Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.6
-
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
Who's wedded to the insurance model? I'd rather neither exist. It's done nothing but enable chargemasters, and backroom dealings in the medical industry, where the end user is the one who gets screwed.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
And the spirit of her comment was completely reasonable and spot on. To expand on it a little:
Some people of modest means and no post secondary education become self employed through hard work and delayed gratification. They are able to earn enough to insure themselves and a dependent or two. That seems to work out alright.
Some people of modest means and limited post secondary education choose to subcontract or freelance and pay out of pocket for insurance for themselves and a dependent or two. It's a compromise and sometimes a big one, but it also seems to work out alright.
Some people inherit, share in the good fortune of a wealthy family or extended family, some win the lottery or receive huge insurance payouts for one reason or another.
So, as the examples above illustrate, not everyone wants to apply for safe grunt jobs with insurance, yet they earn (or are bequeathed) with enough to support a family. Especially when they're married and operate as a team, and have planned out their strategy in advance.
The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world.
I'm in the Making Babies Is A Responsibility Not A Right camp. I'm also childless because I was never savvy enough to choose good husband material when I was young and of childbearing age. Also I was not independently wealthy enough to go it alone and pay for it myself. I had no interest in becoming an unmarried mother dependent on government subsidy, so I didn't. I think it was for the best.
I'm curious where you draw the line? Can you afford to pay your child's college tuition in cash? Should you have to prove that before you are allowed to procreate? If your financial situation changes should you lose custody?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
Who's wedded to the insurance model? I'd rather neither exist. It's done nothing but enable chargemasters, and backroom dealings in the medical industry, where the end user is the one who gets screwed.
I really do admire your sense of fairness and justice and idealism. Describe your plan for a way for the US under its current economic model to pay for obesity. Even if we let people die in the street, you have to pay for disposal somehow.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
This. Fortunately my ex-wife wasn't an idiot, and we realized that we screwed up. Off to private adoption he went, and all three of us are the better for it. Well, the child and I are. Pretty sure she's still wallowing as a druggie burnout though.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
And if they are planning to adopt, who pays for their prenatal? Remind me.0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
0 -
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
And if they are planning to adopt, who pays for their prenatal? Remind me.
Usually a contract is signed and agreed to between birth mother and adoptive parents. So, it would be the adoptive parents or the agency that finds the adoptive parents.
They pay the mother's back prenatal costs? They reimburse the local health department? Who pays for the woman to get online to find the adoption services? Who drives her to her appointments before there's a contract?0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »First, the specific quote about poor people having children came from mommanurse who said that responsible people should wait to have children until they have a job with benefits like she did. Since not everybody CAN have an "appropriate"job, the reasonable outcome would be to not have children.
And the spirit of her comment was completely reasonable and spot on. To expand on it a little:
Some people of modest means and no post secondary education become self employed through hard work and delayed gratification. They are able to earn enough to insure themselves and a dependent or two. That seems to work out alright.
Some people of modest means and limited post secondary education choose to subcontract or freelance and pay out of pocket for insurance for themselves and a dependent or two. It's a compromise and sometimes a big one, but it also seems to work out alright.
Some people inherit, share in the good fortune of a wealthy family or extended family, some win the lottery or receive huge insurance payouts for one reason or another.
So, as the examples above illustrate, not everyone wants to apply for safe grunt jobs with insurance, yet they earn (or are bequeathed) with enough to support a family. Especially when they're married and operate as a team, and have planned out their strategy in advance.
The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world.
I'm in the Making Babies Is A Responsibility Not A Right camp. I'm also childless because I was never savvy enough to choose good husband material when I was young and of childbearing age. Also I was not independently wealthy enough to go it alone and pay for it myself. I had no interest in becoming an unmarried mother dependent on government subsidy, so I didn't. I think it was for the best.
I'm curious where you draw the line? Can you afford to pay your child's college tuition in cash? Should you have to prove that before you are allowed to procreate? If your financial situation changes should you lose custody?
Like I said, I don't have children because I couldn't afford to have them and my filter was broken - meaning - I wasn't good at choosing good provider material when men expressed interest in me romantically.
Even if I did have children, the likelihood of being able to pay for tuition in cash to a private university would be pretty much nil. I'm working class as are all my current and former friends and lovers. We don't do that unless we're willing to go into severe debt until we're 110 years old and have the collateral to pull that off. Our kids are free to pursue grants and scholarships to private schools. Our kids are welcome to self pay affordable state tuition at reputable state schools while working part time and living at home with us. It happens all the time and it's not that big of a deal.
You're presenting a hypothetical scenario which has legal and political undertones. None of that stuff is ever going to happen.
I'm saying the choice to make babies under the right social and financial circumstances is a common sense choice. Also it's a moral choice. One doesn't have to be white and of privileged status to employ common sense and have a moral compass.
You're right. My point was exactly that telling people having children is a responsibility, not a right has legal and political undertones. Just making sure everybody knows which side of the fence they are standing on.
Everybody's opinion of who should 'keep their legs closed' is different and we all need to be cautious and remember that the ruling class might decide that you are not worthy of raising children...especially in a working class household.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.3 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
2 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
I'm pretty sure that insurance payments make up the difference but I suppose I could be wrong. But I'm out cause I didn't know we weren't supposed to talk about politics. Have fun!0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
Is 28% your marginal rate or effective rate?1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
I'm pretty sure that insurance payments make up the difference but I suppose I could be wrong. But I'm out cause I didn't know we weren't supposed to talk about politics. Have fun!
Yep.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.0 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
Outcomes are debatable -- depends on what you look at. US costs are higher, though.0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
Actually the majority of my tax is paid at around 25%, with no insurance premium on top to worry about.2 -
Equality doctrine is already in effect. Let's say I earn $5 per year, and I pay $2 in taxes. And Joe Blow earns $3 per year and pays $0 in taxes because he's exempt. Big Gov will take my $2, of which I will be refunded $0 when I file taxes, and use $1 for deficit interest payments, and they will give the other $1 to Joe Blow who paid in nothing. He pays in nothing, but receives a tax 'refund'.
ETA: Sorry, this was in response to lemurcat.
I'll go with this. But I think it's more like you earn $4 plus $1 in health care benefits from your job you work hard at. Joe earns $1 at the job he works hard at. The feds tax you $2. You still have $2 plus your $1 in benefits. The feds give $0.50 to Joe and keep $0.50. Joe now has $1.50. You still have $3.
In my mind, though, you're mad at Joe when who you should be mad at is the person who earns 10x what you make working hard at their job, but still only pays the $2 in taxes. In my opinion Joe and his $0.50 isn't the problem.0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
I don't remember exactly where it was, but there was an independent study done last year of the top 10 economies and their health systems. USA was top for cost and bottom for outcomes. UK was top for outcomes and somewhere near the bottom for cost. Sorry I don't have the link.2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.
Is medical care one of those "niceties" you'd deny them under your plan?0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
Actually the majority of my tax is paid at around 25%, with no insurance premium on top to worry about.
That's nice for you I guess.....
For what I make, it's in the 28%. Socialize healthcare (purely estimating of the Canadian model), it would be in the 38-40% range. Get it under 5% of gross (because premiums aren't taxed), I can listen.0 -
terricherry2 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
Actually the majority of my tax is paid at around 25%, with no insurance premium on top to worry about.
That's nice for you I guess.....
For what I make, it's in the 28%. Socialize healthcare (purely estimating of the Canadian model), it would be in the 38-40% range. Get it under 5%, I can listen.
The only people who pay 28% effective federal taxes in the US are in the top 1%. Effective tax rate chart, uses 2010 data.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.
Is medical care one of those "niceties" you'd deny them under your plan?
If it's not acutely lifethreatening or infectious, then yeap. I have precisely zero sympathy for rapists, and would actually prefer execution or chemical castration in cases with proper evidence (DNA and obvious signs of physical trauma, etc.). However, that execution bit would prevent their being useful in this particular instance.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you then logically believe birth control and abortions and adoptions should be free to all women who are not married or independently financially secure?...The reasonable choice for anyone who is not part of a two parent married unit and who is unable to independently support offspring would be to not make babies until they are married and financially able to support who they bring into the world....
No. Let them keep their legs closed. It's not that hard. And if they have a lapse in judgment and want to put a baby up for adoption, I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay to do that.
What if they have a "lapse in judgment" and don't want to give their child away? You would want them to be forced to do so?
What if their legs are forced open, against their will? You would also take away their choice as to what to do in the even they became pregnant?
To be fair, equating a spawn of rape, to people who just have poor judgment is a bit...out there. In such cases, I'd recommend that the aggressor face prison time, hard labor, and all proceeds of said labor be put into a trust fund for the child, useable by the victim, if she decided to keep the child.
You were equating the two - you said women should just "...keep their legs closed. It's not that hard."
Do you know what prisoners earn? Do your really expect that dollar or two a day to provide for a child? Who picks up the slack?
Eta - sorry, it wasn't you that said that, it was newmeadow. I apologize. But the question still stands - do you really think a prisoners wages could even come close to covering the cost of raising a child? Or even the prenatal care if the mother did choose adoption? Or even the cost of an abortion (this has the best chance, after several years)?
Yes, assuming two things: cost per inmate is left at it's nominal level, BUT said inmate is stripped on any and all added cost "niceties". If it's not required for survivial, it's not provided, and those funds are funneled over.
Is medical care one of those "niceties" you'd deny them under your plan?
If it's not acutely lifethreatening or infectious, then yeap. I have precisely zero sympathy for rapists, and would actually prefer execution or chemical castration in cases with proper evidence (DNA and obvious signs of physical trauma, etc.). However, that execution bit would prevent their being useful in this particular instance.
Everybody in jail is not a rapist. In fact the vast majority are in for non-violent drug offenses.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I guess I just prefer paying 28% in taxes rather than 38-40%, but that's just me.....
The implicit assumption seems to be that the USA's healthcare system is free market while the UK's is not. Not the case even a teeny tiny bit. USA's healthcare market is largely cartelized and corporatized. The UK's healthcare market is largely socialized. I'm certainly willing to believe the UK system's outcomes are better than those in the US (although I'm guessing it's probably arguable and the picture is far more complex than is being suggested here), but given the above, that really isn't saying much.
Outcomes are debatable -- depends on what you look at. US costs are higher, though.
I'm willing to believe that, I suppose - in the United States our healthcare market is drowning in a welter of laws, regulations, and edicts that have resulted in a schizophrenic, duplicative morass of subsidies, welfare programs and entitlements that aren't free-market in the least, have high administrative costs, and end up increasingly enriching corporations and bureaucrats to all of our detriment.
Still, I'm not sure why the argument against the above should be "just socialize everything like the UK." I get that the NHS brings out a weird sense of defensive patriotism in the Brits, but I don't think because the US system is so increasingly flawed means we should go ahead and jump right into a different flawed scheme.
How about we try the free market? When in comes to information technology, which comparatively has been subject to far less regulation in the USA, consumers have for the past several decades reaped the benefits of a blistering pace of innovation combined with steadily decreasing costs.
Wouldn't that be nice in healthcare? Just a thought.
0 -
I'm trying to stay away but I just keep trying to wrap my head around the way some people think...you do know that living in a strong, healthy, educated society is better for YOU in a selfish way right?6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions