Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Emily Lake]

What the fuck laws do you think I support?

I’m assuming you haven’t changed your mind? Still need a law against optional late term abortion?
Why? Or did I misunderstand you?

You've been willfully misunderstanding me from the beginning.

Perhaps my comprehension is lacking, as is yours regarding my “willfulness”.
Absent a more comprehensible articulation of your position, telling me my understanding is defective doesn’t contribute to improving it.

I've told you what my position is repeatedly. And you've mischaracterized it repeatedly. And it's not like I haven't provided a well-articulated position on the topic.

I'll go through it again... but bear in mind that my patience is nearly at an end with this.

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby.

I do NOT support any complete bans on abortions. I merely want limitations on third trimester abortions. Anything that would endanger the mother's life would be a reasonable exception to that limitation - as it was throughout the vast majority of my life, and presumably yours.

 

[Emily Lake]

it's more important for you to get your punches in so your self esteem doesn't suffer

Yes, I took it out of context. Not to distract from the context, but just to point out that an awful lot of people seem to run afoul in reading your stuff and gleaning the understanding you wish to convey, according to you.

There are a lot of people who read what they *want* to read, rather than actually reading with an open mind.

Sometimes I'm not clear - and if you ask for clarification I will almost always provide it without getting snippy.

 

[Elixir]

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby

I think it’s a reasonable “position” but not that it’s reasonable to legislate it. I believe that no matter how narrow the “ban” it will kill actual women, especially in the current litigious environment. Instilling fear in HC providers, creating exposure insecurity and resulting in injury or death of a person with a mom, dad, memories, hopes wishes …
Vs -what? The possibility that a vanishingly small number of viable fetuses will get aborted? No contest. If it was a 1:1 or even 1/10 mother/fetus ratio, I still think it’s a bad thing to give religious extremists legal traction of any sort. Just get the government the hell out of exam rooms.

 

[bilby]

The very idea that there are enough pregnant women, late in their third trimester, who suddenly decide, for trivial reasons, to kill their unborn baby; And that there are enough homicidal doctors, who will unquestioningly do so in the absence of any medical justification, to justify passing a law about this vanishingly rare situation, is just bizarre.

Passing laws prohibiting a behaviour that barely ever happens, when such laws are known to have dangerous and detrimental unintended* consequences, is beyond stupid.

Banning third trimester abortions is as useful, sane, reasonable, and un-bigoted as would be passing a law prohibiting the eating of cats (and then arranging for no-knock raids on residences in Springfield to seek evidence that the new law was being broken).

There should not be laws prohibiting any acts that exist only in the imaginations of fearful idiots.





* Allegedly

 

[Emily Lake]

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby

I think it’s a reasonable “position” but not that it’s reasonable to legislate it. I believe that no matter how narrow the “ban” it will kill actual women, especially in the current litigious environment. Instilling fear in HC providers, creating exposure insecurity and resulting in injury or death of a person with a mom, dad, memories, hopes wishes …
Vs -what? The possibility that a vanishingly small number of viable fetuses will get aborted? No contest. If it was a 1:1 or even 1/10 mother/fetus ratio, I still think it’s a bad thing to give religious extremists legal traction of any sort. Just get the government the hell out of exam rooms.

Just so we're clear... you were OPPOSED to how it worked under Roe V Wade?

 

[Emily Lake]

The very idea that there are enough pregnant women, late in their third trimester, who suddenly decide, for trivial reasons, to kill their unborn baby; And that there are enough homicidal doctors, who will unquestioningly do so in the absence of any medical justification, to justify passing a law about this vanishingly rare situation, is just bizarre.

Passing laws prohibiting a behaviour that barely ever happens, when such laws are known to have dangerous and detrimental unintended* consequences, is beyond stupid.

Banning third trimester abortions is as useful, sane, reasonable, and un-bigoted as would be passing a law prohibiting the eating of cats (and then arranging for no-knock raids on residences in Springfield to seek evidence that the new law was being broken).

There should not be laws prohibiting any acts that exist only in the imaginations of fearful idiots.

"We can't possibly make a law that works exactly the way the law worked up until a few years ago, it's totally impossible to legislate the thing that was legislated for most of our lives!!!11eleventyone!!1"

 

[ZiprHead]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

 

[Emily Lake]

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby

I think it’s a reasonable “position” but not that it’s reasonable to legislate it. I believe that no matter how narrow the “ban” it will kill actual women, especially in the current litigious environment. Instilling fear in HC providers, creating exposure insecurity and resulting in injury or death of a person with a mom, dad, memories, hopes wishes …
Vs -what? The possibility that a vanishingly small number of viable fetuses will get aborted? No contest. If it was a 1:1 or even 1/10 mother/fetus ratio, I still think it’s a bad thing to give religious extremists legal traction of any sort. Just get the government the hell out of exam rooms.

Also... why did you do this? Why did you trim my post there... then go on to frame it as if I support a ban... when right after where you trimmed it I say:

I do NOT support any complete bans on abortions. I merely want limitations on third trimester abortions. Anything that would endanger the mother's life would be a reasonable exception to that limitation - as it was throughout the vast majority of my life, and presumably yours.

What do you think you're accomplishing by trimming out that last bit so you can pretend I support a ban in some fashion?

Also, this is the approach that is favored by the vast majority of people. Your approach of completely legal at any point up until 1 hour before delivery is an outlier view. You know that, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

Okay... so if you agree with my on these, why did you frame your response to imply that my view was only looking at this as dollars-and-cents and that it ignored morality?

What did you think you were accomplishing by doing so?

 

[bilby]

The very idea that there are enough pregnant women, late in their third trimester, who suddenly decide, for trivial reasons, to kill their unborn baby; And that there are enough homicidal doctors, who will unquestioningly do so in the absence of any medical justification, to justify passing a law about this vanishingly rare situation, is just bizarre.

Passing laws prohibiting a behaviour that barely ever happens, when such laws are known to have dangerous and detrimental unintended* consequences, is beyond stupid.

Banning third trimester abortions is as useful, sane, reasonable, and un-bigoted as would be passing a law prohibiting the eating of cats (and then arranging for no-knock raids on residences in Springfield to seek evidence that the new law was being broken).

There should not be laws prohibiting any acts that exist only in the imaginations of fearful idiots.

"We can't possibly make a law that works exactly the way the law worked up until a few years ago, it's totally impossible to legislate the thing that was legislated for most of our lives!!!11eleventyone!!1"

Is that intended to relate in some way to what I said?

 

[ZiprHead]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

Okay... so if you agree with my on these, why did you frame your response to imply that my view was only looking at this as dollars-and-cents and that it ignored morality?

What did you think you were accomplishing by doing so?

I didn't frame it like that. You intruded yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else (not a problem, BTW). I think you just misunderstood my point. I just explained what I said. If morality isn't taken into account in economic or political decisions, all sorts of bad things can be justified, as in Nazi Germany. The disabled, useless prisoners, and a lot of others were executed. Not only Jews and Gays.

 

[Emily Lake]

The very idea that there are enough pregnant women, late in their third trimester, who suddenly decide, for trivial reasons, to kill their unborn baby; And that there are enough homicidal doctors, who will unquestioningly do so in the absence of any medical justification, to justify passing a law about this vanishingly rare situation, is just bizarre.

Passing laws prohibiting a behaviour that barely ever happens, when such laws are known to have dangerous and detrimental unintended* consequences, is beyond stupid.

Banning third trimester abortions is as useful, sane, reasonable, and un-bigoted as would be passing a law prohibiting the eating of cats (and then arranging for no-knock raids on residences in Springfield to seek evidence that the new law was being broken).

There should not be laws prohibiting any acts that exist only in the imaginations of fearful idiots.

"We can't possibly make a law that works exactly the way the law worked up until a few years ago, it's totally impossible to legislate the thing that was legislated for most of our lives!!!11eleventyone!!1"

Is that intended to relate in some way to what I said?

Yep. It absolutely relates to what you said.

Your position as written above is that we shouldn't have laws that address very rare occurrences... even though that was exactly what the law was until RvW got overturned. You assert that such laws have dangerous and detrimental unintended consequences, even though they did NOT have dangerous and detrimental consequences for the 50 years that it was in place.

Both you and Elixir are arguing that a return to what worked very well and was widely accepted for 50 years isn't feasible or reasonable.

Furthermore, you both insist on pretending that I support a BAN during the third trimester, which is not what I have said, and it's a willful mischaracterization of my position.

 

[Emily Lake]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

Okay... so if you agree with my on these, why did you frame your response to imply that my view was only looking at this as dollars-and-cents and that it ignored morality?

What did you think you were accomplishing by doing so?

I didn't frame it like that. You intruded yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else (not a problem, BTW). I think you just misunderstood my point. I just explained what I said. If morality isn't taken into account in economic or political decisions, all sorts of bad things can be justified, as in Nazi Germany. The disabled, useless prisoners, and a lot of others were executed. Not only Jews and Gays.

You said this:

All those are the most economical ways to pay the least money support society, unless you include morality.

in response to my post.

I'm not sure how else I would be expected to have read it. I've re-read it several times now, and it still comes across as if you're responding to my positions with the insinuation that they are immoral views.

 

[ZiprHead]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

Okay... so if you agree with my on these, why did you frame your response to imply that my view was only looking at this as dollars-and-cents and that it ignored morality?

What did you think you were accomplishing by doing so?

I didn't frame it like that. You intruded yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else (not a problem, BTW). I think you just misunderstood my point. I just explained what I said. If morality isn't taken into account in economic or political decisions, all sorts of bad things can be justified, as in Nazi Germany. The disabled, useless prisoners, and a lot of others were executed. Not only Jews and Gays.

You said this:

All those are the most economical ways to pay the least money support society, unless you include morality.

in response to my post.

I'm not sure how else I would be expected to have read it. I've re-read it several times now, and it still comes across as if you're responding to my positions with the insinuation that they are immoral views.

Doubling down on your misunderstanding.

 

[Emily Lake]

Incurable diseases - do you believe that it is moral to do everything possible to extend a person's life regardless of their wishes, and regardless of their suffering? Do you believe it is moral to deprive humans of the choice to end their own suffering when their condition cannot be cured or meaningfully improved?

I was a very early supporter of Dr. Kevorkian, if that answers your question.

Severe disability - do you believe it is moral to force a mother to carry a severely disabled child to full term, and then raise that child, rather than allowing her to terminate the pregnancy?

Under some circumstances, yes. I supported the trimester schedule of RvW. And it should definitely be between the patient and her doctor.

And no mother is ever forced (I assume you mean by force of law) to raise their own child.

Okay... so if you agree with my on these, why did you frame your response to imply that my view was only looking at this as dollars-and-cents and that it ignored morality?

What did you think you were accomplishing by doing so?

I didn't frame it like that. You intruded yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else (not a problem, BTW). I think you just misunderstood my point. I just explained what I said. If morality isn't taken into account in economic or political decisions, all sorts of bad things can be justified, as in Nazi Germany. The disabled, useless prisoners, and a lot of others were executed. Not only Jews and Gays.

You said this:

All those are the most economical ways to pay the least money support society, unless you include morality.

in response to my post.

I'm not sure how else I would be expected to have read it. I've re-read it several times now, and it still comes across as if you're responding to my positions with the insinuation that they are immoral views.

Doubling down on your misunderstanding.

Doubling down on your inability to be clear.

 

[bilby]

You know, the part where I acknowledge that patent plays are a problem but that there's a lot of novel work that goes on and it's important?

Also, the part where you tell me what experience I don't have.

 

[bilby]

Your position as written above is that we shouldn't have laws that address very rare occurrences...

Yes.

even though that was exactly what the law was until RvW got overturned.

That has no bearing on my position.

You assert that such laws have dangerous and detrimental unintended consequences,

Because they do.

even though they did NOT have dangerous and detrimental consequences for the 50 years that it was in place.

Of course they did. Things are even worse now; That doesn't imply that they were great then.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

With regard to US military equipment, the USA has the development costs for them whether other countries do or do not buy some of them. When other countries do buy from them they are helping the US defray some of the costs, but also they are taking part of the defence role that the USA sees itself as having. Americans can't complain about how much it costs them while also claiming how super wealthy they are.

 

[Bomb#20]

Morality should be included in all economic discussions. By pure economic standards, we would just kill all prisoners who get a life sentence. Incurable disease? Kill the patient. Disabled child requiring lifetime care? Kill the child. Slavery? Sure!

...
Slavery? I suppose no post is complete without a leap into absurdity, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

All those are the most economical ways to pay the least money support society, unless you include morality.

Who are you defining as "society", rich slaveholders? All slavery does for the majority of free members of society is provide them an opportunity to kill and die for a bunch of draft-exempt leading citizens. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." as the saying went. Slavery is not an economical way to support society even if you don't count the slaves as part of the society. It's economically inefficient. Adam Smith was an abolitionist fifty years before it became a popular movement, and not only for moral reasons -- in his book he explained why slavery detracts from the wealth of nations that practice it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Morality should be included in all economic discussions. By pure economic standards, we would just kill all prisoners who get a life sentence. Incurable disease? Kill the patient. Disabled child requiring lifetime care? Kill the child. Slavery? Sure!

...
Slavery? I suppose no post is complete without a leap into absurdity, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

All those are the most economical ways to pay the least money support society, unless you include morality.

Who are you defining as "society", rich slaveholders? All slavery does for the majority of free members of society is provide them an opportunity to kill and die for a bunch of draft-exempt leading citizens. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." as the saying went. Slavery is not an economical way to support society even if you don't count the slaves as part of the society. It's economically inefficient. Adam Smith was an abolitionist fifty years before it became a popular movement, and not only for moral reasons -- in his book he explained why slavery detracts from the wealth of nations that practice it.

That's all well and good but it didn't stop the practice.