|
|
On October 23 2012 09:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me, like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house. Welcome to the world, where people have sex. Would you prefer: -Unwanted pregnancies -Abortions -Education and contraceptives Most people would choose #3. If you want that, PP is by far the most effective and widespread way to do that. The majority of its funding does not come from the government. It is not mandated in any way. I don't see how you equate the govt. giving it a portion of its budget is an over-extension of its power. the implicit assertion in the majority of these posts has been that I should, as a pro-life person, support an expansion of government into the business of providing contraception. my response to that and my response to PP are different. I just said that I am fine with PP getting federal funding, as long as that money doesn't go to abortions. I am not fine with, say, increasing the funding we do give them by 100fold. The more education and contraceptives are available, the less abortions will take place. I don't think you are as sickened by abortions as you stated several times earlier.
you're putting beliefs into my head though, because I never said that more education and contraception will always and automatically lead to less abortions. it can help, but it cannot solve the problem, in my opinion. I would not support putting a band-aid on an amputation, even if the band-aid can help some.
|
On October 23 2012 09:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:00 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. + Show Spoiler +
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
This solution is worse than abortion in my opinion. Sterilizing people is worse than murdering helpless children?
Oh for God's sake. Yes, irreversibly sterilizing people and upsetting human evolution in the name of a Victorian view of sexuality is worse than killing a cluster of undeveloped, largely undifferentiated cells. I'm against abortion once the fetus reaches a certain level of development, but I mean be reasonable. It isn't reasonably a helpless child until extremely late in a pregnancy. But the important point with respect to this thread is the following: why is this a legitimate issue to vote on? That life begins at conception. The election in the U.S.A. could legitimately be decided in an attempt to answer this question. Life is so worthy of protection that we irrationally extend the definition to include conception (when we also put criminals to death). Doesn't this strike you as insane? Shouldn't foreign policy and economic policy be the issues up for debate?
|
I don't believe that abortion is a freedom that the public should have. and as I said earlier, a debate about abortion is not really what I'm getting at here.
So people should be forced to accept your beliefs when it comes to decisions that very heavily affect their personal life and not yours?
|
On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house.
Except PP is not a massive federal program, and we don't need a massive federal program to educate citizens about sex, we just need to make our schools actually able to handle the task, the current sex education issue is pretty big, especially with your fellow pro-lifers arguing for abstinence only education, as well as not educating on basic sexual health issues. So reforming a current program we already use and most everyone agrees is needed anyways, isn't really expansion of government, its making government more effective.
|
On October 23 2012 09:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:00 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. + Show Spoiler +
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
This solution is worse than abortion in my opinion. Sterilizing people is worse than murdering helpless children?
they arent children
they dont fufill the scientific definition of life, they dont have a consciousness, they cannont survive without the mother for even a moment.
|
I always wonder if US-Americans discussing sex-related issues are actually serious. Feels like a timewarp back to ancient times.
|
On October 23 2012 09:05 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:00 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. + Show Spoiler +
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
This solution is worse than abortion in my opinion. Sterilizing people is worse than murdering helpless children? Oh for God's sake. Yes, irreversibly sterilizing people and upsetting human evolution in the name of a Victorian view of sexuality is worse than killing a cluster of undeveloped, largely undifferentiated cells. I'm against abortion once the fetus reaches a certain level of development, but I mean be reasonable. It isn't reasonably a helpless child until extremely late in a pregnancy. But the important point with respect to this thread is the following: why is this a legitimate issue to vote on? That life begins at conception. The election in the U.S.A. could legitimately be decided in an attempt to answer this question. Life is so worthy of protection that we irrationally extend the definition to include conception (when we also put criminals to death). Doesn't this strike you as insane? Shouldn't foreign policy and economic policy be the issues up for debate?
I agree, people who put social issues ahead of the economy, civil liberties or foreign policy probably shouldn't be voting. It's scary that the most powerful man in the world will be chosen based on whether or not he likes murdering unborn children.
|
On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already.
Well since you are picking a fight...
Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well?
|
As far as the expansion of government argument is concerned, PP existed for about 50 years before it received a dime from the feds. Giving them money was a bipartisan decision. I cannot fathom how people think sex education and distributing contraceptives is anything but a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
|
On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well?
Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well?
If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too.
On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death.
Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable.
|
On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable.
Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage.
|
On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:
Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable.
But my post was in favor of single-payer healthcare?
Even the Japanese said it was ridiculous and an insult for Obama to try apologizing.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 09:14 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable. Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage.
Great, as long as rich people can have high-quality care EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Still not an argument for "personal responsibility" unless you wanna tell me that Japanese people are lazy leeches.
|
On October 23 2012 09:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:14 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable. Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage. Great, as long as rich people can have high-quality care EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Still not an argument for "personal responsibility" unless you wanna tell me that Japanese people are lazy leeches.
The middle class consists of entirely rich people now?
I'm not going to insult any other cultures or single-out the Japanese, but there certainly is a lack of personal responsibility when you have cradle to grave socialism.
|
On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too.
Fantastic! Having an important goal and an open mind to solutions is a good thing.
|
On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death.
because funding E.R. rooms to deal with the uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense.
because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off.
because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air.
you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause.
this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance.
On October 23 2012 09:14 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable. Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage.
to only a few. it leaves many uninsured because even though they are working they cant afford it, or with terrible levels of cover that cap out at a certain price point.
the american attitude to healthcare reminds me a lot of their attitude to education.
as long as they have the 1 number 1 institution for the couple of thousand rich people who can afford it, so they can chant WE'RE NUMBER ONE, or USAUSAUSASUAUSAUSUAS they are happy. they dont care that most of their schools, like most of their insurance is crap. as long as the rich can get the cream of the crop.
|
On October 23 2012 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. Fantastic! Having an important goal and an open mind to solutions is a good thing.
What the hell is going on here I thought you were a Republican
EDIT: Also,
On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance.
<3
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 09:20 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:17 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:14 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable. Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage. Great, as long as rich people can have high-quality care EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Still not an argument for "personal responsibility" unless you wanna tell me that Japanese people are lazy leeches. The middle class consists of entirely rich people now? I'm not going to insult any other cultures or single-out the Japanese, but there certainly is a lack of personal responsibility when you have cradle to grave socialism.
The middle-class doesn't necessarily have access to higher quality healthcare than those from, say, Canada or France. We're ranked like, what, 26/31 out of the OECD countries in terms of quality of healthcare? We have some amazing surgeons in America, but hardly anyone can afford them.
The whole "personal responsibility" argument is so played out. I will agree with you that you may develop a culture of reliance if you have welfare but that is only if social mobility is low which drives people to becoming apathetic and jaded with life and causes them to give up. The ideal is to open the doors for social mobility and provide welfare, so that those who rely on government can find their way out, and in the end it would be a great financial investment.
|
On October 23 2012 09:20 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:17 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:14 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:12 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? If there's a different universal healthcare system that's as efficient, cheap and encompassing I'll go for that too. On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. Implying the Japanese, Germans and Finnish don't take personal responsibility while being an American who can't apologize for any mistakes we've made in the past. Laughable. Or you know, free-market healthcare that provides high quality coverage. Great, as long as rich people can have high-quality care EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Still not an argument for "personal responsibility" unless you wanna tell me that Japanese people are lazy leeches. The middle class consists of entirely rich people now? I'm not going to insult any other cultures or single-out the Japanese, but there certainly is a lack of personal responsibility when you have cradle to grave socialism.
Not necessarily, the issue is integrating personal responsibility with social opportunity. The problem with your view is that you don't appear to value social opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
