Abortions Rights Win (Again)

#502
#502
A couple of points.

“Best Healthcare in the World” != “Everyone gets it”

We have the highest quality healthcare you can buy - that’s why people with the means travel from all over the world to access it.

You want to point to accessibility issues? Ok, fix access without sacrificing quality.

You want to point to value issues? Ok, generate more value without sacrificing quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy and hog88
#505
#505
Healthcare is a service business. It's a business that requires highly skilled workers and complex, delicate, specific equipment to perform many procedures.

Service businesses can't "ship" their service so they locate where people can pay for it. In the case of healthcare, if you have an area that cannot pay enough for the service business called healthcare to be successful, you'll not have quality healthcare there.

This is EXTREMELY common in third world countries, even those with "healthcare for everyone" where something as simple as a detached retina may very well result in vision loss because the nearest opthalmologist and retinal surgery equipment is hundreds of miles away.

I had a detachment and it was fixed that afternoon. Why? Because I'm in America and there's enough wealth to pay for the service and demand to have quite a few opthalmologists who specialize in retina surgery within a few miles of my house.

But........ they have "universal coverage for free" in many third world countries. How can I get service for my eye and they can't?

Go on a mission and see the rural areas in a country like Guatemala and you'll see lots of relatively minor ailments, dental conditions, etc which have gone untreated and degenerated into various permanent losses or illnesses.

That happens because there's no money to have several specialists in dentistry or opthalmology or orthopedics in rural areas. It happens in America too.

It's not a symptom of our system. It's simple economics whether your healthcare is "free" or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and EasternVol
#506
#506
Orangeslice13 said:
Elections and application of the existing constitution.
If you don’t like what happens in your state then move.

Again I can believe that something is morally wrong but still be legal and therefore I don’t personally engage in it.

For example, I’m willing to bet that @evillawyer doesn’t own a gun.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand you correctly, if you were living in Tennessee in 1850 and opposed slavery, you would simply have moved to a free state rather than advocating for change in TN law so as to avoid imposing your personal moral views upon plantation owners.

There are some moral issues whose effects are so monstrous that it would seem that the only correct human response is to never stop trying to establish universal standards regardless of what some abusers want: sex trafficking, child abuse, domestic abuse, slavery, abortion, sexual assaults, and others.

If one is opposed to abortion because he or she truly believes that the act unjustly takes innocent human life, I cannot understand why that person would feel that it would be wrong to try to impose legal prohibitions to try to prevent that premeditated killing or, failing to do that, to punish the perpetrators.

I just read a recent news account of a 15-year-old who cut the throat and stabbed her newborn to death. She is being charged with first degree murder. If she could have had the act done shortly before birth, she could have invoked the "my body, my choice" mantra as her defense. And the "can't impose my morality" stance would have to look the other way if being consistent.

I can understand the "local jurisdiction" arguments regarding laws addressing gun control, drug usage, parental oversight of school curriculum, tax levels, etc. All of those issues can be overturned or residents can move to a location with more appealing laws. But there is a finality to abortion for which there are no reparations for the victims.

History is filled with accounts of "legal" actions that are judged to be evil even by those who don't believe in concepts such as absolute truth, sin, objective morality, etc. Very few attempt to justify those acts as being "a product of their times" and "accepted practice and morality in other cultures." Even today, in our "multicultural" age, we claim to "respect" other cultures while simultaneously abhorring some of their practices as being morally repugnant and even actively working to effect moral changes in those cultures through measures such as economic sanctions.
 
#507
#507
OHvol40 said:
It is

www.usatoday.com

These Appalachia hospitals made big promises to gain a monopoly. They’re failing to deliver.

Ballad Health hospitals, the only option in the region, fell short on quality and charity obligations - yet they're suing thousands for unpaid bills.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...

OHvol40 said:
No, no goalpost moving, it’s all related. So how many large HC provider orgs exist in your local area?
Click to expand...

OHvol40 said:
Not if they are the only option because they’re partnered with a HC org that has monopolized a local market.
Click to expand...

Wow, those goal posts are in the river now.

Hospitals and “HC provider orgs” aren’t the same thing. And small communities having only one hospital isn’t the same as a “HC org that has monopolized a local market”. Johnson City for example (the article doesn’t name the other markets it’s referring to) has Holston Medical Group, Ballad, State of Franklin Medical Group, Lourdes Primary Care, and Fast Pace all offering primary care. And there’s obviously many I didn’t list in JC alone without having to travel to Bristol or anywhere else.

It’s also hilarious that you attempt to make a company that is running small hospitals any many places too small to have a second hospital appear nefarious
 
#508
#508
creekdipper said:
So, if I understand you correctly, if you were living in Tennessee in 1850 and opposed slavery, you would simply have moved to a free state rather than advocating for change in TN law so as to avoid imposing your personal moral views upon plantation owners.

There are some moral issues whose effects are so monstrous that it would seem that the only correct human response is to never stop trying to establish universal standards regardless of what some abusers want: sex trafficking, child abuse, domestic abuse, slavery, abortion, sexual assaults, and others.

If one is opposed to abortion because he or she truly believes that the act unjustly takes innocent human life, I cannot understand why that person would feel that it would be wrong to try to impose legal prohibitions to try to prevent that premeditated killing or, failing to do that, to punish the perpetrators.

I just read a recent news account of a 15-year-old who cut the throat and stabbed her newborn to death. She is being charged with first degree murder. If she could have had the act done shortly before birth, she could have invoked the "my body, my choice" mantra as her defense. And the "can't impose my morality" stance would have to look the other way if being consistent.

I can understand the "local jurisdiction" arguments regarding laws addressing gun control, drug usage, parental oversight of school curriculum, tax levels, etc. All of those issues can be overturned or residents can move to a location with more appealing laws. But there is a finality to abortion for which there are no reparations for the victims.

History is filled with accounts of "legal" actions that are judged to be evil even by those who don't believe in concepts such as absolute truth, sin, objective morality, etc. Very few attempt to justify those acts as being "a product of their times" and "accepted practice and morality in other cultures." Even today, in our "multicultural" age, we claim to "respect" other cultures while simultaneously abhorring some of their practices as being morally repugnant and even actively working to effect moral changes in those cultures through measures such as economic sanctions.
Click to expand...
Not reading all that stupidity
It’s simple you can’t legislate Muslim morality onto the people any more than you can Torah law.

The law is based on morality but not a specific objective morality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#509
#509
OHvol40 said:
Not if they are the only option because they’re partnered with a HC org that has monopolized a local market.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with your claims about hospitals in JC. Unless you’re falsely claiming Ballad health only accepts one insurance
 
#510
#510
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, AM64, volfanhill and 2 others
#511
#511
OHvol40 said:
Not if they are the only option because they’re partnered with a HC org that has monopolized a local market.
Click to expand...

“some places only have one hospital!”- has 0 to do with your claim here that one insurance company is the only option. Unless you’re claiming falsely that those hospitals only accept one insurance
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#512
#512
Orangeslice13 said:
Not reading all that stupidity
It’s simple you can’t legislate Muslim morality onto the people any more than you can Torah law.

The law is based on morality but not a specific objective morality.
Click to expand...
It has to be "specific," otherwise it's not a law.

I haven't heard anyone advocating that rules that are applicable only to believers of specific religions (such as honoring the Christian Sabbath) should be legislated and enforced for all. Only a couple of the Ten Commandments are found in common law, although a couple of others may have an effect on legal judgments (adultery) or be actionable in some forms (libel, slander, perjury).

I also note that you didn't even attempt to address my first question re: your principle of not imposing your own moral views upon others (nothing was said about specific religious views). I assumed that you were interested in an actual discussion about your ideas. Apologies for misunderstanding.
 
#513
#513
Vol8188 said:
“some places only have one hospital!”- has 0 to do with your claim here that one insurance company is the only option.
Click to expand...

Where I grew up there was only 1 hospital within 30 miles. Those living in Floyd were 40-60 miles from the nearest hospital back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#515
#515
creekdipper said:
It has to be "specific," otherwise it's not a law.

I haven't heard anyone advocating that rules that are applicable only to believers of specific religions (such as honoring the Christian Sabbath) should be legislated and enforced for all. Only a couple of the Ten Commandments are found in common law, although a couple of others may have an effect on legal judgments (adultery) or be actionable in some forms (libel, slander, perjury).

I also note that you didn't even attempt to address my first question re: your principle of not imposing your own moral views upon others (nothing was said about specific religious views). I assumed that you were interested in an actual discussion about your ideas. Apologies for misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
So you’re good with me imposing Torah law on you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#521
#521
hog88 said:
Monopolies can definitely be bad so why on earth would anyone want to turn our healthcare system into one giant federally controlled monopoly?
Click to expand...
Well, I wasn’t pointing to a hypothetical federal HC system, rather pointing out something wrong with our current system. If you read the article, it’s basically and instance of state-government-supported monopoly (both in TN and VA), but it was conditional. The conditions were regional charitable investment benchmarks, and healthcare quality benchmarks, neither of which were close to being met. So now this HC system has achieved its desired stranglehold on the region, and is basically giving a middle finger to the state governments that reluctantly approved the merger.

Now I invite you to look at a nurse’s salary on Glassdoor. Compare the advertised salary at a Ballad Health facility to, say, Charlotte, or Knoxville, or basically anywhere else around the region. It’s shocking how little healthcare workers get paid there compared to other places, even in Appalachia. You can understand the cascade effect that has, and now you can understand how the quality of healthcare there suffers. The “system” is rotting. It’s declining, not improving.
 
#522
#522
Orangeslice13 said:
So you’re good with me imposing Torah law on you?
Click to expand...

As long as I agree with it, why not?

I'd find it really odd and bigoted if someone said, "I'm against murder, but if the source of that prohibition is The Bible (or other religious text), then I reject that principle."

I have actually debated people who seriously said that voting or legislation based upon personal opinions was fine whereas reaching the same views from a religious basis is wrong.

Seems like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. "I thought it was a great, logical, moral, sound doctrine...until someone said they got the idea from a religious text. Now I'm opposed to it no matter how good it sounds."

Screwy.
 
#524
#524
OHvol40 said:
Well, I wasn’t pointing to a hypothetical federal HC system, rather pointing out something wrong with our current system. If you read the article, it’s basically and instance of state-government-supported monopoly (both in TN and VA), but it was conditional. The conditions were regional charitable investment benchmarks, and healthcare quality benchmarks, neither of which were close to being met. So now this HC system has achieved its desired stranglehold on the region, and is basically giving a middle finger to the state governments that reluctantly approved the merger.

Now I invite you to look at a nurse’s salary on Glassdoor. Compare the advertised salary at a Ballad Health facility to, say, Charlotte, or Knoxville, or basically anywhere else around the region. It’s shocking how little healthcare workers get paid there compared to other places, even in Appalachia. You can understand the cascade effect that has, and now you can understand how the quality of healthcare there suffers. The “system” is rotting. It’s declining, not improving.
Click to expand...

Ballard may suck, I wouldn't have any idea. But my point still stands because I'm pretty sure you have been an advocate for single payer or federally administered health care.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top