|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:35 am
Yeah, I haven't been on in forever. But now I am back. I was watching the Daily Show from last Thursday, and I saw that the Health Care Bill that passed the House and about the Stupak Amendment. This prevents any tax dollars going to fund abortion. Both my husband and I immediately said that this was perfectly fair. It occurred to me how much I've changed on this issue since I started to look at both sides of this issue with some objectivity. When I was younger (as many of you know) I was simply Pro-Choice because, as my mother actually said, "We're Democrats, so we are Pro-Choice." It was this place that really helped me change. So, I thought I would actually visit here, and say that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:05 pm
Personally I'm glad that I don't have to pay for it. First off all, there is enough taxes as it is. Why should I help pay for something that I don't agree with (except for a few exceptions-life or death), especially when nobody will help for my health treatntmes and the treatments of many other people?
If they want it and as long as it's legal, they should pay for it themselves. Unless it's an emergency, I don't think insurances should cover it (then again I wish we don't have to pay insurance or at least have them change but that is a different story).
Welcome back (by the way this is sachiko_sohma, that account was hacked and then blocked). Glad that we helped people to see things differently, even if we don't agree with everything. I wish more pro-choicer were like you and more open to giving us a chance and seeing our point of view of the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:24 am
Bitter_Medicine Personally I'm glad that I don't have to pay for it. First off all, there is enough taxes as it is. Why should I help pay for something that I don't agree with (except for a few exceptions-life or death), especially when nobody will help for my health treatments and the treatments of many other people? If they want it and as long as it's legal, they should pay for it themselves. Unless it's an emergency, I don't think insurances should cover it (then again I wish we don't have to pay insurance or at least have them change but that is a different story). This was attached to the bill that included a public option, so I think the intention is to help pay for all sorts of medical treatments, except elective abortion. I assume that life-saving abortions are viewed differently by the bill, but I don't actually know. I believe that most insurance companies don't pay for abortions. And, presumably, both insurance companies and the proposed health care bill would pay for prenatal and postnatal care, and pediatric care for the resulting kids. I think there are private charities that will help pay for low income women wanting an elective abortion. As well as many charities (private and otherwise) willing to help pay for raising a child in poverty. Not to mention the organizations will to help out couples/women wishing to put their resulting baby up for private (and sometimes open) adoption. Bitter_Medicine Welcome back (by the way this is sachiko_sohma, that account was hacked and then blocked). Glad that we helped people to see things differently, even if we don't agree with everything. I wish more pro-choicer were like you and more open to giving us a chance and seeing our point of view of the matter. Honestly, I'm even surprised at that I was able to learn to better understand the stance opposite from myself on this issue. Though, at the heart of the abortion issue, I feel, almost every sane individual on either side really wants the same thing: to prevent unintentional pregnancies, mainly through comprehensive sex education stressing abstinence, of course, but also teaching proper contraception use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:25 am
I wish I could prevent my taxes from paying for the death penalty. At least Ohio recently changed from the lethal "cocktail" to a single drug, the same one that is used to humanly put animals to sleep. So it isn't insanely painful anymore while paralyzing prisoners to prevent them from expressing that pain as they die in agony. Though I think that it is better to keep people in prison for life. It is far easier to release a prisoner wrongfully accused than to bring them back from the dead. Plus, I feel that life in prison is a far better means of punishing a violent criminal, forcing them to live with what they've done every day for the rest of their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:44 pm
I'm glad we've been a help to you!
And I agree about the death penalty. If they are going to have it, it should certainly be something simpler and less expensive. And why can't the victim pay for it through the money they have, assuming they have any money at that point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:07 pm
I.Am I'm glad we've been a help to you! And I agree about the death penalty. If they are going to have it, it should certainly be something simpler and less expensive. And why can't the victim pay for it through the money they have, assuming they have any money at that point? Chances are the victim is dead (the death penalty is usually used for murders), I doubt they can pay for anything, much less have a say in the punishment. Why make them pay more for some else's crime? The victims suffered enough. Waters-I believed some insurances has helped pay for some elective abortions (not sure though but I believe each insurances cover different things). All I know is my insurance is expense and doesn't like to cover anything it seems. I think it would be better if private charities do all they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place as well as having a better sex education program. STD's is a big problem as well. I haven't looked at the whole bill yet and don't know what will happen (I keep hearing that prices are going up).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:09 pm
Bitter_Medicine Chances are the victim is dead (the death penalty is usually used for murders), I doubt they can pay for anything, much less have a say in the punishment. Why make them pay more for some else's crime? The victims suffered enough. LOL! No, you misunderstand; I'm saying the executee is the victim of the death penalty. IE, the person that the United States government is killing should pay for their lethal injection, not the person they killed. That would be a really weird system, if the murder victim had to pay for their attacker's execution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:18 pm
I.Am Bitter_Medicine Chances are the victim is dead (the death penalty is usually used for murders), I doubt they can pay for anything, much less have a say in the punishment. Why make them pay more for some else's crime? The victims suffered enough. LOL! No, you misunderstand; I'm saying the executee is the victim of the death penalty. IE, the person that the United States government is killing should pay for their lethal injection, not the person they killed. That would be a really weird system, if the murder victim had to pay for their attacker's execution. Ah, yeah that makes much more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:45 pm
I oppose this amendment.
Why is there not exception for health of the mother and/or extreme fetal defect (like if the fetus is dead)? Why? Whhhhhhhhyyyyyyyy? Can't we all agree that a woman shouldn't have to continue the pregnancy is the fetus is going to die soon after birth or if she will be permanently harmed by it? gonk
And yes, there is a rape/incest exception along with a life exception. Don't ask me how they expect the rape/incest thing to be determined, because I don't know.
That being said, I am curious. What makes you think this is perfectly fair? Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay to support things they don't agree with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:20 pm
I hadn't read all of it or much of it really but I thought something like life or death and serious health issues were an exception.
Either way, what do you expect? There are people dying from all kinds of illness and have to fight just to get treated much less have help to pay for it (many are losing their homes because of high medical bills that they can't affords).
There are many hidden fees, issues like these are the biggest problems with health care. Even if people can afford insurance, they make it nearly impossible to have insurance if you have or had a health problem.
What about them? How is that fair as well?
Yes, it is fair not to support something people don't agree with, especially if they have their own problems and don't have help either. Most aren't rich and are losing money.
Even with the exceptions, people shouldn't be force to help pay for their treatment if they don't want to. I don't expect people paying for surgery (even just the lapaoscopy just to see if I even have endometriosis) or medications for me. Would you be willing to do that when my own doctors and overpriced insurance refuse to do so? It's only fair if I had to do the same for someone in situation like you described.
Do YOU want to pay money out your pocket for something that you don't agree with? Would that be fair to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:34 pm
Bitter_Medicine I hadn't read all of it or much of it really but I thought something like life or death and serious health issues were an exception. Bitter_Medicine Either way, what do you expect? There are people dying from all kinds of illness and have to fight just to get treated much less have help to pay for it (many are losing their homes because of high medical bills that they can't affords). There are many hidden fees, issues like these are the biggest problems with health care. Even if people can afford insurance, they make it nearly impossible to have insurance if you have or had a health problem. What about them? How is that fair as well? Yes, it is fair not to support something people don't agree with, especially if they have their own problems and don't have help either. Most aren't rich and are losing money. Even with the exceptions, people shouldn't be force to help pay for their treatment if they don't want to. I don't expect people paying for surgery (even just the lapaoscopy just to see if I even have endometriosis) or medications for me. Would you be willing to do that when my own doctors and overpriced insurance refuse to do so? It's only fair if I had to do the same for someone in situation like you described. Do YOU want to pay money out your pocket for something that you don't agree with? Would that be fair to you?
I'll use a real life example. Earlier this year the people who live across the street from me had a huge fire in their house. They had used an extension cord to hook up a space heater in their RV to an electrical outlet in their house (a big no no). The fire gutted their house. The fire was so close that the firetrucks that eventually came blocked my car in so I couldn't go to work. Do you think I liked paying for the firetrucks to block my car in because those people across the street chose to disregard the warning that came with their space heater about not using an extension cord? I did not. Would I have preferred to not have the firetrucks come and not only have put the people in that house in danger, but all the surrounding houses in danger as well? No, no, and no. Health care is the same way. Do I like paying for other people's health care? No. But the negative repercussions if people can't get health care are such that not providing health care, like not providing fire protection, is ultimately very short sighted, to say nothing of humanitarian issues. After all, Britain didn't get universal health care because they are so much more altruistic than we are. They did it because they realized during World War II that having an unhealthy population was dangerous for everyone.
Also, I'm assuming you have health coverage of some type. If you do, then you are asking other people to pay for your surgery and medications and so forth. That's what health insurance/etc is. The only way you aren't getting other people to pay for you is if you pay for all your medical expenses out of your own pocket. And maybe you do that. I don't know. But most people can't get by this way.
And I do pay out of my own pocket to support things I don't agree with. We all do. We can certainly attempt to make this not so, but we're always going to pay for things we don't like. I don't really understand why people bring this point up in regards to abortion in a way that they don't bring it up in regards to other issues, as of course we all don't want to pay for things we don't agree with, but we're all going to have to do it anyway. Unless you think that we should have the ability to 100% decide where our tax money goes as individuals instead of as a group, I don't see where this point fits in. If you are arguing that people should have the ability 100% decide where all their money goes, I really must stress that I don't think it is possible for a country to function this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:25 pm
ShadowIce Bitter_Medicine I hadn't read all of it or much of it really but I thought something like life or death and serious health issues were an exception. Bitter_Medicine Either way, what do you expect? There are people dying from all kinds of illness and have to fight just to get treated much less have help to pay for it (many are losing their homes because of high medical bills that they can't affords). There are many hidden fees, issues like these are the biggest problems with health care. Even if people can afford insurance, they make it nearly impossible to have insurance if you have or had a health problem. What about them? How is that fair as well? Yes, it is fair not to support something people don't agree with, especially if they have their own problems and don't have help either. Most aren't rich and are losing money. Even with the exceptions, people shouldn't be force to help pay for their treatment if they don't want to. I don't expect people paying for surgery (even just the lapaoscopy just to see if I even have endometriosis) or medications for me. Would you be willing to do that when my own doctors and overpriced insurance refuse to do so? It's only fair if I had to do the same for someone in situation like you described. Do YOU want to pay money out your pocket for something that you don't agree with? Would that be fair to you?
I'll use a real life example. Earlier this year the people who live across the street from me had a huge fire in their house. They had used an extension cord to hook up a space heater in their RV to an electrical outlet in their house (a big no no). The fire gutted their house. The fire was so close that the firetrucks that eventually came blocked my car in so I couldn't go to work. Do you think I liked paying for the firetrucks to block my car in because those people across the street chose to disregard the warning that came with their space heater about not using an extension cord? I did not. Would I have preferred to not have the firetrucks come and not only have put the people in that house in danger, but all the surrounding houses in danger as well? No, no, and no. Health care is the same way. Do I like paying for other people's health care? No. But the negative repercussions if people can't get health care are such that not providing health care, like not providing fire protection, is ultimately very short sighted, to say nothing of humanitarian issues. After all, Britain didn't get universal health care because they are so much more altruistic than we are. They did it because they realized during World War II that having an unhealthy population was dangerous for everyone.
Also, I'm assuming you have health coverage of some type. If you do, then you are asking other people to pay for your surgery and medications and so forth. That's what health insurance/etc is. The only way you aren't getting other people to pay for you is if you pay for all your medical expenses out of your own pocket. And maybe you do that. I don't know. But most people can't get by this way.
And I do pay out of my own pocket to support things I don't agree with. We all do. We can certainly attempt to make this not so, but we're always going to pay for things we don't like. I don't really understand why people bring this point up in regards to abortion in a way that they don't bring it up in regards to other issues, as of course we all don't want to pay for things we don't agree with, but we're all going to have to do it anyway. Unless you think that we should have the ability to 100% decide where our tax money goes as individuals instead of as a group, I don't see where this point fits in. If you are arguing that people should have the ability 100% decide where all their money goes, I really must stress that I don't think it is possible for a country to function this way.I'm saying that I don't really have money to pay for myself much less having to keep paying for others with taxes that I can't afford (right now my parents are helping me until I get a job and they aren't rich either). I have school and insurance to still pay for. Yes health coverage and no they refuse to pay for surgery as I said. As I said, they don't really do much even though it's about $300 a month but it's my only option. I'm not even getting proper health care, they tend to send me away without doing much, been fighting for seven years. How do people expect me to help others when I can't even get help myself? Yes I would like to choose were our taxes go and make sure it's actually being used for what they say they will use it for. Still waiting for them to fix roads and schools. Don't even have a hospital out here. People brake the rules here all the time. The police usually don't do much unless you call 911. Maybe you can afford things and live in a great place but don't assume that everyone can or does live in a great place I would only agree with taxes if we don't have to pay for insurances or get cheaper insurance. That is the only way people can really benefit without sinking deeper into debt. Try to understand that many people don't have much money and soon I may lose my insurance as well. People just can't do that right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:39 pm
Bitter_Medicine I'm saying that I don't really have money to pay for myself much less having to keep paying for others with taxes that I can't afford (right now my parents are helping me until I get a job and they aren't rich either). I have school and insurance to still pay for. Yes health coverage and no they refuse to pay for surgery as I said. As I said, they don't really do much even though it's about $300 a month but it's my only option. I'm not even getting proper health care, they tend to send me away without doing much, been fighting for seven years. How do people expect me to help others when I can't even get help myself? Yes I would like to choose were our taxes go and make sure it's actually being used for what they say they will use it for. Still waiting for them to fix roads and schools. Don't even have a hospital out here. People brake the rules here all the time. The police usually don't do much unless you call 911. Maybe you can afford things and live in a great place but don't assume that everyone can or does live in a great place I would only agree with taxes if we don't have to pay for insurances or get cheaper insurance. That is the only way people can really benefit without sinking deeper into debt. Try to understand that many people don't have much money and soon I may lose my insurance as well. People just can't do that right now.
You may say, "How can you expect me to pay to help other people when I can't afford to help myself?" but really, what do you think you are doing when you pay $300 a month to your health insurance company that won't pay for the treatment you need? That's right: you're paying to help someone else. When you have health insurance and you pay $300 a month, one of two things almost always happens: 1) you use more than $300 a month worth of medical care. In this case, you are using other people’s money that they paid to the insurance company for you own benefit. 2) You use less than $300 a month worth of medical care. In this case, you are paying for other people to receive medical treatment. You almost never pay in what you eventually get out; if you did, people could just start savings accounts and take money out when they needed health care. People act like universal healthcare is somehow going to require them to help others in a way that our current health care system does not. But let me assure you, the money that comes out of your health insurance doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from insurance premiums.
One of the painful things about our health insurance system is that its primary purpose isn’t to help people pay for medical care. It’s to make money. If your insurance company can rip you off, they will. That’s why you’re paying $300 a month for health insurance and getting a pathetic amount of help back. You don’t have someone to negotiate for you with your insurance company, so you’re stuck. One of the main reasons that employer offered health insurance costs less than single payer is because an employer can negotiate deals for their employees, whereas single payer individuals cannot. Painfully, we are operating in a system where the better off you are financially, the more likely you are to receive affordable health care. The more money you have, the less you are probably going to pay.
And, believe it or not, the whole point of the universal health care is to help people like you. Yes, you will need to pay (just like you need to pay now), but if you are poor, you receive a discounted rate. Your health insurance company also wouldn't be able to deny you treatment based on pre-existing conditions. You’d have someone to negotiate on your behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:15 pm
ShadowIce Bitter_Medicine I'm saying that I don't really have money to pay for myself much less having to keep paying for others with taxes that I can't afford (right now my parents are helping me until I get a job and they aren't rich either). I have school and insurance to still pay for. Yes health coverage and no they refuse to pay for surgery as I said. As I said, they don't really do much even though it's about $300 a month but it's my only option. I'm not even getting proper health care, they tend to send me away without doing much, been fighting for seven years. How do people expect me to help others when I can't even get help myself? Yes I would like to choose were our taxes go and make sure it's actually being used for what they say they will use it for. Still waiting for them to fix roads and schools. Don't even have a hospital out here. People brake the rules here all the time. The police usually don't do much unless you call 911. Maybe you can afford things and live in a great place but don't assume that everyone can or does live in a great place I would only agree with taxes if we don't have to pay for insurances or get cheaper insurance. That is the only way people can really benefit without sinking deeper into debt. Try to understand that many people don't have much money and soon I may lose my insurance as well. People just can't do that right now.
You may say, "How can you expect me to pay to help other people when I can't afford to help myself?" but really, what do you think you are doing when you pay $300 a month to your health insurance company that won't pay for the treatment you need? That's right: you're paying to help someone else. When you have health insurance and you pay $300 a month, one of two things almost always happens: 1) you use more than $300 a month worth of medical care. In this case, you are using other people’s money that they paid to the insurance company for you own benefit. 2) You use less than $300 a month worth of medical care. In this case, you are paying for other people to receive medical treatment. You almost never pay in what you eventually get out; if you did, people could just start savings accounts and take money out when they needed health care. People act like universal healthcare is somehow going to require them to help others in a way that our current health care system does not. But let me assure you, the money that comes out of your health insurance doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from insurance premiums.
One of the painful things about our health insurance system is that its primary purpose isn’t to help people pay for medical care. It’s to make money. If your insurance company can rip you off, they will. That’s why you’re paying $300 a month for health insurance and getting a pathetic amount of help back. You don’t have someone to negotiate for you with your insurance company, so you’re stuck. One of the main reasons that employer offered health insurance costs less than single payer is because an employer can negotiate deals for their employees, whereas single payer individuals cannot. Painfully, we are operating in a system where the better off you are financially, the more likely you are to receive affordable health care. The more money you have, the less you are probably going to pay.
And, believe it or not, the whole point of the universal health care is to help people like you. Yes, you will need to pay (just like you need to pay now), but if you are poor, you receive a discounted rate. Your health insurance company also wouldn't be able to deny you treatment based on pre-existing conditions. You’d have someone to negotiate on your behalf.You did the same thing and make assumption as well, or so it seemed. My family is not poor but prices keep going up and they keep adding taxes, it all that adds up. It's getting pretty tight. I'll believe it when I see it. When they stop denying people (it was hard enough just to get that insurance), making everything over priced and actually help, there won't be a problem but it all sounds iffy right now. All I'm helping at the moment is the insurance company make more money and I'm sure many other people feel like that, they sure as hell not helping me any and even if they do, it isn't much compared to the price we have to pay. I pay them because they are supposed to help me and lower the cost of everything and make sure I get what I need. Medical bills, medication, and surgeries can be costly and medication is actually going up in price. Will they actually lower the prices? It's just really hard to swallow everything they say unless I actually see changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:26 pm
Well, certainly no one wants to make health care in the USA less affordable. If this bill does that, then it has failed in it's goal. However, as you said, we do know that some countries have made it work. Hopefully we will be able to make it work, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
