Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[PLAYER57832]

Practically (or, more likely, politically) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives will likely also be taking money and garnering support from a place like Planned Parenthood or NOW; so the likelihood of a bill getting passed is small.

I'm not sure this is correct. As the Republican party passed a measure supporting a blanket ban on abortion, and the Catholoic church supporting anti-abortion measures even when an abortion saves a woman's life.

These are not indicative of someone who has a reasonable want to encourage women to carry full term with financial incentives. Blanket bans on abortion are unconstitutional and any laws calling for a blanket ban are not able to be enforced as a result - which was my point previously. Congress cannot make abortion illegal short of a constitutional amendment.

CURRENTLY, they are unconstitutional. That can change with a new Supreme Court.
Also, even when absolute bans have been outlawed, the fact is that pressure on Obstetricians, clinics is so great that in many places there doesn't need to be a law.. no one is around to do the procedure.

More on this:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/1/gpr090118.html
Title: Roe or No Roe, Right to Abortion Seen Eroding Under Newly Constituted Supreme Court

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/1/gpr090102.html
Title: Toward Making Abortion 'Rare': The Shifting Battleground over the Means to an End

[PLAYER57832]

Our state tax dollars are used to perpetuate MISinformation on abortions:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/4/gpr090406.html

Intro only of above article:

Misinformed Consent: The Medical Accuracy of State-Developed Abortion Counseling Materials
By Chinué Turner Richardson and Elizabeth Nash
Informed consent—the concept that individuals have a right to receive relevant, accurate and unbiased information prior to receiving medical care so they can make sound decisions regarding treatment—is a bedrock principle of medical ethics. Moreover, the obligation to provide such information is mandated by statute or case law in all 50 states. Under the banner of informed consent, a majority of states have enacted abortion counseling laws requiring physicians to provide specified information to women seeking abortions. Many of these laws require the state health department to develop detailed written materials that must be distributed to women prior to the procedure.

An analysis of these state-developed materials demonstrates that they do not always measure up to the gold standard of informed consent. Particularly with regard to certain hot-button issues, the information presented is either out-of-date, biased or both. In some cases, the state goes so far as to include information that is patently inaccurate or incomplete, lending credence to the charge that states' abortion counseling mandates are sometimes intended less to inform women about the abortion procedure than to discourage them from seeking abortions altogether.

Also, this:

July 27, 2012
In a decided and dangerous victory of politics over science, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 24 upheld a 2005 South Dakota law requiring physicians to advise women seeking abortions that they face an increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts if they obtain the procedure. Not only is this requirement unsupported by the evidence, it also continues and validates a deeply troubling trend under which states have enacted a range of misleading counseling requirements on the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion designed to dissuade women from obtaining an abortion. Although these measures are labeled "informed consent" laws, they in fact undermine the fundamental ethical principle of informed consent by requiring health care providers to provide misinformation to their patients.

full article: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthene ... index.html

[PLAYER57832]

[
That's an entirely different discussion, unfortunately. I suspect were Roe v. Wade decided today, it would have a much different result; not because of the makeup of the Court, but because the viability of a fetus outside the womb has become more likely sooner due to the advance of science. Then the Court will have to decide whether terminating a viable fetus is a compelling state interest such that it overpowers the right of a woman to privacy. For whatever it's worth (not much, given my striking out on the recent Affordable Care Act decision), I don't think the Court will (a) hear such a case and (b) decide such a case in favor of the state law.

To be honest when you start talking about the fringes of viability, then you also have to discuss the type of life those children have. Simply breathing is enough to make a child "viable" legally. It is not, however, all most parents want for their kids.

Too many people want to just bypass that whole discussion, becuase it is so very difficult. That unwillingness to honestly discuss this is a BIG problem. (and simply saying "no", with no real experience or information is not honest discussion.. its bombastedness.. not that you do that). People DO have the right to make decisions, but they don't have the right to tell others what to do when they are not willing to even bother understanding the full facts or issues.

This is one of the articles I found talking about ethics of premature births.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11389/

[Night Strike]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Well... there you go.

They WANT this to be an issue because they want to court a lot of conservative Christians who could care less if the Repubs support big business and the wealthy over average people, just as long as they promise to nearly eliminate or actually eliminate abortion and make life difficult for homosexuals.

Do you live in the same reality every one else lives in? Very, very few Republicans have even stood up for Akin and explained why he is still a much better candidate for Senate than McCaskill. They dumped him as fast as they could, so they of course didn't start this whole thing by defending him or even trying to make abortion an election issue this year.

[PLAYER57832]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Well... there you go.

They WANT this to be an issue because they want to court a lot of conservative Christians who could care less if the Repubs support big business and the wealthy over average people, just as long as they promise to nearly eliminate or actually eliminate abortion and make life difficult for homosexuals.

Do you live in the same reality every one else lives in? Very, very few Republicans have even stood up for Akin and explained why he is still a much better candidate for Senate than McCaskill. They dumped him as fast as they could, so they of course didn't start this whole thing by defending him or even trying to make abortion an election issue this year.

So you deny that the Republicans have used attacks on birth control measures, abortion and being against homosexuals as their platform?

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

Hatred and ignorance are never more harmful than when they comes from the pulpit.. and in the guise of "doing right".

[Night Strike]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Well... there you go.

They WANT this to be an issue because they want to court a lot of conservative Christians who could care less if the Repubs support big business and the wealthy over average people, just as long as they promise to nearly eliminate or actually eliminate abortion and make life difficult for homosexuals.

Do you live in the same reality every one else lives in? Very, very few Republicans have even stood up for Akin and explained why he is still a much better candidate for Senate than McCaskill. They dumped him as fast as they could, so they of course didn't start this whole thing by defending him or even trying to make abortion an election issue this year.

So you deny that the Republicans have used attacks on birth control measures, abortion and being against homosexuals as their platform?

You mean the attacks that the government doesn't have the authority to tell private businesses to buy specific products without compensation? Or that the government is violating the first amendment by telling religious organizations they have to take a positive action that goes against their religious beliefs? Or that the government is failing to protect innocent human lives by allowing abortions? Or that society wants to keep the definition of marriage as it currently is instead of expanding it based on arbitrary choices of a person's lifestyle? Yep, it's the Republicans doing the attacking.

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

And yet you demand that we allow the government to tell us what we have to do, where we can spend our money, etc. All conservatives are doing is trying to keep government out of our lives as much as possible while also protecting innocent lives.

Hatred and ignorance are never more harmful than when they comes from the pulpit.. and in the guise of "doing right".

Sounds like the massive harm you and the big-government people keep preaching and trying to force down our throats.

[tzor]

So you deny that the Republicans have used attacks on birth control measures, abortion and being against homosexuals as their platform?

Well let's take this one item at a time. I'm going to assume the federal party platform; I don't know most of the platforms of the other 49 states and I'm not even sure New York has been man enough to make a platform of its own.

Attacks on birth control measures: none that I am aware of. Paying for birth control, teaching birth control in public schools, yes, but not birth control in general.

Attacks on abortion: Yes, guilty as charged. Given the current Democratic POTUS actually voted for abortions that occured after birth (or rather a failed abortion attempt), placing moderate limits on abortion (a notion that a majority of Americans are comfortable with) is perfectly acceptable and defendable.

Being against homosexuals: I don't see that in the party platform. Opposing same sex marriage is not the same as opposing homosexuals.

[PLAYER57832]

And yes, I blame the Republicans for starting this whole thing for defending this jackass.

Well... there you go.

They WANT this to be an issue because they want to court a lot of conservative Christians who could care less if the Repubs support big business and the wealthy over average people, just as long as they promise to nearly eliminate or actually eliminate abortion and make life difficult for homosexuals.

Do you live in the same reality every one else lives in? Very, very few Republicans have even stood up for Akin and explained why he is still a much better candidate for Senate than McCaskill. They dumped him as fast as they could, so they of course didn't start this whole thing by defending him or even trying to make abortion an election issue this year.

So you deny that the Republicans have used attacks on birth control measures, abortion and being against homosexuals as their platform?

You mean the attacks that the government doesn't have the authority to tell private businesses to buy specific products without compensation? Or that the government is violating the first amendment by telling religious organizations they have to take a positive action that goes against their religious beliefs? Or that the government is failing to protect innocent human lives by allowing abortions? Or that society wants to keep the definition of marriage as it currently is instead of expanding it based on arbitrary choices of a person's lifestyle? Yep, it's the Republicans doing the attacking.

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

THAT is what freedom is really about, not your back-handed twisted idea that he who has the money gets to write all the rules.

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

And yet you demand that we allow the government to tell us what we have to do, where we can spend our money, etc. All conservatives are doing is trying to keep government out of our lives as much as possible while also protecting innocent lives.

In what world is my being able to make MY OWN DECISIONS about MY BODY, conjunction with my doctor and clergy telling YOU what to do?

You truly are twisted.

Hatred and ignorance are never more harmful than when they comes from the pulpit.. and in the guise of "doing right".

Sounds like the massive harm you and the big-government people keep preaching and trying to force down our throats.

Nope, sounds like your world in which only people with money get to say anything or have any rights.

That is not democracy. MY vision very much is.

[Night Strike]

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

THAT is what freedom is really about, not your back-handed twisted idea that he who has the money gets to write all the rules.

Let's assume you're right for a minute: why does it have to be provided to you for free? Medical care costs money, so why aren't you paying for that care? Why don't you pay for yourself; all the rest of us have to. It's not MY job to pay for YOUR healthcare, so quit infringing on MY rights.

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

And yet you demand that we allow the government to tell us what we have to do, where we can spend our money, etc. All conservatives are doing is trying to keep government out of our lives as much as possible while also protecting innocent lives.

In what world is my being able to make MY OWN DECISIONS about MY BODY, conjunction with my doctor and clergy telling YOU what to do?

You truly are twisted.

I have to pay higher premiums and costs simply so you can get something for free (without a co-pay). How does that drive down the costs of health insurance?

Hatred and ignorance are never more harmful than when they comes from the pulpit.. and in the guise of "doing right".

Sounds like the massive harm you and the big-government people keep preaching and trying to force down our throats.

Nope, sounds like your world in which only people with money get to say anything or have any rights.

That is not democracy. MY vision very much is.

No, your vision is very much "Let's elect politicians that will give me more 'free' stuff while taking from 'the rich' people." There's a big difference there.

[jj3044]

I've stayed out of this conversation until now, BUT:

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

THAT is what freedom is really about, not your back-handed twisted idea that he who has the money gets to write all the rules.

Let's assume you're right for a minute: why does it have to be provided to you for free? Medical care costs money, so why aren't you paying for that care? Why don't you pay for yourself; all the rest of us have to. It's not MY job to pay for YOUR healthcare, so quit infringing on MY rights.

So are you against being able to receive free preventive care every year (assuming you have insurance)? The consequences of this benefit is that due to the small cost of more preventive care, HUGE savings are achieved due to earlier detection & treatment of preventive diseases.

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

And yet you demand that we allow the government to tell us what we have to do, where we can spend our money, etc. All conservatives are doing is trying to keep government out of our lives as much as possible while also protecting innocent lives.

In what world is my being able to make MY OWN DECISIONS about MY BODY, conjunction with my doctor and clergy telling YOU what to do?

You truly are twisted.

I have to pay higher premiums and costs simply so you can get something for free (without a co-pay). How does that drive down the costs of health insurance?

See above. I'm not sure if you saw my posts in the Obamacare thread, but through my company's book of business, those with annual well visits cost 30% less than those without well visits. This is taking INTO account the cost of the well visit itself!

[Night Strike]

I've stayed out of this conversation until now, BUT:

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

THAT is what freedom is really about, not your back-handed twisted idea that he who has the money gets to write all the rules.

Let's assume you're right for a minute: why does it have to be provided to you for free? Medical care costs money, so why aren't you paying for that care? Why don't you pay for yourself; all the rest of us have to. It's not MY job to pay for YOUR healthcare, so quit infringing on MY rights.

So are you against being able to receive free preventive care every year (assuming you have insurance)? The consequences of this benefit is that due to the small cost of more preventive care, HUGE savings are achieved due to earlier detection & treatment of preventive diseases.

Extremists don't gain power because people tell everyone to "just be nice". They gain power because slowly and surely folks are convinced that its OK to tell other people what to do when you have a moral imperative... and that nothing else matters BUT that "moral imperative".

And yet you demand that we allow the government to tell us what we have to do, where we can spend our money, etc. All conservatives are doing is trying to keep government out of our lives as much as possible while also protecting innocent lives.

In what world is my being able to make MY OWN DECISIONS about MY BODY, conjunction with my doctor and clergy telling YOU what to do?

You truly are twisted.

I have to pay higher premiums and costs simply so you can get something for free (without a co-pay). How does that drive down the costs of health insurance?

See above. I'm not sure if you saw my posts in the Obamacare thread, but through my company's book of business, those with annual well visits cost 30% less than those without well visits. This is taking INTO account the cost of the well visit itself!

If an insurance provider feels that it is beneficial to provide free preventative care, then that's up to them to write-into their policies. It's not the government's job to mandate which types of care must be provided, especially if they have to provide it for free (which really means rates have to go up for everyone to compensate).

By the way, as Ron Paul likes to point out, health insurance used to cost a TON less when it was purchased for those true emergencies instead of using it on the cheap things like wellness checkups. However, under Obamacare, we're no longer allowed to have those types of catastrophic-only coverage, which is just another factor in forcing the prices to go up.

[tzor]

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

Actually, as of now you have no rights whatsoever. It is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that will decide what will happen to YOUR OWN BODY and what MEDICAL CARE you will receive. Welcome to Obama Lamma Medical Land.

Yes, in the ideal world, insurance would be purchased by people for themselves and not by either the government or the companies they may work for AT THE MOMENT. But that is not something that the Democratic Overlords would ever sanction because they want all insurance to belong to them; by default if not by law.

[pimpdave]

Click image to enlarge.

[PLAYER57832]

So you deny that the Republicans have used attacks on birth control measures, abortion and being against homosexuals as their platform?

Well let's take this one item at a time. I'm going to assume the federal party platform; I don't know most of the platforms of the other 49 states and I'm not even sure New York has been man enough to make a platform of its own.

Attacks on birth control measures: none that I am aware of. Paying for birth control, teaching birth control in public schools, yes, but not birth control in general.

See the above links, just for a start.

By the time it actually becomes an official platform point it will already be a "done deal".

Attacks on abortion: Yes, guilty as charged. Given the current Democratic POTUS actually voted for abortions that occured after birth (or rather a failed abortion attempt), placing moderate limits on abortion (a notion that a majority of Americans are comfortable with) is perfectly acceptable and defendable.

You are going to have to provide evidence, because all I have seen that even comes close to this is highly distorted and inaccurate information.

Being against homosexuals: I don't see that in the party platform. Opposing same sex marriage is not the same as opposing homosexuals.

LOL.. you are talking about the official platform, not the agenda. But being opposed to homosexual unions IS an attack on homosexuals themselves. A lot of people try to pretend otherwise, but denying someone the right to make medical decisions, for children to count on staying with a remaining parent should one die... all of that very much harms real, live homosexual individuals, and it is a direct result of the country's unwillingness to afford them the same protections afforded heterosexual unions.

[PLAYER57832]

MY right to decide what happens in MY OWN BODY and MY MEDICAL CARE superceded your right to dictate those things for me. Being an employer does not give you the right to decide people's personal life decisions.

Actually, as of now you have no rights whatsoever. It is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that will decide what will happen to YOUR OWN BODY and what MEDICAL CARE you will receive. Welcome to Obama Lamma Medical Land.

NOPE... its not the government that is denying people care right now, unless you count specific female services that ARE restricted because of the far right's powerful lobby.... i.e. REPUBLICANS primarily.

Healthcare is pretty much decided by for profit insurance companies. And despite your claims, while Obama has not presented a wonderful plan, Mitt Romney will take us back into the dark ages where my family faced over $5000 in "co-pays", WITH insurance, when our income was actually low enough that our kdis qualified for free Medicaid or CHIP, when insurance companies could simply toss anyone meeting their "lifetime limits" from their plans, could refuse outright to cover children and adults with "pre-existing conditions" (which in insurance vernacular now includes just about anything more than a hangnail).

Obama may not be the most wonderful president, but Romney would be absolutely terrible!

Yes, in the ideal world, insurance would be purchased by people for themselves and not by either the government or the companies they may work for AT THE MOMENT. But that is not something that the Democratic Overlords would ever sanction because they want all insurance to belong to them; by default if not by law.

WRONG... in an ideal world, there would be no insurance, (though I certainly think truly voluntary surgaries like breast implants should be paid for directly, not through tax dollars!) We would all be directly covered through our tax dollars as they are in most countries around the world with great success.

and don't even try to blame the Democrats. You are seriously distorting reality!

[tzor]

WRONG... in an ideal world, there would be no insurance, (though I certainly think truly voluntary surgaries like breast implants should be paid for directly, not through tax dollars!) We would all be directly covered through our tax dollars as they are in most countries around the world with great success.

Spoken like a true utopist. (I'll get to that later.)

Actually, that is not the case. I'll skip the "government" and "private" thing for a moment and concentrate on two unalienable facts of the universe.

The first fact is monopolies flat out fail in the long term. Competition, a fancy term for "hey let's use the law of averages" works on the average, where the monopoly only has to fail once and then there is no more. Government systems tend to lean towards monopolies and thus become ineffective over time.

Transparency is a second important factor. That's a fundamental element of the free market; you know what you expect from a certain transaction and you know what that transaction is going to cost. If these don't come into line with your expectations you are not going to buy. Let's take a example of the Chevy Volt. If you compare what you get with what the cost is (even though the goverment rabates you massively) it doesn't add up. (That new Forc hybrid, on the other hand might add up.) When "other people" (or the taxpayers in general) pay for our operations then "money is no object" (to us) and we all wind up buying those Chevy Volts and discover we are all paying the tab.

These two facts tend to limit and eventually destroy all "government" run health care systems. The system comes to a halt through monopoly inefficiencies and the lack oif transparency results in politicians short changing the system to met budget guidelines. Rationing is the norm in single government paying systems, and in some case panels determine who gets treatment and who should just die and open up a bed for someone more needy.

And before you object, just because A is bad it does not follow that B is good. A solution, on the other hand needs to strongly use the notions of transparency of cost and "competition." Yes, there is a need to help people who cannot afford it. You can think you can trust "goverment" but that is a monopoly. You can instead trust a newtork of charities, because if one starts to get bad, the better ones will get the charity donations instead. Moreover, charity gladens the heart of the giver, while taxes only makes one bitter. In some cases you have to think outside the box; in any case you need to trust the "free market" because, unfortunately, it appears to be the only system that has the potential to actually work.

The utopist's ideas are as old as Plato's Republic. The notion that you can create a super class of humans; philopopher kings who can impartially decide what is best for everyone is a total falsehood. You can't empower one person to solve all your problems; you only create a despot.

[Juan_Bottom]

The first fact is monopolies flat out fail in the long term.

On a large enough scale, everything fails in the end. This is not an argument to say that we should not try to better the time that we are given.

Transparency is a second important factor. That's a fundamental element of the free market; you know what you expect from a certain transaction and you know what that transaction is going to cost. If these don't come into line with your expectations you are not going to buy.

There's never been transparency in any free market. There's always been information suppression.

These two facts tend to limit and eventually destroy all "government" run health care systems.

No it doesn't. I don't even know of any government run health care systems that have failed.
I know of some, say, free native health care systems that have failed because the free market killed everyone in the tribe though. Does that count?

The system comes to a halt through monopoly inefficiencies and the lack oif transparency results in politicians short changing the system to met budget guidelines. Rationing is the norm in single government paying systems,

Monopolies control all health care around the world, and rationing was the norm in our system before Obamacare. I dunno how rationing will work in the future.

and in some case panels determine who gets treatment and who should just die and open up a bed for someone more needy

"Death panels" didn't exist here. What we had were single people deciding who would die. These people worked at insurance companies.
Do these panels really exist anywhere?

The utopist's ideas are as old as Plato's Republic.

The pessimist's are even older. I'd prefer to listen to the guy's trying to make shit better than listen to the guys telling us we can't do anything.

[Night Strike]

The first fact is monopolies flat out fail in the long term.

On a large enough scale, everything fails in the end. This is not an argument to say that we should not try to better the time that we are given.

Except when the government bails them out because they are "too big to fail".

The utopist's ideas are as old as Plato's Republic.

The pessimist's are even older. I'd prefer to listen to the guy's trying to make shit better than listen to the guys telling us we can't do anything.

The government can't "make shit better"; all they do is "make shit shittier".

[Juan_Bottom]

The government can't "make shit better"; all they do is "make shit shittier".

Tell that to the Barbary Pirates!

Except when the government bails them out because they are "too big to fail".

Increase the size of the scale.
The Sun swallows up the Earth.
Thus making me the victor!

[nietzsche]

This topic tittle has been bothering me for quite some time now. I haven't read any of its contents but, can the tittle be changed to Legitimate Abortion after Rape?

[Juan_Bottom]

Legitimate Rape was the term given though. It's supposed to bother you because it's a real quote.

“It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Paul Ryan: The term “forcible rape” was “stock language”

“Well, look. All of these bills were bills to stop taxpayer financing of abortion,” Ryan said. “Most Americans agree with us, including pro-choice Americans, that we shouldn’t use hardworking taxpayer dollars to finance abortion. Rape is rape, period. This is language that was stock language used for lots of different bills – bills I didn’t author – and that language was removed, to be very clear, and I agree with that, removing that language so we are very clear. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”

[PLAYER57832]

WRONG... in an ideal world, there would be no insurance, (though I certainly think truly voluntary surgaries like breast implants should be paid for directly, not through tax dollars!) We would all be directly covered through our tax dollars as they are in most countries around the world with great success.

Spoken like a true utopist. (I'll get to that later.)

Actually, that is not the case. I'll skip the "government" and "private" thing for a moment and concentrate on two unalienable facts of the universe.

The first fact is monopolies flat out fail in the long term. Competition, a fancy term for "hey let's use the law of averages" works on the average, where the monopoly only has to fail once and then there is no more. Government systems tend to lean towards monopolies and thus become ineffective over time.

A. everything fails in the long term. In the meantime, it creates a LOT of harm.

B. to speak of monopolies assumes there is a possibility of a free market or facsimile thereof. That is absolutely not the case for medical care. People cannot know enough to make their own decisions. We need to rely upon doctors who need to be trained to essentially set standards (constantly improving, some variation, but essentially the same). People cannot just hop to whatever medical center they wish, even if there is more than one available.

Transparency is a second important factor. That's a fundamental element of the free market; you know what you expect from a certain transaction and you know what that transaction is going to cost.

Transparency is fully gauranteed with the government. There is no freedom of information act for companies. In fact, one of the biggest reasons for cost increases is that insurance companies are protected from revealing costs, calculations as propietary information.

If these don't come into line with your expectations you are not going to buy.

People are not the real customers of healthcare. Insurance companies dictate the prices for care and people without insurance are left to pick up whatever the providers decide to charge. The real customer of insurers is the employer. In the past, employers were happy to get better insurance just like they were happy to pay better wages and mandates ensured that those not fully willing complied anyway. Now... we have not just the uninsured, but the "undersinsured". Expecting a person making under $30,000 to pay several thousand in "co-pays" and "deductables" is not providing real insurance, its a crock.

Let's take a example of the Chevy Volt. If you compare what you get with what the cost is (even though the goverment rabates you massively) it doesn't add up. (That new Forc hybrid, on the other hand might add up.)

That you wish to equate healthcare with buying a car shows how exactly out of touch with reality you are. Medical care is not a free market item.

When "other people" (or the taxpayers in general) pay for our operations then "money is no object" (to us) and we all wind up buying those Chevy Volts and discover we are all paying the tab.

The only part of what you have correct is that we are not actually the purchasers of healthcare. It is FOR PROFIT insurance companies who, in the past were not even required to actually cover everyone. Now, they are. THAT is why they are screaming bloody murder. They don't want to have to cover people with pre-existing conditions.. and remember, preexisting conditions means just about ANYTHING. Before, they could stop coverage if you had a gap of even a day in coverage.

These two facts tend to limit and eventually destroy all "government" run health care systems.

Just wrong. You are talking theories that sound good when you limit real factors.

In truth, other countries have BETTER healthcare systems for most people than ours. We only do better when it comes to the highest end research, but most people here cannot access that, in fact foreigners can have as good or better access than we do in some cases. Further, that mostly government funded research is being cut back and curtailed along with other budget cuts.

The system comes to a halt through monopoly inefficiencies and the lack oif transparency results in politicians short changing the system to met budget guidelines. Rationing is the norm in single government paying systems, and in some case panels determine who gets treatment and who should just die and open up a bed for someone more needy.

You talk of rationing as if its not happening right now... and in a very insidious an nasty way so that a few people can gain big in their stock portfolio, NOT so that care can be truly maximized for the benefit of the most.

Rationing happens when there are too many people needing limited services. You want to pretend that excluding working people without insurance.. not the real poor, they get Medicaid, but folks like my husband and myself, who had to go without healthcare because we lacked insurance AND who, if it were not for the healthcare reform act would be paying for coverage, but not be covered for much of anything due to pre-existing conditions.

And before you object, just because A is bad it does not follow that B is good. A solution, on the other hand needs to strongly use the notions of transparency of cost and "competition." Yes, there is a need to help people who cannot afford it. You can think you can trust "goverment" but that is a monopoly. You can instead trust a newtork of charities, because if one starts to get bad, the better ones will get the charity donations instead. Moreover, charity gladens the heart of the giver, while taxes only makes one bitter. In some cases you have to think outside the box; in any case you need to trust the "free market" because, unfortunately, it appears to be the only system that has the potential to actually work.

Here is the truly funny part in your theory. You know who gives more of their income to charity? Its not the rich! AND, there is a direct correlation between the wealthy interacting with "average" and poor people and thir willingness to donate to charities. Far too many wealthy people insulate themselves, believe exactly the types of scenarios you put forward and forget utterly that their theoretical ideas just don'e match what is really happening. The devil is in the details. When you leave your ivory tower books and start looking around, you see that a LOT of "details" turn your theories into idiocy.

The utopist's ideas are as old as Plato's Republic. The notion that you can create a super class of humans; philopopher kings who can impartially decide what is best for everyone is a total falsehood. You can't empower one person to solve all your problems; you only create a despot.

LOL

Except, a real study of history shows that the success of any society is NOT the health and well being of the wealthy, it is how the average and poor are cared for. The higher the disparity between the rich and poor, the sicker the society and the more quickly it is doomed to failure.

The failure is not a failure of 4 years of a Democrat, it is over 20 years of following Republican policies.

[tzor]

Dear Player, I had a good reply to your points, but unfortunately, CC auto logged me off and when I hit the preview button I effectively "lost" my post. I actually have a day job and can't afford the 45 minutes to recreate point by point (link by link) the arguments I was making. Sorry about that. YOU WIN on the INTERNET thanks to be Boobs at CC. Congratulations, I think.

[Symmetry]

This topic tittle has been bothering me for quite some time now. I haven't read any of its contents but, can the tittle be changed to Legitimate Abortion after Rape?

I'm generally unwilling to change the title of topic threads I started. The OP was about Akin and his arguments, which were specifically that women who suffered "legitimate" rape, don't get pregnant as their bodies somehow shut down the process of pregnancy.

He backpedalled, and several conservative posters have tried to make this more about the abortion side, but I'm not sure your suggestion would do anything more than help the backpedaling of what he actually said.

[Woodruff]