Change of heart on socialized medicine

[royal_archer]

I’ve had a change of heart on socialized medicine. No, I have not bought in to the whole scheme but though I should at least consider if the ends will justify the means. This is not in the politics section because I don’t want to talk about the current legislation. I want to talk about the general concept of a government run medical system. Basically the how can we use this evil to achieve a greater good. Please have an open mind in this thread and explore things that do not seem to make sense looking at it from the traditional point of view. Further more, exploring lines of thought on this thread does not mean the posters feel this way, only that we as a group are thinking them through with an open mind.

Assuming the republicans take over in 2-4 years. Or, a moral group comes out of the democrats: What good can we achieve through such a system and would such a good justify the means. Sometimes attempting to articulate an opposing point of view makes you better prepared to articulate your point of view.

1. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.
2. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.
3. Crime. We could isolate genetic and psychological markers that indicate higher likely hood of someone being a criminal, review their medical records or have doctors run specific tests, and identify potential criminals earlier. Then we can handle them proactively.
4. Poverty. We could force doctors to give people medicine that would make them more productive.
5. Morality. We could do some national monitoring of morality and funnel health care dollars to more moral states and cut off funds to less moral states.

Other thoughts?

 

[Seeker100]

I’ve had a change of heart on socialized medicine. No, I have not bought in to the whole scheme but though I should at least consider if the ends will justify the means. This is not in the politics section because I don’t want to talk about the current legislation. I want to talk about the general concept of a government run medical system. Basically the how can we use this evil to achieve a greater good. Please have an open mind in this thread and explore things that do not seem to make sense looking at it from the traditional point of view. Further more, exploring lines of thought on this thread does not mean the posters feel this way, only that we as a group are thinking them through with an open mind.

Assuming the republicans take over in 2-4 years. Or, a moral group comes out of the democrats: What good can we achieve through such a system and would such a good justify the means. Sometimes attempting to articulate an opposing point of view makes you better prepared to articulate your point of view.

1. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.
2. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.
3. Crime. We could isolate genetic and psychological markers that indicate higher likely hood of someone being a criminal, review their medical records or have doctors run specific tests, and identify potential criminals earlier. Then we can handle them proactively.
4. Poverty. We could force doctors to give people medicine that would make them more productive.
5. Morality. We could do some national monitoring of morality and funnel health care dollars to more moral states and cut off funds to less moral states.

Other thoughts?

Very well thought out. Many good points.

 

[royal_archer]

Very well thought out. Many good points.

Drugs: Maybe we could start drug testing everyone and punnish all users of drugs, alcohol, tabacco, caffine, etc?

and how should the government handle those with the “gay gene”

 

[C0LL1NS]

Assuming the republicans take over in 2-4 years. Or, a moral group comes out of the democrats: What good can we achieve through such a system and would such a good justify the means. Sometimes attempting to articulate an opposing point of view makes you better prepared to articulate your point of view.

1. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.
2. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.
3. Crime. We could isolate genetic and psychological markers that indicate higher likely hood of someone being a criminal, review their medical records or have doctors run specific tests, and identify potential criminals earlier. Then we can handle them proactively.
4. Poverty. We could force doctors to give people medicine that would make them more productive.
5. Morality. We could do some national monitoring of morality and funnel health care dollars to more moral states and cut off funds to less moral states.

Other thoughts?

How about…

1. Justice. Imprison all politicians who voted for it, and send them to jail for life.
2. Truth. Impose strict controls on the press so that there will be no public criticism.
3. Foreign Relations. Impose a similar system on all other countries.

WOW, I thought the US was the land of the free, what you’re talking about here sounds like something from Iran.

 

[Seeker100]

Drugs: Maybe we could start drug testing everyone and punnish all users of drugs, alcohol, tabacco, caffine, etc?

and how should the government handle those with the “gay gene”

Let them go. We are on a mission of mercy.

 

[royal_archer]

…

WOW, I thought the US was the land of the free, what you’re talking about here sounds like something from Iran.

Well the whole premise of the nationalization of health care is that the ends justify the means. so maybe we should think through all of the potential ends and all of the potential means and see which out weighs which?

SInce this is your second post I am guessing you are not reading this in full context with other post Ihave made related to this topic.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I’ve had a change of heart on socialized medicine. No, I have not bought in to the whole scheme but though I should at least consider if the ends will justify the means. This is not in the politics section because I don’t want to talk about the current legislation. I want to talk about the general concept of a government run medical system. Basically the how can we use this evil to achieve a greater good. Please have an open mind in this thread and explore things that do not seem to make sense looking at it from the traditional point of view. Further more, exploring lines of thought on this thread does not mean the posters feel this way, only that we as a group are thinking them through with an open mind.

Assuming the republicans take over in 2-4 years. Or, a moral group comes out of the democrats: What good can we achieve through such a system and would such a good justify the means. Sometimes attempting to articulate an opposing point of view makes you better prepared to articulate your point of view.

1. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.
2. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.
3. Crime. We could isolate genetic and psychological markers that indicate higher likely hood of someone being a criminal, review their medical records or have doctors run specific tests, and identify potential criminals earlier. Then we can handle them proactively.
4. Poverty. We could force doctors to give people medicine that would make them more productive.
5. Morality. We could do some national monitoring of morality and funnel health care dollars to more moral states and cut off funds to less moral states.

Other thoughts?

The parameters for this could never be agreed upon. Even the definition of productive would never be agreed upon.

 

[julia1234]

Great topic!! I haven’t heard it from this viewpoint yet. That should scare the pants off the pro government fans!! I did have a friend bring up a similar argument. She asked her Sarah Palin hating facebook friend, if he would be so gung ho for this bill if she were the one in power. --But wait, it’s not socialized, it’s just the gov. picking which insurance companies survive----so that’s OK-----???

 

[JimG]

I’ve had a change of heart on socialized medicine. No, I have not bought in to the whole scheme but though I should at least consider if the ends will justify the means. This is not in the politics section because I don’t want to talk about the current legislation. I want to talk about the general concept of a government run medical system. Basically the how can we use this evil to achieve a greater good. Please have an open mind in this thread and explore things that do not seem to make sense looking at it from the traditional point of view. Further more, exploring lines of thought on this thread does not mean the posters feel this way, only that we as a group are thinking them through with an open mind.

Assuming the republicans take over in 2-4 years. Or, a moral group comes out of the democrats: What good can we achieve through such a system and would such a good justify the means. Sometimes attempting to articulate an opposing point of view makes you better prepared to articulate your point of view.

1. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.
2. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.
3. Crime. We could isolate genetic and psychological markers that indicate higher likely hood of someone being a criminal, review their medical records or have doctors run specific tests, and identify potential criminals earlier. Then we can handle them proactively.
4. Poverty. We could force doctors to give people medicine that would make them more productive.
5. Morality. We could do some national monitoring of morality and funnel health care dollars to more moral states and cut off funds to less moral states.

Other thoughts?

After reading this I thought you were kidding. But maybe not.

Abortion is not “private” now. Abortion clinics are public businesses.
Genetic testing for criminality? Eugenics, anyone? Or throw them in jail before they commit a crime?
Force doctors to give medicine to make people more productive?
National monitoring of morality? My state gets no federal funds if it’s immoral? (Morality being determined by the government, of course.)

Good grief.
Totalitarianism, anyone?

 

[Shoshana]

After reading this I thought you were kidding. But maybe not.

Abortion is not “private” now. Abortion clinics are public businesses.
Genetic testing for criminality? Eugenics, anyone? Or throw them in jail before they commit a crime?
Force doctors to give medicine to make people more productive?
National monitoring of morality? My state gets no federal funds if it’s immoral? (Morality being determined by the government, of course.)

Good grief.
Totalitarianism, anyone?

Even Canada does not have this!

 

[royal_archer]

The parameters for this could never be agreed upon. Even the definition of productive would never be agreed upon.

But we could set up a big governement agency to define “productive”. Since Government agencies are also taking over buisnesses we could have the managers who are now government employees just report under productive employees.

 

[royal_archer]

After reading this I thought you were kidding. But maybe not.

Abortion is not “private” now. Abortion clinics are public businesses.
Genetic testing for criminality? Eugenics, anyone? Or throw them in jail before they commit a crime?
Force doctors to give medicine to make people more productive?
National monitoring of morality? My state gets no federal funds if it’s immoral? (Morality being determined by the government, of course.)

Good grief.
Totalitarianism, anyone?

But the left says the ends justify the means. Les face it any socialized medicine is totalinarianism in some degree, this is just a logical extension of where the left wants to take us. and lets face it if nationalized medicine gets passed they will abuse it so if it is going to be abused why not abuse it in ways that bennefit the right side of society instead of just the left?
.

 

[royal_archer]

Even Canada does not have this!

yet.

 

[Shoshana]

yet.

It seems y’all may be making greater strides in a much shorter time…

 

[Timbothefiveth]

This all rests on the assumption the ends justifies the means. It doesn’t. In some cases, such as self defense or the just war doctrine, it might appear that it does, however, self defense and just wars are not sinful.

. Abortion. If abortion agencies sole source of income comes from the government, we could cut off the money source and put them all out of business.

If the plan funds abortion, you have a guarantee it will cause some increase in abortions, with no gaurantee you will ever cause a decrease.

1. Abortion again. RVW based the decision on “privacy” with Government Run Health Care (GRHC) we won’t have any “privacy” all of those medical records would be available to the government and we could retroactively prosecute baby killers, all without violating the issues leading to RVW.

It’s all about the judges. You have some who are willing to deny the right to live even without that argument. We couldn’t retroactively prosecute people, no matter how bad what they did was if it was legal at the time, laws that do so are prohibited. They could have lynched a dozen monks because planned parenthood didn’t like them, and vowed to strike again, if such acts were legal at the time they can’t be prosecuted.

 

[royal_archer]

This all rests on the assumption the ends justifies the means. It doesn’t. In some cases, such as self defense or the just war doctrine, it might appear that it does, however, self defense and just wars are not sinful.

Do you see those supporting nationalized health care as arguing for the end justifying the means?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I wantr to address the idea od the end justifies the means a minute here. When Rome was a successfull empire and republic, the had a motto that the Latin for it escapes me, but says this" it doesn’t matter how you get the job done, only that you do get the job done". When Rome got away from that ideal, thats when the army dwindled, barbarians were busting through the borders, etc. We are getting like the end times of the Roman Empire. We nit pick over procedures rather than just getting the job done. If it’s important to get done ,don’t him haw over it, just do it!

 

[royal_archer]

I wantr to address the idea od the end justifies the means a minute here. When Rome was a successfull empire and republic, the had a motto that the Latin for it escapes me, but says this" it doesn’t matter how you get the job done, only that you do get the job done". When Rome got away from that ideal, thats when the army dwindled, barbarians were busting through the borders, etc. We are getting like the end times of the Roman Empire. We nit pick over procedures rather than just getting the job done. If it’s important to get done ,don’t him haw over it, just do it!

With that logic, we could significantly reduce health care costs by just killing people with chronic health issues.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Well you can’t because it’s illegal and and unconstitutional. My point was missed. Growing up when dad gave me a job to do, if I allowed myself to get mired in details of procedure causing me to staul I quickly got a foot to the fanny. In the end I got the job done fast in order not to get another kick in the pants. Sounds like more Americans needed a foot to the fanny for dawdling around when they were growing up to me.

 

[royal_archer]

Well you can’t because it’s illegal and and unconstitutional. My point was missed. Growing up when dad gave me a job to do, if I allowed myself to get mired in details of procedure causing me to staul I quickly got a foot to the fanny. In the end I got the job done fast in order not to get another kick in the pants. Sounds like more Americans needed a foot to the fanny for dawdling around when they were growing up to me.

Rowe vs Wade proved that a court could find loop holes in the constitution to justify murder of innocent people.

Now are you talking about avoiding cumbersome procedures and parralysis by annalysis or are you talking about sacrificing ethics, morality, etc in order to achieve results?