Either way, abortion is one of the hot spots for UHC in general.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that it IS a medical procedure.

I get pissed off that I'm paying for thousands of idiots who couldn't keep their pants on to be able to KEEP their kids, instead of placing them for adoption---and THAT is an "elective" in family planning, too, as far as I'm concerned.

So... you can't stop abortions from being included in UHC simply because you don't agree with someone's choice---unless I can stop paying for Welfare because of someone else's "choice". Both choices are LEGAL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Abortion is an extremely controversial procedure. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an elective procedure that takes an innocent life?

---

Hello again, Steve:

If you don't believe your tax dollars should pay for a procedure that TAKES an innocent life, can I assume that you're fine with spending your tax dollars to SAVE an innocent life??

excon

PS> It's controversial in YOUR camp. In mine, it's just like having your bunions trimmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Either way, abortion is one of the hot spots for UHC in general.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that it IS a medical procedure.

I get pissed off that I'm paying for thousands of idiots who couldn't keep their pants on to be able to KEEP their kids, instead of placing them for adoption---and THAT is an "elective" in family planning, too, as far as I'm concerned.

So...you can't stop abortions from being included in UHC simply because you don't agree with someone's choice---unless I can stop paying for Welfare because of someone else's "choice". Both choices are LEGAL.

---

Synnen, I'm no fan of welfare because it's not so much welfare any more but entitlements, but once a child is brought into this world we DO have the responsibility to see to it that the child is cared for. I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it, but our "welfare" system has gone way beyond that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If you don't believe your tax dollars should pay for a procedure that TAKES an innocent life, can I assume that you're fine with spending your tax dollars to SAVE an innocent life??

---

Happens every day. I don't think it's my place to have to furnish their insurance, too.

Quote:

---

PS> It's controversial in YOUR camp. In mine, it's just like having your bunions trimmed.

---

Not everyone in your camp feels that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it,

---

Hello again, Steve:

Then you DO support Universal Health Care. I thought so. You ARE a good man, Steve, no matter what the rightwingers are going to say to you.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then you DO support Universal Health Care. I thought so. You ARE a good man, Steve, no matter what the rightwingers are gonna say to you.

---

What, we have universal poverty now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Not everyone in your camp feels that way

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with the article.. I'm one of the people he's talking about... In fact, this is the part of his article that I agree with the most:

"I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions."

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with the article.. I'm one of the people he's talking about... In fact, this is the part of his article that I agree with the most:

"I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions."

---

That figures, this is the part people should read:

Quote:

---

After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?

You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Happens every day. I don't think it's my place to have to furnish their insurance, too.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, now you're slipping back into the Wolverine loony camp.

If you believe that everybody's medical needs are NOW being met, then I'm left to believe that you MUST think that there's something else going on here, BESIDES health care reform.

Is it: (1) To kill granny? (2) To kill Republicans? (3) To implement the commie plot for a government to take over the economy? (3) All of the above?

If, however, you believe that SOME people die because they don't have access to health care, then you're back into good guy mold...

But, you can't, seriously, believe that everybody gets their medical needs met... Can you?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, now you're slipping back into the Wolverine loony camp.

---

No, you're just conveniently forgetting things I've said before.

Quote:

---

If you believe that everybody's medical needs are NOW being met, then I'm left to believe that you MUST think that there's something else going on here, BESIDES health care reform.

---

First, as I've said before, even Obama himself has changed the debate from health care reform to health insurance reform and I've ALWAYS said we need to give a hand to those who legitimately need a hand.

Quote:

---

Is it: (1) To kill granny? (2) To kill Republicans? (3) To implement the commie plot for a government to take over the economy? (3) All of the above?

---

It's a commie plot.

Quote:

---

If, however, you believe that SOME people die because they don't have access to health care, then you're back into good guy mold...

---

No one has told us who doesn't have access to health care.

Quote:

---

But, you can't, seriously, believe that everybody gets their medical needs met... Can you?

---

You can't seriously think I don't believe some things could be better... can you? I just don't believe the entire system needs a political makeover, which I've also said before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I just don't believe the entire system needs a political makeover, which I've also said before.

---

Hello again, Steve:

See, here's where you get loony. You guys mischaracterize the issue by using words like "entire", like "government takeover". Tom just used the word "massive"... I corrected him.

And, what you fear would be true, if that was what's happening... But, it ain't. At BEST, the bill before congress would make the insurance companies do things that we've already discussed are GOOD things... Those regulations DO NOT, in no way shape or form, even when the Wolverine reads it, can be construed as "government takeover". It just can't.

Now, if we added in the public option, that's just another insurance company in the mix called Medicare. That's all it is. Really, that's ALL it is, and it's not even being considered...

Therefore, your use of words that don't really describe the issue make it difficult to discuss the issue to the point where it's understandable.. That's why we USE words that EVERYBODY understands. You should try it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

See, here's where you get loony. You guys mischaracterize the issue by using words like "entire", like "government takeover". Tom just used the word "massive".... I corrected him.

---

I see, then what's this "universal" stuff you keep talking about? "Universal" seems much broader than "massive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Synnen, I'm no fan of welfare because it's not so much welfare any more but entitlements, but once a child is brought into this world we DO have the responsibility to see to it that the child is cared for. I have no problem providing for those who otherwise can't make it, but our "welfare" system has gone way beyond that.

---

How is making a parent that can't afford a child choose adoption NOT making sure the child is cared for?

I just don't like the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm all for insurance reform.

I'm just NOT all for a complete UHC system in the US at this time. Mostly because there's no way our government could pull it off in a manner that actually WORKED, and didn't hurt more people than it helped--AT THIS TIME.

Start with reform. Then see what happens down the road.

I'm surprised the left hasn't proposed the most obvious reform... ending the anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies have .

One would think that would be an obvious 1st step if the goal was insurance reform.

But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I see, then what's this "universal" stuff you keep talking about? "Universal" seems much broader than "massive."

---

Hello again, Steve:

Well, you've got to differentiate between what I'd LIKE, and what's being considered...

What I'd like, is the "universal" stuff... But, it's NOT in the bills. It ISN'T.. Really and truly, it's not. It's not a hidden thing like the death panels, either... It's really NOT there.

The only place it resides, is in yours and my imagination... The difference is, I KNOW it.

So, what if games are fun. They just don't resemble reality, that's all.

excon

Halfpennies worth from the otherside of the lake.

It is something than most of us take for granted in England, a free health scheme.

Every time we broke a bone as a kid, or got sick, the hospital, doctors and nurses were all standing there waiting to help you

Don't get me wrong, sure the system is flawed, it is run by humans after all, so mistakes will happen.

But the basic right of a country that respects its people is to make sure they are cared for in some capacity

Private medical insurance can still be taken out on top of it, if you so choose

It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesn't have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate

Would anyone here not come to the aid of another human being if they could be saved, hopefully not

Would they dip their hands in there wallets and pay a few bucks, by the sounds of things yes

I can't see what the difference is.

Taxes are put into a big pot, so everyone can receive the benefits of a basic system

I am sure nobody here has built a road so they can travel to work on it, of course not, it is expected that their taxes pay for an infrastructure so everyone can enjoy the benefits

And I appreciate this may be a bit controversial, but surely the assitance of someone who has found themselves in difficulty through what ever means cannot be denied the help just because someone doesn't think the way they lead their lives is worthy of such

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But let's not kid ourselves. Ex just argued that all they are looking for is reform when in fact they see these reforms as a stepping stone to a complete overhaul of the health care system with the end being universal single payer . Every Democrat legislator in secret or openly has admitted that .

---

Hello again, tom:

So, that means we shouldn't address the problem AT ALL, then. Just say NO.

And, it would be FINE for the Democrats, when faced with tax cut proposals from the Republicans, to say NO because the ultimate goal of the Republicans is to eliminate taxes??

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? No, maybe you don't.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

How is making a parent that can't afford a child choose adoption NOT making sure the child is cared for?

---

I have no idea where you would get the idea I thought any such thing.

Quote:

---

I just don't like the fact that they get to have their cake and eat it too.

---

I don't either, I'm more with you on welfare than you think and I get what you're saying. I'm just much more open to caring for the child after birth even if it means welfare. We need to change the entitlement mentality that's been cultivated in this country and the Dems ideas of reform only makes it worse. Had you heard the clips of the people in Detroit applying for "stimulus" money? They are there to get them some "Obama money" and they have no idea where "Obama money" comes from. That's what I'm talking about and that's a crying shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, you've got to differentiate between what I'd LIKE, and what's being considered....

---

No, no, no, you can't keep shifting the discussion, you complained we were mischaracterizing the issue and using the term "universal" if that ain't what's being considered is mischaracterizing the issue. Aren't you glad you have me to keep you focused on your point?