It's totally about interpreting the Constitution as objectively as possible, and totally not about ideological warfare that will do anything to reach its twisted goals no matter how many people get hurt
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Roe V Wade has been repealed
- Thread starter Noctosphere
- Start date
- Views 71,818
- Replies 2,460
- Likes 4
- Status
It’s called universal private healthcare. Health insurance is compulsory for anyone who stays in the country for longer than 3 months - that doesn’t mean a tourist won’t be admitted to hospital if they have an accident. Are you trying to derail again? I’m not having this discussion with you - you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand the subject matter before and my time is valuable.
What would that point be? Me pointing out that you’re incorrect and you getting flustered isn’t a “point”, I’m not obligated to waste my time answering your inquiries, especially in an unrelated thread.
It's called, literally, universal private health insurance, and even wikipedia says that it is universal but through health insurance. Not through some magical non-insurance private healthcare.
Legatum index? Don't make me laugh, those people are useless, they don't have enough brain to find their own arse without their hands. And Euro Health consumer index stopped what, 4 years ago?
And the Freopp? Claims to be non-partisan yet staffed almost exclusively by Texan republicans, some of the most rabid reactionary fash folk around, who basically want to repel Obamacare.
So it's really nice to throw stats, but don't assume we're all easily impressed by your intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah you keep saying that, and you keep being a failure, claiming that I get "flustered" when all I do is highlight your obvious lies. You've not corrected me a single time, you've just thrown tantrums. The point about Swiss healthcare is poignant, with you refusing to accept reality. And your time is worthless, kinda like other things about you.
And the thread is related, unless you're saying that childbirth and abortion are not healthcare-related. Are you advocating practicing those in the house bathroom?
The Swiss healthcare system is private and renowned around the world for its excellent health outcomes, quality of care, innovation and fiscal stability, that’s all I have to say. The rest of your post is just bloviating, I have no interest in it.
And for being insurance-based, despite your imaginary claim of otherwise. Affordable, for sure, not a disaster like america, but still insurance-based. Even in spite of your "sources" (reactionary nonsense-tanks and outdated indexes).
The rest of your post is just your usual gaslighting. I accept you being flustered about being, as usual, corrected, and that's all I have to say. Including your ridiculous stubborn refusal to address how abortion and childbirth are ALSO healthcare matters, not just legal ones.
For those of you interested in a more nuanced dataset not dependent on rightwing reactionary nonsense, here. It's obviously far more complicated as it takes into account several factors.
As I'm someone with parental figures who have Lupus - I find this utterly fucking ridiculous. As Lupus is basically a sentence to life-long agony unless treated properly. Shall we list off a few symptoms it incurs? Hm painful rashes, migraines, oh look RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis, extremely painful as I might also have it myself) also possibly Ostio Arthritis, oh look bone problems are added too! Oh, and also it can lead to organ failure? Imagine having a possible death sentence because the most effective treatment was denied, and don't say the same bullshit "oh, well it's giving the baby a death sentence" first of all - not everyone with Lupus is going to be pregnant during their treatment; therefore said treatment shouldn't be denied in anti-abortion states unless the patient is actively pregnant. (am I appeasing your abortion ideals now?) Secondly many people with Lupus after they learn their condition don't want to have children as the disease can be passed down genetically.
Yeah auto-immune disorders fucking suck, also may I add again that not everyone with Lupus is going to be pregnant during their time of treatment? Just because the medication has the chance to cause that effect, doesn't mean it should be revoked from others who don't even fall in the same bracket. Also please don't just say "move to another place" because treatment for Lupus is already an extremely expensive and strenuous process. Traveling across state lines only adds to the stress, mentally, physically and financially.
I’ve indicated from the start that you’re not going to bait me into discussing private vs public healthcare with you *again* in a thread about the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade, and yet you insist on trying to derail. There’s a myriad of differences between how insurance works in the U.S. (basically a government-induced cartel) and how it works in Switzerland, we’ve been over this and I have no interest in going over it again. I’m not sure what you’re getting out of this exchange - I understand that you crave my attention (for some reason), but I just don’t find chatting with you enjoyable. Learn how to handle rejection.
The feeling is mutual, but your nonsense needs to be challenged. I appreciate you only find echo chambers enjoyable but hey, that's libertarians for you, intellectual dishonesty and usual gaslighting. Besides, cool your jets, there isn't only you in this thread of 70+ pages. Your attention-seeking sense is triggered once again.
Actually, no. I'm only adding to the discussion that, in a system like the US, Abortion isn't just a matter of ideology and "pro-birth vs pro-choice". It's also a very real financial matter. One that tends to be ignored.
Oh, I enjoy hearing opposing points of view. Just not from you, since you’re unable to convey them without blowing a gasket.
Speaking of the financial burden of abortion (now that I’ve reeled you back on-topic), do you consider it an elective procedure? That’s the actual relevant question, since it allows us to determine who should be paying for it.
I always was on topic, you were just being your usual bad faith self and just needed to throw a few snipes before continuing. That's what titillates you, I get it, it's a bit sad. You should learn how to handle such matters better.
Said the one who threw three literal tantrums and tried to play it off as an obsession
Depends. What is your understanding of "elective"? Merely "scheduled in advance" or "optional"?
It’s elective in the sense of being scheduled in advance because it’s not a medical emergency, there’s no urgency (unless the mother is literally dying as a result of the pregnancy, which can happen, although it’s an exceedingly rare exception). I specifically mean whether you think it’s optional or not.
All right. You can say it's "elective" in the sense that (until Roe v Wade) you can "opt" whether to have one or not. I don't think abortion itself is elective. Once you're having one, you can only have one that is appropriate to the pregnancy stage, there's no choice in that. So no, it's not an elective procedure.
I was thinking more along the lines of “you can choose to have it or choose not to”, like cosmetic surgery. I see what you mean though - not exactly what I asked, but it’ll do. I consider it fully elective and optional unless it’s explicitly life-saving (which has to be determined based on mental/physical state), so we might not agree on who the payer should be.
In the U.S. it’s not a matter of the figure, it’s a matter of the government paying or not paying for abortions using tax money. It’s an issue that always comes up when Planned Parenthood is being discussed.
Probably not my place to interject in your guy's conversation - but I do see your point. The paying party has always been a highly discussed topic when it comes to the issues of abortions; like people saying should the government pay? Or should it be up to the individual? I can't properly give an answer that would satisfy all ends purely because the varying circumstances can be so diverse that it's hard to cover everything. Personally though - if the person's life is in immediate danger (as you said physically and or mentally) is a circumstance that I see befitting to have applied assistance from a third-party. Whether that be insurance, or government tax - it's no different that going to the hospital and having your cost cut by health insurance rather than just paying the full cost outright. (But even then that can still be hella expensive)
I'll admit I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the aspects of medical care costs involving insurance so don't try to attribute my ramblings to a coherent answer - I'm just trying to state a thought. Although since I've seen this topic in mention to the original thread at hand perhaps I should give more time into researching it more deeply. Perhaps there should be abortion specific insurance plans for people in need of such assistance? (One may already exist but as I said I'm not an expert on the topic, so it could be going either way) Or perhaps even payment plans could be set - not much unlike buying a house. Not many people can do it outright so they have a mortgage and pay over time. This however could be financially stressful to select individuals, so like I said I really don't have a proper answer.
Go cry a river and drown in it, Roe v. Wade is still bye-bye.
Technically you're correct, while they aren't 100% effective they certainly do reduce the risk of you spreading your germs to other people. The same can be said for condoms - even if they aren't 100% effective, for the most part they can prevent sperm from impregnating someone. But as we all know nothing is 100% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like to draw a distinction between procedures that are necessary and life-saving and procedures that are optional and only improve quality of life. If someone has some kind of a growth on their skin, it makes sense to take a sample. If it’s cancerous, the removal of said growth is life-saving and it makes sense for it to be covered by private insurance or a national healthcare service, depending on your place of residence. If it’s just a wart, the removal is purely cosmetic and there’s no justification for putting the burden on anybody else but the patient. Abortion isn’t dissimilar if we’re to believe the “clump of cells” talking point. If a foetus is just like a cancerous growth or a wart then the question of payment depends entirely on whether the procedure is performed out of convenience or to save the mother’s life. Does that make sense?Probably not my place to interject in your guy's conversation - but I do see your point. The paying party has always been a highly discussed topic when it comes to the issues of abortions; like people saying should the government pay? Or should it be up to the individual? I can't properly give an answer that would satisfy all ends purely because the varying circumstances can be so diverse that it's hard to cover everything. Personally though - if the person's life is in immediate danger (as you said physically and or mentally) is a circumstance that I see befitting to have applied assistance from a third-party. Whether that be insurance, or government tax - it's no different that going to the hospital and having your cost cut by health insurance rather than just paying the full cost outright. (But even then that can still be hella expensive)
I'll admit I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the aspects of medical care costs involving insurance so don't try to attribute my ramblings to a coherent answer - I'm just trying to state a thought. Although since I've seen this topic in mention to the original thread at hand perhaps I should give more time into researching it more deeply. Perhaps there should be abortion specific insurance plans for people in need of such assistance? (One may already exist but as I said I'm not an expert on the topic, so it could be going either way) Or perhaps even payment plans could be set - not much unlike buying a house. Not many people can do it outright so they have a mortgage and pay over time. This however could be financially stressful to select individuals, so like I said I really don't have a proper answer.
- Status
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
One thing that just occurred to me.... The sound on the 2600 sucked less back then the harsh sound we hear now is from infinitely better speakers we have now, back when the 2600 was new speakers produced a almost muffled sound, like CRTs made old graphics look slightly better. -
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I wonder if I could recommend that to some emulation devs that perhaps the sound could use some smoothing out to simulate those old TVs
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I think a few of the early systems could benefit from that, at least up to the 8 bit generation, by the 16 bit generation I think TVs had gotten a lot better in almost every way
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
it says it only works for the original R4, R4i Gold (r4ids.cn), R4iDSN (r4idsn.com) and Acekard R.P.G. -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Just give it a try, but honestly if you have a 3DS you can play DS games without a card just off the internal SD card
-
-
-
-
