Can a Catholic be Democrat?

[Ridgerunner]

Your hatred of millionaires and billionaires has nothing to do with Republican prolife efforts.

All prolife measures in the states, of which there have been many, including banning of partial birth abortion and closing abortion clinics were won by Republicans against Democrat opposition.

Congress can’t ban abortions. Only the Supreme Court can do that. There might now be a prolife majority on the Court thanks to Trump (and none to Obama who appointed two pro-abortion justices) which might reverse or modify Roe, Casey and the other pro-abortion cases if the proper case comes through the lower courts.

 

[TMC]

Congress can’t ban abortions. Only the Supreme Court can do that. There might now be a prolife majority on the Court thanks to Trump (and none to Obama who appointed two pro-abortion justices) which might reverse or modify Roe, Casey and the other pro-abortion cases if the proper case comes through the lower courts.

Not a single Supreme Court Justice has said he or she would use the power of the Court to ban abortions. Not one. One has unequivocally said he would return the power to ban abortion to the states, Thomas. (Which would still leave abortion legal in probably every state, certainly legal for most Americans.) I believe that between one and three others might follow him, but that is mere speculation at this point.

And, again, the Supreme Court has been made up of a majority of Republican nominees for thirty years. If that is the strategy, it is not working well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree. There’s really no system to it except to the extent some aspects of it are governed by the State Boards of Healing Arts, the medical schools, insurers, malpractice insurers, and the government.

But does there have to be? Other than perhaps transparency in pricing, might it be possible that decentralization provides more answers than further centralization? For example, should we allow NPs and PAs to have private practices? Should medical schools accept students more talented in the “art” rather than in “science” (meaning math)? Instead of pouring ever more money into subsidizing overpriced services, might the government do better to subsidize med schools (or even create some) to increase the number of physicians? Would decentralization perhaps be better, driven by independent practitioners who compete in pricing for most things? Right now, pricing is an outrageous scam.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not a single Supreme Court Justice has said he or she would use the power of the Court to ban abortions. Not one. One has unequivocally said he would return the power to ban abortion to the states, Thomas. (Which would still leave abortion legal in probably every state, certainly legal for most Americans.) I believe that between one and three others might follow him, but that is mere speculation at this point.

And, again, the Supreme Court has been made up of a majority of Republican nominees for thirty years. If that is the strategy, it is not working well.

No supreme court justice other than Bader has ever said how he or she would rule on anything at all. That’s part of their ethical rules.

Returning it to the states wouldn’t be the worst of all things, because then, people with consciences could at least ban it within that portion of government over which they had power and wouldn’t be forced to support it elsewhere.

As you know, Kennedy was a pro-abortion Republican. As far as I know, he did vote for states’ ability to ban late-term abortions. That was too much even for him. Every Dem appointee voted to make late term abortion a “constitutional right” that could not be banned.

Kennedy is no longer on the Court, of course. Possibly his conscience finally got to him. He’s Catholic and getting on in years. Maybe he decided it was time to save his soul.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

I once saw on a Catholic website that it is considered a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Since abortion is murder, voting for someone who supports abortion is like supporting murder. That is wrong.

 

[PetraG]

I agree. There’s really no system to it except to the extent some aspects of it are governed by the State Boards of Healing Arts, the medical schools, insurers, malpractice insurers, and the government.

But does there have to be? Other than perhaps transparency in pricing, might it be possible that decentralization provides more answers than further centralization? For example, should we allow NPs and PAs to have private practices? Should medical schools accept students more talented in the “art” rather than in “science” (meaning math)? Instead of pouring ever more money into subsidizing overpriced services, might the government do better to subsidize med schools (or even create some) to increase the number of physicians? Would decentralization perhaps be better, driven by independent practitioners who compete in pricing for most things? Right now, pricing is an outrageous scam.

This is my knowledge base, but allowing NPs and PAs to have private practices is essentially letting people be doctors with less than a physician’s level of training. That is problematic. It could be allowed, but it is problematic.
On the requirements for medical school, the math isn’t that hard, frankly. It is the scientific concepts. Organic chemistry, for instance, is one of the hardest science classes required for medical school, and there is barely any math involved in the course. It is all conceptionalization, and a physician definitely has to be able to do that.
I would be in favor of subsidizing medical school for people who practice in rural areas, provided it is in the form of a loan that is forgiven if they practice as physicians in under-served areas and not forgiven if they practice as physicians elsewhere.
Pricing now is a very weird system that has to do with hospital bean-counters wanting to write off a certain amount for indigent care and make their books look a certain way. It is all funny money, except when you fall into that very unfortunate situation of having just enough money to pay for it (if you hand over everything you have). Yes, I mean that most of the time patients and their insurers do not pay the “sticker price.” The difference is that people who need care cannot just walk away the way they would at a car lot that won’t budge from the MSRP.
Another issue is that medical charts are not only a personal history of care but also a history used in billing and in litigation. There are not a few medical conferences that have courses on how to chart with litigation and billing in mind. (And I do not just mean “always do exactly what you chart and always chart exactly what you did” which is Rule #1 from litigation defense attorneys for obvious reasons.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is my knowledge base, but allowing NPs and PAs to have private practices is essentially letting people be doctors with less than a physician’s level of training. That is problematic. It could be allowed, but it is problematic.

A lot of the time right now, if you go into a clinic for a fairly routine set of symptoms, you’re not going to see a physician. You’ll see an NP or PA.

On the requirements for medical school, the math isn’t that hard, frankly.

It’s not that, exactly, it’s the fact that you must have high grades in the science courses you take in college, some of which require a great deal of math as well as prodigious rote memory. I recall reading that approximately 40% of physicians are somewhere on the Asperger’s scale. I can understand how that could be.

I would be in favor of subsidizing medical school for people who practice in rural areas, provided it is in the form of a loan that is forgiven if they practice as physicians in under-served areas and not forgiven if they practice as physicians elsewhere.

Interestingly, I’m aware of a D.O. whose way was paid by the government because she promised to practice on an Indian reservation, which she did for the required number of years. One had to have a certain amount of Indian heritage to qualify as well, which she did.

 

[TMC]

No supreme court justice other than Bader has ever said how he or she would rule on anything at all. That’s part of their ethical rules.

Thomas has written separate dissents or concurrences in abortion cases saying he would overturn Roe. Scalia joined them when he was there. No other Justice has ever joined those dissents/concurrences. That is my basis - not what they say unofficially, but their official positions as Justices. Only one Justice is on the record to overturn RvW. We might think Alito would join in, and Kavanaugh, maybe Gorsuch. But we only know one for sure, with significant doubt there are even four votes right now.

Returning it to the states wouldn’t be the worst of all things, because then, people with consciences could at least ban it within that portion of government over which they had power and wouldn’t be forced to support it elsewhere.

Yes, but that is not what you said. Overturning Roe would not even change the law in most states, and would not ban abortion in any state that I am aware of.

As you know, Kennedy was a pro-abortion Republican. As far as I know, he did vote for states’ ability to ban late-term abortions. That was too much even for him. Every Dem appointee voted to make late term abortion a “constitutional right” that could not be banned.

So we should vote for the GOP just to get Justices, knowing that most of time the GOP gets it wrong? Seems to me that Gorsuch also described Roe v Wade as the “law of the land,” just like the Dem appointees. So how is he better?

Kennedy is no longer on the Court, of course. Possibly his conscience finally got to him. He’s Catholic and getting on in years. Maybe he decided it was time to save his soul.

Really? I don’t think we are in a position to judge Kennedy’s soul. Even if we were, Kennedy is no different from Scalia on this point. Scalia always said that he voted what the law is, not what the Church said the law should be. Scalia famously said that the unborn have no constitutional rights, and that States were free to allow abortion if that is what they want to do. Similarly, he said he was free to disregard the Church’s position on the death penalty (in his role as a Justice) because his job was to say what the Constitution says, not what he thinks it should say. Kennedy was doing exactly the same thing, but had a difference of opinion on the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[PetraG]

It’s not that, exactly, it’s the fact that you must have high grades in the science courses you take in college, some of which require a great deal of math as well as prodigious rote memory. I recall reading that approximately 40% of physicians are somewhere on the Asperger’s scale. I can understand how that could be.

40%? No. It does take a really good memory to practice medicine, it really does. That and attention to detail. That is partly because you have to sort out which observations are important and which ones you’re going to ignore. You have to ignore some of them, and knowing what to look for and what to ignore and things like which symptoms are important by their absence is why we’re not quite ready to have computers take over the art of medicine.

Well, that and as physicians like to say, the patient hasn’t always read the textbook. Things that almost never happen sometimes do.

You’d be surprised how few science courses are actually required by medical schools. Most applicants do major in chemistry or biology or something like that, but it is not required. The level of math and physics on the MCAT is not that high. No, it’s organic chemistry that sinks most of the ships that want to go to medical school.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately, computers have nearly taken over. Unfortunately, billing is tied to the computer analysis, and if you depart from the computer treatment recommendation, you’re going to have problems with the billing. Medical complex supervisors pay attention to that, and the smoothness of your billing has an effect on your compensation, even your retention. I have seen it.

You’d be surprised how few science courses are actually required by medical schools

“Required” and “getting accepted” are not the same things. Many a dentist and no few vets are med school rejects.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The rate of pregnancy in the US has declined. The statistics show that the new abortion limits have had virtually no impact:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...ling-abortions-have-also-hit-an-all-time-low/

 

[PetraG]

Unfortunately, computers have nearly taken over.

Not in diagnosis. Great servants, not even remotely the masters yet. But yes, as you know the people practicing medicine do curse the amount of time they have to be on computers. (It is kind of like the amount of time it was supposed to save us when we all got internet access, lol…)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not in diagnosis.

You obviously have knowledge of all of this, and my only knowledge is anecdotal. But I’m not sure I would agree with this. The diagnosis determines the treatment. The treatment determines the billing. So if you want to fight the computer diagnosis, you’re already swimming upstream

 

[PetraG]

“Required” and “getting accepted” are not the same things. Many a dentist and no few vets are med school rejects.

The committees actually do like letting in some history majors, when they can get them. Anatomy and physiology is only required as part of the general biology curriculum. Physical therapists have to take a full year of A&P before applying to professional school, but the medical schools want to teach that to the docs themselves.

But yes, you need to rock and roll in O-Chem to get into med school, no doubt about that. I don’t think that much has changed in 60 years. I don’t see it changing any time soon, because you can’t understand biochemistry or molecular biology without o-chem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I once saw on a Catholic website that it is considered a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Since abortion is murder, voting for someone who supports abortion is like supporting murder. That is wrong.

You have to be careful about websites that claim the label of “Catholic.” Merely putting that label on their homepage is no guarantee that they are the least bit connected to the Church.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

You have to be careful about websites that claim the label of “Catholic.” Merely putting that label on their homepage is no guarantee that they are the least bit connected to the Church.

But it does make sense, once you think about it. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child. Don’t you think supporting someone who supports murder is also murder?

 

[upant]

Probably because the number of pregnancies overall is going down.

partly due to contraception, an issue on its own

He didn’t say he’d do what the Democrats want. He said he would not touch funding for Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. That was false.

the recipient isn’t getting any less and he is fixing what is wrong with the system, under your strict adherence, no one could cut waste and fraud in a system.

No, he had no health care plan for John McCain to vote on.

Trump didn’t need one, John McCain campaigned to get rid of ObamaCare, what was his solution? he was in the game a lot longer than trump. why didn’t he have a plan ready, he had time.

He beat out other Republicans with that promise, among others. There was nothing behind it. He said they were working on a plan, a great plan. What plan? Where is it?

where are their plans?

Then people should stop saying he’ll do what he says and he tells it like it is. He doesn’t, not on either count. He wildly overstates what he is going to do and he makes things up that never happened. That’s not a truth that we can just politely cover up because he picked out favorable Supreme Court justices.

don’t minimize the supreme court picks. they are really all that counts in the long run. they will be hopefully making conservative decisions for decades. it will be this reason alone that many will vote for him in 2020. it should be one of the main reasons for all religious and conservative voters.

He beat out all the other Republicans by pretending he could do things that they wouldn’t pretend to do.

I don’t think he was pretending, his ego is bigger than that.

maybe he just didn’t realize the extremes the opposition (never-trumpers and Dems) would go to deny him his agenda.

Frankly, he also beat the other Republicans it by running a nasty name-calling campaign

Americans are awful shallow if this is effective on them picking who to vote for,

If there has ever been a President who has demanded and gotten the level of obsequious compliance with whatever he says, whether it is true or false, I don’t know who it was.

Obama comes to mind, the Dems don’t even recognize the bad policies that saw Americans killed by his actions. it isn’t new.

I think it was put in as a not-very-good first try that voters would want to have replaced but wouldn’t allow to have eliminated. I think Barack Obama deliberately made that calculation

gruber admitted that it was based on a lie, jut to get America to back it. yes, it was a deliberate falsehood.

 

[upant]

The bottom line on this conversation is that the Democrats have tried and are trying to improve health care.

they have done nothing but make it worse for the middle class.

The Republicans held control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate?
Instead of passing any meaningful legislation, they chose to dole out a big tax cut for the millionaire and billionaire class.

are you claiming the middle class didn’t get a tax cut?

the Dems also cater to the rich, look at their backers. they aren’t supporting democrats because of social policies.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have to be careful about websites that claim the label of “Catholic.” Merely putting that label on their homepage is no guarantee that they are the least bit connected to the Church.

But it does make sense, once you think about it. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child. Don’t you think supporting someone who supports murder is also murder?

That depends on what you mean by “support”, both on my part and on the part of the person I am supposedly “supporting.” If that person is an abortion doctor and I round up patients for him and drive them to the clinic, then yes, I am also guilty of murder the same as he is. If I vote for a candidate whose only support of abortion is refusing to make it illegal, and I do it because of a reason unrelated to abortion, again, I would not be guilty of murder. At most I would be providing remote material cooperation with the evil, which can under certain circumstances be licit.

 

[PetraG]

Once again, daring to criticize President Trump results in being branded a Democrat.

It never fails.

I don’t think he was pretending, his ego is bigger than that.

maybe he just didn’t realize the extremes the opposition (never-trumpers and Dems) would go to deny him his agenda.

His ego is too big to make stuff up in order to make himself look better?

I’ll have to let someone else break the truth to you on that one…