Survey: Doctors' personal beliefs can hinder care

Considering I didn't call you dumb, there's no need to answer that.

I said either you are dumber than you have claimed to be, or you were intentionally missing the point. Seeing as you haven't claimed to be dumb, that leaves the implication that you were specifically missing the point, as you just did once more.

I take it that you simply don't have a response on my point about how your position goes against the purpose of government, and so even if your were 100% right about your positions within the field of healthcare, you still would not be justified in using the government to enforce it. Thank you for conceding the point.

Unless, of course, you'd actually like to address the points that I've made.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm very happy to address your points, but if you are only going to respond to parts of the posts I make I don't see why I should. Your "I take it that you simply don't have a response" and "Thank you for conceding the point. " are horribly childish attempts at reverse psychology.

I didn't respond to your post, but I also didn't not respond to your post.

Sorry, but thats only your opinion of what the purpose of government is - you don't speak for every senator etc etc. At least one person will disagree with you, which invalidates your claim.

Wait, where have I heard that arguement before?

 

No, that's not just my opinion. It is a statement of fact going back to many of the founding documents for the US explaining the political philosophy upon which it was founded, which in turn is derived from the British system of government.

For example:

Or how about reading Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government:

Note there that Locke considers property to be everything that belongs to oneself, including life and liberties.

In fact, that description of the purpose of government has a long historical tradition stretching back to the Magna Carta and Henry I's Charter of Liberties. It's not just my opinion, but the stated purpose of founding the US government (at the least), and an accepted principle of the British government for hundreds of years. (I'd be more than happy to provide more citations if you require them.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

To answer an earlier question:

What it basically means is that the clinics are now forced to upgrade their equipment and hire personnel consistent with outpatient surgeries (hernia repairs, certain types of plastics such as carpal tunnel releases, etc), as well as purchase more comprehensive insurance.

It's forcing them to spend a great deal of money unnecessarily with the intent of driving them out of business.

A rather backhanded way of shutting down a clinic; it's also a shame, because these clinics provide a lot more than just abortion services. I understand the philosophical objection, but there is a great deal of practical harm in legislation like this. Planned Parenthood provides contraception and education to women, two things that are not only sorely lacking nationwide, but constantly under attack from certain quarters.

Peace,

V-03

 

Thanks for the info V-03.

Malkie, as a doctor, can you please answer my question I raised on the last page? I'll repost it. I'd like your opinion as a professional.

 

Kind of like suing a legal legit business because some people abuse thier product.

When will it ever stop?

 

then why is my comment about the purpose of healthcare invalid considering I can back that up with historical references ? You can't have it both ways.

I'm not a medical doctor; I hold a doctorate in a medical science. The questions you've posed have been answered at length in both this thread, and the abortion thread.

To give brief answers

I've never suggested that. I merely pointed out that no one has ever died from not being pregnant whereas being pregnant can often prove life threatening. Hence by not addressing an unwanted potential pregnancy you are putting the patient in uneccessary risk.

I disagree. It is reasonably well established in the medical community that 6 weeks is the time point where you could feasible start to consider a second life.

 

Then go ahead and back it up and I might concede the point. I'd love to see you supply more substance to your argument.

However, as I pointed out in my last few posts, even if you are 100% correct on the purpose of healthcare, that still doesn't make it appropriate to use the government to enforce that position on others.

As I've pointed out in many other threads, "Something must be done" does not logically require "The government must do something".

Kimball Kinnison

 

Then my next question is, what determines that 6 week point as being the start of life? Also, what is happening in the prior 6 weeks that doesn't constitute life?

 

Kind of like suing a legal legit business because some people abuse thier product.

Nah, that corollary doesn't fit at all.

Getting an abortion is not abusing a product, it's exercising a legal right. If the governor doesn't want abortions performed in his state, he needs to pass a law banning them, and have the supreme court uphold it.

This type of backhanded dealing is nonsense, it's harmful, and it wipes out the numerous benefits that Planned Parenthood clinics provide with a sledgehammer because of one particular service rendered, which is only a small part of what they do.

This law is idealogically driven and utterly ignorant of the real-world consequences of the decision. Less access to education, counseling and contraception=more abortions.

Yay Missouri!

Peace,

V-03

 

Well said.

 

as I pointed out in my previous post - I've addressed this point and many others at length in this thread. (unless you clarify your intention I'd be tempted to suggest you raise your points in the abortion thread, rather than this one. EC deals with potential pregnancy, not definite pregnancy).

Already have done, but you rejected it. Why provide more?

I totally disagree. The government already enforce many things on us, including the recommendation of various services.

 

HOld on. You said that you could provide "historical references". You haven't done that yet. You provided a link to a modern source.

Since you are so fond of repeating yourself, and since I already addressed this exact point (and you completely ignored it), I shall now repeat myself yet again:

The fact that the government already forces some things on us doesn't mean that it is appropriate, nor that we should allow them to impose more things on us. Just because government doesn't live up to its intended purpose is no reason to move farther away from that purpose.

Kimball Kinnison

 

again, nothing but your opinion on what government is supposed to do

 

malkie, I've backed my opinon up with historical fact. I've offered to provide you with more of it as well. Those are the founding principles of the US government as stated by the people who founded it, and they borrowed directly from the governing principles of the British government. You calling it just my opinion doesn't change the historical fact.

So, are you going to back up your claim that you can provide "historical references", or are you just going to admit that you have no leg to stand on in response to my argument? I didn't force you to claim that you could back it up with historical references. Or were you just talking out of your rear?

I have backed up each and every claim that I have made, practically hol,ding your hand through each step of my argument and providing supporting evidence at every turn. You, on the other hand, have simple repeated your assertions over and over again without providing much in the way of documentation or support. Yes, I've stated my opinion, but I have also taken every step to demonstrate that it is a logically consistent one, and that it is fully supported in history, law, and reason. You, on the other hand, have done virtually nothing to support your opinion except restate it over and over again.

If that's what passes for doctorate-level reasoning in the UK, you should get your tuition back. You got ripped off.

Kimball Kinnison

 

again you seem to take what i've said to the extreme

i said kind of like suing a legal legit business because some people abuse thier product

i did not say EXACTLY LIKE...

my point is that across the board we have lawsuits and other sneaky "backhanded" ways to shut down businesses for practices that are perfectly legal, but some people have a problem with said businesses and then get government agencies to create new rules (legislation by delegation) or file frivolous lawsuits that can never be won (to cut into the profits of a company)

"backhanded" is kind of like "backhanded".

 

Sorry, but you can't claim its the purpose of government, but then conceed they don't do it. The purpose of healthcare is quite clear, and well defined, however, apparently the purpose of government is not. I really don't care what you believe the purpose of government is - it doesn't alter the purpose of healthcare.

Why must you consistently resort to cheap jabs at me? You've patronised, insulted, questioned the existence of my creditials repeatedly. It really detracted from any points you are attempted to make.

Must I also remind you (which I pointed out, but at the time you refused to believe), that we don't pay tuition for doctorates in the UK. The University pay your tuition in addition to providing the student with a healthy stipend.

That aside, please also remember, that my apparent lack of "doctorate-level reasoning" didn't stop me being hand-picked by your government to set-up, establish and drive-forward a new research institute in your wonderful capital city.

 

Way to miss my point. As I said, government isn't perfect, but just because it isn't perfect is no reason to make it move farther and farther away from the ideal upon which it was founded.

That's like saying "Oh, well. I just broke the law by speeding. I might as well go even faster now." It's illogical.

And I don't care what you think the purpose of healthcare is, it doesn't alter the purpose or responsibilities of government.

You have absolutely no leg to stand upon, not when you post things like:

And I didn't question your credentials. I pointed out the simple fact that because this is an online message board, they are inherently unverifiable, and so they should carry less weight than verifiable sources. To do otherwise would be a form of an appeal to authority fallacy.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I made one jab about your overuse of bolding, yet this was after several personal comments. Your comments towards me have been constant and unprovoked.

That isn't what I'm asserting. You claim that the governments role is a certain way - I'm merely pointing out that this isn't the case in real life. It still doesn't alter the purpose of healthcare. The stance I have is in line with the purpose of healthcare, while the stance you hold is not.

 

Except is is demonstrably against the purpose of government.

I'm not saying that the healthcare industry can't choose to regulate itself in some fashion. What I'm saying is that it is completely inappropriate for you to use the government to do so. Of course, that's completely in line with my other efforts to get the government to actually live up to its founding principles.

And nice switcheroo there. I haven't talked about government's role, but it's purpose. There is a big difference.

In short, you argue that because the government has already inappropriately usurped the authority to compel people to violate their beliefs in the healthcare field (in spite of explicit, codified limitations on doing so), there's no problem with expanding that. I, on the other hand, say that it was wrong to arbitrarily expand the government's power that way, and it is wrong to continue expanding it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the government's role was wrongly expanded in the past doesn't make it right to continue expanding it today.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't agree that the governments role has been inappropriately or wrongly expanded.

However, all of that aside, it still doesn't make any different to the central core of my arguement.

 

You know what I've noticed around here, MasterSweetPea?

That a lot of people say things in an argument and then when challenged, they claim they really meant something else.

You made a claim that seemed pretty obvious in it's intent, and I responded. I made the point that instead of trying to dismantle the places where abortions were performed by making them financially insolvent, despite the other vital services such clinics provide, the governor should attempt to ban the service in question.

You responded by claiming that I broadened your supposedly "narrow" statement and used other examples in the business world to justify your position. This has been the hallmark of the Roberts' Supreme Court; judicial restraint (by his definition) is to issue as narrowly-worded a ruling as possible that can then be applied with very broad strokes. Pretty backhanded, if you ask me.

Why don't people just address difficult questions, for goodness sake? Let the governor sign an elective abortion ban and see if the court will consider it. If not, he's got to live with abortion on demand in his state until the court changes his mind-that's just the way it is.

It reminds me of when the DOJ under Clinton went after anti-abortion protestors outside of clinics using the RICO statutes, and the Supreme Court threw their convictions out. That's not what the statutes were for, and the court acted appropriately. Instead, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act to address the specific problem in question.

Why should "backhanded" be "right" or "acceptable"?

Peace,

V-03

 

What was it that made abortions not ambulatory surgery again? I remember it would mean more equipment and staffing and that it was an obvious attempt to force planned parenthood to go bankrupt, but even so, how does it not fit the definition?

 

ya' know what i've noticed around here Vaderize03, is that people read into statements and find things that were never there to begin with.

You made a claim that seemed pretty obvious in it's intent, and I responded. I made the point that instead of trying to dismantle the places where abortions were performed by making them financially insolvent, despite the other vital services such clinics provide, the governor should attempt to ban the service in question.


m'kay, i agreed with you and you dissmissed my parallel of "backhanded"-ness


You responded by claiming that I broadened your supposedly "narrow" statement and used other examples in the business world to justify your position.


Uh no you have it backwards, I was being broad, and you narrow, again go back and read my response, it was you who dismissed my parallel as being nothing like the subject at hand, and those examples were what I was talking about to begin with!

This has been the hallmark of the Roberts' Supreme Court; judicial restraint (by his definition) is to issue as narrowly-worded a ruling as possible that can then be applied with very broad strokes. Pretty backhanded, if you ask me.

ditto


Why don't people just address difficult questions, for goodness sake? Let the governor sign an elective abortion ban and see if the court will consider it. If not, he's got to live with abortion on demand in his state until the court changes his mind-that's just the way it is.

again ditto


It reminds me of when the DOJ under Clinton went after anti-abortion protestors outside of clinics using the RICO statutes, and the Supreme Court threw their convictions out. That's not what the statutes were for, and the court acted appropriately. Instead, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act to address the specific problem in question.


again we seem to agree and have no problem, well actually I hate R.I.C.O.


Why should "backhanded" be "right" or "acceptable"?


It shouldn't, seen my sig? I'm wondering what planet you are on, my point was that "backhanded is bad!"
which is why i stated When will it ever stop?
as the last line of the post, that seems to have been not so clear

so let me spell it out
I hate government regulation.
using the courts to sue a company out of business because you don't like their product is "backhanded" and bad
using Goverment agencies to regulate a business into the ground is "backhanded" and bad
Can't get the all-out ban that you want so you get a "partial" ban on specific ascpects of what you don't like is "backhanded" and bad
okay now are we on the same page?

you see I dislike the regulations on Planned Parenthood the same as I dislike passing a law to require a Pharmacy to carry a certain drug the owner doesn't want to carry.

To me they are the same.

 

We actually are in agreement?

Huh, I guess I got the wrong message from your post.

Sorry about that ....

...no harm done.

Peace,

V-03