You don't know how to use the multi quote feature?

sleeper;1848853 wrote:This doesn't answer my question. Why have Medicaid? If people care enough, they will fund health care services privately. Are you against Medicaid?

You're moving the goalposts on the debate. The medicaid debate is a healthcare debate, which we have also discussed, but that's for another thread. The fact of the matter is PP would survive with federal funding and still operate as usual, meaning they would accept medicaid. I don't see what you are not comprehending.

And yes btw, if our Government actually functioned the way it is supposed to function (source: read the constitution), the MOST charitable country in the WORLD would be able to help most people in need. Not to mention there would be less people in need.

sleeper;1848855 wrote:Your tax dollars also go to these hospitals which are non-profits. I don't think you really understand how Medicaid works nor do you really have a good grasp on the healthcare industry.

But yes, nice line. Taxation is theft. LOL

I don't think you really understand what exactly we are debating or you are just moving the goal posts to fit your agenda. The federal government does not directly provide funding for the 1.5M non profits in our nation. You're trying to turn this into a medicaid debate. The argument is should the federal government directly provide funding to PP (550M) or not? All those non-profits that provide medical services can make a decision on their own whether they will accept medicaid or not.

Also, that line was for you. I was just following your lead by dropping memes at the end of every post. Not surprised you didn't catch that. LOL.

sleeper;1848856 wrote:Embarrassing. It's not out of scope. We are talking about federal funding on healthcare providers and you've already stated multiple times that non-profits shouldn't need federal funding to operate. THey should be able to operate business as usual with private donations for patients that cannot pay. Why are you not campaigning for hospitals to disallow Medicaid reimbursements? What is your list of providers that are okay to receive federal funds for low income patients?

Link to me saying that? You're trying to twist my argument and it's not working. Non-profits should not receive direct funding from the government, and it's their decision on what type of insurance they will accept. Plenty of non profits get by without direct federal funding, just like PP did for 50+ years. It's really not that hard of a concept to comprehend.

Thank you to CenterBHSFan for your response on why you believe life at conception. I do disagree for many of the same reasons Sleeper mentioned e.g. a distinct difference between a cluster of dividing cells and a fully functioning organism but again, thank you for at least explaining your position. What is still missing though and what I was actually more curious about is how do you turn that personal belief into a public policy of person-hood beginning at conception without what I'm guessing would be many unintended consequences.

rocketalum;1848909 wrote:Thank you to CenterBHSFan for your response on why you believe life at conception. I do disagree for many of the same reasons Sleeper mentioned e.g. a distinct difference between a cluster of dividing cells and a fully functioning organism but again, thank you for at least explaining your position. What is still missing though and what I was actually more curious about is how do you turn that personal belief into a public policy of person-hood beginning at conception without what I'm guessing would be many unintended consequences.

I am not a life at conception person, but where do you think life begins based on that fetal chart?

CenterBHSFan;1848815 wrote:I'll use my reasoning for why life begins at conception using purely scientific standards. When science finds a single celled organism on Mars they call it life.
When a spark lights up a cell (when sperm meets egg) and that cell immediately starts dividing upon itself should literally be labelled as life at that point, right? It's more than a single celled organism at that point. Right?
People love to refer to science when the ends justifies the means. That should include everybody pro-lifers, right? It should even include people who believe in the legality of abortion but balk at the idea of abortion for convenience.
The left uses the argument of feeling and moral high ground just as much as the right does. They absolutely do. You see it explicitly portrayed on this very forum.

I actually heard an argument from Ben Shapiro once where he stated that the argument for abortion is the same exact one that people, at one time, argued for slavery.
- It's my land and property and I'll manage it as I see fit. I get to decide if it is a person or property.
- It's my body and property and I'll manage it as I see fit. I get to decide if it is a person or and extra appendix.

And the left isn't satisfied with just having the legality of abortion. Oh no. They always take it further and disparage and harangue the people who are against abortion. Always. This is also explicitly shown over and over again on this very forum. To the point where they are actually turning themselves into the same kind of person they love to mock and disapprove. They reduce themselves to pathetic satire and caricatures.
It's highly ironic and even gives me a chuckle at times.

Thank you for taking the time to make this post.

sleeper;1848830 wrote:I've already answered this exact question three times. They would not be able to provide $550M in free medical services. This would cause a reduction in access to healthcare for low income women but PP would survive.

Classic liberalism ..............make (force) somebody else to pay for what the libs want.

like_that;1848910 wrote:I am not a life at conception person, but where do you think life begins based on that fetal chart?

I have no issue with a definition based around viability so 20ish weeks works for me. In my opinion this is an area where it makes complete sense to have a personal opinion and public opinion. Personally I find abortion unsettling. From a public policy standpoint I cannot work out how to apply that standard to our existing legal system. So that brings me to my conclusion that we should work to educate on safe sex, make adoption easier, whatever can be done to minimize abortion but it should never be illegal.

rocketalum;1848927 wrote:I have no issue with a definition based around viability so 20ish weeks works for me. In my opinion this is an area where it makes complete sense to have a personal opinion and public opinion. Personally I find abortion unsettling. From a public policy standpoint I cannot work out how to apply that standard to our existing legal system. So that brings me to my conclusion that we should work to educate on safe sex, make adoption easier, whatever can be done to minimize abortion but it should never be illegal.

I agree with the bolded.

	Planned Parenthood	Hospitals
Corporate Structure	Non-Profit	Non-Profit
Government Funding	Medicaid Reimbursements	Medicaid Reimbursements
Performs abortions?	Yes	Yes
LT Opinion	Can survive with privation donations, doesn't need government funding	No opinion, moving the goal posts

CenterBHSFan;1848896 wrote:I've already told you when I think life begins, which is at conception. Which, depending on which doctor/scientist (or the various groups of them) actually believe too. Each person or group has to arbitrarily come to their own conclusions because it is not really a settled thing. Some groups will advocate for one or another, some will not come to their conclusions openly at all. Because development runs constantly from one cell right on up to actual birth many different scientists/OBGYN's set various (and arbitrary) points for when life actually begins.

- Some set it at the actual meeting of sperm and egg.
- Some set it at the Blastocyst stage (about 4 days in)
- Some at implantation (about 6 or 7 days in)
- Some believe it to be at the occurence of the primitive streak (about 2 weeks in)
- Some set it at "Brain life", the onset of brain activity (about 5 months in)
* And some even set it at about 1 month after birth when self awareness sets in.
** And there are even some scientists who believe that life doesn't begin until brain maturation, which is about 25 years after birth lol

There isn't a real group consensus on the actual time.

So no, I will not concede that you are "right" over me. You cannot specifically state that you are right and I am wrong when the scientific and OBGYN and other scholarly communities can't even agree. It's arbitrary and it's subjective. Pick your poison.

Glad you had some time to Google some concepts about the life debate. You still haven't explained to me how a single celled organism and a fetus are comparable.

A+ for effort though.

QuakerOats;1848925 wrote:Classic liberalism ..............make (force) somebody else to pay for what the libs want.

So you think we should get rid of Medicaid? What is the Republican solution for people who cannot afford healthcare? Death?

Don't worry. They have a solution in the works. A great one. Phenomenal.

sleeper;1848957 wrote:So you think we should get rid of Medicaid? What is the Republican solution for people who cannot afford healthcare? Death?

There is a small role for Medicaid, and as soon as government quits fucking up our entire medical care and insurance industry we can easily and cost-effectively have a plan that takes addresses the truly indigent.

QuakerOats;1848972 wrote:There is a small role for Medicaid, and as soon as government quits fucking up our entire medical care and insurance industry we can easily and cost-effectively have a plan that takes addresses the truly indigent.

The government is being run entirely by Republicans. When are Republicans going to re-define Medicaid, a $545B expenditure program to it's smaller role and what is that role? When are Republicans, who couldn't pass the ACHA with full control over Congress and the Presidency, going to pass a healthcare plan that reduces costs, maintains quality, and increases access?

I mean, your Fox News talking points aren't going to work here if you want to have a discussion like an adult. Curious as to YOUR plan to replace a $545B program that is known for reimbursing at the lowest rates in the medical industry? How are you going to make that cheaper and more effective?

I told you what has to happen to fix the problem; you don't like the answer because it involves less government, not more. You make a living from BIG government, so obviously you don't like it when reality comes calling.

Government is the problem - period.

QuakerOats;1848994 wrote:I told you what has to happen to fix the problem; you don't like the answer because it involves less government, not more. You make a living from BIG government, so obviously you don't like it when reality comes calling.

Government is the problem - period.

No, you haven't given an answer. What is your free market plan to replace $545B in annual expenditures for low-cost medical care program? Medicaid pays the lowest reimbursement rates in the US negotiated by the government; how does your plan without government expect to get those prices even lower?

Free markets always allocate resources most efficiently.


Best

QuakerOats;1849006 wrote:Free markets always allocate resources most efficiently.


Best

How does the free market handle patients who cannot afford medical care? Do they just die on the street?

Die??

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-bears-the-cost-of-the-uninsured-nonprofit-hospitals

Con_Alma;1849017 wrote:Die??

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-bears-the-cost-of-the-uninsured-nonprofit-hospitals

Right, hospitals have to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. This is accurate. Hospitals are also the most expensive form of healthcare and wouldn't be able to handle the capacity of patients requiring non-emergency medical treatments that many clinics/doctors/etc. that accept Medicaid already handle.

So your solution is not feasible if you care at all about poor people living.

sleeper;1849022 wrote:Right, hospitals have to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. This is accurate. Hospitals are also the most expensive form of healthcare and wouldn't be able to handle the capacity of patients requiring non-emergency medical treatments that many clinics/doctors/etc. that accept Medicaid already handle.

So your solution is not feasible if you care at all about poor people living.

Glad you think it's accurate.

My solution??? Are you assuming again?

Con_Alma;1849017 wrote:Die??

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-bears-the-cost-of-the-uninsured-nonprofit-hospitals

That's a very interesting article. Just a different perspective on how uninsured costs were absorbed before.

There's a massive and complicated web of costs created largely from regulations and tort liabilities. Not to argue a lot of that isn't a good and necessary thing, but an example of why single payer won't be the magic bullet proponent think it is.

If you like to look at Europe and elsewhere - that suggests a state model (in terms of population and geography), not a national model.

sleeper;1849013 wrote:How does the free market handle patients who cannot afford medical care? Do they just die on the street?

Free markets allow people to buy affordable insurance, if they so desire.

For truly indigent people, they will have care.

People die every day; some of it is because of their bad decisions.

Decisions have consequences.

Personal responsibility, not government, is the answer.

Don't worry, sleeper agrees with you.

sleeper;1743380 wrote:
The reality is, poor people are stupid and at a certain point you give up and hope they don't reproduce.

I really don't understand why someone wants to kill their own child. But I also don't understand the cavalier attitude of murderers who take other's life. I don't see how morally this is even and issue, 200 years from now, they will look back at abortion the same way we look at slavery, "how can the people of the 21st & 20th century think this is ok?". I foresee that a state mandated universal birth control will be developed long before this matter will be settled politically, and there is no sense to fight this as an issue politically.

Economically not having the state pay for a child that the mother refuses to raise with any sort of monetary contribution helps society.
Society is also better off statically not having these children grow up to be criminals.
I end up agreeing with a lot of libertarian views more than any other political theory, perhaps if someone wants to take the moral step to kill their own child, that should be allow by law.

rocketalum;1848762 wrote:I raised a point earlier that got no response and maybe nobody is interested in it or maybe it just got missed. For the 'life begins at conception' crowd. I'm guessing that comes from a spiritual or religious belief (perhaps not but willing to make that assumption). Help me understand how you marry that spiritual belief (which I fully support your personal right to) with a public policy/law. I personally can't do it. So back to my previous point. If life begins at conception and bestowe the rights of life/person-hood on that embryo/fetus/child, help me understand that definition as applied to our legal system. My wife and I experienced the miracle of creating life through the medical wonder that is IVF. They harvested and fertilized 17 eggs. Only 4 were deemed for lack of a better term "high quality". So is that murder x13 for those embryos not selected? We implanted 2 (currently our beautiful twin sons) and have two more on ice. If we do nothing with those two, two more murders.

This is why I made the statement before that while I personally oppose abortion, I can't support ending it's legality from a public policy perspective. The application of the law makes no logical sense.

I want to go back to this because this is a valid question that never got a good answer or discussion. It also asks the fundamental question of how do we turn an infinite number of viewpoints into a law that an overwhelming majority can support?
In a sense this thread mirrors the uncompromising polarization that grips our nation and Congress today.

My personal belief is that life begins at conception, and a women's unfettered right to her control her own body( and take another's life) ends when she willingly chooses to engage in behavior that she knowingly has a high probability of occurring.

I am willing to accept a definition of life as "brain activity", as a public policy, since we already define use that measurement to determine the absence of life at the end.

Another easily legally defined possible public policy, would be implantation of the embryo. It certainly allows for 'high tech" conception, and allows pregnant women a window of 'choice'.
Even sleeper should be okay with this, as he stated in an above post that 92% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks....implantation.

This is the kind of policy compromise that reasonable people who believe in liberty for all ( not just themselves) should be able to get behind.
Unfortunately, nobody is interested in trying to create win-win scenarios anymore....not just with this question, but with almost every issue confronting us today.