Health Care in the United States

[Apple of Eris]

But womens rights, such as the right to privacy as established by the Supreme Court in the case Griswold v. Conneticut is a right protected by the the various amendments to the constitution, the right is never SPECIFICALLY spelled out, but the SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment to guarantee a certain level of privacy for individuals. Abortion bans violate a womans rights in that respect, and those rights ARE a national issue. Therefore, abortion IS a national issue, not a state one only.

[Apple of Eris]

Oh by the way, here are the 14th and 9th amendments, which the Supreme Court used to establish the people's Right To Privacy in that case (Basically they overturned a lConneticut law banning the use of contraceptives).

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th Amendment, Section I (the revelevent section):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Swedish Steel]

I went to this lecture by a scientist who researched the difference between the brains of men and women, gay and straight. It was pretty interesting. He and his collegues has catched some flack over their research, people being mad about how they treated homosexuality like a disease that you could be cured of. Wich they of course didn't. They aren't interested in finding a cure for homosexuals, they just though: "If there are physiological differences between hetero and homosexuals, wouldn't you want to know about it? Isn't it interesting?" For one thing, if there are physiological differences between straight and gay, wich all the data seem to indicate, then you can forget about this whole crap that being gay is something you choose, something you can decide to stop being.
They also never claimed that being gay is a disease. Alcoholism and homosexuality is something you are born with. One is a disease, the other is not. Alcoholism is something you suffer from, being gay isn't. Sure, you might suffer because of your sexuality, but that is because of the narrowmindness of the society. If you put a gay man or woman on an island with an all gay society, would they suffer because of their sexuality? No they wouldn't. That is how he defined the one being a disease while the other wasn't.
It was a really good lecture, and I'm not even close to making his briliance justice.

[RubySlippers]

Oh by the way, here are the 14th and 9th amendments, which the Supreme Court used to establish the people's Right To Privacy in that case (Basically they overturned a lConneticut law banning the use of contraceptives).

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th Amendment, Section I (the revelevent section):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm not opposing abortion the High Court decided the issue and according to my conservative values that was that. I just meant it was best left to the states at the time and their is the right of the child inside the mother not to be denied the same rights. I have to presume its a person and therefore due the same rights unless the mother herself is in danger. But for me its a moral not legal position.

And as for the brain differences people will argue alchohilics have the same problem like I pointed out. And they can change choosing not to drink even if its hard to do. Gays they would argue in the same way can change and choose not to be gay. Same position. So why not treat either as a disease but a genetic condition one can choose to do something about but since alchoholsim is by its nature destructive and gay persons can be healthy and non-destructive based on how they live the second is not a social negative but the first one is.

[Apple of Eris]

Well on that point we definately disagee. I do not believe that a fetus is a person, to me it is simply a collection of cells growing inside a person. I do not consider a fetus a person any more than I do a tumor or any kind of parasite that infests its host.
*shrug*
And I believe that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the state. And if the federal government needs to intervene to protect those rights, then I'm glad they do.

[RubySlippers]

I respect the seperation of powers here if the law and my morals differ then the law comes first. It has to. But since I feel the unborn person is a person logically the Constitution should protect both. The one case like I said is the life of the mother there is sound reasons if the mother could die to protect the more mature life- her right to live comes before the less developed person. But due to rape or incest then it would depend if their is going to severe psychological harm such as a child then perhaps the same arguement would apply. But its not the CHILD'S fault it was created form a rape or incest and it has a vaild reason to recieve legal protections the same as the mother.

And then there is the FATHER'S rights what if he wants to take the child and raise it even if the mother doesn't? He has rights also here morally the unborn child is half HIS as well?

Again legally your right and I will not oppose the application of decided law but as conservative and a moral position we disagree.

[Apple of Eris]

So if a 12 year old girl gets raped by her uncle, you would want to force her to give birth to a child she never asked for, and could certainly NOT care for? To me, that's insane.

And I still do not believe a fetus is a person, so on that, we certainly differ.

But I'll drop out of this debate, I tend to get heated on this stuff so I'll stop before I get riled up :)

[RubySlippers]

Fine then.

And a 12 year old rape victim I would then look at her psychological state I do put weight on that by the way- metal harm. We could excludes cases of rape and incest when that person is under eighteen and I would be fine with that.

[robitusinz]

blahblahblah...blah blah...blahblah...

  Sorry to paraphrase ya there, Ruby, but before we go any further, I need to settle a few things about you.  Are you an 18 year old, disabled lesbian with diabetes?  Your profile says you're 18.  In that regard, I have to say that even though you have some knowledge of "the system", thanks to whatever civics classes you've taken, it's painfully obvious that your knowledge is hardly applied.  You have no taste for the real world in general...spouting off on alcoholism, homosexuality, and obesity as being "choices" shows just how ignorant you are to the real world.
  Now, your avatar is a picture of Jennifer Lopez with a tagline reading "Loved J-Lo in Gigili- was a lesbians wet dream.".  I had inferred then that you were a homosexual woman...a lesbian.  But after reading a few things you've posted in regards to homosexuals, I'm a bit confused.  So I had to look up your ONS and OFFS.  Ok...that kinda settles the lesbian thing, but it looks like you're an anti-homosexual homosexual.  Or is the lesbian thing just online?
  Finally, you're obviously a disabled person, according to many of your posts.  You're of the opinion that because life gave you lemons, everybody should serve you lemonade?  That's kind of what I'm getting here.  However, not only should you get lemonade, but only a few elite people should get lemonade.  Fat people can stuff it, smokers can eat it, alcoholics can drop dead, and who knows what other unworthy classes of people we've yet to touch upon who should also be condemned.

  Really, I want to know who you are.  Your ideologies are just all over the place, and to me seem completely incompatible with the flesh and blood person you describe.  You seem to be a self-hating homosexual, an elitist cripple, and a naive curmudgeon, all at the same time.  Those adjectives aren't oxy-morons, but they sure seem to be weird when used together.  What am I missing from this picture?  I just don't get you.

[RubySlippers]

Of course. I CHOSE to be with a woman (well am young but followed that attraction) because its fairly accepted in society now. If it wasn't and the hardships outweighted the benefits I would have CHOSEN to be with a man. One can choose to be alcoholic or not, just decide not to drink alcohol in the first place. Drugs the same thing unless special cases like a person on pain killers or diet pills becoming addicted. Food the same thing. I take my preference for women to be as much a choice as natural. But if they were jailing or whipping lesbians I would not be choosing to live the lifestyle regardless of personal choice.

As for gay marriage yes I oppose banning it FEDERALLY and would leave the States to decide what marriage is. I do think marriage is a social good and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal everywhere but its a States Rights issue. Banning any right Federally in the Constitution is just wrong.

As for being disabled I seperate legitimate disability from habits- I was born diabetic pretty much, having a palsied right leg and feel I am more entitled to benefits than a person with a self brought about disability. And that if benefits are issued for health care there has to be a distinction between a legitimate illness and doing something stupid that brought it upon themselves. Unless a child or it was forced in some manner then perhaps that would be different.

What you think all gays go along with the propaganda of the "movement" and are either in the "closet" or have to be "radicals"? The movement has detractors not all from the straight Christian community I think we should be modest, focus on real rights we could get like protection in housing and employment and serious hate crime legislation. We should work and be law abiding citizens. Should vote and work from within the system for changes. And stop having gaudy parades that show every freak who is gay in the major city like San Francisco its embassassing and destroying any good will people like me can generate among conservatives of all stripes. Do you know how much damage that does to a fairly good movement every religious conservative think we are all like that. Or that I will molest their child or convert them to be gay. So I refuse to work with that element of the community its not helping the movement or giving the gay people the best shot at any support from various factions.

As for abortion I take the moral obligations to the logical steps we have in such cases up to three persons the child in the womb, the mother and the biological father and all have the same fundamental rights. If their is a self-defense issue for the life and well-being of the mother then the mother should have the higher choice. Only in those cases. The father if fit and decent (not the rapist or the party to the incest) has also the same rights. But I leave these as decided by the courts and our legislatures at various levels. But destroying a life for converience in many cases is just a fundamental violation of the rights of the child inside the mother. I think that view as a moral issue is very consistant.

[Swedish Steel]

Huh, no reaction to my post? I thought it was pretty interesting stuff, physiological differences between straight and gay and such. Guess not. :)
And no, you most deffinetly can't choose not to be an alcoholic. If you are one you are it for life. Doesn't mean you can't beat the booze nd stay sober, but it'll probably take alot of help. And it has been established that it is a hereditary disease, the medical faculties around the world has spoken.

[robitusinz]

Lots of points made, and I'd like to continue them individually.

Of course. I CHOSE to be with a woman (well am young but followed that attraction) because its fairly accepted in society now. If it wasn't and the hardships outweighted the benefits I would have CHOSEN to be with a man. One can choose to be alcoholic or not, just decide not to drink alcohol in the first place. Drugs the same thing unless special cases like a person on pain killers or diet pills becoming addicted. Food the same thing. I take my preference for women to be as much a choice as natural. But if they were jailing or whipping lesbians I would not be choosing to live the lifestyle regardless of personal choice.

I guess I have to apologize.  I know 2 gay couples that I'm very close with who are upstanding Catholics, yet their view on homosexuality doesn't really hinge on "choice".  They don't really see it as a choice...it just comes naturally to them.  I can't imagine one of my lesbian friends ever telling me that she'd just as easily be with a man or a woman.  And I know for a fact that one of the gay guys I know just has no ability to function for a woman....and I personally know the woman he's failed to function with, because I ended up marrying her.  Truth be told, among the gay community, you'd be labelled as bisexual, and severely frowned upon.  Just to clarify, though, I'm not gay, and thus not part of the gay community...I'm only going by my own personal experiences.  I can certainly be corrected by someone with more perspective on this issue.

As for being disabled I seperate legitimate disability from habits- I was born diabetic pretty much, having a palsied right leg and feel I am more entitled to benefits than a person with a self brought about disability. And that if benefits are issued for health care there has to be a distinction between a legitimate illness and doing something stupid that brought it upon themselves. Unless a child or it was forced in some manner then perhaps that would be different.

And again, this is very "black and white" of you to think, which can be attributed to your youth.  Wait until you enter the real world, wait until you actually start having relationships with other grown women, wait until you experience their experiences, until you develop your own.  The microcosm of people that you've been exposed to just isn't a good sample of the vast amount of different people on different walks of life that inhabit this country, much less this planet.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who self-medicate illnesses with drugs and alcohol.  Heck, there are people who self-medicate with sex...I wouldn't be surprised to know that there were some addicted sexaholics on these boards, in fact.  Mental illness....depression, for example...can lead people to these "self-inflicted" problems.  Adults with untreated ADD, for example, are often alcoholics, or addicted to other vices.  Like I said in one of my previous posts, how far do you extend the scope of peoples' problems?  I'm not saying that all alchoholics have some mental illness compulsing them to drink...no, I totally agree with the fact that there are plenty of people who get hooked on booze just because they party too much.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not easy to chop people up and put them into containers that classify them.  There is a LOT of gray in the world.  Humans are not simple creatures, we are very, very complex and varied.  What seems to be obvious on the surface actually goes many layers deep.  To quote Shrek, "We're like onions".

What you think all gays go along with the propaganda of the "movement" and are either in the "closet" or have to be "radicals"? The movement has detractors not all from the straight Christian community I think we should be modest, focus on real rights we could get like protection in housing and employment and serious hate crime legislation. We should work and be law abiding citizens. Should vote and work from within the system for changes. And stop having gaudy parades that show every freak who is gay in the major city like San Francisco its embassassing and destroying any good will people like me can generate among conservatives of all stripes. Do you know how much damage that does to a fairly good movement every religious conservative think we are all like that. Or that I will molest their child or convert them to be gay. So I refuse to work with that element of the community its not helping the movement or giving the gay people the best shot at any support from various factions.

I understand your views on the gay community in general.  As a Hispanic, I find a lot of things about my people which embrass me as well.  However, do you realize that you are all part of a minority in this country, and thus shouldn't be shooting each other in the feet?  Yeah...there are flamboyant gays who have parades and act like freaks...but a lot of those people are the ones who are fighting to promote issues for the betterment of gay rights.  The "parades" may seem stupid, but they provide a voice.  It shows the country that they exist, that they're people, and that they are citizens too.  I would recommend you think before you make comments about "your people", because frankly, to the rest of the country, RubySlippers is the same thing as a Cuban outside of Miami...just another Mexican.

As for abortion I take the moral obligations to the logical steps we have in such cases up to three persons the child in the womb, the mother and the biological father and all have the same fundamental rights. If their is a self-defense issue for the life and well-being of the mother then the mother should have the higher choice. Only in those cases. The father if fit and decent (not the rapist or the party to the incest) has also the same rights. But I leave these as decided by the courts and our legislatures at various levels. But destroying a life for converience in many cases is just a fundamental violation of the rights of the child inside the mother. I think that view as a moral issue is very consistant.

I think the abortion issue is in another thread.  We were talking about health care in this one.  I just called you out in my previous post to kind of straighten out some of the things you said with who you claim to be.

[robitusinz]

Huh, no reaction to my post? I thought it was pretty interesting stuff, physiological differences between straight and gay and such. Guess not. :)
And no, you most deffinetly can't choose not to be an alcoholic. If you are one you are it for life. Doesn't mean you can't beat the booze nd stay sober, but it'll probably take alot of help. And it has been established that it is a hereditary disease, the medical faculties around the world has spoken.

Your post on the physiological differences confused me for a second because I couldn't decipher whether there WERE differences in the straight/gay brains, or not, until I re-read it.  There are differences, btw, for anyone else who was in the same boat as me.  :D

I would think that's right on the money, considering the people that I know.  One of my best friends had such a hard time comming out...and this guy was in his mid-20s, not a teeny-bopper...I can't imagine he'd made a "choice".  Besides, if it were a choice, then wouldn't gay people just fuck whatever was convenient, as opposed to actively seeking out a specific gender?

[Swedish Steel]

Maybe I worded it poorly then, seems it has happened before.  :) Glad you managed to decipher it, cause it was a really interesting lecture that I'm sad to say I've already forgot the most of.

[RubySlippers]

I'm only going to be on a bit for now so first off I said homosexuality is partially a choice and partially nature- it is a choice but one influenced by genes.

And I have a relative that is a recovering drug addict and I'm proud of her for stopping but she chose to take drugs- so its not a disease its an addiction. I don't call addictions diseases like cancer or other illnesses where there is no choice.

And I'm also a member of the American Family Asociation and one of the small minority of non-Christians and openly a lesbian. Shocked? Well they don't hate gays and in fact if you talked to conservative Christians most are sympathetic to protections to gays in employment, housing and hate crimes. But then they see the parades where such outlandish things go on and other actions of certain groups and it shoots the support we could use in the foot. I am well dressed, decent, caring, honorable and respectful of conservative values and it matters to them. We do disagree on some issues but meet on many as well.

Back to the topic now please. (sigh lol)

I'm expecting people to be responsible and then we can get some health care plan maybe for everyone and I would cut off drug addicts, alcoholics and those whose lifestyle is a detriment to health and they refuse to change. That man should have lost his care he was being 100% covered by the county and had an obligation to follow the treatment program. Period.

[Soulsemmer]

*Zooms somewhere in towards the beginning of the thread and pops this post in there!*

This is something I feel very strongly about, and I often try to refrain from putting my views up on these boards. This is not one of these times.

Off the top of my head, we (the United States fo America, mind you) are the ONLY civilized nation in the entire WORLD that does not have a nationalised healthcare system. Now when you have to run something like that on such a large scale, no it won't be perfect. But I can tell you I'd sure as hell rather have to walk with a limp because a broken leg healed funny than not having been able to go to the hospitol because I couldn't afford it, or worse, get as far in debt as such treatments can make you.

I am a severe diabetic. When I was seventeen, it damn near killed me. People make light of this disease, since so many people have it these days, and it's supposedly "easily treatable."

No, it was not easily treatable, and it still isn't. My life was turned upside-down by this illness. I suddenly found mysef adhered to an extremely strict schedule that prevented me from seeing my friends an awful lot. I had problems in school because I was so ill, and I missed out on a lot of class time. Whereas my typing was impeccable before, suddenly my motor skills are somewhat in question; my right hand has a very slight delay compared to my left. I suffer from neuripathy in both feet, which prevents me from standing for extended periods of time, or walking great distances. In turn, this has made it QUITE difficult to find a job.

Could I have done better in taking care of myself when I was younger? yes, I probably could have. But you show me ONE seventeen year old who would go through all of that undaunted, and I'll show you someone who's damn fine at hiding their emotional state.

Would nationalised healthcare have solved my problems? No. But it sure as all hell wouldn't have let me go without seeing a doctor for the last two and a half years because I couldn't afford it, and I do not want to be stuck in a huge debt. I would very much appreciate beign able to get my insulin without hassle, or god FORBID without having to deal with greedy fucking drug companies who feel that i should pay an arm, leg, and testical for something my very LIFE depends on.

Phew. I think that's all.