Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 749330 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11593
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #250 on: January 10, 2017, 03:43:39 PM »
We can create the Department of Health Defense.  The department will provide citizens a defense against domestic (hereditary) and foreign diseases.  Just like the DoD, the DoHD can go on the offensive and provide preventative measures for its citizens.  We can even keep insurance companies (like sol mentioned earlier) and call them defense contractors.  We all know Republicans love giving taxpayer dollars to defense contractors, so the department will be well-funded.

Lol that's funny : )

Would the DoHD be allowed to carry out drone immunization strikes against those who don't vaccinate?

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #251 on: January 10, 2017, 03:45:15 PM »
It was a compromise by a supermajorityof elected representatives, regardless of their party affiliation.  It's not all about party.
No it wasn't, a super majority is a 2/3 vote... It's final vote barely passed with a simple majority.

 

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #252 on: January 10, 2017, 03:46:34 PM »
Additionally, my state officials are much more likely to share my own culture, upbringing and values;  ...

Code for we don't like them liberal Coastal types :)

Not code at all.  I'll say it outright, I've lived on the left coast, and the only thing I liked about it was the weather.  The cost of living was too high, and the taxes were a good portion of that; and the people are ignorant and self-absorbed.  And often rich enough that they suffer no noticeable consequences of their ignorance or attitude.  I have never lived on the East Coast, but I have a brother who lived in NYC for a time, and all he ever had to say about it was "Central Park was nice, but the rest of the city stank".  I'm pretty sure he intended that statement literally.  I have also lived in Chicago, didn't care for that city either.  I loved South Haven in Michigan, and would still consider retiring to that area, as I do love the lakes; but I would stay the hell away from Chicago and Detroit.  Maybe visit Chicago if I had business there, but not Detroit.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #253 on: January 10, 2017, 03:51:34 PM »
Code for we don't like them liberal Coastal types :)
Not when you pretend to think you know how to run other peoples lives better than they do through force with federal gov.....

Not really a coastal thing.... I really like some parts.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 03:53:21 PM by Greenback Reproduction Specialist »

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #254 on: January 10, 2017, 03:52:50 PM »

I wasn't talking about congress, but since you brought it up.  Congress, by design, is intended to represent the general will of the people.  Unlike the President, there is no electoral college to skew the outcomes (although there is gerry-mandering), so the make up of the US  congress, and overall the make up of the many state legislatures, should largely reflect the actual make up of the people.  You said in another time & thread that you thought that liberalism was losing the ideological fight.  Looking at the current make up of state legislatures and congress, I'd say that liberalism has already lost.  It's the forth quarter of the game, your team is down by 20 points, and your senior bench is either exhausted or already quit and left for the showers.  The ACA was unpopular with middle class Americans before, during and after it's time in congress; and was passed by using a parliamentary trick (that the Republicans are now using against the Democrats, with all irony intended I think) that didn't require any bi-partisan support, because they knew that they didn't have it.  For one moment in time, the Republicans were listening to their constituents.  Hopefully they are doing it again.

This is something that I do agree with you. Liberalism is certainly on the defensive. There has been a rightward tilt not just in this country but in the whole world. People everywhere are become more insular with more hatred towards outsiders. 

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #255 on: January 10, 2017, 03:54:02 PM »
Code for we don't like them liberal Coastal types :)
Not when you pretend to think you know how to run other peoples lives better than they do through force with federal gov.....
And the republicans don't butt into how people should live their lives.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #256 on: January 10, 2017, 04:00:12 PM »

I wasn't talking about congress, but since you brought it up.  Congress, by design, is intended to represent the general will of the people.  Unlike the President, there is no electoral college to skew the outcomes (although there is gerry-mandering), so the make up of the US  congress, and overall the make up of the many state legislatures, should largely reflect the actual make up of the people.  You said in another time & thread that you thought that liberalism was losing the ideological fight.  Looking at the current make up of state legislatures and congress, I'd say that liberalism has already lost.  It's the forth quarter of the game, your team is down by 20 points, and your senior bench is either exhausted or already quit and left for the showers.  The ACA was unpopular with middle class Americans before, during and after it's time in congress; and was passed by using a parliamentary trick (that the Republicans are now using against the Democrats, with all irony intended I think) that didn't require any bi-partisan support, because they knew that they didn't have it.  For one moment in time, the Republicans were listening to their constituents.  Hopefully they are doing it again.

This is something that I do agree with you. Liberalism is certainly on the defensive. There has been a rightward tilt not just in this country but in the whole world. People everywhere are become more insular with more hatred towards outsiders.

People have become more nationalistic, but you have no evidence to support the idea that they have become likely to "hate" on anyone.  There are enough economic or nationalistic reasons to oppose refugee immigration in Europe, for example, that resorting to accusations of hatred of any sort are unjustified. 

And the very fact that you were willing to write this statement displays your own prejudices against the motives of those who don't think like you do. 

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #257 on: January 10, 2017, 04:02:28 PM »

People have become more nationalistic, but you have no evidence to support the idea that they have become likely to "hate" on anyone.  There are enough economic or nationalistic reasons to oppose refugee immigration in Europe, for example, that resorting to accusations of hatred of any sort are unjustified. 

And the very fact that you were willing to write this statement displays your own prejudices against the motives of those who don't think like you do.

And I imagined all of the Islamophobia coming from the Trump rallies.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #258 on: January 10, 2017, 04:04:02 PM »
This is something that I do agree with you. Liberalism is certainly on the defensive. There has been a rightward tilt not just in this country but in the whole world. People everywhere are become more insular with more hatred towards outsiders. 
I don't think it is towards all outsiders so much as it is the outsiders trying to change the way of life people are happy with.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #259 on: January 10, 2017, 04:05:11 PM »
Code for we don't like them liberal Coastal types :)
Not when you pretend to think you know how to run other peoples lives better than they do through force with federal gov.....
And the republicans don't butt into how people should live their lives.

Unless you're a woman of reproductive age, then they literally penetrate your nethers by force.  Mitch McConnell will give you a transvaginal ultrasound and there's nothing you can do about it.

Or gay.  Or Muslim.  Or an immigrant.  Or gender non conforming.  In any of these cases, the republicans REALLY want to butt into your business.  But hey, at least they won't fine you if you use healthcare and try to avoid paying for it.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #260 on: January 10, 2017, 04:05:21 PM »

People have become more nationalistic, but you have no evidence to support the idea that they have become likely to "hate" on anyone.  There are enough economic or nationalistic reasons to oppose refugee immigration in Europe, for example, that resorting to accusations of hatred of any sort are unjustified. 

And the very fact that you were willing to write this statement displays your own prejudices against the motives of those who don't think like you do.

And I imagined all of the Islamophobia coming from the Trump rallies.

Maybe not all of it, but definitely the majority of it.  Or perhaps more accurately, you didn't imagine it, but it was concocted by the media in opposition.  I have seen more than a few examples of racism portrayed on the media at a Trump rally turn out to be a Clinton supporter in character deliberately smearing the image of the people who turn out to the rally by seeking out the news media and portraying the most extreme stereotype that they could get away with.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #261 on: January 10, 2017, 04:11:06 PM »
And the republicans don't butt into how people should live their lives.
I would hope not, can you give an example?

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #262 on: January 10, 2017, 04:14:03 PM »
Or gay.  Or Muslim.  Or an immigrant.  Or gender non conforming.  In any of these cases, the republicans REALLY want to butt into your business.  But hey, at least they won't fine you if you use healthcare and try to avoid paying for it.

I'm sorry but can you point to a piece of legislation that specifically targets or denigrates any of those groups?

As far as I know, every person has the right, when they are born to the same freedoms in this country(assuming they are a US citizen).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #263 on: January 10, 2017, 04:21:11 PM »
Or gay.  Or Muslim.  Or an immigrant.  Or gender non conforming.  In any of these cases, the republicans REALLY want to butt into your business.  But hey, at least they won't fine you if you use healthcare and try to avoid paying for it.

I'm sorry but can you point to a piece of legislation that specifically targets or denigrates any of those groups?

As far as I know, every person has the right, when they are born to the same freedoms in this country(assuming they are a US citizen).

Are you going to be one of those people that tells me segregated black and white drinking fountains aren't discriminatory because the "no coloreds" law applied to everyone equally?

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #264 on: January 10, 2017, 04:26:26 PM »
Or gay.  Or Muslim.  Or an immigrant.  Or gender non conforming.  In any of these cases, the republicans REALLY want to butt into your business.  But hey, at least they won't fine you if you use healthcare and try to avoid paying for it.

I'm sorry but can you point to a piece of legislation that specifically targets or denigrates any of those groups?

As far as I know, every person has the right, when they are born to the same freedoms in this country(assuming they are a US citizen).

Are you going to be one of those people that tells me segregated black and white drinking fountains aren't discriminatory because the "no coloreds" law applied to everyone equally?
Good example of what was an actual plight of a group and discrimination. Are there any current laws along those lines aimed at any of the minority groups you mentioned?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #265 on: January 10, 2017, 04:37:48 PM »
Good example of what was an actual plight of a group and discrimination. Are there any current laws along those lines aimed at any of the minority groups you mentioned?

Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #266 on: January 10, 2017, 04:52:56 PM »
Or gay.  Or Muslim.  Or an immigrant.  Or gender non conforming.  In any of these cases, the republicans REALLY want to butt into your business.  But hey, at least they won't fine you if you use healthcare and try to avoid paying for it.

I'm sorry but can you point to a piece of legislation that specifically targets or denigrates any of those groups?

As far as I know, every person has the right, when they are born to the same freedoms in this country(assuming they are a US citizen).

Are you going to be one of those people that tells me segregated black and white drinking fountains aren't discriminatory because the "no coloreds" law applied to everyone equally?
Good example of what was an actual plight of a group and discrimination. Are there any current laws along those lines aimed at any of the minority groups you mentioned?

North Carolina famously passed HB2 last year which restricts people to using the bathroom corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate in government buildings. The effect of this bill is that non-gender-conforming people can't go to the DMV, they can't go to a courthouse, and they can't go to public school. Texas is in the process of passing a similar bill right now. A large number of states have passed discriminatory voter ID laws in the past few years that specifically target black and latino populations. Several states have the transvaginal unltrasound (a completely unnecessary painful procedure where the doctor rams a prod the size of a cucumber up the woman's vagainal canal) requirement that sol mentioned before women can pay out of pocket for their own damn abortion. In the past week or two Obama dismantled a Bush II era program for tracking Muslims. Indiana, home of our Vice President elect, has a "religious freedom" law that allows public businesses to not serve LGBTQ folks based solely on their gender or sexual identity.

Open your eyes and look around at what these communities are saying is happening to them and you'll see these and many other examples of rights being stripped from people who aren't white, male, cisgendered and heterosexual.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #267 on: January 10, 2017, 04:55:19 PM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #268 on: January 10, 2017, 05:00:55 PM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

You're wrong. The intent of the bill is to force doctors to shame and intimidate women out of having a legal medical procedure. Full stop.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #269 on: January 10, 2017, 05:06:56 PM »
if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

What you or I would advise for that person isn't necessarily the same as what you or I want our government to enforce by law.  I would advise you to quit smoking and exercise more, but I don't want congress to make a law about it.

Same deal on bathroom bills, Muslim registries, immigration parole, and all of the others already mentioned here.  What I think about it isn't the same as what I want congress to pass laws about.  Nobody's opinion on these issues needs to be enforced by new federal regulation.

Damn republicans always getting up in peoples business.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 06:56:00 PM by sol »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #270 on: January 10, 2017, 05:10:03 PM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.
There is no evidence that assaulting a woman with a transvaginal ultrasound wand decreases abortion.  Would you like something forced in your anus against your wishes so that you can have a necessary, legal medical procedure? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #271 on: January 10, 2017, 06:03:28 PM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #272 on: January 10, 2017, 06:49:41 PM »
Access to health care is a basic human right.
I don't think all the people in power in this country believe this statement.

I don't believe this statement.  One of the fundamental ideas of a "basic human right" is that they are ancient, as in recognized as true (by some group, not everyone) for as long as humanity can record.  Another fundamental idea of a "basic human right" is that other people don't have to do anything, but instead are morally bound not to prevent the human in question from doing something for themselves.  For example, I have a basic human right to life, and no one has a right to take my life away from me; where a "right" to healthcare would require someone else provide that service to me.

So no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

Completely agree. It is not a RIGHT.

I do feel that there is SOMETHING there, but I can not describe it. Maybe moral obligation, but that does not sound right either. All I know is that if I see someone in distress, it just feels right to try to help. I feel better when I do, and sometimes feel like shit when I don't.


So help.  I can show you a dozen different ways that you can, personally, help others in need.  Some with an accompanying tax deduction, and some completely anonymously.  And I agree with the moral obligation to help, as that is literally written into the Christian teachings.  But I don't agree that a non-Christian is bound by that moral obligation, I don't believe that a taxpayer funded program satisfies that obligation, and I don't believe that there is only one way to do anything in a nation of over 300 million people.

Quote

It feels to me that the ability to sustain and maintain a basic level of health services for all people in the US should be possible,


Oh, it's certainly possible, depending upon the concept of "basic level of health services".  But it's not the place of the federal government to do this kind of thing, either for the states or instead of them.  And if it were, it would never work.  One size fits all programs don't ever fit all.  I'm a fine example of that.

But I AM a non-christian.
And what do you mean it would never work. We are the LAST advanced nation to fail at this.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #273 on: January 10, 2017, 07:49:05 PM »
It was a compromise by a supermajorityof elected representatives, regardless of their party affiliation.  It's not all about party.
No it wasn't, a super majority is a 2/3 vote... It's final vote barely passed with a simple majority.

You are mistaken, twice.

The ACA was passed by a vote of 60 to 39.  The 60 vote threshhold is the filibuster-proof supermajority the Senate rules require, and is definitely NOT "barely a simple majority."  It's 3/5, which is what the Senate defines as a supermajority.  It was then passed by the House with 257 out of 435 reps.  Which is technically just shy of a supermajority, at 59.1% but is still definitely NOT "barely a simple majority".

I guess you're free to define the word "supermajority" to mean something different, but unless the Senate agrees with you your opinion will still be wrong.

I should also point out, for the people who like to claim that the ACA was passed without any Republican support, that the 60th vote came from a Republican (Arlen Specter, R-PA) who switched his party affiliation just for this reason.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1760
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #274 on: January 10, 2017, 07:58:24 PM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)
Since I am using the ACA I think it really sucks the way they are leaving everyone up in the air.  I don't know if I will even be able to get any insurance at all (pre-existing conditions) once this all settles out.  They should have had their new plan thought out and ready to go.  Millions are being hung out to worry by these a-holes.

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #275 on: January 10, 2017, 08:11:25 PM »
All these current republicans who complain about the individual mandate should know that it was first proposed by The Heritage Foundation which is a conservative think tank. Furthermore, it had lots of support from prominent republicans including Bob Dole, Lincoln Chafee. Heck, even Orrin Hatch supported it.

I don't get the Dems. They move towards accepting some conservative ideas and suddenly the goalposts are moved. What's the point? Obama does share some of the blame as well.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #276 on: January 10, 2017, 08:14:09 PM »


But I AM a non-christian.


So you shouldn't be compelled to support Christians either.

Quote
And what do you mean it would never work. We are the LAST advanced nation to fail at this.

We are not like other nations, either.  We are a nation of states, literally a nation of nations.  Notice that while European nations all have some form of mixed or single payer system, each one has it's own version.  Many are alike, but they still have differences, and they are administrated by the state or local governments; not the EU.  We have a variety of regional cultures in the US, a national plan will never make enough people in enough states to survive.  And this is the outcome.  The same will be true with anything the Republicans replace it with, if it's not something that is state optional or can be opt-ed out as an individual.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #277 on: January 10, 2017, 08:15:45 PM »
Obama does share some of the blame as well.

I think Obama may be the one Democrat who bears the least responsibility.  He didn't write the law.  He didn't sponsor the legislation, he didn't even campaign on it.  He had almost nothing to do with the creation of the law that now informally bears his name, other than that he didn't veto it once Congress had passed it.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4266
  • Age: 10
  • Location: us-west-2
  • Bot - Do Not Reply
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #278 on: January 10, 2017, 08:31:35 PM »
We are not like other nations, either.  We are a nation of states, literally a nation of nations.  Notice that while European nations all have some form of mixed or single payer system, each one has it's own version.  Many are alike, but they still have differences, and they are administrated by the state or local governments; not the EU.  We have a variety of regional cultures in the US, a national plan will never make enough people in enough states to survive.  And this is the outcome.  The same will be true with anything the Republicans replace it with, if it's not something that is state optional or can be opt-ed out as an individual.
The EU is a supranational construct. The United States is one nation. Comparing the two is silly.

The US has some regional differences, but by and large quite uniform. People speak the same language, watch the same TV shows, learn roughly the same things in school, buy things from the same national corporations, and consume health services the same way (extremely poorly). Your average Floridian is immensely closer to your average South Dakotan or Alaskan than a Frenchman to a Spaniard or a Greek.

State differences are vastly overrated.

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #279 on: January 10, 2017, 08:36:02 PM »
Obama does share some of the blame as well.

I think Obama may be the one Democrat who bears the least responsibility.  He didn't write the law.  He didn't sponsor the legislation, he didn't even campaign on it.  He had almost nothing to do with the creation of the law that now informally bears his name, other than that he didn't veto it once Congress had passed it.

Sol -- I don't think that is true. There were lots of back and forth between Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi.

badassprof

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2017, 09:18:03 PM »

Elections have consequences.  America gets what it votes for (in congress, not so much in the president).

+1. Agree. People get the government they deserve.

Unless, of course, we're talking about the jerry-rigged congress. Not much that can be done to change the makeup of congress  in at least the next 10 years. See David Daley's _Rat F**ked_ for more on that subject.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7006
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #281 on: January 10, 2017, 09:29:43 PM »
Obama does share some of the blame as well.

I think Obama may be the one Democrat who bears the least responsibility.  He didn't write the law.  He didn't sponsor the legislation, he didn't even campaign on it.  He had almost nothing to do with the creation of the law that now informally bears his name, other than that he didn't veto it once Congress had passed it.

Sol -- I don't think that is true. There were lots of back and forth between Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi.

Are either of those people named Barack Obama? 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #282 on: January 10, 2017, 09:48:44 PM »
All these current republicans who complain about the individual mandate should know that it was first proposed by The Heritage Foundation which is a conservative think tank. Furthermore, it had lots of support from prominent republicans including Bob Dole, Lincoln Chafee. Heck, even Orrin Hatch supported it.

I don't get the Dems. They move towards accepting some conservative ideas and suddenly the goalposts are moved. What's the point? Obama does share some of the blame as well.

What does it matter, at this point, anyway? The individual mandate is a terrible idea, and only tacked on because it is the only way to make this untenable system sorta hold together for longer than a moment. Just because conservatives are able to ensure terrible ideas are executed in the best way possible doesn't mean that their terrible ideas should be supported.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #283 on: January 10, 2017, 10:54:09 PM »
We are not like other nations, either.  We are a nation of states, literally a nation of nations.  Notice that while European nations all have some form of mixed or single payer system, each one has it's own version.  Many are alike, but they still have differences, and they are administrated by the state or local governments; not the EU.  We have a variety of regional cultures in the US, a national plan will never make enough people in enough states to survive.  And this is the outcome.  The same will be true with anything the Republicans replace it with, if it's not something that is state optional or can be opt-ed out as an individual.
The EU is a supranational construct. The United States is one nation. Comparing the two is silly.
The men who showed up at the first continental congress regarded themselves as representatives of free and independent states, and created the first "supranational construct" in the world, at least the first that didn't come to be by imperial conquest.  You can think of the US as a single nation, but that doesn't make it true.  I've been a member of a manufacturing union for decades, and they like to pretend that we all think and act with a like mind, in solidarity; pretending it is so is still a useful idea sometimes, but that is still not true either.  We still have distinct borders, and up until much more recently than one might imagine, border disputes.  We have, if not unique, independent bodies of law between states; and even distinctions about the colonial foundations of some of that state law.  We are what the EU could be in several generations, if it somehow manages to not break apart first.  We are, in effect, what the EU government, currently seated in Brussels, aspires to be.  It's a pity, really, that they are too European to succeed.

Quote
The US has some regional differences, but by and large quite uniform. People speak the same language, watch the same TV shows, learn roughly the same things in school, buy things from the same national corporations, and consume health services the same way (extremely poorly). Your average Floridian is immensely closer to your average South Dakotan or Alaskan than a Frenchman to a Spaniard or a Greek.

State differences are vastly overrated.

Overrated perhaps, but still there.  And yes, the vast majority of us do speak English and share a common cultural background; and perhaps more importantly, a common legal background.  This is one reason the EU is doomed to failure, no common language and no common legal or cultural background.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #284 on: January 10, 2017, 10:57:02 PM »
All these current republicans who complain about the individual mandate should know that it was first proposed by The Heritage Foundation which is a conservative think tank. Furthermore, it had lots of support from prominent republicans including Bob Dole, Lincoln Chafee. Heck, even Orrin Hatch supported it.

There is not a single name in there that I could consider a conservative.  And I think that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that The Heritage Foundation is  actually conservative.  In any case, I wouldn't have liked the idea any better from a Republican, particularly from Romney.  So the source doesn't matter too much to me.

Iplawyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #285 on: January 11, 2017, 04:59:30 AM »
We are not like other nations, either.  We are a nation of states, literally a nation of nations.  Notice that while European nations all have some form of mixed or single payer system, each one has it's own version.  Many are alike, but they still have differences, and they are administrated by the state or local governments; not the EU.  We have a variety of regional cultures in the US, a national plan will never make enough people in enough states to survive.  And this is the outcome.  The same will be true with anything the Republicans replace it with, if it's not something that is state optional or can be opt-ed out as an individual.
The EU is a supranational construct. The United States is one nation. Comparing the two is silly.
The men who showed up at the first continental congress regarded themselves as representatives of free and independent states, and created the first "supranational construct" in the world, at least the first that didn't come to be by imperial conquest.  You can think of the US as a single nation, but that doesn't make it true.  I've been a member of a manufacturing union for decades, and they like to pretend that we all think and act with a like mind, in solidarity; pretending it is so is still a useful idea sometimes, but that is still not true either.  We still have distinct borders, and up until much more recently than one might imagine, border disputes.  We have, if not unique, independent bodies of law between states; and even distinctions about the colonial foundations of some of that state law.  We are what the EU could be in several generations, if it somehow manages to not break apart first.  We are, in effect, what the EU government, currently seated in Brussels, aspires to be.  It's a pity, really, that they are too European to succeed.

Quote
The US has some regional differences, but by and large quite uniform. People speak the same language, watch the same TV shows, learn roughly the same things in school, buy things from the same national corporations, and consume health services the same way (extremely poorly). Your average Floridian is immensely closer to your average South Dakotan or Alaskan than a Frenchman to a Spaniard or a Greek.

State differences are vastly overrated.

Overrated perhaps, but still there.  And yes, the vast majority of us do speak English and share a common cultural background; and perhaps more importantly, a common legal background.  This is one reason the EU is doomed to failure, no common language and no common legal or cultural background.

Quindon - you speak your opinion as if were fact.  Really - it is just your opinion.

The following is my opinion.

Being part of a society has its costs.  We all pay for the public school system whether we use it or not.  We all pay for TSA whether we ever get on a plane or leave a port.  I could go on and on.  We are one nation of individuals.  Every other nation in the world close to our stature provides its citizens with health care.  I get it that you don't want to pay for everyone else to have some minimal healthcare - but personally - I'd rather pay for that then another carrier to protect some other part of the world.  But most of all - I'll support both.   You simply sound mean spirited and selfish - and maybe you are not - but that is how you come across to me.  I highly doubt our forefathers would have rejected the idea of a measure to provide the country's citizens with a simple measure of  wellbeing in the form of minimal health care.

You are not smarter nor wiser than everyone (or maybe anyone) here - no matter how forceful your rhetoric.  I am now to the point where this is my last ever post on MMM regarding the ACA, because I guess our country is so divided at a fundamental level the civil, respectful discourse on the issues of the wellbeing of all of its citizens is now beyond reach. 

I will say what I said in the beginning, whether you believe it or not, i could not get insurance at any cost before the ACA due to an operable and curable condition.  (I know you don't believe this - you've told so many people who conveyed this to you on a number of occasions - but you are just simply wrong.) I want three things. 

1.) I want every citizen in this country of any income level to have access to health care because it is better for all of us if they do and because I am a socially conscious human.
2.) I want to be able to purchase a high deductible health plan.  I don't mind paying my typical annual expenses on my own.  But if I come down with a disease or fall while hiking - I want to be able to get treatment without having to spend our entire NW on it.
3.) I've paid into medicare for over 35 years.  I want it to be around in mostly its present form for me and all of the others that have paid into it.   

Those are three simple things.  And one day, Quidon, when you are not so young, and life has thrown you a curve ball or two, you might see that there is some wisdom in what I am saying.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #286 on: January 11, 2017, 06:05:55 AM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)
Since I am using the ACA I think it really sucks the way they are leaving everyone up in the air.  I don't know if I will even be able to get any insurance at all (pre-existing conditions) once this all settles out.  They should have had their new plan thought out and ready to go. Millions are being hung out to worry by these a-holes.
They had six years to make a new plan, and nothing.  And the reason for this is the ACA IS their plan, with a few compromises to make it better for the lower/middle classes.  They won't replace it.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8255
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #287 on: January 11, 2017, 06:23:03 AM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)
Since I am using the ACA I think it really sucks the way they are leaving everyone up in the air.  I don't know if I will even be able to get any insurance at all (pre-existing conditions) once this all settles out.  They should have had their new plan thought out and ready to go. Millions are being hung out to worry by these a-holes.

They had six years to make a new plan, and nothing.  And the reason for this is the ACA IS their plan, with a few compromises to make it better for the lower/middle classes.  They won't replace it.

My bet is they'll keep large sections of it, eliminate the mandate and cost-controls, ignore the increased cost (added to the deficit), declare victory and campaign on having finally "destroyed disastrous Obamacare (even though it's major provisions are still basically there, so don't worry!)"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #288 on: January 11, 2017, 06:26:01 AM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

Thank you for your informed medical opinion.

Whether or not a human person needs any diagnostic or procedure, invasive or otherwise, is between the patient and their doctor. There is absolutely no medical reason to do transvaginal ultrasound on a patient seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Invasive ultrasound isn't risk-free, and doing it unnecessarily violates medical ethics.

Your opinion that life starts at conception is completely irrelevant, medically and scientifically speaking. You don't want your tax dollars paying for abortions? Fine, but don't get in the way of private money paying for them.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #289 on: January 11, 2017, 06:31:32 AM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)
Since I am using the ACA I think it really sucks the way they are leaving everyone up in the air.  I don't know if I will even be able to get any insurance at all (pre-existing conditions) once this all settles out.  They should have had their new plan thought out and ready to go. Millions are being hung out to worry by these a-holes.

They had six years to make a new plan, and nothing.  And the reason for this is the ACA IS their plan, with a few compromises to make it better for the lower/middle classes.  They won't replace it.

My bet is they'll keep large sections of it, eliminate the mandate and cost-controls, ignore the increased cost (added to the deficit), declare victory and campaign on having finally "destroyed disastrous Obamacare (even though it's major provisions are still basically there, so don't worry!)"

I think (mostly hope) that enough GOP congress members realize that the mandate is vital to preventing a death spiral to prevent it getting repealed. It's the third leg of the tripod. Without it no plan relying on private insurers can stand.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #290 on: January 11, 2017, 06:33:11 AM »
The Repeal and Replace drama has just begun in Washington. In this episode

-- According to the President elect, it should happen next week.
-- A republican senator says that we shouldn't take the President elect literally (really?)
-- As usual, the Senate Majority leader weasels out of answering any questions
-- Five republican senators want the deadline extended to March
-- Speaker Ryan says it will only happen in the coming months

Stay tuned for  the next episode. It may happen as early as 3 AM eastern if a tweet arrives. ;)
Since I am using the ACA I think it really sucks the way they are leaving everyone up in the air.  I don't know if I will even be able to get any insurance at all (pre-existing conditions) once this all settles out.  They should have had their new plan thought out and ready to go. Millions are being hung out to worry by these a-holes.

They had six years to make a new plan, and nothing.  And the reason for this is the ACA IS their plan, with a few compromises to make it better for the lower/middle classes.  They won't replace it.

My bet is they'll keep large sections of it, eliminate the mandate and cost-controls, ignore the increased cost (added to the deficit), declare victory and campaign on having finally "destroyed disastrous Obamacare (even though it's major provisions are still basically there, so don't worry!)"

I think (mostly hope) that enough GOP congress members realize that the mandate is vital to preventing a death spiral to prevent it getting repealed. It's the third leg of the tripod. Without it no plan relying on private insurers can stand.
I think they do.  So if they remove it, they have more evidence on how terrible Obamacare is and then they can repeal without replacing (because again, they have nothing to replace with).

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Location: MA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #291 on: January 11, 2017, 06:46:12 AM »
Quote
My bet is they'll keep large sections of it, eliminate the mandate and cost-controls, ignore the increased cost (added to the deficit), declare victory and campaign on having finally "destroyed disastrous Obamacare (even though it's major provisions are still basically there, so don't worry!)"

Yep, they will rely on Trump to rebrand Obamacare into "Trumpcare".  They will leave it mostly untouched, or do a symbolic repeal and replace just to make their constituency get the warm fuzzies.   Then they will institute something similar and call it a victory.  And people will fall for it. 

The only way universal healthcare will work is if we hold it as a fundamental right and value that we should care for the health of our citizens, but most conservatives only really care about "real Americans" that look and act like them. 





coppertop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #292 on: January 11, 2017, 07:33:26 AM »

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.


Yes!  Yes!  That's it exactly!  And that is my complaint with Obamacare.  It has regulated such a high minimum standard of benefits, in order to be called "health insurance" in any legal context, that I can no longer actually buy real insurance in this field; at least not without also paying a tax penalty for not having official health insurance.  I'm relatively healthy for my age, with no major issues; and I have enough money between my HSA and other funds that I could take quite a hard hit.  But without true catastrophic and/or hospitalization insurance, I cannot be certain that I could absorb any hit that life could throw at me, regardless of the odds that I'll be hit at all.  I should have the right to buy whatever insurance I believe is right for myself, and self-insure to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to support the choices of others.

However, I am reminded of a lowly paid employee we used to have here, who claimed he couldn't afford our employer-sponsored health insurance, whose wife had a stroke and since they had no coverage, I had to fill out papers for him to receive medical assistance.  YOU may have the funds to take care of yourself should you have a catastrophic event, but you are not typical.  Most people would not be able to pay for it if they had no insurance and would either go bankrupt or lose their homes and other assets in order to pay the whopping medical bills they were not prepared for. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #293 on: January 11, 2017, 07:54:44 AM »

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.


Yes!  Yes!  That's it exactly!  And that is my complaint with Obamacare.  It has regulated such a high minimum standard of benefits, in order to be called "health insurance" in any legal context, that I can no longer actually buy real insurance in this field; at least not without also paying a tax penalty for not having official health insurance.  I'm relatively healthy for my age, with no major issues; and I have enough money between my HSA and other funds that I could take quite a hard hit.  But without true catastrophic and/or hospitalization insurance, I cannot be certain that I could absorb any hit that life could throw at me, regardless of the odds that I'll be hit at all.  I should have the right to buy whatever insurance I believe is right for myself, and self-insure to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to support the choices of others.

However, I am reminded of a lowly paid employee we used to have here, who claimed he couldn't afford our employer-sponsored health insurance, whose wife had a stroke and since they had no coverage, I had to fill out papers for him to receive medical assistance.  YOU may have the funds to take care of yourself should you have a catastrophic event, but you are not typical.  Most people would not be able to pay for it if they had no insurance and would either go bankrupt or lose their homes and other assets in order to pay the whopping medical bills they were not prepared for.
I doubt he has it either, my bet is he does not realize the full cost especially if it puts you out of work for a few months.  Because it is not the initial visit, it is the costs of dealing with the long term damage.  My husband had a motorcycle accident (and was insanely lucky).  Beyond the over $30,000 of medical care he got the first night, he was bed ridden for over 6 months.  That is with a lucky accident.  And he was sent home because he did not have insurance.  If I, with my current insurance, had the same accident, I'd be in the hospital for longer.  And likely it would have caught an issue that caused my husband pain and surgery later.  Which overall cost more.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8255
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #294 on: January 11, 2017, 08:01:21 AM »
Sorry to hear about your husband, Gin - has he recovered since the accident?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #295 on: January 11, 2017, 08:06:02 AM »
Sorry to hear about your husband, Gin - has he recovered since the accident?
Except for one thing that does require treatment occasionally and will end up with surgery later, yes.  He was insanely lucky.  If the motorcycle had landed an inch and half to the left he would have been paralyzed because his spinal cord would be severed.  And the worse part was that he had insurance weeks prior but aged out of his parent's plan and had not gotten anything else because he thought he'd was young and healthy.  Ironically because he left the hospital early due to no insurance, they missed the secondary issue and because he paid for the treatment out of pocket he was eligible for private insurance at a great rate a couple years after and me, who just locked my trapezius during college could get NOTHING for ANY price.   
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 08:08:16 AM by Gin1984 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8255
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #296 on: January 11, 2017, 08:14:01 AM »

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.


Yes!  Yes!  That's it exactly!  And that is my complaint with Obamacare.  It has regulated such a high minimum standard of benefits, in order to be called "health insurance" in any legal context, that I can no longer actually buy real insurance in this field; at least not without also paying a tax penalty for not having official health insurance.  I'm relatively healthy for my age, with no major issues; and I have enough money between my HSA and other funds that I could take quite a hard hit.  But without true catastrophic and/or hospitalization insurance, I cannot be certain that I could absorb any hit that life could throw at me, regardless of the odds that I'll be hit at all.  I should have the right to buy whatever insurance I believe is right for myself, and self-insure to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to support the choices of others.

You've taken my quote out of context, Quidnon?. I was responding to your claim that the median emergency visit was (in 2013) about $1,200 - and therefore a trip to the ER is not a financial doomsday. My point was that you don't insure against the median event, but the extremes.
As an example, take car insurance. I'm certain most accidents are minor fender-benders with no injuries and cosmetic damage.  Yet I carry insurance not to cover these likely events (which I could easily do out of pocket) but for the more rare but exponentially more costly major injury/accidents.  Like with the ACA, car insurance covers a wide range of things including damaging property, emergency transport, salary compensation, etc.  All of these are unlikely to be needed by me individually, but will be used across the pool of people who ride in cars. 

I would not characterize the ACA as having an incredibly high minimum standard of benefits.  It doesn't cover a wide range of things, including dental and vision, and my unofficial survey of people I know indicate that most of them have both teeth and eyes. The requirements are fairly low overall for a population. What you seem to be objecting to is that you as an individual are required to have coverage for things that you are unlikely to use. Laws, however, are concerned with the population at large.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #297 on: January 11, 2017, 08:56:32 AM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

Thank you for your informed medical opinion.

Whether or not a human person needs any diagnostic or procedure, invasive or otherwise, is between the patient and their doctor. There is absolutely no medical reason to do transvaginal ultrasound on a patient seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Invasive ultrasound isn't risk-free, and doing it unnecessarily violates medical ethics.

Your opinion that life starts at conception is completely irrelevant, medically and scientifically speaking. You don't want your tax dollars paying for abortions? Fine, but don't get in the way of private money paying for them.

You obviously passed right over the previous sentence where I stated, That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement"....

I don't understand why you and few others feel they need to be so one sided, I'm a person over here(just like you), not some republican hack and I don't agree with everything republicans do. Are their any democrats that can admit this as well?


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4579
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #298 on: January 11, 2017, 09:07:23 AM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

Thank you for your informed medical opinion.

Whether or not a human person needs any diagnostic or procedure, invasive or otherwise, is between the patient and their doctor. There is absolutely no medical reason to do transvaginal ultrasound on a patient seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Invasive ultrasound isn't risk-free, and doing it unnecessarily violates medical ethics.

Your opinion that life starts at conception is completely irrelevant, medically and scientifically speaking. You don't want your tax dollars paying for abortions? Fine, but don't get in the way of private money paying for them.

You obviously passed right over the previous sentence where I stated, That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement"....

I don't understand why you and few others feel they need to be so one sided, I'm a person over here(just like you), not some republican hack and I don't agree with everything republicans do. Are their any democrats that can admit this as well?
Most if not all democrats do.  See ACA as an example.  Many democrats feel and felt that it did not go far enough and we should have single payer.  I think I'd buy that more if I EVER saw GOP members actually call out their reps.  I don't see that.  I see that in conversations, well I don't agree with X.  But you voted for that as acceptable.  That is still an issue.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #299 on: January 11, 2017, 09:38:27 AM »
Forced transvaginal ultrasounds are just as discriminatory against women as segregated drinking fountains were against blacks.  I fear you're about to claim "men would also have to get transvaginal ultrasounds if they got pregnant and needed an abortion."  Before you do, please consider whether you think a discriminatory law (like no coloreds) is acceptable if applied to "everyone" while only possibly impacting the targeted group.
On that I'm not sure where I fall, on one hand you have an innocent life that has already been created and is possibly going to be killed, and on the other you have a person that due to whatever circumstances may not be able to deal with or provide for that human life, or possibly was impregnated under force.... That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement, but if someone came to me and asked, I would advise them to do the ultra sound.

The intent of that law is to give that life that has been created its best chance at survival. I get the intent, but I don't agree with the law... So I guess you got me on that one.

Thank you for your informed medical opinion.

Whether or not a human person needs any diagnostic or procedure, invasive or otherwise, is between the patient and their doctor. There is absolutely no medical reason to do transvaginal ultrasound on a patient seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Invasive ultrasound isn't risk-free, and doing it unnecessarily violates medical ethics.

Your opinion that life starts at conception is completely irrelevant, medically and scientifically speaking. You don't want your tax dollars paying for abortions? Fine, but don't get in the way of private money paying for them.

You obviously passed right over the previous sentence where I stated, That is truly a personal decision and what I think or feel is not important for that woman. I don't think there should be the requirement"....

I don't understand why you and few others feel they need to be so one sided, I'm a person over here(just like you), not some republican hack and I don't agree with everything republicans do. Are their any democrats that can admit this as well?

No I didn't pass over it. Putting a disclaimer at the top, then saying "I think she should get the ultrasound" doesn't absolve you. The ultrasound is a bad idea independent of your abortion opinion. It's like saying, "He clearly has a broken neck, but let's get some CSF to be sure." Just because it's a diagnostic in the general area we're talking about doesn't mean the test is a good idea.

It's an unnecessary procedure, and it's unethical. I'm being one-sided because there's the side with medical ethics and science, and then there's the side advocating (and legislating) unnecessary medical procedures for other human people based on their feelings about a fetus, which is not a human person at this stage of development.