Healthcare And War

[picchick]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529004' date='May 14 2008, 11:03 PM']I disagree about "reformed". We need to keep beuracrats away from our health.

My point was that there are many people who say they can't afford it when they can. I'm talking about healthy people... people who have real issues with paying for insurance can go to the free public health clinics. It would be nice if there were more of those around. But the major problem is that anything free gets abused by people who don't need free.

The biggest problem about any healthcare reform the government comes up with will be a huge waste and people will not get quality healthcare.

If the government gets involved in healthcare, you will see a rise in abortions.[/quote]

I agree the government should stay out of healthcare because in my opinion they didn't go to school for health care and would put into place rules and regulations that would not help. The reform needs to be done internally with health care professionals leading the way...

Another thing you mentioned is free health clinics...here is the problem that deters people from those. 1) people who don't need them clog the system. 2) People must wait forever to be seen
3) There are not as many because they are government funded and truthfully, many healthcare professionals steer clear from that [quote name='fidei defensor' post='1529011' date='May 14 2008, 11:08 PM']Is it immoral to go to the hospital knowing fully well you can't pay and having no intention to pay in full in a timely fashion, and receive treatment?[/quote]
No. I would rather someone come to the hospital with a problem and not be able to pay now rather than later when it would become something worse and more expensive. For example, some one who has diabetes and they have a bad sore on their foot, I would rather than person come in with it as a sore rather than wait and then come in with half his foot black and rotting because he couldn't afford care. Believe me I saw that case...it was not pretty at all.

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1529045' date='May 14 2008, 11:28 PM']I think there would be a difference between someone who really needs help, has no other choice, and can't afford it vs. [b]someone looking for a free ride.[/b] The hospitals factor in these cases into their billing.

It is immorral for the person looking for the free ride when they can afford it.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

agreed. I think he was mentioning the fact that they cannot pay and know that they will be unable to do so in the future...I could be wrong though.

[CatherineM]

Iron-I listen to SpiritFM over the internet almost everyday. I've been listening to that station since 1994, and couldn't give it up when I moved up here two years ago. However, 7:45 your time is 5:45am my time. My blood doesn't actually move that early in the morning.

Sorry I missed your MOST comment. I have truthfully never met someone who could afford insurance, and didn't have it. In your work, I'm sure you have seen much more of it that I would have access to. I have met many people in my life who complain about having money trouble, and they have a new car, a cell phone, full cable, etc. I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things. When I was a practicing attorney, I had such an expensive wardrobe that the thought of it now humiliates and angers me. No one plans to become permanently disabled at 30.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if there are people who struggle to pay for health insurance, and there are many who can't afford it....

100 a month is simply too much. a lot can't afford it, or it's too much that they should even try... and it's too much in that there's profits going to nothing but profits..
it's common sense the gov could do it more cheaper. not just cause the rich are paying for it, but cause people are not wasting their money on pointless insurance.
see that link in the other thread i created for more proof.

not saying insurance for all etc. but just do it right.
if that's not possibe bc of beuroacracy, then that's a considreation. they might go overboard, that's a good point.

anyway... instead of getting hung up on this "most" stuff, and stuff that's really beside the main point...
which by the say.. they say a third are rich and don't need it, a third don't want it, and a third an't afford it.. of those who can't get it. that's a significant number.

my main point is that if abortion is not going to change,,, this is all a life issue. you cant trump it with gay marriage unles you disagree that the life issue is not bad here.
and you can't get around at least teh theoyr that if aboriton isn't going to change, that we can focus on other things.
you can disagree if you don't thikn it's going to change, but you can't say it's a sin to vote for a prochoice depsite them prochoice all hte time.

Edited May 16, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1530722' date='May 16 2008, 06:30 PM']my main point is that if abortion is not going to change,,, this is all a life issue. you cant trump it with gay marriage unles you disagree that the life issue is not bad here.
and you can't get around at least teh theoyr that if aboriton isn't going to change, that we can focus on other things.
you can disagree if you don't thikn it's going to change, but you can't say it's a sin to vote for a prochoice depsite them prochoice all hte time.[/quote]

Aborition will change...not tomorrow...not overnight...but over time. That is why we vote pro-life because hopefully someday it will change overtime.

Health care is a life issue that we must take into consideration. However, abortion is a greater evil and thus must be considered first.

This is one reason why i am having trouble voting for someone.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't even know what the point of most of htis thread was about. we're talking about the "many" who could afford it but don't? instead of those who can't which is the point... and missing my main point about how it related to the issues of life. and how abortion and how it might change is debatable, at least to me.

i mean, i can see how it mitigates the problem of health insurance as an issue... but it's still missing the point.

and iron says i shouldn't post things like this, and learn etc etc, all while he's missing the point. which is typical of him. he is really the one who has a lot to learn. mostly in how to debate people.
i wish he'd debate me one on one some time, not trying to blame me for why he doesn't, when really it's cause he's such a coward, who does not want someone who will point out how he misses the point and calls him on his shi*t.

Edited May 16, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i concede whether abortion will change is a debatable issue. 67 or so percent want it in the first trimester, and i could give a lot more stats and ideas for why it's not unwise to think it won't change significantly. that to vote for it is being charlie brown football kick betrayed naively.

but, it's certainly not a sin, if it's not going to change... and if it's debatable whether it will change... then i'd think it's at least debatable to vote for a prochoice person who can change oher things despit ethem being prochoice.

Edited May 16, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also... if there were more iraqis dying before the invasion, i would concede the point. i've not seen the data yet though.

somehow ironmonk thought it wiser to post links to catholic.com and scripturecatholic which have little to do with anything, and then a few tenuous and vague links between iraq and al quieda, then effectively go on a tangent about "many" in relation to who can afford healthcare and missed the point.

Edited May 17, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1530735' date='May 16 2008, 06:48 PM']i concede whether abortion will change is a debatable issue. 67 or so percent want it in the first trimester, and i could give a lot more stats and ideas for why it's not unwise to think it won't change significantly. that to vote for it is being charlie brown football kick betrayed naively.[/quote]
I agree that the issue will not change significantly. However, like I mentioned before, change happens gradually. Roe v Wade is not going to change overnight. But a pro-life (or in this case more pro-life) president will nominate judges who are of the like mindset of him. At least this is the hope and thought. We have a greater chance at having a judge like that for a pro-life candidate than a pro-choice candidate. I, at least, vote for the principles and workings behind. Not just because it would be a sin.

It is a sin to vote otherwise because it is a vote for someone who promotes the killing of innocent babies.

[quote]but, it's certainly not a sin, if it's not going to change... and if it's debatable whether it will change... then i'd think it's at least debatable to vote for a prochoice person who can change oher things despit ethem being prochoice.[/quote]

Gradually it will change.
If someone does not have respect for the basic dignity of life, the life in the womb at the eariliest beginning, how do you know that he will respect human at any other stage in the game? Is it because they can see the person? Hear the person? Talk to the person?

What must I do to show that a baby in the womb, whether it is first trimester, second trimester, third trimester, is just as deserving of life to the candidates? No, instead the pride themselves on voting for the babies death in most or all cases. That shows me that they have no resepct.

Meg

[picchick]

I forgot to add this:

Furthermore we cannot give up on such an important issue because we do not see a sudden change.

If I applied the Charlie Brown prinicple to anything else in my life, I probably wouldn't be where I am today.
"Oh everytime I study for this class, I still fail so what is the point of studying? I'll just clean my room."

"Everytime I practice this passage of music, I still screw it up. I'm not going to practice it anymore, I am just going to play this fun stuff."

This is more to me like a "give up" practice rather than a "let's try again" practice.

Sure the other candidates have other issues that they are supporting and it is all good. Yet everything good crumbles when you lose respect for life at the earliest stage.

Meg