Is there any form of Government HealthCare you could get behind? - Page 9

Medical procedures are covered. Child abuse isn't. It's not that difficult a concept.

No, because if it's considered child abuse to perform faith healing where modern medicine has an easy cure, the faith healing is thus not a valid medical alternative. As such, it shouldn't be covered for anyone. If you want to throw your life away as an adult, it's not up to me to stop you. It just shouldn't be called a valid medical treatment and it shouldn't be done on our dime.

My main issue is that covering it for anyone, adults or children, legitimizes it. And when done to children who then suffer or die, it's child abuse. If the bill passes as is, it now becomes government sanctioned child abuse.

What about this?-

"The meditation group were asked to practise for 20 minutes twice a day.
The lifestyle change group received education classes in traditional risk factors, including dietary modification and exercise.

"Over nine years, there were 20 events (heart attacks, strokes or death) in the meditation group and 31 in the health education group.

As well as the reductions in death, heart attacks and strokes in the meditating group, their average blood pressure was significantly lower (5mm Hg), and there was a significant reduction in psychological stress in some participants.
Dr Schneider said other studies had shown the benefits of Transcendental Meditation on blood pressure and stress, irrespective of ethnicity."This is the first controlled clinical trial to show that long-term practise of this particular stress reduction programme reduces the incidence of clinical cardiovascular events, that is heart attacks, strokes and mortality," he said.
Dr Schneider said that the effect of Transcendental Meditation in the trial was like adding a class of newly discovered drugs for the prevention of heart disease.
He said: "In this case, the new medications are derived from the body's own internal pharmacy stimulated by the Transcendental Meditation practice.""
~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8363302.stm

I agree with you that parents need to look after the health of their kids responsibly, but why not encourage people to be responsible with their health? No doubt encouraging prevention can save lives, dollars and untold suffering. Medical science needs to embrace spiritual well-being (and hence often physical well-being) if "people" are to live healthier. If people want these services they shouldn't be deprived from them when there are clearly scientifically provable results, even if the scientists can't always explain exactly always why they come about.

Here's something else-

"Dr Grahame Brown, a musculo-skeletal specialist at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital in Birmingham, claims he is able to save hundreds of patients from the need to have spinal surgery every year simply by "reframing the negative metaphors that have been unwittingly used by their doctors that can lead to a destructive and self-fulfilling cycle".
~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8326171.stm

"Metaphors we live by" (by Lakoff and Johnson) A quote-

"The myth of objectivism reflects the human need to understand the external world in order to be able to function successfully in it. The myth of subjectivism is focused on internal aspects of understanding – what the individual finds meaningful and what makes his life worth living. The experientialist myth suggests that these are not opposing concerns."




And finally something extremely baffling. When those with the placebo drug experienced the same adverse effects as those taking the actual drug, even when they didn't know what the adverse effects were. What makes this especially interesting is that the negative effects were the same as the actual drugs negative effects. Each drug had different negative effects that the placebo patients matched-

"Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10123 Turin, Italy; Neuroscience Institute of Turin (NIT), University of Turin, Italy.

In analgesic clinical trials, adverse events are reported for the painkiller under evaluation and compared with adverse events in the placebo group. Interestingly, patients who receive the placebo often report a high frequency of adverse events, but little is understood about the nature of these negative effects. In the present study, we compared the rates of adverse events reported in the placebo arms of clinical trials for three classes of anti-migraine drugs: NSAIDs, triptans and anticonvulsants. We identified 73 clinical trials in 69 studies describing adverse events in placebo groups: 8 were clinical trials with NSAIDs, 56 were trials with triptans, and 9 were trials with anticonvulsants. Studies were selected of all Medline/PubMed or CENTRAL referenced trials published until 2007. Adverse event profiles of the three classes were compared using a systematic review approach. We found that the rate of adverse events in the placebo arms of trials with anti-migraine drugs was high. In addition, and most interestingly, the adverse events in the placebo arms corresponded to those of the anti-migraine medication against which the placebo was compared. For example, anorexia and memory difficulties, which are typical adverse events of anticonvulsants, were present only in the placebo arm of these trials. These results suggest that the adverse events in placebo arms of clinical trials of anti-migraine medications depend on the adverse events of the active medication against which the placebo is compared. These findings are in accordance with the expectation theory of placebo and nocebo effects."
~ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19781854

I'll echo the concern Noah raised earlier. Who pays for Faith Healing? Why is this in a health insurance bill?

AFAIK, the most problematic issue with religious refusal of health care centres around the Watchtower's refusal to accept blood transfusions, even for children.

This is based on a faulty interpretation of scripture (as is most Watchtower-specific doctrine.) The New Testament commands Christians not to consume blood. A blood transfusion is not consumption of blood, and everyone except Jehovah's Witnesses seems to understand this.

Either way, this type of issue can't really be dealt with through health insurance.

So the Atheist has control over his body but the Christian doesn't. Nice.

If you're paying attention, you'd admit BR is objecting because those who choose to euthanize themselves are only hurting themselves. Those who refuse to allow doctors to treat a child are making that decision for someone else.

So either you're not intelligent enough to see this point, or you're not honest enough to acknowledge it.

So you're admitting that certain factions of the Christian faith have misinterpreted the Bible. Nice. Now extend that misinterpretation to homosexuality, and you're making much progress.

Let's not derail the health care debate over something we've discussed at length on AI numerous times.

Suffice it to say that it is difficult to argue that the Biblical prohibitions on sex outside of natural marriage have been misinterpreted.

BR did not initially restrict his argument to children.

Adding a child to the equation does complicate the issue, I will agree to that. But I view this as a 'control of one's self' issue. What if children aren't involved. Can adults choose faith healing? I wouldn't advocate insurance paying for such 'treatment' but how can I object if someone makes an informed decision to do so?

And when children are involved why can't an parent's make an informed decision to choose faith healing? If not why do we get consent signed from them for treatment when they basically can't 'refuse'? And as Frank 777 points out, how about Jehova Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions even when they may die? Should we just give it to them because we know better?

Clever evasive move. Hat tip to you sir. \


*No surgery? No mental or psychological options? FYI, most abortion procedures would not be covered in that definition.

I wouldn't call Jehovah's Witnesses Christians. Their "religion" is a whole different animal, complete with a deliberately altered bible that is exclusive to them.

Yeah, why debate healthcare when you can pound irrelevancies and trivialities into the ground instead? And we wonder why our political system has turned into a circus sideshow.

This argument has been made before, but worth mentioning yet again.

About faith healing:
I would like know if faith and prayer ever healed Hemroids? However a good butt fff.... will heal them for certain.
If Jesus is about healing how would he have approached hemroids?

The above is an example of completely mad reasoning yet reflects an absolute truth.

If you legitimize it for adults, it can be construed that faith healing is an acceptable practice and thus would effectively give government the stamp of approval for child abuse.

Hmmm...let's see what happens if we apply this reasoning to other social and legal constructs and see how it works:

- If you legitimize smoking for adults, it can be construed that smoking is an acceptable practice and thus would effectively give government the stamp of approval for children to smoke.

- If you legitimize drinking alcohol for adults, it can be construed that drinking alcohol is an acceptable practice and thus would effectively give government the stamp of approval for children to drink alcohol.

- If you legitimize sex for adults, it can be construed that have sex is an acceptable practice and thus would effectively give government the stamp of approval for children to have sex.

- If you legitimize driving a car for adults, it can be construed that driving a car is an acceptable practice and thus would effectively give government the stamp of approval for children to drive cars.

We have different rules for children and adults in our society (though generally we allow parents to make most decisions for their children), and with good reason. As children become progressively older, more mature and more capable of understanding and taking responsibility for their actions (I realize that idea is rather quaint these days) they are progressively given the chance to do more things.

Logical failure. Again. You can't just say "if you <blank> for adults then you allow <blank> for children" willy nilly. This is a very specific case where faith healing is purported to be a form of medicine. The government paying for faith healing treatments acknowledges that it is a form of medicine. Thus, cases against parents who take children with curable diseases to faith healers whose children then die or get injured as a result of this criminal negligence, suddenly get much harder to prosecute because the government has already sanctioned faith healing as a legitimate medical practice.

You are taking all the nuance away from my argument and simplifying it to something that it quite frankly is NOT. Enough already.

Not the same, again.

Please explain how sweetie.





Thanks. Needed that laugh.

Already explained and your no substance post here just shows you have no argument. Did everyone just decide to take up a stereotype and stick to it no matter what is said as some sort of elaborate prank?

Where?

Read. You not liking the explanation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You can just copy it into your next post. That'll be fine. You've claimed to have shown how my logic has failed. I do not see anything in your post that actually does so. So, go ahead, copy it into your next post. If you don't, I'll assume you're just blowing hot air and deliberately dodging a direct question.

You aren't worth talking to. Here it is again, but this is the last time you get any of my time.

Logical failure. Again. You can't just say "if you <blank> for adults then you allow <blank> for children" willy nilly. This is a very specific case where faith healing is purported to be a form of medicine. The government paying for faith healing treatments acknowledges that it is a form of medicine. Thus, cases against parents who take children with curable diseases to faith healers whose children then die or get injured as a result of this criminal negligence, suddenly get much harder to prosecute because the government has already sanctioned faith healing as a legitimate medical practice.

So your "debunking" of my logic amounts to saying, basically, "Umm, that don't apply here." Brilliant. Furthermore, you reasoning that things would "suddenly get much harder to prosecute because the government has already sanctioned faith healing" doesn't speak to the logic at all, it simply speaks to a result you don't want to see.

Oh well. I thought I had missed some deep and insightful reasoning. Nope. Just reasoning that says, "Well if you apply that logic, then people might not get in trouble the way I think they should."

What if we call it priest assisted suicide, would it bother you then?

I honestly can't tell if you are trying to help Christians from themselves or if you derive pleasure from depriving them of an expression of their faith.

I didn't say Christians can't go to faith healers. I'm saying the government shouldn't be classifying those sessions as medical procedures and they certainly shouldn't be covered under the public option. Please, don't be obtuse. My gripe with this is very narrow and specific and yet you and the other guy who is now on ignore keep trying to broaden and twist my argument into something it very much isn't.

First, to be precise (and despite how you may object, I'm not being pedantic here, precision is exactly what's need in our use of words), it isn't a medical procedure but it may be a health care procedure and we're talking about health care reform more generally. There are many things that aren't medical procedures that will likely be covered by a government-run health care program. These will include surgical, emotional, mental, psychological procedures. They will also certainly include non-essential procedures.

Second, this really gets to the crux of the problem with government-run anything. Let's take schools for example. The government steals money from people to setup a "public option" for education. Then people like you get all uppity about what is legitimate (and what is not) to be taught (according to your values) in these government-run schools. When someone objects you disingenuously revert to the the "I'm not preventing anyone from going to a private school if they want to" mantra ignoring the fact that the government has virtually eliminated all other private options and has stolen that person's money that might otherwise be used to pay for alternative options.

It stunning how blind so-called "progressives" are to their hypocrisy and authoritarian natures.

Pay teachers a reasonable salary and cut out the administrative bullshit and you'll get a better public school education. Everyone has to have access to schools. Privatizing everything and lowering taxes are not the answers to every single problem in existence no matter how much some people want them to be.

You'd attract more qualified candidates. Very few people are highly qualified and teach because they love it even though they could be much more successful doing something else.

Teachers are paid a reasonable salary. That they aren't is a myth.



Yes. Interesting that we can talk about the failure of government-run schools in one breath while calling for government-run health care as a better solution in the next breath.



Nationalizing everything and raising taxes are not the answers to every single problem in existence no matter how much some people want them to be.

I would break the '+" symbol on my keyboard if I gave this as many pluses as it deserved.

I can well believe you would, but then if you couldn't read or write you wouldn't have a keyboard to break in all likelihood, but granted you probably would have enough education to show approval by simply bashing on the + key. Many others wouldn't have an education either and that would mean a whole lot of jobs going overseas amongst other dire consequences. That's unless you believe that everybody would be able to afford private schooling, but as private health insurance has shown many cannot afford it and are left to die and suffer excruciating deaths feeling abandoned and spending the last of their money on whatever little help they can afford.

A study by the NCES shows that test results are very similar between private and public schools, with in some cases public schools attaining better results than private and vice versa. That of course is not the be all and end all of the schooling process. Both systems have their good and bad points. I wander if Noahj would feel so happy about sending his kids to a private school if it meant one or more of his kids getting no education at all?

~ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard...es/2006461.pdf

This is a myth many, sadly, continue to believe. Without government schools everyone would be uneducated. This is a lie plain and simple.

I didn't say "everyone" would be.