Senate The U.S. Politics thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Not to step into this, but the governing bodies that sets not only the standards of ethics for physicians (AMA/ACP/IOM), but the standards of training for OB-GYN's (American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists) have come out strongly against every major piece of legislation that's attempted to restrict access to abortion, including (but not limited to): the ban on late-term procedures (substantial testimony offered in scientific defense of when the procedure was medically necessary, despite a "legislative finding" to the contrary, which was ignored by both Congress and an all-male majority of the Supreme Court), laws that claim a fetus can experience claim at 20 weeks (it can't), claiming there's a link between abortion and breast cancer (there isn't), and most recently, laws forcing clinics that perform any abortion (including non-surgical ones) to conform to the standards of an ambulatory surgery center under the guise that it improves patient safety (there is not a shred of evidence to support this or any findings to the contrary).

    Evidence from experts the country over, offered again and again, yet it gets ignored in favor of "legislative findings."

    How is that different from passing a law insisting the Earth is flat? Tell me, please. We have satellite images to the contrary, but I guess one can always claim that the pictures were faked. Seems easier for some than facing the truth.

    Anyhoo....

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Aug 8, 2014
  2. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Uh, I'm sorry, was that directed at me, V? I don't think I've said anything about abortion other than to say that if a doctor doesn't want to do one, that doctor just sends the patient to one who does. Are you drawing a parallel between the two?

    But you're hitting on the issue that hasn't been answered for me yet. Yeah, if there was some birth control pill version of Roe v Wade and it was being repealed, I'd understand your argument. If there was some sort of magical law which was legislating a Seinfield episode, and all birth control pills were being banned from the market. I'm right with you in the protest march. All I am saying is that if one drug store doesn't carry something, just go to a drug store that does. It's not rocket science. What's doubly puzzling is that you seem to accept such decisions in all other cases, except when birth control is involved. If the owner of a specific store chooses not to carry something, what makes birth control unique in your mind that it's akin to 1)denying life saving emergency medical aid, or 2) restricting access to all birth control forever? Because up until now, the sum total of the argument has been:

    A customer walks into a drug store and asks for birth control. The owner says "sorry, we don't carry that here, you'll have to go down the street." And I guess the customer just curls up in the fetal position on the floor, because heaven forbid they go someone else, so they have no choice but to get pregnant. That sounds more like the set up to a joke than it does any sustainable argument. The punchline is "And the kids all looked like the mailman." When in fact, there are probably a half dozen pharmacies/drug stores that carry what they want that just aren't the store they're standing in at the moment.

    And to go back to a prior question. Yes, if a Hindu opened a McDonalds and didn't sell beef, that's their choice. Their McDonalds would specialize in mcnuggets and Filet o'Fishes. (assuming franchising restrictions and such) Who cares? Don't like it, don't go there. If someone else believed in a religion that didn't touch pork, and they opened a McDonalds, it's their decision not to sell the Ribwich. (Although it could be debated how much pork is in a Ribwich) The argument that a potential customer who walks into a McDonalds has an expectation of a pork sandwich is the least relevant one in the owner's decision on how to run their business.
  3. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
  4. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    That definition certainly does not involve expecting to actually be able to order a hamburger at McDonald's, or get a prescription filled at a place that advertises that it fills prescriptions.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    44, we simply see this in totally opposite ways. Neither one is going to convince the other, so I'm going to step back from this now.

    Thanks.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7

    it certainly includes argueing with mr44 about anything and expecting him to come to a sensible conclusion rather than just recycling the same tired bull**** over and over
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Aug 8, 2014
  7. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    ....but one thing: your last post, in which you stated that "a pharmacy doesn't carry this, go someplace else", is totally different from what I was talking about, which is "We have this, but I refuse to give it to you."

    My point was clear, and you know it. Ignoring it, or trying to turn it into something entirely unrelated, doesn't win arguments, which is why I'm done running in circles on this one.

    Health care is unique. If you don't know that, then you'll never understand.

    Peace,

    V-03
  8. Rebel Alliance Pigeon Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2014
    star 1
    I meant "personal" in that people argue their views from their own hearts, always.
    To me, the lowest-common denominator is rearranging other people's sentences, which you did to me.
  9. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    So...the elementary school playground "No--you!!" tactic? Yeah, ain't nobody got time for that.

    Juliet316, Vaderize03 and Jedi_Dajuan like this.
  10. Rebel Alliance Pigeon Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2014
    star 1
    Please elaborate. All I did was say what I thought was the lowest-common denominator of arguing was, and how you did it to me.
  11. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    What needs elaboration exactly?
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'm sorry V, now I'm lost in the discussion. When did you bring that up? If you did. I must have missed it. Who has what? And why would it be refused?I'm referring to one subsection, and one subsection only. Besides Rogue, who is acting in his typical shoot the messenger not the message fashion, we must be crossing posts.

    I'm referring to those who say that if someone walks into a pharmacy with an expectation to get whatever they want filled, then the pharmacist/owner can't decide not to carry something. I wanted to know why a customer's expectation suddenly trumps the pharmacist's right to sell what they want. That's all.

    You were the most honest when you hinted that there really is no rational reason why someone couldn't just go to another pharmacist to get birth control pills, but the issue is political, so it gets extra attention. The nearest answer I have gotten besides yours was an analogy which compares not filling a prescription to refusing live saving medical treatment and watching someone die. That makes no sense.

    I'll fill you in on a story. I work at night, and during last year's physical, it was revealed that I had a vitamin D deficiency, because of not being out in the sun. Who knew? I actually had to get prescription only vitamin D pills, which I had to take for a while. The pharmacy mere blocks away from my house didn't carry prescription vitamin D (not common enough) so I had to go to a different pharmacy which was further away (Osco drug). All the first pharmacist did was say "I'm sorry, we don't carry what you want." But they did call the one I ended up at. My point with that story is that I didn't go into a long dissertation with the first pharmacist about why they didn't carry what I needed, and it never crossed my mind that I demand they carry it. I just went to where I could get what I wanted. Now, obviously, as you admitted, there is no controversy about vitamin D. There is with birth control. But the reason why a pharmacist doesn't carry something is their own reason.

    My point is that business owners should have the right to carry the products that suits their business, including personal reasons. This has nothing to do with banning abortion, denying medical treatment, or taking birth control off the market. People here seem to be getting into a litmus test of what makes a valid reason, but that's a dangerous practice. And as of yet, no one has said why someone who has a prescription just can't go to where it gets filled, especially if the pharmacist gives a recommendation.
  13. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    That is where I disagree, as it is allowing personal feelings to interfere with work and is unprofessional.

    Not carrying a product due to lack of demand is different. That's not an emotional reason, that's basic economics, which makes sense in running a business.

    I'm not even sure how being a Catholic relates to being a pharmacist anyway. Are people really that unable to separate their work from their personal lives? Seems like it could be dangerous when taken to certain conclusions.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  14. wannasee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    There is no reason why someone can't just go to another pharmacy.

    I think there is a concern itt that if any one person is allowed to not carry a product, then what is to stop everyone from doing the same?

    i mean, of course that is never going to happen, but people like to talk...
    Last edited by wannasee, Aug 8, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Eh, I would say that's not up to us to put a hierarchy on anyone's personal reasons. We all make decisions based on personal reasons as part of being human. It's their business. I would just say if enough people don't agree with the business owner, then the business will fail. Again, smart business practice? Maybe, maybe not. But we don't need outside legal interference mandating what a business owner thinks, or which ranks a hierarchy of personal beliefs.
  16. Jedi Merkurian ST Thread Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    *fixed to illustrate the point we've been trying to make.

    Also, this point:
    Last edited by Jedi Merkurian, Aug 8, 2014
    Juliet316 and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  17. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Oh, I get the point Merk. In your scenario, I want to know what would make me think I know more than the store owner, being that's it's their store?

    Again, how is all of this even coming up? The Pharmacist said "I'm sorry, we don't carry that." The pharmacist could have actually believed that people shouldn't take vitamin D. The pharmacist could have thought that vitamin D came straight from the devil. The pharmacist could have been selling vitamin D on the black market, and didn't want to give me any because their Ferrari payment was coming up. How would I know?

    As part of small talk, it was revealed, I suppose for my benefit, that prescription Vitamin D is not very common and they didn't have any, so the mystery was solved. But had they simply said "oh, we don't have that prescription, you have to go to Osco for that." That's exactly what I would do, and exactly what I actually did. I'd assume that applies to any prescription. I certainly didn't equate the pharmacist's lack of Vitamin D to some sort of professional or ethical failing.

    BTW, prescription vitamin D is almost green neon in color. Now, I just take regular vitamin D and all the different brands are just clear capsules. But the prescription form was pretty funky.
    Last edited by Mr44, Aug 8, 2014
  18. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 10
    Mr44 -- here's the deal. We already prevent full religious exemptions for worship when it directly interferes with public health or other cruel / inhumane practices.

    Similarly, a member of the National Socialist Party -- which still exists under contract with Federal Law as that is a valid First Amendment case so long as they are not hurting anyone -- is still not legally allowed to refuse service to Jews, blacks or gays. We've already ruled that cake makers are not legally allowed to not make cakes as a business for gay people who don't fit with their lifestyle.

    Why is it that this apparently only applies to birth control for women?
  19. JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5

    Those rulings are something that frighten a lot of conservatives and libertarians in terms of the First Amendment, particularly given the following:
    * Lois Lerner's actions at the IRS and FEC.
    * During the Citizens United case arguments, defenders of the law argued that the government could ban the publication of books. Thankfully, the court threw out that law.
    * The Obama Administration asserted during arguments at the Supreme Court that the government could interfere in ministerial decisions. They lost, thankfully.
    * Dr. Angela McCaskill was demoted for signing petitions to put same-sex marriage up to a vote in Maryland - and the courts upheld that demotion.
    * We're not even getting into the desire of leftists to "take down" conservative think tanks like ALEC, the Ethan Allen Institutue, and the Mackinac Center.
    * The thuggery of Senator Richard Durbin against political opponents and businesses also leads to legitimate concerns, especially when he is supporting efforts to overturn Citizens United.

    So, when it is a case of trying to force Catholics to take part in an abortion, or force a Christian-owned business like Hobby Lobby to provide Plan B or Ella (never mind that 16 other forms of contraception are covered by that company), especially when there may be other alternatives available, we wonder why take such a hard-line approach? Why be so unreasonable that you have to force bakers to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding when they have sincere moral objections to doing so?

    The only conclusion that can be drawn is that at best, the First Amendment is considered acceptable collateral damage by some on the Left. Some, though, figure that the Left is choosing to wage a War on the First Amendment.
  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    dp, that's what I'm asking, except from the opposite end of the mirror. Except there should be no "for women" at the end of your conclusion. A drug store can certainly choose not to carry condoms. A drug store can certainly choose not to carry Swedish penis pumps. Why in your mind does this issue only apply to women?

    1)How is one pharmacy choosing not to carry birth control somehow worse than choosing not to carry any number of items/perscriptions/etc...? Birth control pills are just another consumer product, and the decision to what to do with them rests with the business owner. They absolutely should not be banned, eliminated, or discontinued, but why the supra-expectation with regards to them? Are you saying that one drug store not stocking birth control is "cruel and inhumane?"

    2)How did birth control pills get equated to watching someone die, and/or refusing to perform life saving medical treatment? Looking at some replies here, I actually think some people would look at not stocking birth control in a worse light than not providing CPR.

    3)Why is it with birth control, it's an either/or prospect. Some people here have said that either you carry birth control, or you can't be ever be a pharmacist again?

    Here is the scenario. You walk into a drug store. The pharmacist says "I'm sorry, we don't carry that, but X-mart down the street does." To some, that simple scenario is worse than having dinner with Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer, and to them, the drug store owner shouldn't even have the ability to choose what to carry.

    All I want is for someone to tell me why they think birth control should be given increased protections that no other product has, to the point of legislating away the choice of a business owner to carry it, especially since, according to the organization that guides ethical conduct for pharmacists, offering a referral/directing the customer is a valid ethical alternative to not carrying something yourself.
    Last edited by Mr44, Aug 9, 2014
  21. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    1. It's not, but I have personally never heard of a pharmacist saying, to use Merk's earlier example, "I'm not going to carry vitamin D because I don't believe anyone should take vitamin D."

    That reason is unethical and unprofessional. Not carrying a prescription because there is no demand for it, is not.

    And as I have mentioned, I would say the same if a pharmacist refused to stock Viagra due to a reasoning that "if you can't get an erection, God doesn't want you to have sex."

    2. Never happened, nor did the other straw man you presented, having dinner with Charles Manson.

    3. I think people have said, "Behave as a professional, don't let your personal feelings dictate any aspect of your job, and if you can't do that, get another job."

    I would say the same about any other profession. Don't buy a McDonald's if you have a personal issue with serving hamburgers.
    Jedi Merkurian and Juliet316 like this.
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Ah, but you don't get to keep bringing examples like McDonald's up, but then say that the example isn't the same when I do it as well.

    Let me ask you. Why would you care if someone bought a McDonald's and then choose not to sell hamburgers? It's their business. It's certainly possible to sell coffee, mcnuggets and whatever else McDonald's has. I think you just highlighted the problem I have with this issue, because you're advocating that your own expectation should trump whoever is actually investing the time and money to run a business. If that business owner has a deeply personal code against beef, it's not your place to tell them that they can't open a McDonald's that doesn't sell hamburgers.

    Even if you walked into the "beefless McDonalds" with an expectation that they have hamburgers, when they say "sorry we don't carry beef" just go to the McDonald's that has burgers and have all the beef you want. What is the big deal?
  23. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    It's not about whether I personally care if a McDonald's sells hamburgers. It's a principle, and in this case, it's false advertising.

    We're at an impasse. You are assuming that a business owner's right to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want, trumps the consumer right to expect anything, including a hamburger at a franchise restaurant which advertises all over the country that they sell hamburgers.

    And you still haven't answered the question as to how it is in any way professional or ethical to allow one's emotions to interfere with one's work. In any other profession than entrepreneurship, I think you would agree with me. And I don't believe that business owners should be given a greater amount of freedom, or in this case, leeway to behave unprofessionally, than anyone in any other line of work. I certainly do not believe that business owners should be given the authority to influence customer decisions--even if only by inconveniencing the customer--due to the personal beliefs of the business owner.
    Jedi Merkurian and Juliet316 like this.
  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, that goes back to what V hinted at earlier. There's no real reason why any one drug store has to stock birth control, and there's no real reason why someone couldn't just go to one that did, and rightfully refuse to patronize the store that didn't. But the issue is "a principal," which is ironic, considering that is what you are also rallying against. That's the dangerous metric you're playing with. On one hand, it's worse for you that a customer gets "inconvenienced," vs a potentially deeply personal moral code of a business owner. To me, your above post is just such an "instant gratification" type of mentality that has come to define how people interact with each other more and more. So what if the owner of a new McDonald's has a sincere belief against beef, someone has an expectation for a hamburger, and they want it now, everything else be damned.

    As for the professionalism and ethical nature of any business, 1)Every human being on the planet operates from emotion. And 2) I defer to the controlling body for that profession. Since the professional standards board for pharmacists indicates that the ethical alternative is for a pharmacist to offer a referral, I certainly don't pretend to know more that the controlling authority for pharmacists, so that's what I accept.

    Again, the other problem I have is that your answers seem to be tailored to someone who is advocating the complete elimination of birth control. Birth control is a good thing. I just don't equate the fact that a specific drug store somewhere might not carry it with a complete elimination of the choice to use it or not.
    Last edited by Mr44, Aug 9, 2014
  25. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    No, not really. Everyone has emotions, but it is a sign of maturity to be able to not be ruled by them. Especially on the job.

    This goes back to my Anakin Skywalker example. Fictional character of course but there are people in the world who believe as he did, that they have the right to cave in to their emotions whenever they choose.

    As far as "instant gratification," I believe that for the most part, the customer is always right, and certainly has the right to expect a business to deliver what it advertises.

    The definition of a pharmacy indicates that it fills prescriptions. I'd say the majority of people understand when they are prescribed a rare drug that isn't stocked for that reason. But "we don't stock this because the pharmacist thinks you shouldn't take it"? Understandable when people react with "that's none of your business."
    Last edited by anakinfansince1983, Aug 9, 2014
    Juliet316 likes this.