*shaking head*

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

First, not doing something is an action. ... Nonsense reasoning; semantics that lawyers succesfully [sic] play to confuse reality. ... Not doing something is an action.

First, not doing something is a choice, that choice is called inaction. There can be dozens of valid reasons for individuals to choose inaction and you don't get to sit in judgment of any of them. But then the English language isn't your forte is it? You're well known for making up your own definitions for words.

Originally Posted by tw

Second, the employer is imposing his religion on others.

Second, the employer is imposing its will on its insurance company. The insurance company is limiting benefits to the employees and the insurance company is free to distribute those benefits as long as it's no cost to the employer.

Originally Posted by tw

A conscentious [sic] objector does not impose his religion on anyone else.

Conscientious objectors continuously impose their religion on others as others have to accommodate them.

Originally Posted by tw

Only so called 'evil' people (ie [sic] [Fundamentalist terrorists) impose their religion on anyone else. This is not about imposing his religion on himself. This is only and completely about imposing his religion on others.

Only un-American subversives would deprive employers of their freedom of religion by forcing them to act in a manner unconscionable to them. This is only and completely about freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court agrees with me 'cause I'm right and you're wrong ... get over it.

[DanaC]

soldiers refusing to fight get court-martialled, surely?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

soldiers refusing to fight get court-martialled, surely?

I was referring to soldiers refusing to fight claiming conscientious objector status. Courts Martial is a judicial procedure. Those claiming conscientious objector status go into pretrial diversion in which an administrative process either validates or invalidates the claim. Validation means the petitioner is authenticated as a conscientious objector and administratively separated from military service. If the claim is determined to be invalid, then the soldier proceeds to trial.

[DanaC]

can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, [...] the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control,

if companies that object to offering cover on the insurance they provide also refuse to sign a piece of paper confirming that they object to providing cover for birth control, thereby ensuring that those women cannot access such provision through a government scheme, then they are absolutely imposing their religion on their employees.

For those who say they could choose to work elsewhere - yes, they could. But sometimes that choice isn't really a genuine choice. If the choice is between continuing to work for the company and being able to feed and clothe your children, or leave that job and not be able to feed and clothe your children, then that is not a truly 'free' choice.

It all depends on the employment availability for your skill set and your region - if you are working in a low paid job, in an area with high unemployment and little to no welfare, then deciding to leave your job is a very, very big deal, particularly if you have dependents.

As far as paying for this stuff out of their own wages - again, what are those wages? The vast majority of people currently accessing foodbanks and living in food poverty are in work. Many are already having to choose between fuel or food, clothes for their kids or rent.Those same people are unlikely to have the kinds of savings and back up cash that would allow them to relocate themselves and their families.

The people who object on some moral ground to providing contraceptives are no doubt the same people who will happily condemn as profligate women who have more children than they can afford to look after.

[DanaC]

I see what you're saying Henry. And to an extent, I agree. But - if those employers are making that decision in the face of scientific evidence that shows quite clearly that there is no difference in function between the contraceptives they will allow and those they won't (prevention of fertilisation, versus prevention of ovulation) then they are effectively penalising those women who, because of their particular medical history need one kind rather than the other (some contraceptives are suitable for some women but not others) - and they are doing so on the grounds of something that is untrue.

[Big Sarge]

TW,

Kitty was on birth control. That's why no one intervened. BTW, you really fucked up your facts in that case. Who were these hundreds?? Two people saw different parts of the attack. It was believed to be a lover's quarrel. It was finally properly reported as an assault and the police responded. This happened 50 years ago. What the fuck does this have to do with Hobby Lobby?? I'm worried you are becoming quite senile in the twilight of your life.

Yeah for Obamacare. We are moving towards socialized medicine. I think the VA is a shining example of what everyone can expect in the future.

[Big Sarge]

I'm sorry tw. the above was uncalled for

[DanaC]

Socialised medicine:

The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.

The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst of the 11 countries it looked at. Despite putting the most money into health, America denies care to many patients in need because they do not have health insurance and is also the poorest at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found.

"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less.

In the Commonwealth Fund study the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It got top place on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources.

The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th. The authors say that the healthcare system cannot be solely blamed for this issue, which is strongly influenced by social and economic factors. Although the NHS came third overall for the timeliness of care, its "short waiting times" were praised. "There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialised services are inevitable. However, the Netherlands, UK and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to speciality services,", the report added.

The NHS also outperforms the other countries – which include France, Germany and Canada – in managing the care of people who are chronically ill, the report said.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2.../17/nhs-health

The problems of the VA aren't because it is socialised - the problems are because it is not being competently run and has been allowed to fester without proper upgrades to the records system.

[Undertoad]

There is one metric that they never ever ever study in such studies and that metric is, where are the fucking cures coming from? Because that is kind of important.

In the last 30 years, there have been 68 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine.

US 38.5
UK 9.5
Germany 5.5
Australia 3.5
France 3
Japan 2
Switz 2
Italy 1
Denmark 1
Sweden 1
S. Africa 1
Argentina .5
Canada .5

The level of socialization in a system doesn't seem to matter much. The UK is clearly punching above its weight. Single-payer Canada, socialized Sweden, big underachievers. Moneyed Japan, huge underachiever. But it's clear, without the US system, 57% of the discoveries since 1945 do not happen, and the rest of the world continues to die in their systems that have not benefitted from advancements and discoveries.

~ You're welcome ~

I also feel that our metrics would be a lot better without a permanently unhealthy underclass who eat shitty, go around shooting each other, generally hate doctors, have terrible hygiene, etc. I suppose every nation suffers from that to a degree. But when it comes to longevity our ghetto males and steady trickle of Mexicans have a life expectancy of around 65, and it isn't actually due to lack of doctorin' so much as lack of maintenance. If you don't do oil changes expect your car to die.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Please point out where I said or hinted at that

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Single-payer Canada, socialized Sweden, big underachievers.

[DanaC]

US is huge in comparison to UK and Germany (for example) - there is no way to know if the US would produce fewer innovations with socialised medicine than with private/insurance based medicine. Given the size and population of the UK the fact that it has 9 of those is remarkable - if the US had the same or similar system in place its size might still mean it having a similar number.

US population as at 2012= 313.9 million
UK population as at 2012 = 63.23 million

Approximately five times the population and produced approximately four times as many nobel laureates in physiology or medicine.

[Undertoad]

I know that and, really, what people never consider is that the US system is pretty socialized anyway. With Medicare, Medicaid and now O'care, state and federal governments pay for over half the medicine that is happening in this country.

(I had to explain to a Derby counterpart that the streets around US hospitals are not choked with the dying who have been turned away. Nobody with a serious issue is turned away.)

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There is one metric that they never ever ever study in such studies and that metric is, where are the fucking cures coming from? Because that is kind of important.
....

The level of socialization in a system doesn't seem to matter much. The UK is clearly punching above its weight. Single-payer Canada, socialized Sweden, big underachievers. Moneyed Japan, huge underachiever. But it's clear, without the US system, 57% of the discoveries since 1945 do not happen, and the rest of the world continues to die in their systems that have not benefitted from advancements and discoveries.

~ You're welcome ~

I also feel that our metrics would be a lot better without a permanently unhealthy underclass who eat shitty, go around shooting each other, generally hate doctors, have terrible hygiene, etc. I suppose every nation suffers from that to a degree. But when it comes to longevity our ghetto males and steady trickle of Mexicans have a life expectancy of around 65, and it isn't actually due to lack of doctorin' so much as lack of maintenance. If you don't do oil changes expect your car to die.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I know that and, really, what people never consider is that the US system is pretty socialized anyway. With Medicare, Medicaid and now O'care, state and federal governments pay for over half the medicine that is happening in this country.

It seems like you're saying that our non-socialized system results in more advances, but then you point out that over half of our system is "socialized".

Please clarify

I'd like to add that R&D in the US is hugely subsidized (socialized).

[DanaC]

Good point.

I do think though this is one of those areas where greater centralisation brings benefits. The cost of medicine is brought down massively by centralisation because it increases the buying power of the customer. The NHS has huge buying power with drug companies - it helps drive down costs. Drug companies want the NHS to supply their products and many times they bring the cost down drastically to make that happen - because the NHS has such massive purchasing power.



I should add all this is subject to change given we have a coalition hell bent on finishing the job of privatising the NHS.

[elSicomoro]

I feel like sometimes, we're put into a health circle of death. Food producers make shitty food that we consume that makes us sick. That sends us to a doctor or hospital where we/insurance/government spend tons of money for the latest and greatest technology. Meanwhile, the hospitals serve shitty food...and we don't learn from our mistakes.