum).  But yet, it also makes sense that stricter abortion laws will lead to a decrease in abortions.  

Yes, yes they will.  Because capitalism works.  Always has, always will.  Even if we implement a strict socialist healthcare system like Canada, those with the means to seek the best care will do so.  https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/acutecoronarysyndrome/18279

So you would rather have an increase an increase in unsafe, backalley abortions to feel good about passing strict abortion laws rather than legalizing it, regulating it, and working to decrease abortion rates through proper sex education (read: abstinence only education does NOT work) and contraception?

I'm not sure why poor people not having access to care is a benefit of capitalism.

9 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

I'm not asking you to do that, but this comes from your statement that you think healthcare is a "right".  What kind of right is that?  A God-given right like what our founding fathers described in our declaration of independence and eventually our Bill of Rights?  Is it a "human right" that everyone on the planet should have?  Or just an "American right"?  Is it a "right" given to us by a government?  Where does the "right" to healthcare come from?

And what does it mean to have a "right" to healthcare?  And for that matter, what is "healthcare?"  

Defining these things takes the discussion away from how your or I "feel" about the matter and turns it into objective descriptions that we can take action on.  If you say healthcare is a "human right", then it means that all 6.5 Billion humans on the face of the planet has a right to healthcare.  If it is "just" an "American right", then it's only 350 million of us who have that right.  But then that begs the question of where this "right" comes from?  

Well, fortunately for the God-given rights proscribed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution....nobody! 

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bill of Rights only applies to Americans.

9 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

This part of the thread, I believe, comes from a statement you made that you don't think medi-share plans should be allowed.  Perhaps I mis-interpreted what you said or meant.  

But if I am right and you don't think medi-share plans should be allowed, then can you elaborate as to why I shouldn't be allowed to join one?

I am blessed to have Tricare for Life, along with access to the VA healthcare system.  Both systems are TERRIBLY flawed due to unbelievable amounts of bureaucracy (and utter incompetence), but our out-of-pocket medical expenses are a fraction of what many people pay.  Of course, I did write that check to Uncle Sam payable for "up to an including my life" every year for 20 years....

I do not, because it is government run.  Funny thing about government run things, you DON'T GET A CHOICE!
However I do have two private options (one through my primary hospital job, another through my wife's primary hospital job), so we are incredibly blessed to have a choice in healthcare insurance, and therefore what is/is not covered.  We also have the choice to pay for a myriad of private insurance or medi-share programs that probably offer various levels of coverage, therefore giving us some say in what is or isn't covered.   That's the glorious benefit of a capitalist market!

Well, if I'm paying for it, then I should have a say.  If YOU are paying for it, then I expect no say in the matter at all.

I never said you shouldn't be allowed to join a medi-share, I said that doesn't solve any problems. Rev said you don't need insurance, but he has a medi-share.

When you signed up for your tricare, or your hospital healthcare insurance, or your wifes, you're telling me you had a say in what was covered? You said hey man, I'm not going to sign up unless you put a max of two organ transplants for everyone else on this insurance and they agreed?

9 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

But I think it is flawed.  FREEDOM is not reliance upon the government.  Because what the government gives, it can take away.  Or threaten to take away.

Yes, in a perfect world, with perfect governmental efficiency.  (Well, except for the uninsured stopping using the ER.  Several studies show that if you give insurance (medicaid) to the uninsured they use the ED even MORE!.  Plus the Oregon study that shows even worse outcomes!)

But the government is one of the LEAST efficient bureaucracies as there is no incentive for efficiencies.

You're right my friend, no system is perfect.  

The foundational  element of "American Exceptionalism" (a term that used to be taught in school, but now frowned upon by virtually everyone in academia) is EXACTLY THAT....that we have God-given "personal freedoms".  It is the sum of the decisions that we, as Americans made, with these God-given "personal freedoms" that has built America to be the greatest nation (although far from the unattainable "perfect"), who has done the most global good, than any other nation in the history of the planet.  It is the sum of these "personal freedoms" that give the GREATEST benefit to our society as a whole.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Medicare has significantly less administrative costs than private insurers. Why can't it be scaled up? Also, if universal healthcare can be done in other countries and not financially oblierate them, why can't it be done in the US? We can spend 700 billion dollars a year on our military budget but can't afford to provide healthcare to those in need? I don't believe that.

[Cideous]

8 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Medicare has significantly less administrative costs than private insurers. Why can't it be scaled up? Also, if universal healthcare can be done in other countries and not financially oblierate them, why can't it be done in the US? We can spend 700 billion dollars a year on our military budget but can't afford to provide healthcare to those in need? I don't believe that.

^^^  Exactly right!

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

38 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Medicare has significantly less administrative costs than private insurers. Why can't it be scaled up? Also, if universal healthcare can be done in other countries and not financially oblierate them, why can't it be done in the US? We can spend 700 billion dollars a year on our military budget but can't afford to provide healthcare to those in need? I don't believe that.

Those with universal healthcare have a smaller population base, and without knowing for certain, a younger population base to contribute to the overall costs.  We're an older society here and those generations coming behind the boomers don't contribute enough to pay for us geezers, in addition to themselves.  With regard to your military spending statement, consider Canada, Switzerland, England, etc. and look at their military spending as a percentage of their GDP.  It's all about priorities.

The only way I see the U.S. in it's current state providing any form of universal healthcare for the working population would be in a catastrophic setting where expenses exceed a predetermined amount/percentage of income (avoiding a medical bankruptcy).  As far as preventive care and chronic management are concerned the private sector and the current welfare state programs would have to continue.

Another option, such as in my current work situation, would be for the employer to provide/contract for direct patient care through their own provider(s)/clinic or contract out with a defined healthcare network.  The original health insurance carrier, BCBS in Texas, was designed for catastrophic coverage and not what we see today when everyone seeks care for a cold 3-4 times/year where what we offer is no different than what they can obtain OTC.  Everyone demands to be better yesterday.

Edited September 15, 2019 by GetMeOuttaThisMess

[Boatswain2PA]

1 hour ago, Cideous said:

In most states your house can be taken, or at the very least have a lien placed on it for hundreds of thousands of dollars, pay checks are garnished

Most states offer at least some protection for your primary domicile.  Some states just offer some minor protection, but many states give robust protection. For example Iowa has unlimited domicile protection including up to 40 acres of land.https://www.legalconsumer.com/bankruptcy/laws/

Paychecks CAN be garnished after bankruptcy, but generally only if you are a high earner and the courts have decided you should continue to pay your debts. Usually, especially in bankruptcy due to medical bills, I expect the debt is simply erased.

 

1 hour ago, Cideous said:

The general public does not enjoy this benefit and thus are left to suffer in just about everyway someone can suffer.

I think that is an overly negative way of thinking about it.  The vast majority of the "general public" has reasonable-to-great healthcare insurance, either through their employer, a personal policy, or via a state sponsored program.

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

As for why it's a fallacy, I can't explain it better than Wikipedia:

I don't use the slippery slope argument as a "it WILL happen" like Wikipedia describes it, but as a possibility of things that can happen and needs to be protected against.  Using nationalism again as an example - nationalism can certainly be at the top of the slippery slope that can (and certainly HAS) result in maltreatment of others.  

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

This is an awful, awful argument and Rand Paul should be ashamed of equating universal healthcare to slavery.

I don't think he equated universal healthcare to slavery.  He was talking about how if we declare healthcare (whatever that means) to be a RIGHT, then it means that others have a RIGHT to our labor, which is slavery.  Has nothing to do with "universal healthcare" other than those who call for universal healthcare falsely declare healthcare (whatever that means) to be a "right".

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

So you would rather have an increase an increase in unsafe, backalley abortions to feel good about passing strict abortion laws rather than legalizing it, regulating it, and working to decrease abortion rates through proper sex education (read: abstinence only education does NOT work) and contraception?

I think a baby inside the womb is a human and should be protected by societies laws.  No, I do not want an increase in any abortions, I want them ALL to stop.  Just like I want ALL murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, etc to stop.  While this will never happen, we as a society should implement everything we can to reduce these inherent evils through laws, regulations, education, and social teachings (ie: hollywood should stop glamorizing abortion).  

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bill of Rights only applies to Americans.

Correct, and no-where in there does it say we have a "right" to healthcare (whatever that term means).  

So, I think you have said that Americans have a "right" to healthcare.  Where does that "right" come from?  And what do you mean by healthcare??  

I've asked this many times and you haven't answered.  Few people can, because I think it is impossible, which means the terms are based simply on emotion.

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

When you signed up for your tricare, or your hospital healthcare insurance, or your wifes, you're telling me you had a say in what was covered? You said hey man, I'm not going to sign up unless you put a max of two organ transplants for everyone else on this insurance and they agreed?

Not directly, but due to having multiple options available we have the ability to look at what the different plans cover, compare their costs, and choose the one best for our family.

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Medicare has significantly less administrative costs than private insurers. Why can't it be scaled up?

I'm not sure that's right, and due to our intense political environment I would be skeptical of any claim either way concerning the administrative costs of Medicare.  

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Also, if universal healthcare can be done in other countries and not financially oblierate them, why can't it be done in the US?

Never said it can't be done here.  But it will be just as flawed of a program as what we have now, just with different flaws.  Look at the Oregon health outcomes study when they expanded Medicaid there.

The fundamental problem with ANY healthcare system is there will ALWAYS be greater demand than supply.  ALWAYS, period, end of story.  So that means that healthcare MUST be rationed.  We can ration it in many different ways, but it will always be rationed.  Discussing or implementing different healthcare systems is all about changing the way it is rationed.

[Cideous]

9 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

 

I think that is an overly negative way of thinking about it.  The vast majority of the "general public" has reasonable-to-great healthcare insurance, either through their employer, a personal policy, or via a state sponsored program.

 

...reasonable to great healthcare insurance.....

 

...Vast majority.....lol wow.

 

I've seen people living in a bubble before but sir, your bubble is on fantasy island.  I suggest you read every poll created in the last year all of which state that healthcare is the number one concern of the American public going into this next election.  If the "majority of people" thought they had great and reasonable healthcare, this would not be the case.  Again, I am happy for people with good access to healthcare like Boomers, but their "I've got mine screw Gen-X, Millennials, and Gen-Z's" attitude has earned baby boomers the distinction of the most selfish and most hated generation in American history.

Their legacy will be one of pure unadulterated civil and societal narcissism. 

A distinction well earned and well deserved. 

[AbeTheBabe]

57 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

I don't think he equated universal healthcare to slavery.  He was talking about how if we declare healthcare (whatever that means) to be a RIGHT, then it means that others have a RIGHT to our labor, which is slavery.  Has nothing to do with "universal healthcare" other than those who call for universal healthcare falsely declare healthcare (whatever that means) to be a "right".

Correct, and no-where in there does it say we have a "right" to healthcare (whatever that term means).  

So, I think you have said that Americans have a "right" to healthcare.  Where does that "right" come from?  And what do you mean by healthcare??  

I've asked this many times and you haven't answered.  Few people can, because I think it is impossible, which means the terms are based simply on emotion.

No, just stop. A "right" does not make it slavery! When the government forces you to become a doctor and does not pay you for your work, then it is slavery. Under the Bill of Rights, we have a right to bear arms, correct? Never have I seen a gun manufacturer complain that they are slaves. Where did the right to bear arms come from? Did we not as a country decide what are our rights? I don't care if you want to call it a right or a benefit or safety net, but having medical insurance for all US citizens is a start. Don't get so hung up on the word "right".

Just because universal healthcare might be flawed, doesn't mean it won't be better than what we have now. We tried to do it the incremental way with the ACA. There was months, if not years of discussion. There was dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments made to appease Republican congressmen and senators. In the end what happened after the last election? A new healthcare bill was tried to RAM down our throats, they didn't give enough time to READ the bill before they have to vote on it. They didn't allow Democrats to even look at anything. There was literally changes made in pen. In the end, what happened? The bill thankfully failed, but Republicans gutted ACA rendering it nearly useless.

1 hour ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Not directly, but due to having multiple options available we have the ability to look at what the different plans cover, compare their costs, and choose the one best for our family.

Exactly. You didn't directly choose what's covered and what isn't. The same way you wouldn't directly choose what is and isn't covered under universal healthcare.

[AbeTheBabe]

1 hour ago, Boatswain2PA said:

I think a baby inside the womb is a human and should be protected by societies laws.  No, I do not want an increase in any abortions, I want them ALL to stop.  Just like I want ALL murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, etc to stop.  While this will never happen, we as a society should implement everything we can to reduce these inherent evils through laws, regulations, education, and social teachings (ie: hollywood should stop glamorizing abortion).  

Look, abortion has nothing to do with universal healthcare. It doesn't have to be covered. Having said that, here's an argument about whether abortion should or shouldn't be illegal.

1. If you believe your religious book is infallible and nothing you read will change your mind, read no further. There's no point in having a discussion about it.

2. I believe life begins at birth, anything before that is arbitrary. When does life begin? A 24 week old fetus who can only be kept alive thanks to modern medicine? An 8 week old fetus with a "heartbeat" that is really just a clump of cells contracting? A fertilized egg? An unfertilized egg or sperm? This is a philosophical/theological discussion and not practical. Many people think heartbeat is the answer, are patients on an ECMO or LVAD not alive? What's special about the heart?

3. Most people believe there should be exceptions to abortion, such as rape, incest, life of mother, etc. These are again, arbitrary. That means views are fluid. Who determines what arbitrary risk has to be to the mother for an abortion to be okay? After all, childbirth is a risk. Why should a fetus conceived by rape or incest be punished? How do you know if a rape really occurred? Many women don't report sexual abuse, and if they do court proceeding can take months, even years, not allowing time to get an abortion.

4. If you believe abortion is evil and God is all powerful, doesn't the high rate of miscarriage make God evil?

There are always exceptions to the rule. Murder is bad, sure. But what about murder for self defense? What about an accident? What about the soldiers in the army who have to kill? When it comes to abortion, a huge concern is timing and privacy. It does more harm than good to make abortion illegal or to restrict/deny access.

[rev ronin]

4 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Also, your attitude towards boxing/MMA physicals borders on medical paternalism in my opinion. They are not asking you to stand ringside, you're not assisting by doing a physical and making sure they are healthy. It would likely be a better outcome if you did the physical and discussed the risks of concussion with them.

I also am very cautious with my prescribing, I want the benefits to outweigh the risks. Since I started working 3.5 years ago with my orthopedic surgeon, I've worked with him to decrease post-op pain meds. It is about 25% of what it used to be, and most of the time patients don't need a refill.

I'm going to skip the arguments about abortion, because this gives us enough material to talk about, without getting into OTHER inflammatory rights issues.

Medical paternalism would be what happened to my Mom's best friend; she had an emergency C-section due to awful pre-eclampsia that prompted the physician to tie her tubes, taking positive action to destroy her fertility based on his judgment that another pregnancy would likely kill her.  Oh, an she is college educated and white, in case it matters.  The doctor took an action, performing a separate surgical procedure that wasn't an emergency at the time, for which "informed consent" was pretty sketchy at best--I honestly don't know if her husband was aware of what was going on, but I've had to consult on GYN surgery while my wife was asleep, this was long before I had any medical training at all, and I can tell you I had no idea what I was consenting to on her behalf.  At any rate, THAT is medical paternalism: doctor does something to patient based on his or her best judgment.

I won't harm my patients, nor through my inaction allow them to come to harm.  Sound Asimovian? It should; the "three laws of robotics" short stories are where I learned medical ethics before I knew I was learning medical ethics.  What, did you think I was going to say The Bible?

I do not restrict the patient from fighting. I do not write up a 'failed' physical on a pretext.  If presented with a form, I simply don't do it, and the patient can go to the urgent care up the street, which does. That balances the patient's right to do self-destructive things (autonomy), with my right not to be involved in their own self-destructive things (non-maleficence).

Ultimately, I am a professional. The profession of medicine is founded in (professing) the Hippocratic Oath; if one violates that oath, one is outside the profession of medicine.  Of course, there have been efforts to amend it or rewrite it wholesale, and most modern medical schools don't teach it, but beyond changing the deities to which one swears, and the long-past merger of surgery and medicine, the rest of it remains strikingly relevant 2500 years later.  To deny any medical provider the right to NOT contribute to the harm of a patient, regardless of how indirectly that harm might be, on the basis of elevating autonomy above other medical ethics considerations, is untenable.  Would you require that I provide a Z-pack for a URI just because the patient asks for it?

[Boatswain2PA]

2 hours ago, Cideous said:

...reasonable to great healthcare insurance.....

 

...Vast majority.....lol wow.

 

I've seen people living in a bubble before but sir, your bubble is on fantasy island.

65% of Americans under the age of 65 have private insurance.  25% have public insurance.  That's 90% of Americans under the age of 65 have insurance.  Source is CDC 2018 National Health Interview Survey:  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm

Oh, and from Gallup, 69% of people surveyed think they have "good" or "excellent" coverage.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

So 90% of Americans under 65 have insurance, and 70% of them think it's good or excellent.

Who is in a bubble?

I agree that virtually everyone is concerned with the future of our healthcare system, but if the vast majority are happy with what they currently have, what are they concerned about?  Could be concerned that the government is going to take away their current insurance and force everyone onto the government exchange....

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

No, just stop. A "right" does not make it slavery! When the government forces you to become a doctor and does not pay you for your work, then it is slavery. Under the Bill of Rights, we have a right to bear arms, correct? Never have I seen a gun manufacturer complain that they are slaves. Where did the right to bear arms come from? Did we not as a country decide what are our rights? I don't care if you want to call it a right or a benefit or safety net, but having medical insurance for all US citizens is a start. Don't get so hung up on the word "right".

I agree, a "right" doesn't make it slavery, but what people (like you a page or so back) say that healthcare is a "right", they aren't talking about an individual "right", but rather an entitlement.   Let me explain that a bit further.  If I say that I agree that we have a "right" to healthcare, what I mean is that each of us has the right to seek out and purchase whatever kind of healthcare we want.  I don't mean that anyone has a "right" to high quality healthcare paid for by someone else.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you meant when you said you think healthcare is a right.

Using your example of the 2nd amendment, you have the right to purchase whatever gun you want.  But can you imagine if I changed the definition of the "right to bear arms" to what you meant by "right to healthcare"?  The government could then come up with a mandate that each of us buy a personal defense weapon.  They could even take it a step further, like Obamacare, and fine us if we don't prove to the IRS each year that we have a firearm!  Oh, and not just any firearm, would have to be an approved firearm, with biometric safety locks etc that drive the cost of the firearms up.

So, to clearly answer your question - no, gun manufacturers are not held in slavery because the "right" to bear arms is the freedom to buy, or not buy, what you want.  That is a far cry from what people who declare "healthcare is a right" want with healthcare.

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Just because universal healthcare might be flawed, doesn't mean it won't be better than what we have now.

Correct.  Doesn't mean it will be any better either.

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

We tried to do it the incremental way with the ACA. There was months, if not years of discussion. There was dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments made to appease Republican congressmen and senators. In the end what happened after the last election? A new healthcare bill was tried to RAM down our throats, they didn't give enough time to READ the bill before they have to vote on it. They didn't allow Democrats to even look at anything. There was literally changes made in pen. In the end, what happened? The bill thankfully failed, but Republicans gutted ACA rendering it nearly useless.

Was this the bill that Nancy Pelosi famously said "we have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill" as she rammed it down our throats without a single Republican vote?  Yeah, that's the one....

Politicians suck, damn near all of them.

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Exactly. You didn't directly choose what's covered and what isn't. The same way you wouldn't directly choose what is and isn't covered under universal healthcare.

My point is that since we had a choice, we could "vote with our feet".  If enough people did that, then the pool dries up (like the Obamacare exchanges did).

But your last sentence here begs the question....who will choose what is/isn't covered under a universal healthcare plan?  A  panel of "experts", right? (who conservatives refer to as a "death panel").  There's your rationing....

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

1. If you believe your religious book is infallible and nothing you read will change your mind, read no further. There's no point in having a discussion about it.

I'm enjoying the discussion with you.  I doubt we will change each other's minds, but that's okay.  It is nice to be able to have a discussion with someone like you who doesn't throw personal insults (I haven't been called an evil/racist/bigot/mysogenist/planet hater...yet! lol)
 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

2. I believe life begins at birth, anything before that is arbitrary. When does life begin? A 24 week old fetus who can only be kept alive thanks to modern medicine? An 8 week old fetus with a "heartbeat" that is really just a clump of cells contracting? A fertilized egg? An unfertilized egg or sperm? This is a philosophical/theological discussion and not practical....

I think philosophical/theological discussions are not only practical, but absolutely necessary if we are to maintain a society.  When does life begin?  I don't know for sure, and neither do you.

But I think we can both agree that life is precious and should be protected, right?  So the crux of the abortion argument is exactly what you asked, "when does life begin?"

To me that is at conception when a wholly different (but still dependent) organism is formed with a unique set of DNA.   That 8 week old with a heartbeat is just a clump of contracting cells....with a unique set of DNA that makes them a human being.  A baby who should be loved, cared for, and protected.

 

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

3. Most people believe there should be exceptions to abortion, such as rape, incest, life of mother, etc. These are again, arbitrary. That means views are fluid. Who determines what arbitrary risk has to be to the mother for an abortion to be okay? After all, childbirth is a risk. Why should a fetus conceived by rape or incest be punished? How do you know if a rape really occurred? Many women don't report sexual abuse, and if they do court proceeding can take months, even years, not allowing time to get an abortion.

I don't think a baby should be punished (killed) because of the sins of his/her parents.  Rape is terrible, and I'm sure carrying a child who is the product of rape would be even more excruciating, but since the baby is a separate human being they should not be aborted.  This is a terrible situation, and fortunately rare, but to expound on my ideology - would you kill the baby after it was born because it was a product of rape?  Of course not.  Would you kill a 36 weeker still in uterus because it was a product of rape?  Most would say no.  What about 32 weeks?  28 weeks? 24 weeks?  20 weeks?   What's the difference between them other than age and development?  

With regard to abortion to protect the mother's life (side note - I appreciate that you wrote "mother" in that scenario, probably indicates that you understand that this is a mother and her baby) - our society has pretty clearly established criteria for when it is acceptable to kill someone, and one of them is for the protection of yourself or others.  If there is a clear and present danger to the mother's life, or danger of serious bodily injury, then taking a life in exchange for protecting a life is acceptable. 

Yes, childbirth is a risk, but so is driving a car.  Doesn't justify killing a baby.

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

4. If you believe abortion is evil and God is all powerful, doesn't the high rate of miscarriage make God evil?

No.  The human race has 100% mortality.  We all die, most of us from "natural causes" if you will.

 

2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

There are always exceptions to the rule. Murder is bad, sure. But what about murder for self defense? What about an accident? What about the soldiers in the army who have to kill?

There are no need for exceptions to these rules.  Murder is bad.  Self-defense (or defense of others) is acceptable reason to kill someone.  Accidents have nothing to do with this.  And there are mountains of reading that can be done regarding the ethics and morality of warfare.

 

[Cideous]

I guess we will find out in about a year just how happy the American public is with their healthcare when Nov 2020 rolls around.  I for one can't wait

Times they are a changing.  I think 2018 was just the start.  Once that steam roller starts it's going to crush all things red and not stop.  Which in all honestly will probably over correct for the R's, but considering what the Republicans tried to do to health care when they had the Presidency, House AND Senate?  Americans have had enough.  Hold on to your butt as the saying going.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Cideous