You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 09:09:25 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: This disturbed me  (Read 8945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #175 on: January 12, 2014, 12:15:11 PM »
If the person who is left the house does not want it - they do not legally sign for the debt. In other words, they say "sell it. We dont want it." It is illegal to force someone else's debt onto someone who did not legally sign for the debt. If the inheritor is unwilling to take on the debt, whoever holds the note on it has to accept that it (house/car/what have you) will be sold to recoup the money owed them.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #176 on: January 12, 2014, 01:32:42 PM »
That's the real problem here, in my eyes.  If it is going to be born healthy, that is good and wonderful, and I am all for that.  But the chances of that are terrifyingly slim.  And while I may be functional, relatively stable, and very intelligent....I am very much aware of what I lost and how much more I could have been.  And wishing something worse than that on a child is something I personally could never do.

+1.  I wish we could rep/Like/Thumbs-up posts here.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #177 on: January 12, 2014, 01:34:39 PM »
What it all really comes back to is that it shouldn't be up to any group of strangers, miles away from the situation and unaware of the individual dynamics, to make this decision.

Indeed.  If we have gotten to the point where the opinions of astroturfed corporate activist groups and the State they co-opt can have more impact on our personal decisions in matters like this than our own stated desires and our next of kin, we truly have lost this country.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #178 on: January 12, 2014, 02:26:03 PM »
If the person who is left the house does not want it - they do not legally sign for the debt. In other words, they say "sell it. We dont want it." It is illegal to force someone else's debt onto someone who did not legally sign for the debt. If the inheritor is unwilling to take on the debt, whoever holds the note on it has to accept that it (house/car/what have you) will be sold to recoup the money owed them.

100% correct in theory.  Not always as simple in real life due to people having no idea what they are doing.  For example, a wife who is mostly a stay-at-home-mom working part-time, who just goes along and signs a mortgage form along with her husband on their new house to qualify for a better home.  If her husband dies, she's on the hook for the mortgage then.  (Actually, this one isn't always that simple, but it can go many ways).

Another example, a kid wants to go to a private school, and his financial aid office gives the loan paperwork which actually includes federal and private loans.  The parent isn't reading closely enough, and just signs the paperwork, unaware that they just co-signed a private loan for which they are on the hook for if their kid dies.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 02:32:23 PM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #179 on: January 12, 2014, 02:35:59 PM »
100% correct in theory.  Not always as simple in real life due to people having no idea what they are doing.  For example, a wife who is mostly a stay-at-home-mom working part-time, who just goes along and signs a mortgage form along with her husband on their new house to qualify for a better home.  If her husband dies, she's on the hook for the mortgage then.

Spouses are legally responsible for debts that they accumulate during the marriage (whether they sign for them or not, depending upon if the state is a community property state or common law state). It doesn't matter if you just "go along", if you sign for a debt, you are legally responsible, just like if you sign and file a joint income tax return, you are responsible for the tax liability.

The law doesn't protect anyone from stupidity.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #180 on: January 12, 2014, 03:06:53 PM »
The real issue I see is that a person's rights are being denied because there is something incapable of functioning individually of that person's body (from a purely clinical perspective a parasite if you will). A person has the ability to control what happens to their body and possessions after death. This person is, for the sake of my argument, clinically dead. They will not wake up again. They should be afforded the rights of any human being, which includes the right to decide not to accept medical assistance.

Regardless of if a person is using Abortion as "birth control" as some people have been calling it (dismissing how difficult of a choice it may be for a lot of women and how it would impact the life of the child, the very life being "defended"), it is within any person's right as a human being to choose how their body is used. If this were a case of a person's body being torn apart for organs (for intents and purposes "living" and "functional" parts of their body that could save the life of someone else) there would be legal action. Or even, if someone's body was cremated and it violated their religious rights.

In addition to the Primary rights of the woman in question, the secondary rights of the family are being impeded on. They are going to be forced to grieve for months, in addition to taking on a child who may or may not even survive outside of the womb. Or what if within the next month she miscarries? It's extending the grieving period of the family who just wishes to follow the woman's wishes. Not to mention the financial burden that is being forced upon them on top of if the child does survive and is healthy.

Well what if they don't get the financial burden? Well someone does. Either the hospital (which I highly doubt) or the US Government or the Insurance Company. Insurance still means part of the financial burden falls on the family for something they did not want to happen. US Government means that that financial burden gets pushed on the lower and middle classes and the economy. Not significant mind you, but it's still taking away health care services that could be going elsewhere (mainly to someone who is going to live, not for someone who might.)

My two cents. I'll even let you know my abortion views: I don't want one but I'm not going to take away someone else's right to their own body.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #181 on: January 12, 2014, 04:08:18 PM »

Well what if they don't get the financial burden? Well someone does. Either the hospital (which I highly doubt) or the US Government or the Insurance Company. Insurance still means part of the financial burden falls on the family for something they did not want to happen. US Government means that that financial burden gets pushed on the lower and middle classes and the economy. Not significant mind you, but it's still taking away health care services that could be going elsewhere (mainly to someone who is going to live, not for someone who might.)

I'm waiting for the right-to-life and corporate cheerleading groups who got this law passed to pony up some funds to help the hospital, taxpayers and family cover the costs of caring for this woman and her fetus.  But since it's not a big Wall Street company that's going to have to pay, all we'll hear from the Right in this regard is



Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »
I'm waiting for the right-to-life and corporate cheerleading groups who got this law passed to pony up some funds to help the hospital, taxpayers and family cover the costs of caring for this woman and her fetus.  But since it's not a big Wall Street company that's going to have to pay, all we'll hear from the Right in this regard is



The unfortunate truth....

Has anyone seen if there have been any attempts at charities volunteering to help cover the costs?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2014, 05:22:56 PM »
I'm waiting for the right-to-life and corporate cheerleading groups who got this law passed...

[citation needed]

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #184 on: January 12, 2014, 05:29:57 PM »
[citation needed]

I don't have access to the origins of every law passed in Texas, but I doubt rather seriously the law simply emerged on its own from a vacuum. 

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #185 on: January 12, 2014, 05:44:54 PM »
Well, two points then.  First, making claims like that is unproductive when you admit you have no idea whether they're true or not.  Simply shouting your opinion does not an argument make.

Second, it's fortunately quite easy to find out.  The sentence in question forms part of a law passed by the Democrat controlled 71st Texas Legislature  and amended by the 76th  Whilst I realise this isn't strictly a party issue, that's a bad strike from the start. 

Campaign financing is, granted, a little harder to find.  But it can be done relatively quickly.  It's a relatively hefty download from here  Going by names alone there are certainly some right to life and corporate sponsors there, I'll agree.  But there are many others as well.  Enough that a simple statement like the one you made requires quite a lot of backing up.

EDIT: Typo
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 05:48:25 PM by Kythia »

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #186 on: January 12, 2014, 05:51:53 PM »
Well, two points then.  First, making claims like that is unproductive when you admit you have no idea whether they're true or not.  Simply shouting your opinion does not an argument make.

Second, it's fortunately quite easy to find out.  The sentence in question forms part of a law passed by the Democrat controlled 71st Texas Legislature  and amended by the 76th  Whilst I realise this isn't strictly a party issue, that's a bad strike from the start. 

Campaign financing is, granted, a little harder to find.  But it can be done relatively quickly.  It's a relatively hefty download from here  Going by names alone there are certainly some right to life and corporate sponsors there, I'll agree.  But there are many others as well.  Enough that a simple statement like the one you made requires quite a lot of backing up.

EDIT: Typo

Whole system's bought and paid for.  First law of politics is follow the money.  This law was bought by the right-to-lifers, the corporations, and the medical equipment manufacturers.  They write the checks, they get whatever laws they want.  The law I want is for all politicians to have to wear racecar-driver jackets with the names of their corporate sponsors on them.  But now we're hijacking the thread.

EDIT: People like this are the ones who buy off the government to take your freedom away, and the freedom of people like the woman in the OP.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 05:56:07 PM by IStateYourName »

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #187 on: January 12, 2014, 07:26:09 PM »
Yeah, couldn't read much of that link without wanting to spit nails. So tired of other people trying to tell me what is morally right. Like I am not capable of making my own decisions concerning my life and my body. Last time I checked I am the one who has to live in this body. Not all these goody two shoes that act morally superior and yet do not care how their rhetoric affects everyone around them.

Anyway - back on topic. I certainly hope those screaming to use this woman's body as an easy bake oven step up to pay the medical bills ... but I do not see it happening.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #188 on: January 12, 2014, 07:28:51 PM »
I think the point is that the law was most likely spearheaded (party lines implied or not) by people who are pro-life, Kythia. Or at least that was my take on it. Corporate sponsors are, unfortunately, where the vast majority of our politicians (Dem or Rep) are receiving money from, seeing as they tend to be the "1%" [source: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php ]. Now, that doesn't invalidate the idea that the groups that sponsored this movement should take responsibility to pay for at least some of it, which was my point.


Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #189 on: January 12, 2014, 07:34:11 PM »
I think the point is that the law was most likely spearheaded (party lines implied or not) by people who are pro-life, Kythia. Or at least that was my take on it. Corporate sponsors are, unfortunately, where the vast majority of our politicians (Dem or Rep) are receiving money from, seeing as they tend to be the "1%" [source: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php ]. Now, that doesn't invalidate the idea that the groups that sponsored this movement should take responsibility to pay for at least some of it, which was my point.

Oh, sure.  Party donors are likely to be richer than others, even if simply for disposal income reasons if nothing else.  Wouldn't argue that.  My point was twofold - one was simply that making baseless claims isn't overly productive.  Two that the situation appears a little more complex than it was claimed.

Further, I think asking for groups that spearhead changes in the law to pay for implementation is a truly terrifying precedent to set.  What will your answer be when those same groups turn around and say women's groups should fund the cost of abortion centres or domestic violence investigations?  That blacks should fund the cost of affirmative action programs?  And so on and so forth.  Arguments like that cut both ways.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #190 on: January 12, 2014, 07:34:56 PM »
To be fair, Kythia was merely trying to keep the discussion firmly centered in verifiable fact.  Which is a noble cause.  And when I didn't have evidence, she called me on it, which was fair.

And I have to admit, I really don't like the Right.  It's an alignment conflict, I suppose--they are Lawful Evil, I am Chaotic Good.   ;D

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2014, 07:41:11 PM »
Oh, sure.  Party donors are likely to be richer than others, even if simply for disposal income reasons if nothing else.  Wouldn't argue that.  My point was twofold - one was simply that making baseless claims isn't overly productive.  Two that the situation appears a little more complex than it was claimed.

Further, I think asking for groups that spearhead changes in the law to pay for implementation is a truly terrifying precedent to set.  What will your answer be when those same groups turn around and say women's groups should fund the cost of abortion centres or domestic violence investigations?  That blacks should fund the cost of affirmative action programs?  And so on and so forth.  Arguments like that cut both ways.

This is true. It's more of personal belief that they are cutting into someone's rights and that disturbs me, so open up a donation fund to assist the family because you're forcing your beliefs on them. (Which is how I originally worded them "paying for it".) Basically, I think that the family shouldn't have to pay for the government forcing the mother to act as an incubator. The government, ideally, would. And if the government isn't, others should be assisting, specifically those who want her to stay on life support against her will. It should be voluntary, in my opinion. Because if someone wants to get an abortion, but can't afford it, I would probably donate a couple of dollars towards her cause as well as offer some assistance in birth control options. But that's the kind of person I would like to believe I would be if I could afford to do such a thing for every person who had such a problem.

Online Hades

  • Master of Explosions, Keeper of Useless Trivia, Hopeless Minecraft Addict
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: The shadows of your heart's desires.
  • Gender: Male
  • Prepare for Doom and...oh, shiny object!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #192 on: January 15, 2014, 12:00:28 AM »
It appears that the husband of the woman in question has filed a suit against the hospital, according to this article.

Personally, I support the husband in this situation.  The woman is brain dead, which to my knowledge in every state in America meets the legal definition of being dead, and no one in her family disputes his claims that she was very adamant in her desire not to be kept alive by machines, and they should be allowed to honor those wishes without the state interfering. 

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #193 on: January 15, 2014, 03:53:12 AM »
I doubt the family will pay a penny in regard to these medical costs.  As I pointed out before, this is a public hospital which means funds are already set aside for non-payment cases such as these.  I highly doubt this is the most expensive case the hospital has done where there is no payment forthcoming.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #194 on: January 15, 2014, 10:47:07 AM »
Please read again the post I put up discussing how only ONE state out of the all the states that have this asinine law has set it up that the family does not have to pay for it. Guess what, Texas isn't that state. Pennsylvania is. And that means the hospital is well within it's rights to charge the family for keeping Marlise as a patient even though she is dead.

We all know that hospitals are out to make money. Healthcare is not free because it has been turned into a booming business where the only thing that matters is how much can be charged. While I know hospitals have charities to help the poor with costs I seriously doubt the Munoz family will be allowed to use such funds because they have insurance. Why give them this "service" for free when they can rip off the insurance company and the family? I mean hell, they are keeping a corpse as a patient and performing "services" on a corpse all under the guise of following a law which is pretty easy to understand - life saving treatment to a terminally ill pregnant patient ... which does not in any way fit Marlise. So add insult to injury and charge the family for this? Yeah, I can see the hospital doing it.

Seriously, I hope like hell the petition for expedited hearing goes through, I hope the courts rule in favor with the Munoz family and I hope like hell he sues the hospital clean out of business. Maybe then people will get the idea out of their heads they have the right to make decisions for other people.

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #195 on: January 15, 2014, 01:21:57 PM »
Please read again the post I put up discussing how only ONE state out of the all the states that have this asinine law has set it up that the family does not have to pay for it. Guess what, Texas isn't that state. Pennsylvania is. And that means the hospital is well within it's rights to charge the family for keeping Marlise as a patient even though she is dead.

Yep.  That's what the "right-to-life" movement (and the political Right in general) is all about.  Corporate profits.  They scream about abortion, but their real loyalty is to Wall Street.  Abortion is just a convenient tub-thumping issue to get the plebs worked up enough to vote against their own interests.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #196 on: January 15, 2014, 04:10:12 PM »
First, I did not say the state had a special fund set aside for this particular case.  My statement is that a publicly funded, level 1 trauma center with over 500 beds will have a fund set aside for long term acute care cases where they do not expect compensation.  As I said, the hospital when faced with a crisis of one patient taking up too many resources would have to allocate funds from other areas of the hospital or as a last resort would petition for money from the state’s emergency fund.  I would seriously doubt the case would get to that point since at the end of the day the woman in question is essentially taking up an ICU bed just as someone else might.  I have seen publically funded hospitals fly in rare medical supplies and medication from Europe for patient’s without insurance or any hope of paying the hospital simply because the hospital was fulfilling its obligation to do everything possible to help the patient.

Accusing the hospital of ripping off the insurance company is laughable at best.  The insurance company will simply refuse to pay or will max out her limit.  The hospital might try to ask the family, but I’m sure they would consider that a dead end at this point considering the media fanfare.  The Public Relations fall out would be enough to deter them.  As for this being a “cheap” way to make money, please see my other post.  This is a Level 1 trauma center; this is where the worst of the worst go for help.  People are air lifted to this hospital for their expertise and ability.  Do you honestly think the administrators would rather keep a person in long term ICU where they can develop UTIs, nosocomial infections, pressure ulcers, complications related to care, handle the family and so on in place of simply picking up a new patient that will be discharged or downgraded in care quickly?  Do you know what the two highest grossing areas of a hospital are and why?  Labor and Delivery and Day of Surgery because they move people in and move them out within a couple of days at most.  Hospitals do not “make” money like a hotel does; they make them like a restaurant.  Faster a patient is in and out, the more money made.

Do you honestly want to accurse a publicly funded hospital of financing corporate greed while at the same time saying they are “ripping off” insurance companies ISTATE ?  I think you are tossing your liberal banner on the wrong side of that battle.

Please stop referring to her as a corpse.  This is an insult to my profession and to those of us that still care for people in her condition.  We bath her, we turn her, we watch over her and we fight for her whether you agree with the battle or not.  When the power fails and the lights go out we are the ones who turn manual cranks to keep them breathing.  Nurses at Baptist Hospital nearly gave up their careers and their lives for people in her condition.  Calling her just a corpse is an insult to families that keep their loved ones on life support and fight to do so vehemently.  She is more than a corpse to the people that still care for her and she will not be a corpse until the machines are turned off and her heart stops beating.  I am asking for this as a courtesy.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 04:49:30 PM by Pumpkin Seeds »

Offline chaoslord29

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #197 on: January 15, 2014, 04:18:48 PM »
I'm finding your commentary to be increasingly rabid IStateYourName, I recommend you roll this back a little bit and remember we're arguing a specific case with a unique set of circumstances rather than try to make this about a grander societal problem in which you are much more firmly in the right.

Look, I usually count myself the most liberal/progressive guy in the room, but that has to be a product of reason more than anything else, and that means a willingness to consider that you might be wrong about a particular situation. Without that grounds for debate, any and all further discussion is purely masturbatory, and when you start dismissing a complicated moral issue like abortion as "a convenient tub-thumping issue to get the plebs worked up enough to vote against their own interests." you're letting pride and cynicism get the best of you.

It's easy to dismiss the Pro-Lifers as Bible thumping yokels easily manipulated by for-profit fundamentalist leaders and the big business interests whom they're in bed with. If that's all you want to do, congratulations, it's done. To death.

If you're willing to engage on some of the deeper issues at work here in hopes of actually convincing me or anyone else to your side, please, take a step back and consider that maybe the people you're dealing with are capable of being just as smart and reasonable as you can be.

Please read again the post I put up discussing how only ONE state out of the all the states that have this asinine law has set it up that the family does not have to pay for it. Guess what, Texas isn't that state. Pennsylvania is. And that means the hospital is well within it's rights to charge the family for keeping Marlise as a patient even though she is dead.

We all know that hospitals are out to make money. Healthcare is not free because it has been turned into a booming business where the only thing that matters is how much can be charged. While I know hospitals have charities to help the poor with costs I seriously doubt the Munoz family will be allowed to use such funds because they have insurance. Why give them this "service" for free when they can rip off the insurance company and the family? I mean hell, they are keeping a corpse as a patient and performing "services" on a corpse all under the guise of following a law which is pretty easy to understand - life saving treatment to a terminally ill pregnant patient ... which does not in any way fit Marlise. So add insult to injury and charge the family for this? Yeah, I can see the hospital doing it.

Seriously, I hope like hell the petition for expedited hearing goes through, I hope the courts rule in favor with the Munoz family and I hope like hell he sues the hospital clean out of business. Maybe then people will get the idea out of their heads they have the right to make decisions for other people.

You hope the hospital gets sued out of business? You realize that even if you're absolutely in the right about this particular case, it's still an isolated case compared to the potentially thousands of people who would be screwed over because they can no longer receive treatment and care not to mention the professional doctors, nurses, administrators and technicians who have nothing to do with this issue who would be out of a job?

You're clearly letting your ire get the best of you in regards to this issue. Suing the hospital for money won't get his wife back, won't repair emotional damage, and won't save anyone's life. It's a wholly punitive action which disproportionately benefits the isolated party in this matter (Mr. Munoz). That's not justice, that's the most selfish kind of vengeance and I do hope Mr. Munoz has the good sense just to settle this as a matter of arbitration rather than recoup any perceived economic loss.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 04:24:29 PM by chaoslord29 »

Offline IStateYourName

Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #198 on: January 15, 2014, 06:35:00 PM »
I'm finding your commentary to be increasingly rabid IStateYourName, I recommend you roll this back a little bit and remember we're arguing a specific case with a unique set of circumstances rather than try to make this about a grander societal problem in which you are much more firmly in the right.

Look, I usually count myself the most liberal/progressive guy in the room, but that has to be a product of reason more than anything else, and that means a willingness to consider that you might be wrong about a particular situation. Without that grounds for debate, any and all further discussion is purely masturbatory, and when you start dismissing a complicated moral issue like abortion as "a convenient tub-thumping issue to get the plebs worked up enough to vote against their own interests." you're letting pride and cynicism get the best of you.

It's easy to dismiss the Pro-Lifers as Bible thumping yokels easily manipulated by for-profit fundamentalist leaders and the big business interests whom they're in bed with. If that's all you want to do, congratulations, it's done. To death.

If you're willing to engage on some of the deeper issues at work here in hopes of actually convincing me or anyone else to your side, please, take a step back and consider that maybe the people you're dealing with are capable of being just as smart and reasonable as you can be.

I can understand your desire to try and parse this out.  However, I submit that it if wasn't for the "grander societal problem" of the right-wing astroturf groups getting bad legislation passed, this situation would not exist.  Thus, the specific case we are discussing may have a unique set of circumstances, but it is part and parcel of the bigger issue.

Quote
You hope the hospital gets sued out of business? You realize that even if you're absolutely in the right about this particular case, it's still an isolated case compared to the potentially thousands of people who would be screwed over because they can no longer receive treatment and care not to mention the professional doctors, nurses, administrators and technicians who have nothing to do with this issue who would be out of a job?

You're clearly letting your ire get the best of you in regards to this issue. Suing the hospital for money won't get his wife back, won't repair emotional damage, and won't save anyone's life. It's a wholly punitive action which disproportionately benefits the isolated party in this matter (Mr. Munoz). That's not justice, that's the most selfish kind of vengeance and I do hope Mr. Munoz has the good sense just to settle this as a matter of arbitration rather than recoup any perceived economic loss.

I agree suing the hospital is a suboptimal outcome.  Far better to drive the right-wingers out of office.  If they want a society that blends religious fanaticism with a lack of social services and government control, let them relocate to Somalia.  Then we can take back the United States and progress into the 21st century.  Getting the government out of our bedrooms and intimate personal decisions, for starters.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: This disturbed me
« Reply #199 on: January 15, 2014, 06:37:00 PM »
If you'd like to start a new thread about the 'grander societal problem', you're more than welcome to.  Let's try to keep this one to the situation at hand.