What happen to adjectives the "right to life" folks within the robustness nurture debate?
Apparently a fetus has the "right to life", but not someone who can't afford health insurance and get cancer.
In my opinion, these people are not really "pro-life", they are in recent times anti-abortion.
Answers:
I am proudly pro choice which is within congruence with health watchfulness reform, or the third option. I can opt to stay next to a private insurer or get low cost coverage - it is a CHOICE.
I have never really close to the term pro life - I enjoy always preferred anti-choice when is possibly more fitting in this debate seeing as though thos warfare health care want to destroy and affordable 3rd choice to the middle class who don't make enough money for private vigour care, but make too much for medicare.
Kevin:
If it is the right to privacy that grants an individual the right to own an abortion, where is the right to privacy that gives someone the right to business deal with end of duration issues without a mandate.
I presume you are in support of abortion rights and against mandate counselling of the woman seeking an abortion. Why then would you be for requiring counselling for end of enthusiasm considerations.
I point this out because both sides in the debate (abortion or health nurture reform, it works for both) are loaded with inconsistencies and hypocrisy. From a "moral equivalence" standpoint both you and your opponent are equally wrong.
Oh, by the way, no one is denying those next to cancer the opportunity to get care today. The merely question is who will ultimately pay for the fastidiousness and how much will be necessary. Typically those who indicate that they can't get consideration haven't worked with a social worker to determine the options available to them. Comments that enunciate that care is denied are ignorant of the actual process and should be dismissed as intense rants only.
Bingo!
What was it Senator Obama said in his taking up speech at the Convention? The conservatives' message to people who lose their jobs, their condition insurance, any form of security is, "Tough luck, you're on your own!" And he said, "America, we are better than that!" Senator Obama was right, and that's why he's President Obama presently.
Maybe they should be "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" society. Now THAT would be "change we can believe in."
Right. The "right to life" apparently stops at birth, later it's open season. And may God have mercy on your if you aren't financially successful surrounded by your life, because that means that it's ok to do adjectives sorts of things to you. Everything from subtle ridicule to outright letting you die on the floor of an emergency room in a county hospital.
The "right to life" crowd finds it easier to take a energy if they see fit. Ask Dr. Tiller's widow, or the widow of the holocaust museum guard.
Your right to pop out kid after kid stops at my pocketbook.
Most of these associates were never pro-life to begin beside. Abortion is morally wrong, and I stand by my belief. As for people affording health insurance, which by the opening 80% of Americans have, by "choice" (the rest of the 10% can afford the insurance, they just don't want it)
they would be worse past its sell-by date with this proposed health assistance reform. Most of the cancer patients would have to dally for treatment because we would have "rations." In the meantime, the patient is slowly dieing. What is more humane? Watching a human being die because they can't get the medicine, or them have to pay off the bill latter?
In the end, you're either limp, or alive. What's more important?
That's all I own to say about that.
You have it all wrong!
They believe they hold the right to be born....what happens to them afterward, they could care smaller quantity about....
Health carefulness is not about faith; it is almost market share.
How can the right claim that the state cannot tax them or restrict their access to guns when they assign it the power to determine whether a citizen carries a foetus to term? Of course, principle is not about reason. Quite the converse.
I refuse to vote for any candidate who espouses a belief surrounded by the Hairy Thunderer, because they have revealed a mental incapacity.
One example of Medicaid:
I go to a doctors appointment with a woman and her 2 year old child who have a terrible upper respiratory infection. The doctor said "this is the medication that would be best for your child" and left the room. When the doctor returned to the treatment room she said "ably, even though this medicine would be best for your child, I can't write her a prescription for it", the mom of course asked why and the doc said "because she get medicaid". Mom looked confused and said "but her primary insurance will take care of most of the cost" ( the medicaid be secondary). The doc said she still could not write it. Mom, wanting the best for her child asked; "what if I can find a way to pay for it myself?" The doctor said " you don't catch it, I CAN'T write the prescription for her BECAUSE SHE IS A MEDICAID RECIPIENT".
In other words, this child did without the best medication for her because she was a receiver of a Government funded program.
How fair was that?
How even-handed was it to this little child, because through no fault of her own, she have to take a medicine of less significant benefit to her?
That particular family would enjoy been better off if they hadn't received a political affairs funded health plan.
Do you know what a person on medicaid have to go through to get talent medication?
I do - I have witnessed it time and time again and I really wish I have had a video camera with me at the time the little girl be denied proper health care, I regard it would really open some eyes up about this.
Instead, policy ran health concern is not sugar and spice and everything nice, and those who are concerned about it do have valid concerns, but it seem no one wants to consider that.
If anyone would hold witnessed what I did in that doctors office, they would be merely as concerned.
I also know a woman who has been a type 1 diabetic for heaps years. Her diabetes was poorly controlled despite her best efforts. Her doctor looked-for to put her on a long acting insulin that he felt would be better for her but could not prescribe it because she was on Medicaid. Finally, though it be very difficult in her frail form, she gained employment that provided benefits and she went rear legs to her doctor, the doctor gave her a script for the better insulin, but, still on Medicaid and her employers insurance still not accessible, she have to wait a few more weeks to get the prescription packed. Since being on the better insulin her bloodsugar levels hold stabilized--unfortunately, complications had already set in that are irreversible. She may live longer, but the trait of her health would be much better if she'd had the proper meds much sooner,
Source(s): The child be hospitalized with pneumonia 1 week after starting the antibiotic.
The woman would have died if she have not been able to attain the 'better' insulin.
I have more of these incidents if anyone would care to listen..
There are hundreds of cancer treatment centers and charities that help people who could not otherwise afford the treatments that they receive. Failing to acknowledge that shows how dishonest your argument is.
The solutions to our problems are already out here, the government just desires to get the credit and gain power rather than do the best entry.
We should all promote solutions that allow the givers the choice to give, and not force anything on any the giver or the receiver. We adjectives have rights, and one persons "need" can never be used to trump someone else's rights.
Your premise is false everybody has a right to urgent care, cancer included. This have been the case since 1961.
Local counties spend billions a year to treat the uninsured.
Why do the pro-abortion crowd favor FORCING someone to pay for others healthcare? To be consistent, shouldn't you be 'pro-choice' on this issue?
Government programs aren't 'choice', everyone is FORCED to pay envelope. And if you dont pay, you will go to prison. If you keep hold of resisting the tax, and resist going to prison, you have a swat squad sent to your door.
So much for 'CHOICE' eh?
Exactly, simply another notch of hypocrisy on the Republican bed-post.
This have been an issue all along. Similar to not wanting abortion to be permitted, but then not wanting to help the child out after it is born.
Taxpayers already do settle for some abortions.
Just trying to latch on to any thing you can to support your belief point. In your opinion is not a valid argument for any thing. You can't read people's minds and communicate any one what they are or aren't
We are the one's combat the "die with dignity"," let's just agree to grandma die" plan. People in this country who need medical attention can return with it now. We don't need a total govt nick over of another industry to help grandma!!
Don't draw from me wrong, I am in support of providing people beside competent health care. However, I simply cannot come to language with the Obama-brand that the Dems are trying to slide.
All that this health effort bill is going to accomplish is to fulfill Obama's dream of almost unlimited government influence in the free souk: socialism.
Obama is wiping out our freedom of choice, our 'capitalism', one step at a time. It started with stimulus payments to respectively citizen. Then Obama began wiping out the free discount with his 'bailouts' of the bankers, followed by the auto industry. Now, he's after the health charge industry. It's all part of his vigilantly maneuvering plan to create a totalitarian socialist government.
Not to mention that all these stimulus and bailout packages are going to place this country contained by a state of irreversible debt. It is estimated that by the time Obama is done with has run of destruction, the United States will be $24 trillion within debt (to countries like China). That is $80,000 per American citizen.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090720/ap_o…
Our taxes will skyrocket. The next 3 generation of tax payers will be forced to sacrifice most, if not adjectives their income just to pull this country out of deficit!!
How do you plan to rate YOUR $80,000 off?
No, when does 'right to life' mean waiting lists, second rate service, and annihilation panels?
It's a bad thought, nobody wants it except a few liberal kooks. Give it up.
Nobody is denied treatment surrounded by the United States, regardless of ability to pay.
life, choice, pursuit of happiness
you are the one trying to add "free healthcare"
Seriously, when are you people going to numeral out that using the word "cancer" is self-defeating in support of Obamacare.
The CURRENT US health charge system has the HIGHEST cancer survival rates in the world.
Changing away from that system would KILL PEOPLE.
You want to put a little more effort into coming up next to arguments which don't work against you.
Don't pro-choice culture object to FORCING people to be responsible for another's time?
Everybody has a right to life. What you do near that life is your decision.Go out and catch a job and get strength insurance like responsible people. Go edify yourself,learn a trade if the job souk dries up in your area move somewhere else. There is other a way to take fastidiousness of yourself. Do not be a burden on society but a productive member. Source(s): My brain
OCTA MOM has showed them the LIGHT
have lots of babies
collect welfare
and catch your own TV SHOW
si
All their heads exploded from their philosophical inconsistency and hypocrisy.
This is why I donate money to my local hospital's slush fund so that they can cover uninsured patients. I'd rather dispense directly than to the government.
I prefer to call them "pro-birth"...because once the kid is born, they could diligence less what happens to it.
All government-run "health systems" kill culture. No exceptions - ever. Only a glimmer of understanding of economics is even necessary to know that no exception is POSSIBLE.
Related Questions:
In my opinion, these people are not really "pro-life", they are in recent times anti-abortion.
Answers:
I am proudly pro choice which is within congruence with health watchfulness reform, or the third option. I can opt to stay next to a private insurer or get low cost coverage - it is a CHOICE.
I have never really close to the term pro life - I enjoy always preferred anti-choice when is possibly more fitting in this debate seeing as though thos warfare health care want to destroy and affordable 3rd choice to the middle class who don't make enough money for private vigour care, but make too much for medicare.
Kevin:
If it is the right to privacy that grants an individual the right to own an abortion, where is the right to privacy that gives someone the right to business deal with end of duration issues without a mandate.
I presume you are in support of abortion rights and against mandate counselling of the woman seeking an abortion. Why then would you be for requiring counselling for end of enthusiasm considerations.
I point this out because both sides in the debate (abortion or health nurture reform, it works for both) are loaded with inconsistencies and hypocrisy. From a "moral equivalence" standpoint both you and your opponent are equally wrong.
Oh, by the way, no one is denying those next to cancer the opportunity to get care today. The merely question is who will ultimately pay for the fastidiousness and how much will be necessary. Typically those who indicate that they can't get consideration haven't worked with a social worker to determine the options available to them. Comments that enunciate that care is denied are ignorant of the actual process and should be dismissed as intense rants only.
Bingo!
What was it Senator Obama said in his taking up speech at the Convention? The conservatives' message to people who lose their jobs, their condition insurance, any form of security is, "Tough luck, you're on your own!" And he said, "America, we are better than that!" Senator Obama was right, and that's why he's President Obama presently.
Maybe they should be "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" society. Now THAT would be "change we can believe in."
Right. The "right to life" apparently stops at birth, later it's open season. And may God have mercy on your if you aren't financially successful surrounded by your life, because that means that it's ok to do adjectives sorts of things to you. Everything from subtle ridicule to outright letting you die on the floor of an emergency room in a county hospital.
The "right to life" crowd finds it easier to take a energy if they see fit. Ask Dr. Tiller's widow, or the widow of the holocaust museum guard.
Your right to pop out kid after kid stops at my pocketbook.
Most of these associates were never pro-life to begin beside. Abortion is morally wrong, and I stand by my belief. As for people affording health insurance, which by the opening 80% of Americans have, by "choice" (the rest of the 10% can afford the insurance, they just don't want it)
they would be worse past its sell-by date with this proposed health assistance reform. Most of the cancer patients would have to dally for treatment because we would have "rations." In the meantime, the patient is slowly dieing. What is more humane? Watching a human being die because they can't get the medicine, or them have to pay off the bill latter?
In the end, you're either limp, or alive. What's more important?
That's all I own to say about that.
You have it all wrong!
They believe they hold the right to be born....what happens to them afterward, they could care smaller quantity about....
Health carefulness is not about faith; it is almost market share.
How can the right claim that the state cannot tax them or restrict their access to guns when they assign it the power to determine whether a citizen carries a foetus to term? Of course, principle is not about reason. Quite the converse.
I refuse to vote for any candidate who espouses a belief surrounded by the Hairy Thunderer, because they have revealed a mental incapacity.
One example of Medicaid:
I go to a doctors appointment with a woman and her 2 year old child who have a terrible upper respiratory infection. The doctor said "this is the medication that would be best for your child" and left the room. When the doctor returned to the treatment room she said "ably, even though this medicine would be best for your child, I can't write her a prescription for it", the mom of course asked why and the doc said "because she get medicaid". Mom looked confused and said "but her primary insurance will take care of most of the cost" ( the medicaid be secondary). The doc said she still could not write it. Mom, wanting the best for her child asked; "what if I can find a way to pay for it myself?" The doctor said " you don't catch it, I CAN'T write the prescription for her BECAUSE SHE IS A MEDICAID RECIPIENT".
In other words, this child did without the best medication for her because she was a receiver of a Government funded program.
How fair was that?
How even-handed was it to this little child, because through no fault of her own, she have to take a medicine of less significant benefit to her?
That particular family would enjoy been better off if they hadn't received a political affairs funded health plan.
Do you know what a person on medicaid have to go through to get talent medication?
I do - I have witnessed it time and time again and I really wish I have had a video camera with me at the time the little girl be denied proper health care, I regard it would really open some eyes up about this.
Instead, policy ran health concern is not sugar and spice and everything nice, and those who are concerned about it do have valid concerns, but it seem no one wants to consider that.
If anyone would hold witnessed what I did in that doctors office, they would be merely as concerned.
I also know a woman who has been a type 1 diabetic for heaps years. Her diabetes was poorly controlled despite her best efforts. Her doctor looked-for to put her on a long acting insulin that he felt would be better for her but could not prescribe it because she was on Medicaid. Finally, though it be very difficult in her frail form, she gained employment that provided benefits and she went rear legs to her doctor, the doctor gave her a script for the better insulin, but, still on Medicaid and her employers insurance still not accessible, she have to wait a few more weeks to get the prescription packed. Since being on the better insulin her bloodsugar levels hold stabilized--unfortunately, complications had already set in that are irreversible. She may live longer, but the trait of her health would be much better if she'd had the proper meds much sooner,
Source(s): The child be hospitalized with pneumonia 1 week after starting the antibiotic.
The woman would have died if she have not been able to attain the 'better' insulin.
I have more of these incidents if anyone would care to listen..
There are hundreds of cancer treatment centers and charities that help people who could not otherwise afford the treatments that they receive. Failing to acknowledge that shows how dishonest your argument is.
The solutions to our problems are already out here, the government just desires to get the credit and gain power rather than do the best entry.
We should all promote solutions that allow the givers the choice to give, and not force anything on any the giver or the receiver. We adjectives have rights, and one persons "need" can never be used to trump someone else's rights.
Your premise is false everybody has a right to urgent care, cancer included. This have been the case since 1961.
Local counties spend billions a year to treat the uninsured.
Why do the pro-abortion crowd favor FORCING someone to pay for others healthcare? To be consistent, shouldn't you be 'pro-choice' on this issue?
Government programs aren't 'choice', everyone is FORCED to pay envelope. And if you dont pay, you will go to prison. If you keep hold of resisting the tax, and resist going to prison, you have a swat squad sent to your door.
So much for 'CHOICE' eh?
Exactly, simply another notch of hypocrisy on the Republican bed-post.
This have been an issue all along. Similar to not wanting abortion to be permitted, but then not wanting to help the child out after it is born.
Taxpayers already do settle for some abortions.
Just trying to latch on to any thing you can to support your belief point. In your opinion is not a valid argument for any thing. You can't read people's minds and communicate any one what they are or aren't
We are the one's combat the "die with dignity"," let's just agree to grandma die" plan. People in this country who need medical attention can return with it now. We don't need a total govt nick over of another industry to help grandma!!
Don't draw from me wrong, I am in support of providing people beside competent health care. However, I simply cannot come to language with the Obama-brand that the Dems are trying to slide.
All that this health effort bill is going to accomplish is to fulfill Obama's dream of almost unlimited government influence in the free souk: socialism.
Obama is wiping out our freedom of choice, our 'capitalism', one step at a time. It started with stimulus payments to respectively citizen. Then Obama began wiping out the free discount with his 'bailouts' of the bankers, followed by the auto industry. Now, he's after the health charge industry. It's all part of his vigilantly maneuvering plan to create a totalitarian socialist government.
Not to mention that all these stimulus and bailout packages are going to place this country contained by a state of irreversible debt. It is estimated that by the time Obama is done with has run of destruction, the United States will be $24 trillion within debt (to countries like China). That is $80,000 per American citizen.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090720/ap_o…
Our taxes will skyrocket. The next 3 generation of tax payers will be forced to sacrifice most, if not adjectives their income just to pull this country out of deficit!!
How do you plan to rate YOUR $80,000 off?
No, when does 'right to life' mean waiting lists, second rate service, and annihilation panels?
It's a bad thought, nobody wants it except a few liberal kooks. Give it up.
Nobody is denied treatment surrounded by the United States, regardless of ability to pay.
life, choice, pursuit of happiness
you are the one trying to add "free healthcare"
Seriously, when are you people going to numeral out that using the word "cancer" is self-defeating in support of Obamacare.
The CURRENT US health charge system has the HIGHEST cancer survival rates in the world.
Changing away from that system would KILL PEOPLE.
You want to put a little more effort into coming up next to arguments which don't work against you.
Don't pro-choice culture object to FORCING people to be responsible for another's time?
Everybody has a right to life. What you do near that life is your decision.Go out and catch a job and get strength insurance like responsible people. Go edify yourself,learn a trade if the job souk dries up in your area move somewhere else. There is other a way to take fastidiousness of yourself. Do not be a burden on society but a productive member. Source(s): My brain
OCTA MOM has showed them the LIGHT
have lots of babies
collect welfare
and catch your own TV SHOW
si
All their heads exploded from their philosophical inconsistency and hypocrisy.
This is why I donate money to my local hospital's slush fund so that they can cover uninsured patients. I'd rather dispense directly than to the government.
I prefer to call them "pro-birth"...because once the kid is born, they could diligence less what happens to it.
All government-run "health systems" kill culture. No exceptions - ever. Only a glimmer of understanding of economics is even necessary to know that no exception is POSSIBLE.
Related Questions:
- Should a woman NOT draw from the release cost for 1st level murder in recent times because she's a feminine and have kids?
- How would foreclosure and/or collapse affect securities and life span insurance license?
- How long does it filch for probate issues?
- How can I protect my children after I am gone?
- Is it true that a form insurance company can't drop you if you own a pre-existing condition?