1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaOf which you are clearly one by your own definition, since the mechanistic dictatorship and happenchance your "libertarianism" relies so heavily upon have nothing whatsoever to do with volition or free will, honestly earned.
Because it's being hijacked and corrupted by the busybody control freaks.
I'll continue using that phrase because it defines a concrete reality. You've apparently yet to grasp that a sentence including a noun is not identical with the noun it incorporates, but I'm sure you'll get there in the end.
Originally posted by AmauroteThat's exactly what I said, use the phrase by all means because your little proviso "at the point of delivery" negates the actual meaning of the word, just don't ever call it "free health care" unless the contributions made to it are done so voluntarily.
Of which you are clearly one by your own definition, since the mechanistic dictatorship and happenchance your "libertarianism" relies so heavily upon have nothing whatsoever to do with volition or free will, honestly earned.
I'll continue using that phrase because it defines a concrete reality. You've apparently yet to grasp that a sentence including a n ...[text shortened]... is not identical with the noun it incorporates, but I'm sure you'll get there in the end.
(ooops I said "voluntarily" that's going to get Amaurote really confused now.)
Originally posted by WajomaYou still haven't grasped that "my" little proviso is a political formula with a pedigree of over sixty years, but notwithstanding your mistake, I'll gladly agree to your offer with one condition: never refer to yourself as a "libertarian". Since you clearly have no problem with bowing and scraping to arbitrary authority just so long as it happens to be an impersonal force, the description is entirely inaccurate. In addition, I suggest you read Erich Fromm before playing fast and loose with words like "liberty" and "free". Your understanding of the concepts is purely negative.
That's exactly what I said, use the phrase by all means because your little proviso "at the point of delivery" negates the actual meaning of the word, just don't ever call it "free health care" unless the contributions made to it are done so voluntarily.
(ooops I said "voluntarily" that's going to get Amaurote really confused now.)
This is from the UK Telegraph: "Pregnant women could face longer in labour under an NHS drive to reduce the high levels of epidurals and cesarean sections in hospitals, according to guidelines published by the Government's health watchdog. It says doctors and midwives should recommend that women have their labour in birthing pools instead of taking drugs for pain relief.
No intervention in childbirths unless absolutely necessary, according to these guidelines, why? Because it's too expensive! It's too expensive for you to go to the hospital and give birth and stay there a day or two. So here you have the British government, telling a woman to forget pain-killing drugs, we can't afford it!
They don't have money for childbirth, and they're couching this in the beauty of "natural childbirth
Originally posted by MacSwainThis should have nothing to do with funding... natural childbirth is the best way. The less 'doctoring' a mother does the better the outcome. Very few births need intervention.
This is from the UK Telegraph: "Pregnant women could face longer in labour under an NHS drive to reduce the high levels of epidurals and cesarean sections in hospitals, according to guidelines published by the Government's health watchdog. It says doctors and midwives should recommend that women have their labour in birthing pools instead of taking drugs fo ...[text shortened]... ave money for childbirth, and they're couching this in the beauty of "natural childbirth
If the end result of NHS is that folks receive less care... then I may change my mind and vote for it, should the opportunity arise here in the US.
Originally posted by MacSwainNatural birth has many less complications than assisted births. The mother will also be more comfortable in the days after giving birth, not least due to the lack of a bag. The baby will also come into the world undrugged.
No intervention in childbirths unless absolutely necessary, according to these guidelines, why? Because it's too expensive! It's too expensive for you to go to the hospital and give birth and stay there a day or two. So here you have the British government, telling a woman to forget pain-killing drugs, we can't afford it!
They don't have money for childbirth, and they're couching this in the beauty of "natural childbirth
Unfortunately, it is a cultural norm to try to outdo your peers with stories of how horrendously painful childbirth is. This means that most women enter labour with huge tension and fear. Considering what is happening during childbirth is all muscular action, being tense is not going to help.
Try reading up a bit on childbirth. Ina May's book is superb.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakObviously, you drank from the well. 😉
Natural birth has many less complications than assisted births. The mother will also be more comfortable in the days after giving birth, not least due to the lack of a bag. The baby will also come into the world undrugged.
Unfortunately, it is a cultural norm to try to outdo your peers with stories of how horrendously painful childbirth is. This means ...[text shortened]... se is not going to help.
Try reading up a bit on childbirth. Ina May's book is superb.
D
Having a doctor handle the proceedings during "assisted" birth CAUSES complications?
The mother will be more comfortable?
I urge you to enter a womens club or organisation where mothers are in attendance and utter your statements regarding the rigors they must endure. You may exit said venue emasculated! If Mrs. MacSwain were there, I could guarantee it! 😀
Originally posted by MacSwainOn this issue, you are not correct. Doctors cause complications due to: drugs given and positional restrictions on the mother so she can be monitored electronically.
Obviously, you drank from the well. 😉
Having a doctor handle the proceedings during "assisted" birth CAUSES complications?
The mother will be more comfortable?
I urge you to enter a womens club or organisation where mothers are in attendance and utter your statements regarding the rigors they must endure. You may exit said venue emasculated! If Mrs. MacSwain were there, I could guarantee it! 😀
The mother is better off and so is baby (baby is the most important here) during a birth that is drugless. Also C-sections babies are more likely to have lungs problems after birth.
My wife had a terrible process with first baby (epidural, drugs etc..), the next 2 were natural and she was very happy with those.
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainHaving a doctor handle the proceedings during "assisted" birth CAUSES complications?
Having a doctor handle the proceedings during "assisted" birth CAUSES complications?
The mother will be more comfortable?
I urge you to enter a womens club or organisation where mothers are in attendance and utter your statements regarding the rigors they must endure. You may exit said venue emasculated! If Mrs. MacSwain were there, I could guarantee it! 😀
That's not exactly what I said. An assisted birth is more than just having a doctor present. It would be either a c section or epidural (or to a lesser degree tongs/vacuum). For those, you also need an anaesthasist present. As lepomis pointed out, the lack of mobility due to a) being constantly monitored electronically and b) by not being able to feel your legs hinders the birth process, which is assisted by changes in position.
Also, the neck of the womb and vaginal passage are sphincters, working in much the same way as the sphincter in the anus. Tell me, do you think your ass works better when you're comfortable on your own, or when you're surrounded by 4+ people watching you, and possibly made afraid by the thought that you are involved in a medical emergency due to the beeping, wires attached to you, etc... The use of an epidural also increases the chances of an emergency c-section.
The mother will be more comfortable?
Again, not exactly what I said. They will be more comfortable in the days (weeks in the case of a c-section) following the birth. WIth an epidural, you can't feel the lower part of your body, including your kidneys, and so don't feel the need to pee. TO prevent damage a bag is fitted, which can lead to discomfort for days after removal. Epidurals can also lead to back pain in the short to long term. A C-sections is major surgery.
Imagine minding a tiny baby needing constant care after you've just had serious surgery. Breastfeeding the baby is also incredibly painful due to where the scar is. There are also a number of other problems that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Of course, the woman will be more comfortable during labour with epidural, but most women don't weigh this removal of pain against the longer term pain that can result from their choices.
As I said, it is a cultural thing to speak of the horrors of childbirth. You have probably heard the saying that giving birth to a child is like pushing an orange out through your nose. Well, no. No, it isn't. Your nose wasn't designed to pass an orange through it, whereas a womans bits WAS designed to pass a baby through it.
You may have heard of the fight or flight response. The perception of danger (due to being in a medical emergency setting following the drama of every tv childbirth and hearing how awful childbirth is during your whole life) can lead to this response. Part of this response is that blood flows to your arms and legs (fight or flight) away from the rest of your body. This means that blood drains from your abdominal region, which is where it is most needed during childbirth. Muscles also tense when you are stressed. Try doing the splits while holding your leg muscles tense. It won't work and will be much more painful. Again, I could keep going on.
A woman in comfortable surroundings, and with the proper mental preparation should be able to handle childbirth, with very few problems (with obvious exceptions). Females of all species have been doing it for millions of years without the need to cut out the baby or freeze the lower half of the body.
As I said, a lot of it is our cultures fault. If you are told often enough that you can't do something, you can start to believe it, and I firmly believe in mind over matter. If your mind tells your body that you can't keep running, chances are that you will stop running. However, any sportsperson will tell you of their mental experience of digging deep, thinking positively, telling themselves they can keep going and carrying on without the pain they may have been feeling only moments earlier.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak""That's not exactly what I said. An assisted birth is more than just having a doctor present.""
[b][b]That's not exactly what I said. An assisted birth is more than just having a doctor present.
Of course, the woman will be more comfortable during labour with epidural, but most women don't weigh this removal of pain against the longer term pain that can result from their choices.
As I said, it is a cultural thing to speak of the horrors of chi ...[text shortened]... iving birth to a child is like pushing an orange out through your nose. Well, no. No, it isn't.
* OK..that is different than the way I perceived it.
""As I said, it is a cultural thing to speak of the horrors of childbirth. You have probably heard the saying that giving birth to a child is like pushing an orange out through your nose. Well, no. No, it isn't.""
* I must ask..How did you find your pain? It was more similar to_____?
Originally posted by AmauroteThere's been no mistake made, I know how long socialisticated die while you wait health care has been around, and if it were 160 years it would do your argument no good because we could then point to a whole lot of things, like, ohhh, slavery, that is still around after probably thousands of years, but that does not qualify it as being right.
You still haven't grasped that "my" little proviso is a political formula with a pedigree of over sixty years, but notwithstanding your mistake, I'll gladly agree to your offer with one condition: never refer to yourself as a "libertarian". Since you clearly have no problem with bowing and scraping to arbitrary authority just so long as it happens to be an ...[text shortened]... ords like "liberty" and "free". Your understanding of the concepts is purely negative.
I won't be bowing to your 'condition'.
Free = the absence of force, the absence of the threat of force and (a slight stretch) the absence of fraud.
Now instead of assigning reading, which is tantamount to concedeing the point(I could assign a few books and authors to you that, if you understood them would make you a changed man) give us your interpretation of 'free'.
ps
Amaurote, what is this about "happenchance" and what does it have to do with health care? Does you argument rest on the fact that some people aquire wealth by luck and because of this other people should have their right to set their own priorites violated?
Well, some news for you, and I hope your panties don't get tooo wet, most of those that come by wealth through sheer dumb luck don't hang on to it for very long, and some more news, it ain't your business.
A lottery run by Amaurote, for a $1 ticket you get the chance to win $10 000 000, only thing is the first prize is divvied up to all those that bought a ticket in the first place, after tax, administration and advertising you end up with 11 cents each. LOL
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaAu contraire, you do keep making the same mistake - it isn't "my" invented formula, so stop wasting everyone's time by pretending it is. As for pretending that citing that formula is some kind of argument for authority, you ring eve more hollowly than usual - your absolute refusal to engage critically with facts because you prefer a self-circling "moral" argument is a case in point. We're still waiting with baited breath for you to explain why the WHO's five definitions - which were repeated here in detail - are so controversial. The silence is deafening.
There's been no mistake made, I know how long socialisticated die while you wait health care has been around, and if it were 160 years it would do your argument no good because we could then point to a whole lot of things, like, ohhh, slavery, that is still around after probably thousands of years, but that does not qualify it as being right.
I won't be bo f you understood them would make you a changed man) give us your interpretation of 'free'.
Freedom and liberty is not just the absence of force or compulsion, they are is about the creation and multiplication of choices by individual human beings so they can sink and swim on your own merits. Your enslavement to random inheritance as your god shows that you are either indifferent to the positive component of the definition, or afraid of it.
"Conceding the point", don't make me laugh - if you're daft enough to believe making a citation equates to conceding anything, you have a great deal to learn and not much chance of learning it.
Originally posted by WajomaI've snipped the last two paragraphs to help you out, because your nonsequiturs and false conclusions are getting a little embarrassing. Suffice it to say that you've...missed the point somewhat. Again.
Amaurote, what is this about "happenchance" and what does it have to do with health care? Does you argument rest on the fact that some people aquire wealth by luck and because of this other people should have their right to set their own priorites violated?
I'll try once again, but after this, sorry, you're on your own with no stabilizers. The point about happenchance is that your entire position is inconsistent. You're absolutely insistent on the "immorality" of a democratic majority deciding that it is in favour of socialized medicine. Fine (and I'm sure you extend the same logic to the establishment of an army and a police force, since you wouldn't want to look too much of a hypocrite). But inheritance itself is random, and the state acts as guarantor in its transmission, which enables the less merited to gain and retain (the idea that the rich regularly lose money rapidly is absurd, even coming from you - we've already discussed the flatlining in social mobility in the US and elsewhere in this very thread) money which enables them to make choices others, through no fault of their own, cannot.
Since you clearly have no problem with this kind of impersonal happenchance and compulsion, your position as a "Libertarian" is ludicrous. When you're hot, you're hot; when you're not, you're not. You're not.
3 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteOr you snipped them because you changed this "...come by wealth through sheer dumb luck..." to this "...rich..." It's niether here nor there, it's just a characteristic of your slithering. More importantly you skip over the bit where it says it just ain't your business how people come by their wealth as long as it isn't by the 3 'f's: force, threats of force or fraud. If you believe it is your business then state your qualification, other than - concerned citizen (guffaw)
I've snipped the last two paragraphs to help you out, because your nonsequiturs and false conclusions are getting a little embarrassing. Suffice it to say that you've...missed the point somewhat. Again.
I'll try once again, but after this, sorry, you're on your own with no stabilizers. The point about happenchance is that your entire position is inconsis udicrous. When you're hot, you're hot; when you're not, you're not. You're not.
The state does not need to play any role in the deal unless there is a breech of contract by one party, even then it is possible to clear things up through a private, independent arbiter. A system already use widely in the business world. You are yet to point out who is threatening who, until you do so my position remains rock solid consistent.
"Freedom and liberty is not just the absence of force or compulsion."
Here you contradict yourself, and the only place contradictions are possible is in a muddled mind. It either is the abscence of force or it is not, there's no grey here. You're going to need to make a call. Don't straddle the fence, you'll hurt your already damaged (not metaphorical) cajones (metaphorical).
"it isn't "my" invented formula..."
Don't sweat it A, I wasn't suggesting it was yours personally, that would require original thought, however faulty, sooo really, just don't sweat it. As for the surveys, first off you posted different surveys to prove the same thing even though the different surveys listed countries in a different order, this says something about surveys. It looks like you'd like to forget some surveys and just cherry pick one, that's OK. You seem intent on comparing the US with others, and if this is what your argument rests on...oh dear. The US system is far from free market, they do have a somewhat socialisticated system, the system itself is over regulated as is the insurance industry.
p.s. I normally refrain from personal remarks ;^) so please take this as some friendly advice, anyone that uses "Au contraire" hasn't even ascended to the rank of pretentious twhat yet.