Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[Gatorman]

7. Should I be forced to pay for abortion?

To me, that is a red herring in the healthcare debate. Not worth interjecting it as a primary point. IMHO...To each their own.

[MrsAri]

To me, that is a red herring in the healthcare debate. Not worth interjecting it as a primary point. IMHO...To each their own.

I think human life is the main objective here.

[annewandering]

So an unborn babies life is worth arguing for but not an born person? Looks to me that both have equal value.

[MrsAri]

So an unborn babies life is worth arguing for but not an born person? Looks to me that both have equal value.

That's what I said:

Is watching one's family suffer because of health care rationing a "choice" (pun intended) experience?

What about all of the victims of abortion who didn't have a choice?

[annewandering]

Yet, grandma, you would let their moms die from lack of heath care. It doesnt makes sense to me. Both are important.

[MrsAri]

Yet, grandma, you would let their moms die from lack of heath care. It doesnt makes sense to me. Both are important.

Again, my objective is human life.

I think human life is the main objective here.

[annewandering]

Then you do support a National Health plan, grandma?

[MrsAri]

Then you do support a National Health plan, grandma?

No.

[Gatorman]

I think the point Grandma is trying to make is:

Abortion = Murder

National Health Care <> No death

IE: We protect innocents from death at the hands of others. IE: Murder. But, a lack of health care is not the issue with the ideas being bandied around. Insurance is not a right. It is not a requirement for health care. Shoot, our hospitals are REQUIRED to provide healthcare for the uninsured. It is one of the reasons that our hospitals are in so much trouble.

Tell me...How is requiring me to have health insurance going to provide health insurance for that 'mom'? Remember, the question is not providing health care, it is providing health INSURANCE. Health care is available to those who can't pay for it and don't have insurance. It is already there today. So, let's face the true question. Why do people 'have' to have health insurance? Why does our government have the authority to make that decision?

[MsQwerty]

I'm glad your husband got good care, MsQwerty, but the fact is he was in a prospective life-threatening situation and were he in the US he would have gotten the exact same treatment (minus, perhaps, the lunch) regardless of his ability to pay. A more probative anecdote would be if you or your husband had gone seeking care for a non-life-threatening situation without the supplemental insurance that (per Wikipedia, anyways) nearly 43% of your countrymen feel compelled to purchase.

We Yanks are not living in a Monty Python movie, and we do not have people who come by every morning to scrape corpses off of emergency room doorsteps. Do we have problems? Absolutely. But we are not at "crisis stage", no matter what our Dear Leader tells you.

As one who has lived in this country for most of my life, I can tell you that free medical care is available to anyone for any valid medical reason - not just for emergencies. Through the public health system I've had free oral surgery, had a baby, had friends who've been operated on by world renowned surgeons for brain and heart conditions, children who have received absolutlely top-notch care in a public children's hospital...and those are just a few examples. For some situations there can be waiting lists, depending on the seriousness of a person's illness. The system is not perfect, but it does run on the premise that we have all contributed to it and are therefore entitled to the medical services it offers. The reason some people choose to take out private health cover in addition to paying the Medicare levy is so they can have a choice of which doctor or hospital they want, and the waiting lists in some cases are not as long.

You say that people in the US can access services for emergency treatment - then why are so many denied the medical care they need? Outside of the US we see them often in documentaries and news stories, (not just the sensationalist Michael Moore style either). When I lived in the US with my husband, I remember being appalled at a sign on the maternity ward where I delivered one of my babies that pretty much stated if a woman came there in labor without insurance, her baby would be delivered and she would immediately be 'transferred' to a different hospital and sent a bill for services. What kind of place does that to a woman in labor? To the rest of us who live outside the US it's a mystery as to why so many Americans are ok with a health system that discriminates so much against the poor.

Every other western country except for the US has a public health care system that is available to ALL of its citizens regardless of socio-economic or insurance status. It's my understanding that private health insurance is also offered in each of these countries to give people more choice of doctor or hospital and relieve some of the pressure from the public health system. I don't understand why anyone in the US would not want universal health care available to all of its citizens, nor why they'd mind paying a very small amount in taxes to cover it.

[MsQwerty]

Would it be fair to say that you believe that if someone lacks food, shelter and medical care that they or their advocate (in this case, a government) has the basic human right to forcibly take it from someone else who has earned it and appropriate it for their own selves

Short answer - yes.

Long answer - (prepare for eye-glazing to occur): The government collects taxes to fund services, and it's the government's role to ensure that its citizens, regardless of their status in life have access to those rights. If everyone pays a small contribution to those services in the form of taxes, then everyone will have the right to access those services should the need arise.

If it is true that most Americans are only two pay cheques (checks?) away from being destitute and/or homeless, then it makes sense to have a safety net that all contribute to. It may mean that the 'have-nots' in our society may rarely, if ever, contribute to taxes but that's life - regardless of whether we are draconian about it or not, there will always be those in society who never pay for one reason or another. There will always be the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled, the drug addicted and the plain lazy who may never cope in 'normal' society. That's the way it is. And it's not going to change with the world in so much turmoil.

So what do we do about it? Leave them to live and die on the streets in cardboard boxes? Hope that charities and churches will pick them up? Ignore them and tell ourselves they are 'undeserving' because we are in our comfortable homes with full bellies and access to jobs and resources? Or do we expect our government to behave in a compassionate manner and provide at the very least the basics in healthcare for those who cannot for one reason or another, afford it?

[MsQwerty]

Would it be fair to say that you believe that if someone lacks food, shelter and medical care that they or their advocate (in this case, a government) has the basic human right to forcibly take it from someone else who has earned it and appropriate it for their own selves

Maybe I'm living in a dreamland - but I EXPECT my government to provide for the poor, and not just the 'deserving' poor either. You know that old saying "but for the grace of god, there go I"? Any one of us could be next in line. I also expect my church to care for the poor as well - we all know the scriptures that tell us to care for the poor and needy, but I don't think it's for any of us to judge who is 'deserving' of being cared for in their time of need. I also realise that we need to be careful not to promote too much of a welfare state either, what I'm talking about here are those who cannot, for a myriad of reasons, provide for themselves.

And while I'm into quotes, I thought I'd share these ones on the idea of why government (which by extension means 'us' since we vote for the govt), should care for its poor.

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.

~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."

~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"

~Pope John Paul II

[MrsAri]

I would like to propose that the Obamas discontinue living so extravagantly at our expense.

[Just_A_Guy]

As one who has lived in this country for most of my life, I can tell you that free medical care is available to anyone for any valid medical reason - not just for emergencies. Through the public health system I've had free oral surgery, had a baby, had friends who've been operated on by world renowned surgeons for brain and heart conditions, children who have received absolutlely top-notch care in a public children's hospital...and those are just a few examples. For some situations there can be waiting lists, depending on the seriousness of a person's illness. The system is not perfect, but it does run on the premise that we have all contributed to it and are therefore entitled to the medical services it offers. The reason some people choose to take out private health cover in addition to paying the Medicare levy is so they can have a choice of which doctor or hospital they want, and the waiting lists in some cases are not as long.

Is it really free? Have you compared the value in services you've received to the value you've paid in? How does Medicare-Australia invest its funds to ensure long-term growth? Are you sure you aren't really just bullying someone else into paying for it?

You say that people in the US can access services for emergency treatment - then why are so many denied the medical care they need? Outside of the US we see them often in documentaries and news stories, (not just the sensationalist Michael Moore style either).

Frequently because (to paraphrase scripture) "they know not where to find it". Also because--frankly--they fear the bankruptcy system, which is designed exactly for people like them and (while indeed laborious, and ruinous to one's credit) isn't nearly as bad as it's cracked up to be.

CNN ran a story about three individuals like this just last week--but when you looked closely: every one of them could have walked into an ER and gotten treatment; but for various reasons chose not to.

When I lived in the US with my husband, I remember being appalled at a sign on the maternity ward where I delivered one of my babies that pretty much stated if a woman came there in labor without insurance, her baby would be delivered and she would immediately be 'transferred' to a different hospital and sent a bill for services. What kind of place does that to a woman in labor?

She is getting what she "needs" - delivery of the baby, and any appurtenant emergency services as required. More time in the hospital to recoup from a standard, problem-free delivery would be nice--but a luxury; one I would not force someone else to subsidize for my own family.

To the rest of us who live outside the US it's a mystery as to why so many Americans are ok with a health system that discriminates so much against the poor.

Because government-run health care runs an enormous risk of simply changing "discrimination against the poor" to "discrimination against the poorly connected". My chances of becoming rich over the next ten to twenty years are exponentially higher than my chances of becoming connected with someone in bureaucracy that will ensure my family gets care above the regular standard (which we have no reason to believe will exceed that set by the Medicaid and Medicare programs our government currently runs).

And also because we're not convinced we can afford it. True, profligacy is a fact of American political life--but this is exponentially bigger than anything we've been asked to swallow during our lifetimes. In the meantime we're printing money that isn't backed by anything meaningful; the Chinese own us, and the rest of the world is talking about ditching the dollar. I think we're right to be skittish.

Every other western country except for the US has a public health care system that is available to ALL of its citizens regardless of socio-economic or insurance status.

So do we. It's called Medicaid (and Medicare). And it stinks. Yet our leaders want us to believe that when the same people who run Medicaid and Medicare run Obamacare, it somehow won't stink.

I don't understand why anyone in the US would not want universal health care available to all of its citizens, nor why they'd mind paying a very small amount in taxes to cover it.

It will not be a "very small amount". Congrats to you Aussies if you've come up with a fiscally efficient way to do it. Here's an explanation of an analysis from our Congressional Budget Office, and here's the analysis itself. Basically, over the next ten years you've got about three hundred million people each paying $330 per year. Sounds like a sweet deal--until you realize that only about 40 million people are actually being insured with that money, and the rest are basically paying five or six times that amount over again in order to insure themselves.

[annewandering]

It's wonderful that we can bail out banks but we cant bail out our sick. I wish it were my experience that medical care is available to everyone in this country but it is not. If it hasn't happened to you or your loved ones then you really do not know.

It is good to know that we will be ready and willing to bail out banks, insurance companies and auto makers though. After all they are our truly needy. Right?

[Moksha]

7. Should I be forced to pay for abortion?

After a certain age, the need to pay for one is virtually nil.

[Moksha]

I would like to propose that the Obamas discontinue living so extravagantly at our expense.

We need to tell him to quit boarding the Haliburton and Bechtel yachts.

[annewandering]

What makes you think Obama lives extravagantly? Or does that just sound good?

[Dravin]

What makes you think Obama lives extravagantly? Or does that just sound good?

Well he is a head of state, a certain amount of pomp and circumstances go with the job. That said its not like recent past Presidents were in the habit of flying coach, taking taxis or having state dinners at Chuck-O-Rama. Besides, the protocol people would probably have kittens at the thought.

Actually that's an amusing thought (having a President host a state dinner at a Chuck-O-Rama and showing up in a taxi). You do have a point though, there does seem to be an implication that there is something beyond that so a cite isn't out of order, if for no other reason than so we can know exactly what he's being accused of.

[MrsAri]

We need to tell him to quit boarding the Haliburton and Bechtel yachts.

It's all those luxury vacations...and Michelle's $500. pair of tennis shoes (worn to a charity event, no less!). Not to mention those $10,000 earrings. I hear she has a new designer fragrance out called "Eu de Hypocrisy".

[Moksha]

I hear she has a new designer fragrance out called "Eu de Hypocrisy".

Didn't Sarah Palin have the RNC buyers get her one of those too? Maybe Cindy McCain has such a bottle in every bathroom in her fourteen mansions. But of course, there is no extravagance in any of that.

[MsQwerty]

It's all those luxury vacations...and Michelle's $500. pair of tennis shoes (worn to a charity event, no less!). Not to mention those $10,000 earrings. I hear she has a new designer fragrance out called "Eu de Hypocrisy".

Hypocrisy? For spending money that she has contributed to the Obama marriage? Michelle Obama is a highly educated woman who graduated from Princeton, then Harvard, with degrees in both Liberal Arts and Law. Among other things she has been a Lawyer specialising in intellectual property, an Associate Dean of Chicago University and Executive Director of a hospital. She has worked her entire adult life in high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, her income, according to her 2006 tax return, shows that she made $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate.

If Michelle Obama chooses to buy herself a pair of shoes or earrings that most of us couldn't afford, then I daresay she has earned the right to spend every penny.

And by the way, like many others in the public spotlight, most of her expensive designer items will be given to her so the designer gets free advertising.

[Gatorman]

Hypocrisy? For spending money that she has contributed to the Obama marriage? Michelle Obama is a highly educated woman who graduated from Princeton, then Harvard, with degrees in both Liberal Arts and Law. Among other things she has been a Lawyer specialising in intellectual property, an Associate Dean of Chicago University and Executive Director of a hospital. She has worked her entire adult life in high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, her income, according to her 2006 tax return, shows that she made $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate.

If Michelle Obama chooses to buy herself a pair of shoes or earrings that most of us couldn't afford, then I daresay she has earned the right to spend every penny.

And by the way, like many others in the public spotlight, most of her expensive designer items will be given to her so the designer gets free advertising.

If taking care of everyone else is such a problem, how come the Obama's are not donating all of their extra income to charities, etc. Or, as President Bush suggested, nothing prevents you from sending the government extra money. So, why aren't they giving all of their own extra money to the government to take care of the deficit, provide extra medicare, etc. Set the example, before asking the rest of us to add to the kitty. I would not object to the idea of a government run program paid by such donation from those who choose to. I personally think other groups or agencies may be better suited to doing it than Uncle Sam, but, if it was optional, then, the big objections are gone.

[FunkyTown]

If taking care of everyone else is such a problem, how come the Obama's are not donating all of their extra income to charities, etc. Or, as President Bush suggested, nothing prevents you from sending the government extra money. So, why aren't they giving all of their own extra money to the government to take care of the deficit, provide extra medicare, etc. Set the example, before asking the rest of us to add to the kitty. I would not object to the idea of a government run program paid by such donation from those who choose to. I personally think other groups or agencies may be better suited to doing it than Uncle Sam, but, if it was optional, then, the big objections are gone.

Ask and ye shall receive:

The Obamas donated about 6% of their income to charity over the past 4 years as per:

Barack and Michelle Obama Donated $240,000 to Charity Last Year - Philanthropy.com

Prior to that, it was about 1% of their income, when they were earning a household income of $200, 000.

Make of that what you will.

[Gatorman]

Ask and ye shall receive:

The Obamas donated about 6% of their income to charity over the past 4 years as per:

Barack and Michelle Obama Donated $240,000 to Charity Last*Year - Philanthropy.com

Prior to that, it was about 1% of their income, when they were earning a household income of $200, 000.

Make of that what you will.

So, why not give the extra to the government and trust them to do properly with it?