HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Have I got this straight?...

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:03 PM

Have I got this straight? Some of the very same people who say the government has no

right to make them vaccinate their children think the government absolutely has the right to make a woman carry an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy to full term?

Surely, I'm mistaken.

72 replies, 6281 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Have I got this straight? Some of the very same people who say the government has no (Original post)
Atticus May 15 OP
MontanaMama May 15 #1
Ohiogal May 15 #3
pazzyanne May 15 #12
hughee99 May 15 #2
StarfishSaver May 15 #7
Atticus May 15 #8
hughee99 May 15 #9
StarfishSaver May 15 #11
hughee99 May 15 #14
Fortinbras Armstrong Friday #53
hughee99 Friday #54
Blue_true May 15 #16
hughee99 May 15 #22
Fortinbras Armstrong Saturday #57
JustAnotherGen Thursday #30
fescuerescue Thursday #47
demigoddess Thursday #49
hughee99 Friday #56
kcr Saturday #60
hughee99 Saturday #63
kcr Sunday #64
hughee99 Sunday #66
kcr Sunday #68
Blue_true May 15 #15
hughee99 May 15 #19
Blue_true May 15 #21
hughee99 May 15 #24
Blue_true May 15 #25
hughee99 May 15 #26
Blue_true May 15 #29
Eliot Rosewater Thursday #36
smirkymonkey Thursday #50
hughee99 Friday #52
LanternWaste Thursday #44
hughee99 Friday #55
kcr Saturday #61
hughee99 Saturday #62
kcr Sunday #65
hughee99 Sunday #67
kcr Sunday #69
hughee99 Sunday #70
kcr Sunday #71
hughee99 Sunday #72
onecaliberal May 15 #4
erronis May 15 #5
Traildogbob May 15 #6
MontanaMama May 15 #28
struggle4progress May 15 #10
Blue_true May 15 #17
dflprincess May 15 #13
FiveGoodMen Thursday #41
Ferrets are Cool May 15 #18
Blue_true May 15 #23
progree May 15 #20
area51 May 15 #27
IAintMissBehavin Thursday #31
BumRushDaShow Thursday #32
ismnotwasm Thursday #33
BumRushDaShow Thursday #35
PatrickforO Thursday #51
Hortensis Thursday #34
Texin Thursday #37
Saviolo Thursday #38
Bernardo de La Paz Thursday #40
Bernardo de La Paz Thursday #39
keithbvadu2 Thursday #42
pdsimdars Thursday #43
corbettkroehler Thursday #45
fescuerescue Thursday #46
warmfeet Thursday #48
ck4829 Saturday #58
Captain Stern Saturday #59

Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:05 PM

1. Uh yeah.

You got it right. So angry tonight I canít see straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MontanaMama (Reply #1)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:29 PM

3. You and me both, Montana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohiogal (Reply #3)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:23 PM

12. Right there with you, MontanaMama and Ohiogal!

I have worked to hard for over 55 years to sit by when this is happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 08:27 PM

2. Is the flip side of this argument that the same people

Who believe the government has the authority to force unwanted vaccinations on children have no right to tell people what they can and canít do with an unwanted pregnancy?

It seems like both sides of the argument have people selectively deciding when government should have the authority and when it shouldnít.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #2)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:51 PM

7. Your flipside argument doesn't work well

Refusing to allow your child to get vaccinations does not only put that child in immediate danger of harm or death, it also has serious and widespread dire ramifications for many, possibly hundreds or thousands of other people who had absolutely no say in the matter. The child also has no say, being completely dependent upon the parent who makes the decision for them.

A woman having an abortion is arguably in the same position as a parent not vaccinating their child, since the fetus is dependent upon the mother who has made a decision to abort and, if you believe a fetus is a human life, has put that life in danger. However, any harm that occurs ends with the fetus, which is part of the woman's body. The abortion does not physically affect anyone else and doesn't put any other lives in danger.

Government has a vested interest in protecting society from disease and epidemics, which is why vaccinations are necessary and required. Government does NOT have a vested interest in protecting society from a woman choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term and it has no business interfering with her decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #7)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:59 PM

8. Well said. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #7)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:01 PM

9. If you consider an unborn child an "other life", then an abortion

Puts that other life in danger. If you at it that way, the argument makes sense. I donít look at it that way, but some people do.

I donít have an issue with abortions, though I think things would be easier for everyone if we could find a way to not get unwantedly pregnant. This isnít some ďpersonal responsibilityĒ shot, just a comment about making birth control more effective and widely available.

I donít have an issue with vaccinations either. I think everyone should get them unless they have a serious legitimate medical reason not to, but Iíd stop short of a complete government mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #9)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:16 PM

11. It puts ONE life in danger, a life that is completely dependent upon the mother

But, as I said, unlike non-vaccinating, it doesn't endanger others in the community or put the larger society at risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #11)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:38 PM

14. Let's be honest here, it doesn't put one life "in danger"

It essentially ends it, where as the other certainly may put many lives at risk, but may not actually harm anyone.

I know you were doing this for the sake of argument (so was I) but once you accept the premise that a fetus is a life, itís extremely difficult to make a good, logical argument for abortion. The reverse is also true. Those who want to outlaw abortion donít have an argument if the fetus is not considered a life.

Some people think if they make a logical argument supporting abortion, it should convince others, but it doesnít make sense to someone who doesnít accept the same fundamental views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #14)

Fri May 17, 2019, 08:07 AM

53. That's the basic disagreement

If you say that a fetus is a fully-fledged human being, then abortion is murder. If you say it isn't, then it isn't murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #53)

Fri May 17, 2019, 09:01 AM

54. Exactly. If one wants to change someone's mind on abortion,

Thatís the issue they need to address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #9)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:48 PM

16. The same people who are restricting abortion pass laws against birth control.

They want to control women using the beliefs and demands of old men from centuries ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #16)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:03 PM

22. Yes, the same idiots who believe that sex should only be

For procreation. If you start with that idiotic premise, no birth control or abortions would seem logical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #22)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:04 AM

57. To which I respond that in 45 years, I would estimate that my wife and I

Had sex about 3000 times. We have three children. Something that happens one tenth of one percent of the time is clearly not the primary reason for doing anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #9)

Thu May 16, 2019, 04:55 AM

30. If men didn't ejaculate in vaginas

It would prevent 100% of non Fertility Doctor assisted pregnancies.

Easiest birth control in the world.

Simplistic? Yes. Realistic?

We might be looking at that as the only option in the near future. Who knows? Anything can happen in TrumpMerica

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #7)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:03 PM

47. If don't know if that this is HIS argument (the poster)

But it certainly is our opposition.

The argument doesn't work well, but damned if they aren't passing laws based on it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #7)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:38 PM

49. well said. I would only add that someone's right to practice his

religious beliefs ends at someone else's nose. If you do not believe in abortions, don't have one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demigoddess (Reply #49)

Fri May 17, 2019, 10:56 AM

56. If you don't believe in guns, don't buy one.

Does that argument work?

Iím saying that IF you believe that life begins at conception (and the question of when life begins doesnít seem to be settled), it isnít illogical to oppose abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #56)

Sat May 18, 2019, 10:58 AM

60. No, because someone can shoot me with a gun

No one's going to shoot me with their abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #60)

Sat May 18, 2019, 04:44 PM

63. The argument against guns is that you could hurt someone else.

If you believe life starts at conception, itís the exact same argument.

If you see it that way, the difference is that statistically, owning a gun is extremely unlikely to harm another life while an abortion is a certainty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #63)

Sun May 19, 2019, 09:18 AM

64. If you're seeing fetuses out in the world living and acting independent of women

Then you should consider contacting a medical provider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #64)

Sun May 19, 2019, 10:16 AM

66. If you think a fetus is a life, it doesn't matter where it is.

Thatís what they believe. If you are trying to figure out their logic (like the OP is) you have to understand that thatís the basis on which they form their opinions on abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #66)

Sun May 19, 2019, 10:46 AM

68. Whether a fetus is alive or not isn't the issue.

It's that they aren't independent, individual people with their own individual rights. There are lots of things that are alive without that status as well. So, what living things actually are don't matter, it's just the fact they're alive, huh? So mowing your lawn is murder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #2)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:43 PM

15. You are dead wrong.

The government has the obligation to protect the greater public's health.

Now how it applies to your backwards analogy:

In the case of vaccinations, the greater public is endangered when people refuse to get their kids vaccinated. So the government has an obligation to step in to keep the general public safe.

In the case of abortion, the government's job is to insure that the procedure is safe, but it does not tell a woman whether she should or should not get an abortion, leaving the choice up to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #15)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:50 PM

19. If you believe that a fetus is a life, like the kind of people

The OP is talking about do, then itís logical to conclude that the government has an obligation to protect them. The OP is trying to understand the logic of those people, but they have a fundamentally different view of when life begins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #19)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:00 PM

21. The existence of the fetus is sustained by the body of the woman carrying it.

It has no life nor existence otherwise.

I am not pro abortion, but I am for not telling a woman what she should do with her body when the decision affects only her and close family.

Resistance to vaccination regimine affects a large swath of society at large.

Personally, I wish that women that have abortions for economic reasons had the option of carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption, all her related expenses and healthcare costs paid for her so that she does not face economic heart ship. And if she decides to keep the baby instead of giving him or her up, she should get all the economic assistance that she needs to raise the child properly. The problem with pretty much all anti-choice people is that they are rigidly anti public assistance to those that need public assistance to live a decent life, to me that belies their pro life bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #21)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:06 PM

24. Is that what the definition of "life" is?

That something has to be able to sustain itself?

That seems to be the problem, the definition is not that clear.

Again, people who start with different premises can logically end up with very different conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #24)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:17 PM

25. People purposely conflate the meaning of life, especially the right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #25)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:20 PM

26. I don't know that they're intentionally doing it, I didn't

Grow up having the Bible beat into me, and canít really say what that would do to oneís world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #26)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:39 PM

29. I was born and raised in the Bible Belt and live here now.

Religious people conflate reality to their worldview, that is how a person like Trump remains popular here. Many that don't suport abortion have their daughters secretly get one when they get knocked up. You know another thing, I don't see highly deformed kids down here, they are either aborted by the bible thumpers or the few that are carried to term forgotten in a home that cares for them while the religious parents happily go about their "lives". The hyprocracy is galling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #29)

Thu May 16, 2019, 12:23 PM

36. It is ONLY about hatred and controlling women, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #24)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:55 PM

50. The people who want to outlaw abortion have a "definition" of life based upon their

subjective religious beliefs. They have no right to force those particular beliefs upon the whole of society. If a clump of cells or a fetus can't exist independently of it's mother/host, it' shouldn't have legal rights independently of her.

They are not "logically" ending up with different conclusions. There is nothing logical about allowing a ridiculous superstition to inform a decision about legislation to deprive other human beings of the right to bodily autonomy.

Sorry, but fuck religious conservatives and their idiotic beliefs. They can burn in hell for all I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #50)

Fri May 17, 2019, 12:09 AM

52. My experience has been that, when given a matter of opinion,

people aren't often swayed to change their opinion by being told their's is "idiotic" or "ridiculous superstition". Sure, I don't agree with them, but if you're trying to figure out why they take certain positions (like the OP is), suggesting they shouldn't believe that because it's wrong doesn't usually provide much insight, and is a less than compelling argument. Some day, perhaps the government will have an appointed position with someone to decide what are acceptable beliefs and what are not. Hopefully, we'll have a smart person who agrees with us in that job, who can tell people their opinions are wrong.

Again, IF you believe that life begins at conception (and I don't) it's not illogical to believe that abortion is wrong. Given that there's not really a clear definition of when life begins, you'd have to convince them that they're wrong to believe this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #2)

Thu May 16, 2019, 03:48 PM

44. I think the critical and relevant difference between the two is "collective good" vs. idiocy.

Also, all arguments are selectively decided (by their very nature)-- whether that selection is predicated on established science or idiocy becomes the focus.

So no... not the flip side at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #44)

Fri May 17, 2019, 09:05 AM

55. So when "life begins" is strictly based on science and is not currently

A matter of opinion? Sweet! Please post the established and agreed upon scientific definition here, and we can clear this all up quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #55)

Sat May 18, 2019, 11:04 AM

61. Careful. Your slip is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #61)

Sat May 18, 2019, 04:35 PM

62. Not as much as their inability to support their argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #62)

Sun May 19, 2019, 09:22 AM

65. The ability to recognize and point out false equivalencies

is not an inability to support an argument. You are the one with the weak argument and you've had yours handed to you in this thread by multiple people, exposing your agenda in the meantime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #65)

Sun May 19, 2019, 10:25 AM

67. I'll take full responsibility for what I said, but not for your ability to understand it.

HERE is what I've been saying over and over.

The OP is trying to understand the consistency in their beliefs because their positions do not seem logical.

This is because the OP is applying THEIR belief that a fetus is not alive until it's born.

The people the OP is trying to figure out believe that a fetus is alive at conception.

This is why the OP cannot understand the logic behind their position on abortion.

I don't agree that life begins at conception, but I can't PROVE that theyíre wrong, since there doesn't seem to be a single, agreed upon definition that clarifies when life begins. Saying they are wrong doesn't make it a fact. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact. Restating the position intentionally wrong doesn't make it a fact. Suggesting that someone is pushing a hidden agenda, or is trolling doesn't make it a fact.

Tell me which of the things I wrote in this post is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #67)

Sun May 19, 2019, 10:53 AM

69. Why are you even trying to prove that they're wrong here?

You don't have to do that. It's DU where a vast majority of sincere members already agree. You come across as a pretty convincing pro-life loony instead. What's the point of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #69)

Sun May 19, 2019, 11:02 AM

70. I'll note that you didn't point out what in my post is wrong.

If you want to win an argument with these pro lifers, you have to understand why they take the positions they do. I was attempting to do that here. Nothing I said should actually be news to anyone here, but given how many of you posted, it apparently was.

Iím not going to argue with you in multiple sub-threads. Iíve stated my position as clearly as I can in that post above. Either you can explain why itís wrong, or you canít.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #70)

Sun May 19, 2019, 11:05 AM

71. Well, DU just isn't aware they have an expert among us.

Maybe if you listed your pro-life expert credentials, we'd have taken you more seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #71)

Sun May 19, 2019, 11:28 AM

72. Any time you want to tell me what is wrong in my post

Iíll be happy to read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:21 PM

4. They want to control women. Full stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:43 PM

5. I actually think they want to control more than women.

They want to control anyone who is not a WASPM (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male).

They'll play along for a while with some blacks, some latinos, some women, some non-protestants. But when putsch comes to shove, they'll try total control.

Worked well for the Nazis. For a while.

And then it didn't.

During that nightmare, and probably in our next, the whole world will suffer tremendously.

Stupid apes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2019, 09:44 PM

6. Damn them all

Think, if you could end a pregnancy with a gun, there would be silence from the right. The cost of freedom to lose a fetus by gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:38 PM

28. +1

🤬

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:05 PM

10. They also regard the Confederates as heroic Freedom Fighters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:49 PM

17. Yeah, screwed up to say the least. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:30 PM

13. And they are the very same people who like to scream that

Muslims want to enact Sharia law here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #13)

Thu May 16, 2019, 03:01 PM

41. ...before the xtians can enact their version of it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:50 PM

18. It's called full blown HYPOCRISY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferrets are Cool (Reply #18)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:04 PM

23. They want to force women to have babies they can't afford or that will have tragic

deformities that make them a burden to the mother for the child's life. Yet the same people that are forcing those decisions on women vote over and over to eliminate social welfare that help trapped women. So yes, it is hyprocracy of the nakedest variety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Wed May 15, 2019, 10:52 PM

20. They're also the same people who favor denying healthcare to millions

because they don't want to pay more taxes to support "those people". In effect an American genocide. Republicans are genocidal maniacs.

(And no, emergency rooms are not healthcare -- they stabilize you and then kick you back out on the street with referrals to doctors and specialists that they can't afford to see, and a fistful of prescriptions that they can't afford to fill).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Wed May 15, 2019, 11:21 PM

27. THIS.

I despise the hypocrisy that they don't support comprehensive Medicare For All, and just the cost for birth alone in this country, even with insurance, is insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:27 AM

31. Emergency rooms aren't healthcare? Technically you're

Correct bc emergency rooms provide healthcare, mainly to nonemergency patients but on occasion, a patient with a valid medical emergency takes precedence over patient seeking emergency treatment for an infected, ingrown toenail he's had for almost 2 weeks. These nonemergency cases, who use er like a doctor's office, are just one of many reasons healthcare costs are unaffordable for most, even the insured.

I'm genuinely curious what you think doctors should do if patient is stable and medically cleared to be discharged from er? If patient can't afford to be seen by their family physician for follow up, and fill a maximum of 3 prescriptions, then ... what? Should the doctor falsify patients charge, claiming there's valid reason to admit patient? That's more affordable? An er bill will likely be couple thousand and if not an emergency, it's certainly not more affordable than a doctor visit and prescriptions.

Doctors aren't kicking patients "onto the streets," they're discharging them from er after providing treatment. 99% will walk to their car and drive/ride home. Should we force the 1% to go to shelters? Force their families to come pick them up? Force them into assisted living? We cannot force patients to do anything unless a danger to themselves or others; it's illegal and I would face consequences. A homeless man has a right to be homeless if he chooses. If an er doctor makes a tragic mistake, misdiagnosis leading to (example) medical trauma that could've been prevented, then the patient has a right to be compensated but I'm thankful that's very rare. We don't throw patients out on the street. We're not the enemy and do our best.

Indeed healthcare shouldn't be a luxury and although social medicine has its own array of problems, it's better than not being able to afford treatment. I work in a rural hospital and see more patients abusing Medicaid coverage by waiting until they get off work to go to er for X nonemergency prob bc he didn't want to miss any work and will qualify for financial assistance, likely a write off and pay nothing - but other patients end up paying for those visits via higher costs. If he went to his physician, it could cost $30 - $40 but varies, plus miss couple hours work. I realize some truly cannot afford to miss work and pay $40 bill and it's crap situation. Medicare patients abuse er on occasion, too. Most Mon - Thurs er aren't too awful busy unless full moon (lol) but come weekends, patients who've waited until their off from work will roll in, occasionally overwhelming an er. I don't have the answers for that and except those like ingrown toenail man, it's sad situation to be in.

Hospitals charging excessive fees are partially to blame for high insurance costs, as are prescription drug companies, supply companies, etc etc.

For these reasons, we're already paying higher costs footing bills for others so why not coverage for all? If Trump would keep his ass from taking weekly vacations, his near $200 million cost to taxpayers (plus his resort charges for security = his resorts/Trump profits) would pay for some to receive medical treatment. Some is better than none and a better investment imo that it going into his narcissist, criminal piggy bank. I realize this is an exceptionally long reply but I hope a few people will read it and maybe have a better understanding of the impossibility of "fixing" private health insurance. It's not gonna happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IAintMissBehavin (Reply #31)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:45 AM

32. "We don't throw patients out on the street."

You need to get out of the rural areas and come into the cities where they ARE "throw(n) out on the streets".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #32)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:58 AM

33. You are right

We absolutely throw people out. Usually they come from there, but not always. Their are few pathways to keep people in safe environments if they donít have resources

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #33)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:02 AM

35. Yup.

I have read too many heart-breaking stories where indigent and often mentally-ill patients have been loaded up in a wheelchair from ERs and then hauled to the sidewalk in front of the hospital and left there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IAintMissBehavin (Reply #31)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:06 PM

51. The primacy of the shareholder doctrine forces hospitals and doctors

to deny treatment to people and people do in fact die because of that. The solution is to immediately repeal the 2017 giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations act and raise taxes again on corporations and billionaires. At the same time, we want to have a plan to gradually cut military spending. Then, we can either fix the Affordable Care Act by FORCING states to expand Medicaid, giving the government the power to negotiate costs down, adding a public option, and FORCING insurance companies back to the original intent of the law - not to deny treatment based on pre-existing conditions, requirement to cover everyone and so on.

OR

We could just phase in Medicare down to age 55, with the age going down each year until it is universal - with the commensurate necessary payroll tax increases.

AND

We really should be considering public banking.

I read an article yesterday about the Republican-caused deficit (from the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations) is now alarming Republicans, who had the CBO look at the costs of........wait for it............unemployment insurance. That's right! These cretins want to take away every safety net.

Problem is, even the morons among Americans, and they are legion, EXPECT the government to come to their rescue when the economy turns down. Imagine how surprised those Trump supporters will be when the bankers don't allow a stimulus because our debt is now unsustainable because of the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

The new laws outlawing abortions have mobilized women.

The next recession will mobilize pretty much everyone who works.

Trump will drag the GOP to oblivion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:01 AM

34. They're not the same people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 01:11 PM

37. I know it's absurd. The cognitive dissonance is staggering to behold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 02:42 PM

38. Don't look for internal consistency, you'll never find it.

This is the same group that for years has fought tooth and nail against gay rights.

Then when Hillary was running against Trump, they loved the gays enough to say that Hillary was an enemy of the LGBTQ+ community because she took money from Saudi Arabia, and they throw gay men off of buildings there.

Then Trump held up a pride flag upside down for 30 seconds, which made him "the gay rights candidate."

Then Trump got elected and they went right back to fighting gay rights (with two cases in front of SCOTUS about whether or not nondiscrimination laws need to protect LGBTQ+, and also the new rule that married gay couples' kids don't have citizenship).

They also took money from Saudi Arabia.

So, y'know, maybe don't trust a single thing they ever say. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saviolo (Reply #38)

Thu May 16, 2019, 02:59 PM

40. Right now tRump is doing Saudi bidding by saber-rattling with Iran. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 02:58 PM

39. An abortion does not endanger any other person than the woman. Anti-vax is a public danger.


A fetus is not a person. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 03:30 PM

42. The same people who rant 'freedom of religion' want the gov't to teach religion in the schools rathe

The same people who rant 'freedom of religion' want the gov't to teach religion in the schools rather than let the parents decide for the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 03:45 PM

43. You're not mistake, you're just able to think rationally and they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 04:41 PM

45. Mistaken? How Could You Be Mistaken?

Cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:01 PM

46. There is no shortage of contrary opinions in either party

It all comes down to what you value more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:36 PM

48. You are not mistaken.

Upside down world is harsh.

I would like to help make things better for everyone.

That is why I am a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:11 AM

58. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sat May 18, 2019, 07:21 AM

59. I don't know.

I do know there are people that say our government (we the people) should not be able to make them vaccinate their children.

I also know there are people that think the government should be able to make a woman carry an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy to full term.

But I don't know that those are all the same people. I disagree with the people that hold each of those positions, but I don't know that the people that are against vaccinations are also against a woman's right to choose what happens with her body.

Is there any data on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread