|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2011 10:54:01 GMT -5
So....they should let people die because the system is inefficient? That doesn't make sense either. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but.... No, no, no, you only let people die if they are hard/expensive to treat. That's how you make it efficient.
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Sept 14, 2011 16:39:25 GMT -5
I'll give you an example of how medicine should work:
My grandmother is 78, has dementia, weighs about two pounds of nothing and has just been diagnosed with leukemia. Guess what? She might be old, poor and dying anyways, but my local hospital just started chemotherapy on her yesterday. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THE AUSTRALIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM'S FOR!
Sorry for the caps, but all people should get the treatment regardless of how much money they have.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 14, 2011 16:56:55 GMT -5
Priorization needs to happen, and terminal coma would be at the top of my cut list. Sure, there needs to be a line. Not everyone can be treated for everything right away. There needs to be some quick, easy standard for deciding who gets treated now, who gets treated in an hour, and who gets a nice bed and some painkillers because there's no way they'll make it. Fortunately, we have a system like that. It's called triage. Public health care systems use triage- the public insurer decides where you should be in the line, or whether you should just get to jump it altogether. Everyone for whom immediate care will make a meaningful difference will get it, assuming a sufficient supply of doctors and medicine*. Unfortunately, this can mean long waits for people who claim an entitlement to immedate care for minor concerns. A private health insurance system does not use triage. In a private system, rich people are at the front and poor people are at the back. Rich people suffering a nosebleed will recieve perfect, a-grade care from the best nosebleed doctor ever born. A poor person with a heart attack will have a consultancy in three weeks (often, even if they have insurance). Many thousands of poor people simply try to get healthcare from charities like Doctors without Borders- but charity is also inefficient. Which system do you think is better, knowing that the private system costs perhaps three times as much as the public? *Supplying that is a question of health care, not health insurance. Completely different story.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Sept 14, 2011 17:38:35 GMT -5
The GOP will protect you if you are a(n)
minority
woman
bisexual
homosexual
poor person
uninsured person
child in an abusive home
homeless [glow=red,2,300]fetus[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2011 17:50:54 GMT -5
The GOP will protect you if you are a(n) minoritywomanbisexualhomosexualpoor personuninsured personchild in an abusive homehomeless[glow=red,2,300]fetus[/glow] Not really, they deny pregnant women pre-natal care. They only act like they will.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 14, 2011 18:19:42 GMT -5
I think I understand where they are coming from. Or at least the logic behind this.
As so many cons will tell you, it's about personal responsbility. Or as Lakoff explained, the value of Discipline.
The logic goes that if said individual had been disciplined or responsible then they would have avoided whatever problem they are facing now.
And this idea is not without any merit. Obviously we all make have instances where we either created or exacerbated a problem in our lives.
The problem is their solution.
Helping is seen as actually immoral because one is "enabling" bad behavior".
Unfortunately this is morally suspect if not downright immoral because conservative morality in this regard ignores two important aspects of morality itself. (and I am not talking religion. I mean the kinds of moral systems that we all as humans develop)
First, it ignores a basic premise of any moral system that we all are interconnected at least on some level.
When the guy in the hypothetical above gets seriously sick, it affects more then himself. It costs those around him. Now one such guy isn't going to drag down society. But 50 million such guys will. The conservative answer to this is to do nothing based on blanket judgements that ignores context or facts (itself problematic) with the hope it will work itself out. If it doesn't (which it never does) they then tsk about how some people never learn.(and no they dont' get the irony in that)
A moral system that encourages a problem to get worse is hardly a good moral system.
Secondly, it's a cop out. It's what Catholics call cheap grace.
Cons will say they will help those who didn't cause their problems, who are "worthy" of their help.
The thing is the right is incredibly adept at blaming the victim. they can always find a reason to say the victim brought it on themselves (and therefore not worthy of help)
People lost their homes because they were stupid, not because of confusing contracts, predatory loans or greedy banks making a system even they couldn't understand.
Women who have unwanted pregnancies are sluts... not too poor or uneducated to get proper contraception, been raped or had an accident. Same goes with gays and STDs.
The unemployed are lazy... not victims of an economic system that not only needs but encourages having a large pool of people out of work and slants the playing field in the hands of those with money.
And so on and so forth. Cons are remarkably consistent in this regard regardless of what issue they are talking about. It gives them an easy excuse to do nothing. Nothing is not only excused, it becomes the real moral solution. And without it costing them a thing.
In other words, cons get to be "moral" without the costs that normally come with doing the right thing.
Cheap grace.
All of which makes me want to kick these assholes in the nuts.
I have more respect for serial killers. Serial killers are at least aware what they do is not moral by societal standards. Hence they try to hide it.
These idiots don't even the self awareness to know that much.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 14, 2011 18:20:51 GMT -5
The GOP will protect you if you are a(n) minoritywomanbisexualhomosexualpoor personuninsured personchild in an abusive homehomeless[glow=red,2,300]fetus[/glow] Not really, they deny pregnant women pre-natal care. They only act like they will. Because "protecting the unborn" for many is a sham. It's about punishing the woman who had the gall to think she should be the one to choose if she has a baby or not.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Sept 14, 2011 22:42:53 GMT -5
*throws hands up in the air* That's it. Society's fucked. America seems to be one of the few societies that think it's perfectly acceptable to allow our citizens to die simply because they don't have money. Honestly, how do you fix that? Because I don't think you can. Here is what my Tea Bagger uncle said, basically, 'It's sad that they have to die because they have no money, but if they can't pay for it, who will? I shouldn't have to. No one should have to pay for anyone else." I should also add that he's very pro-life. When it comes to abortion, that is.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 14, 2011 22:52:24 GMT -5
*throws hands up in the air* That's it. Society's fucked. America seems to be one of the few societies that think it's perfectly acceptable to allow our citizens to die simply because they don't have money. Honestly, how do you fix that? Because I don't think you can. Here is what my Tea Bagger uncle said, basically, 'It's sad that they have to die because they have no money, but if they can't pay for it, who will? I shouldn't have to. No one should have to pay for anyone else." I should also add that he's very pro-life. When it comes to abortion, that is. I guess we should all stop paying for the roads your uncle drives on then.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Sept 14, 2011 23:03:47 GMT -5
He's also a firefighter. He works for a socialized system.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 14, 2011 23:15:13 GMT -5
Did you point that out?
|
|
|
Post by id82 on Sept 15, 2011 0:08:14 GMT -5
Its sad that a person's house has to burn down, but if they can't put the fire out themselves than who will? I shouldn't have to. No one should have to pay for anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Sept 15, 2011 0:12:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if that was his next statement.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 15, 2011 3:51:01 GMT -5
No one should have to pay for anyone else. Well, okay. But if I can't feed my family or afford health insurance because there aren't any jobs, I'm stealing your shit, kay?
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 15, 2011 4:06:42 GMT -5
No one should have to pay for anyone else. Well, okay. But if I can't feed my family or afford health insurance because there aren't any jobs, I'm stealing your shit, kay? Take teabagger logic even further, and it's OK to steal other people's shit. "I'm not gonna pay for people to defend other people's shit."
|
|