19 Jun '09 16:24>
Originally posted by FMFYes, and 90% that there isn't a chance to live.
The FACT is that THE POINT is to live. The other FACT is that 10% means there is still a chance of living. To say "...there is no point..." seems very odd.
Originally posted by FMFCould it be that socialized medicine is not that great after all? I wonder if socialized medicine can exist keeping patient and doctor decision making intact. Who is to say 10% chance is not enough? The government can't run a balanced budget, would we trust them to do our medical thinking for us?
The FACT is that THE POINT is to live. The other FACT is that 10% means there is still a chance of living. To say "...there is no point..." seems very odd.
Originally posted by joe beyserSo... it's better to have no credible or affordable health system for tens and tens of millions of hard working poor families? I don't really get your point.
Could it be that socialized medicine is not that great after all? I wonder if socialized medicine can exist keeping patient and doctor decision making intact. Who is to say 10% chance is not enough? The government can't run a balanced budget, would we trust them to do our medical thinking for us?
Originally posted by FMFIf there is a chance the baby will survive you shouldn't abort it, however, that doesn't mean you should ignore the facts (that sometimes its impossible to keep people alive).
It strikes me as wholly incompatible with your anti-abortion stance.
Originally posted by generalissimoThat's not what you said.
Im not saying you shouldn't try, what Im saying is that you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work out in the end.
Originally posted by FMFOk, I shouldn't have said what I said, not in that way.
That's not what you said.
It's good that you have backed down because that was arguably one of your most indecent posts here in a long time.
Good for you for back peddling.
Originally posted by FMFNo point, just spitballing here. It raised questions in my mind about whether or not this is how socialized medicine would look. It seems pretty extreme in this case, but can the idea be improved on in some way. The affordable health system for jillions of poor families would be nice. I like discussions that bring up ideas. No point endlessly debating systems that do not work well. Nothing in this world is perfect, but maybe there are modifications to existing systems that may work better.
So... it's better to have no credible or affordable health system for tens and tens of millions of hard working poor families? I don't really get your point.