So, you approve of the hospital allowing patients to die rather than performing abortions?
Obamacare, explained.
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
So, you approve of the hospital allowing patients to die rather than performing abortions?
Of course. The myth of the uber-consumer, who is always rational, and has sufficient time and resources to always make the correct decision, even about issues that professionals train in for nearly a decade. I agree it's not worth arguing over religious concepts.
I don't believe in an uber-consumer myth. People don't have to be rational or make rational decisions to validate their right to make those decisions.
I agree. Real people die when when they get substandard care. That is completely unlike fictional gods being angry at a doctor for providing that medical care.
Then, who has the responsibility to make clear what is the rational choice in the doctor-patient relationship? You don't want the doctor to be required to adhere to the standards fo the medical profession. You don't think the patient should be expected know those standards. Who is left to make sure the patient knows what the best standards of care really are?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Tear up your libertarian card.
It's just an ought/is question. If I thought there was the slightest chance the U.S. would go the libertarian route I'd get behind it 100%, but libertarianism doesn't always mesh when you try to shove it into a non-libertarian system. It's sort of like trying to put diesel components on a gas car. Even if those diesel components are better than their gas engine counterparts they simply don't work when they're not part of a diesel engine.
How's that for a stupid analogy.
P.S. Pearl, this site is a lot less fun when our fellow posters get banned all the time.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
What is the libertarian route? Not being sarcastic, I'm just not familiar enough with the platform to know what they want to do with healthcare.
Nothing. It's super simple.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
So basically what we had before Obamacare?
No, again there's no point in saying how libertarian plans will fix one issue. I don't see libertarian ideals as something that can be added one piece at a time. Look at my analogy about the diesel engine. We can't get there from here. We would have to start over and rewrite the constitution. If you just threw health care to the wolves and called it a libertarian plan that would be dishonest.
As it happens,
https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
How many people in here are relieved that those Irish doctors weren't expected to jeopardize their consciences?
A true "Darwiniac" as Pearl would phrase it. . . . .is someone who is just content to let the stupids die off before reproducing, and who might even call that "progress".
I really don't get "progressives" who want to solve everybody's problems and feel it's their social responsibility to make sure evolution stops here. . . . . lol
Social forces, like a growing sense of altruism and interdependency, are evolutionary forces.
larryselbows
Banned
That's really a tragedy, I feel for the husband and his family.
One Brow, I realize that our discussion has deteriorated from a open discussion where we consider one another's points, to simply poking holes in one another's arguments, so I'm going to finalize my participation in this discussion by saying that I appreciate where you're coming from, I really do. In no way am I condoning a Catholic State in the United States, rather I am simply saying that people should have the right to follow their own religions - as stated in the first amendment - and I realize that we're probably not going to agree on this point. Luckily, in the United States that woman would have been able to get the treatment she needed from doctors that would have been comfortable doing the procedure, which is a comforting notion to me.
The original intent of this thread is to discuss various points and the specifics of the Affordable Care Act and I propose that we get back on track!
I've decided to fully condone a new system with "death panels". If you know you might be left for dead then you might start working for supplemental insurance coverage. This has potential to lower current dependency -- now go bake me some bread and clean my toilet you old geezers. Death Panels FTW!
(I feel a little dirty saying that. sorry grandma)
(I feel a little dirty saying that. sorry grandma)
I was just trying to have fun, OB. My old mantra that the more we seek to be consistent and rational, the more we lock ourselves into self-destructive positions. We need some loopholes to take care of us when logic fails.
Not that logic is bad, or that facts are bad, or anything all that mechanical. My thesis is that the universe is far more than we can comprehend, and virtually any of our ideals, like our theory of gravity, will generally fail. Gravity is known to fail as a thesis on very large distances that are still within our power of observation today. We will probably need whole new technologies and instruments to "divine" the principle that governs gravity in its ultimate "truth". Though I am myself fond of the little bit of doggerel that gravity is pretty well established and we are pretty certain to fall when we step off a cliff. . . . no matter if we imagine otherwise. . . .
We have a planetary problem with governance theories that are too new to have proven track records, and we are endangering our security, prosperity, and human rights by giving unlimited power to knowitalls who just simply don't know.
your virtually religious devotion to "social forces" you're in love with is a huge set of blinders, man. Maybe I have my own "blinders", but at least I'm conscious of the probabilities I am wrong. . . .
Last edited:
you're a bad boy, frankie. How dare you not join the mesmerized throng chanting the praises of Lord Obama.
Death Panels? You've got to be kidding. They are not "Death Panels" but enlightened progressives, responsible citizens of the new world order, fulfilling the needs of evolutionary trends towards true altruism, true caring for mankind and our mother earth, a whole new plateau of social utopian interdependency. Folks literally "called by God Himself". . . . well, by the current staff of our elite thinkers. . . . to divine which of us are truly worthwhile human beings deserving medical care.
Chairiman Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin. . . . if they still even existed anywhere in Hell. . . . would be pleased. That was precisely their principle in ridding the Earth of humans who were just not useful enough.
However, I am in no position to claim we can't do a little better, sometimes, when we do have folks with some expertise weighing in on our decisions, or even that there are not some better ideas, no matter how many worse ones, in a huge bag of loose notions like what Obamacare really is. We'll be working on improving this bag for years to come, for better or worse. Hyperbole aside, I don't think "market forces" are any more reliable as ideals than utopian fantasies. . . . oops. .. . that's incredible hyperbole in itself. . . .
all I want is the right to find my own experts and make the best decisions I can. . . . . it's my body and my life. . . . and nobody else's damned business.
Last edited:
I really get tired of being told by people that they don't expect me to agree with positions, when I have repeatedly stated my agreement with that position.
Also, I don't want to poke any holes. I'd be quite satisfied if, for example, you had said that you would be OK with a JW doctor refusing to order a blood transfusion for you, even when you needed it. That would be a sign that you had really considered some of the worst implications of the position you are proposing (that doctors should be allowed to let their religious beliefs override their professional ethics), and felt that a genuinely important principle was at play. Instead, you seem to want it both ways, allowing religious freedom for positions you find unoffensive or even desirable, but not for positions you find unintelligible or reprehensible. This is a perfectly human desire, but it makes for bad policy decisions.
Isn't the reason this tangent came up a part of the ACA?
Did you condone the old system and its "death panels"?