3 ms·

I think those are an interesting set of questions, but for the most part easily answered by "What does the law currently say?" - Public health care has absolut

by sets13 14y ago

I think those are an interesting set of questions, but for the most part easily answered by "What does the law currently say?" - Public health care has absolutely no say on the speed with which a doctor can decide whether life saving surgery is required. In fact I would imagine that knowing that the surgery will be paid for regardless of whether the patient has a job or not might make this decision faster. - The government pays for top end mathematical talent in other sectors (security) so it stands to reason that if it were necessary, they could in health care as well. Again though, removing the private insurance part of the equation would probably remove the need. - Obviously yes, just like any other person who requires surgery to live. - Again, obviously yes. Current laws allowing abortions make this a non-issue. I understand some people are morally or religiously opposed to abortion, but we are governed by the laws of the society we live in. If that is a problem the answer is to change those laws, not to ignore them. -There are any number of taxing schemes that could subsidize public healthcare but I have never seen one that introduced a progressive tax based on health history (kinda defeats the point?). I would imagine that if the majority of the other countries in the first world can figure this one out, the US probably could too. I think questions like these are intentionally meant to bring up emotional responses and generate controversy around what could be a really simple decision (either way).

pdeuchler 14y ago
I'm really not meaning to bring up "emotional responses", I'm merely trying to give some people with different opinions a voice. Also, you seem to think I'm advocating we do not perform life-threatening procedures, which I'm not. I'm questioning who pays for them. Does the public, including those who find abortion morally reprehensible, pay for those abortions? Does the public pay for a liposuction that could have been avoided with diet and exercise? People seem to forget that this isn't a question of doing procedures or not, this is about who foots the bill for that procedure.
- sets13 14y ago
  I don't think you are advocating anything, so there is nothing personal here, just for the record. I think that we need to divorce ourselves from the specific procedures, and just talk about life saving health care. If we were to adopt public healthcare, the public would pay for life saving health care that is legally allowed. Then we can apply that framework to specific procedures, which for both your examples means yes, it would be done. You would not be paying specifically for the girl down the street to have an abortion. You would be paying your taxes, some small part of which may be applied to save her life in the event it is necessary, using whatever legal procedures are required. While you are right, that this is in part about who foots the bill, the other thing it is about is helping people live healthy lives without going bankrupt, which is a uniquely American problem in the first world.
- imgabe 14y ago
  > Does the public pay for a liposuction that could have been avoided with diet and exercise? Does the public pay for emergency treatment of someone who's in a car accident because they were driving drunk? Right now we do, directly or indirectly. If someone doesn't have insurance, emergency care is still performed without regard to whether it's the recipient's fault that they need it. If they can't pay the bill it is passed along to other patients in the form of higher prices. > Does the public, including those who find abortion morally reprehensible, pay for those abortions? Right now the public, including those who find war morally reprehensible, are forced to pay for wars. I think the anti-abortionists can manage. If you find it morally reprehensible to perform an abortion to save the mother's life, then if you are ever in the situation where you'll die if you don't get an abortion, you are free to refuse the procedure. Your personal moral code does not give you the right to choose whether strangers live or die.

by sets13 14y ago

pdeuchler 14y ago

I'm really not meaning to bring up "emotional responses", I'm merely trying to give some people with different opinions a voice. Also, you seem to think I'm advocating we do not perform life-threatening procedures, which I'm not. I'm questioning who pays for them. Does the public, including those who find abortion morally reprehensible, pay for those abortions? Does the public pay for a liposuction that could have been avoided with diet and exercise? People seem to forget that this isn't a question of doing procedures or not, this is about who foots the bill for that procedure.

sets13 14y ago
I don't think you are advocating anything, so there is nothing personal here, just for the record. I think that we need to divorce ourselves from the specific procedures, and just talk about life saving health care. If we were to adopt public healthcare, the public would pay for life saving health care that is legally allowed. Then we can apply that framework to specific procedures, which for both your examples means yes, it would be done. You would not be paying specifically for the girl down the street to have an abortion. You would be paying your taxes, some small part of which may be applied to save her life in the event it is necessary, using whatever legal procedures are required. While you are right, that this is in part about who foots the bill, the other thing it is about is helping people live healthy lives without going bankrupt, which is a uniquely American problem in the first world.
imgabe 14y ago
> Does the public pay for a liposuction that could have been avoided with diet and exercise? Does the public pay for emergency treatment of someone who's in a car accident because they were driving drunk? Right now we do, directly or indirectly. If someone doesn't have insurance, emergency care is still performed without regard to whether it's the recipient's fault that they need it. If they can't pay the bill it is passed along to other patients in the form of higher prices. > Does the public, including those who find abortion morally reprehensible, pay for those abortions? Right now the public, including those who find war morally reprehensible, are forced to pay for wars. I think the anti-abortionists can manage. If you find it morally reprehensible to perform an abortion to save the mother's life, then if you are ever in the situation where you'll die if you don't get an abortion, you are free to refuse the procedure. Your personal moral code does not give you the right to choose whether strangers live or die.