[jpinpb]

[quote=Navydoc]
This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.[/quote]

Agreed. But they all have their stand on it and divide voters. If they are taking a position on it, I will make my decision based on it as well, as others will also. Good way to alienate and/or win votes.

But at this point, I honestly think they need to lay it to rest. We have universal healthcare. We have people w/money having medical surgery to enhance their body. Yet there are people still wanting to make it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, claiming there are no health issues that can arise to justify aborting. Beyond my comprehension.

[jpinpb]

[quote=Navydoc]
This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.[/quote]

Agreed. But they all have their stand on it and divide voters. If they are taking a position on it, I will make my decision based on it as well, as others will also. Good way to alienate and/or win votes.

But at this point, I honestly think they need to lay it to rest. We have universal healthcare. We have people w/money having medical surgery to enhance their body. Yet there are people still wanting to make it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, claiming there are no health issues that can arise to justify aborting. Beyond my comprehension.

[jpinpb]

[quote=Navydoc]
This discussion has absolutely no place in the political realm, an I find it completely sickening that it is used for political ends.[/quote]

Agreed. But they all have their stand on it and divide voters. If they are taking a position on it, I will make my decision based on it as well, as others will also. Good way to alienate and/or win votes.

But at this point, I honestly think they need to lay it to rest. We have universal healthcare. We have people w/money having medical surgery to enhance their body. Yet there are people still wanting to make it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, claiming there are no health issues that can arise to justify aborting. Beyond my comprehension.

[jpinpb]

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I’m sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it’s illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

[jpinpb]

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I’m sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it’s illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

[jpinpb]

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I’m sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it’s illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

[jpinpb]

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I’m sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it’s illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

[jpinpb]

I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.

And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. I’m sure there are other situations, circumstances, instances and complications that can occur during a pregnancy.

Ron Paul is ardent on his stand on abortion. This is where I disagree w/him. Women should have a choice and when it comes to their health, particularly when in jeopardy, they should have that option w/out the government telling them it’s illegal. Having an abortion is not a decision that comes lightly for women and the government making it illegal is not going to help women in need.

I personally am sad for any woman who has to have an abortion for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that should be their personal decision and not illegal.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.[/quote]

And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.[/quote]

And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.[/quote]

And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.[/quote]

And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare.[/quote]

Anyone who gets caught up on this one point hasn’t made the effort to understand the fundamental problem in this issue.

Here are the facts:

1) Everyone has healthcare needs
2) Healthcare is expensive

Here are the possible models for a solution:

1) Government provides all healthcare
2) Government requires people to cover the cost of their own healthcare
3) Everyone is on their own

#3 sounds great to anyone with libertarian tendencies, but there’s one characteristic of healthcare that throws a wrench in things: Medical providers are ethically obligated to provide basic care to the sick, independent of their ability to pay. Sure the rules on this requirement are complicated, but basically we, as a society, have decided that no one should die bleeding outside the ER door because they don’t have the funds to pay.

So we either abandon the humanitarian principle of providing basic care for all, or we figure out a way to pay for it. That only leaves us with options 1 or 2 above, or some variation on them.

I really don’t think a solution should be that hard to work out – if only we could get past the drama and hyperbole. But God forbid we do anything “socialist” – because the thousands of defence contractor employees waiting for their next government paycheck wouldn’t stand for that.[/quote]

And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[jpinpb]

[quote=SK in CV]Since there was virtually no expansion of government health insurance in the ACA, you should be happy with the outcome.[/quote]

Government is forcing people to buy insurance from a private for profit company under the guise of healthcare. They are sleeping together. As I said, this “health” care is a gift to the insurance company.

[quote=UCGal]For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.[/quote]

Thank you!

[Author]

Posts