The Supreme Court just took a case that could drastically limit — or even overrule — Roe v. Wade

[BlackSand]

​

They are prolife but they don't want health care hijacked into
an agenda of depending on federal govt.

Feds paying for health care still doesn't address or prevent the abuse of
sexual relations to create unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I am glad you and I agree on more points than we disagree on.

I would not take sides against either prochoice or prolife but
focus on what solutions we support in common. Reinforcing opposition
just discourages hope or faith of working together, so I urge not to dwell on the negatives where we object and disagree.
Of course we have those points on all sides.

What is going to help is to focus on solutions we agree on.

The challenge with preventative outreach is that Govt cannot necessarily support it
since this involves personal decisions and counseling to address. This part is
most effectively done in private in personal relations not regulated by Govt.

So that is why Prolife are so adamant about getting all this business out of Govt
so the proper preventative approaches can be taken. If everything is run through Govt,
both the prochoice complain when prolife oppose their tax dollars and govt favoring prochoice policies,
and the prolife oppose and block any policy that funnels public dollars into programs associated with liberal prochoice agenda.

I have trouble explaining to my fellow liberals and progressives
why we cannot expect to run health care through federal govt, because taxpayers of other beliefs
have a say in where that money goes.

My liberal friends stuck on Statist ideas of Central Authority believe that once
tax money is paid to federal govt, they can vote to use it however the majority rules.

But this still must take into account the BELIEFS of people protected in the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, Tenth Amendment, and Civil Rights.

Health care is best decided locally and democratically, first,
and reserve just the policies that EVERYONE agrees on UNIVERSALLY
and UNIFORMLY to be on the federal level that represents the public without getting
into the personal details and choices which are best managed individually on local levels instead.

by localizing the policies and approaches, then it IS possible to accommodate
the personal decisions, relationships and choices. But federal levels of govt
are not designed to handle such individualized choices and diverse demands.

.

Rabid Political Pundits don't understand the Tenth Amendment or the idea that something just isn't any of the Federal Government's business.
They would rather leverage opinions they cannot access in their state or local governments ...
in order to circumvent the ability of Citizens to decide these things for their own communities.

They don't have a clue what Liberty is, and think a Right is something the Government provides them with.
​

.

 

[hadit]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

I never argued that people will have to pay nothing. I already pay monthly for health care. If that money goes to pay for universal health care all the better. You are paying anyway. It's actually cheaper to get preventative care.

Yes, but consider this. "Affordable" is a subjective term, and I'm asking you to define what you mean when you say it. Buzzwords like that are nice emotional fluff, but often evaporate in the harsh light of reality. IOW, are you willing to give up the quality you get so everyone else can have a little more? I think you believe everyone should be able to get the quality you pay for now, but not have to pay what you do for it.

I have no reason to believe I have to give up anything. Preventive care is cheaper.

Okay, so your baseline for "affordable" healthcare for all is what you get now. What are your premiums and deductibles for insurance? That's total, not just what you pay after your employer picks up most of the tab. Does it include prescription drug coverage, short and long term disability, and life?

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

I never argued that people will have to pay nothing. I already pay monthly for health care. If that money goes to pay for universal health care all the better. You are paying anyway. It's actually cheaper to get preventative care.

Yes, but consider this. "Affordable" is a subjective term, and I'm asking you to define what you mean when you say it. Buzzwords like that are nice emotional fluff, but often evaporate in the harsh light of reality. IOW, are you willing to give up the quality you get so everyone else can have a little more? I think you believe everyone should be able to get the quality you pay for now, but not have to pay what you do for it.

I have no reason to believe I have to give up anything. Preventive care is cheaper.

Okay, so your baseline for "affordable" healthcare for all is what you get now. What are your premiums and deductibles for insurance? That's total, not just what you pay after your employer picks up most of the tab. Does it include prescription drug coverage, short and long term disability, and life?

I'm retired. We pay appx $550 a month. Off the top of my head I'm not sure on co-pay and deductible as I'm lucky and my wife deals with that.

As I also already noted, I'm NOT saying for many that we still wouldn't have to pay a co-pay or something.

 

[basquebromance]

when the penalty for aborting after rape is harsher than the penalty for rape, you know there's a war on women

 

[james bond]

Neuter and fix men and women who have to abort three times.

 

[emilynghiem]

​

They are prolife but they don't want health care hijacked into
an agenda of depending on federal govt.

Feds paying for health care still doesn't address or prevent the abuse of
sexual relations to create unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I am glad you and I agree on more points than we disagree on.

I would not take sides against either prochoice or prolife but
focus on what solutions we support in common. Reinforcing opposition
just discourages hope or faith of working together, so I urge not to dwell on the negatives where we object and disagree.
Of course we have those points on all sides.

What is going to help is to focus on solutions we agree on.

The challenge with preventative outreach is that Govt cannot necessarily support it
since this involves personal decisions and counseling to address. This part is
most effectively done in private in personal relations not regulated by Govt.

So that is why Prolife are so adamant about getting all this business out of Govt
so the proper preventative approaches can be taken. If everything is run through Govt,
both the prochoice complain when prolife oppose their tax dollars and govt favoring prochoice policies,
and the prolife oppose and block any policy that funnels public dollars into programs associated with liberal prochoice agenda.

I have trouble explaining to my fellow liberals and progressives
why we cannot expect to run health care through federal govt, because taxpayers of other beliefs
have a say in where that money goes.

My liberal friends stuck on Statist ideas of Central Authority believe that once
tax money is paid to federal govt, they can vote to use it however the majority rules.

But this still must take into account the BELIEFS of people protected in the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, Tenth Amendment, and Civil Rights.

Health care is best decided locally and democratically, first,
and reserve just the policies that EVERYONE agrees on UNIVERSALLY
and UNIFORMLY to be on the federal level that represents the public without getting
into the personal details and choices which are best managed individually on local levels instead.

by localizing the policies and approaches, then it IS possible to accommodate
the personal decisions, relationships and choices. But federal levels of govt
are not designed to handle such individualized choices and diverse demands.

.

Rabid Political Pundits don't understand the Tenth Amendment or the idea that something just isn't any of the Federal Government's business.
They would rather leverage opinions they cannot access in their state or local governments ...
in order to circumvent the ability of Citizens to decide these things for their own communities.

They don't have a clue what Liberty is, and think a Right is something the Government provides them with.
​

.

Yes BlackSand
We can safely say that the Right recognizes the Left pushes their beliefs, biases and agenda/propaganda into Govt to mandate collectively WITHOUT regard for equal protections of liberty, free choice of religion, and due process of others. They also believe Govt has authority to force people to pay for such biased agenda through taxes, again, without regard for separation of federal from states and rights of individuals

The problem is we are not yet united on how to fix this problem.

What I suggest to organize nationwide unity is to call a convention of Parties to address Political Beliefs, Religion and Discrimination and agree on terms and proposed corrections such as

1. Agreeing the problem is the belief in STATISM and not confuse this with other relative terms used for namecalling such as socialism, communism, authoritarianism, fascism etc that distract and divert from the real issue causing conflicts. The problem is when people on the left believe in Statism, and the only way they can practice their belief is to endorse and enforce this through Govt. How can we both allow Statists to exercise their beliefs without imposing on anyone else except fellow believers who consent?

2. Agreeing there is a difference between political parties and organizations involved in lobbying and legislation that respect Equal Constitutional and Civil rights and beliefs of other citizens and groups, versus Political Religions or Beliefs where Parties act as Religious Organizations to use party, media and govt to Discriminate by Creed and implement their faith based beliefs, biases and policies through Govt, whereas other Religious Organizations are barred from establishing beliefs through Govt.

3. Then agreeing either to distinguish Political Parties that agree to follow the same Constitutional rules, limits and process of Govt from.Political Religious Organizations that only believe in promoting their beliefs in conflict with others, and/or allowing taxpayers to separate funding to avoid being forced under Political Religions that violate and discriminate against their own beliefs and creed.