Originally posted by dryhumpIf you seriously think members of Britain's Tory Party in parliament can vote specifically to make it mandatory to have metal objects inserted in women's vaginas whether they agree or not, then I suppose I can understand why you wouldn't be well disposed towards the U.K.'s NHS.
It's a perfectly legitimate point considering moon is arguing stridently against "big government" coming between doctors and patients.
The following article, from Huffpo today (2/28), compares views on mandatory ultrasound in abortion cases to mandatory HPV vaccination—
The Virginia Senate, following in the lower house's footsteps, considered two bills this week that expose a major philosophical difference dividing Republicans and Democrats: the line between a law that properly protects women's health and one that reaches too far into women's private medical decisions.
When the GOP-dominated lower house passed a bill last week that would force women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion, even when it's medically unnecessary, Democrats criticized the bill for mandating a government overreach into a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor.
"A party that claims to be about small government is now mandating a medical procedure," Sen. Barbara Favola (D) told HuffPost. "There is no other example in the Virginia code where politicians are telling doctors how to practice medicine."
Republicans see it differently. The same lawmakers in the House of Delegates who pushed the mandatory ultrasound bill have thrown their support behind a bill to repeal an existing state law requiring girls to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine before the sixth grade. They offered up the same logic to criticize the HPV vaccine mandate that the Democrats used against the ultrasound mandate.
"We just want to make sure parents are evaluating the risks of what they're giving their daughters, and not a legislative body," said Del. Kathy Byron (R), who sponsored both the mandatory ultrasound bill and the HPV vaccine repeal. "I don't think that we have the medical degree to make those decisions."
Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who helped GOP lawmakers rewrite the ultrasound legislation, joined state Republicans in opposing the HPV vaccine mandate.
"The vaccination policy was passed here in Virginia in 2007, and Governor [Tim] Kaine amended the bill to include a general opt-out," McDonnell's spokeswoman, Taylor Thornley, told HuffPost on Tuesday. "The mandate is not a policy with which the [current] governor agrees."
As Thornley noted, the HPV vaccine law -- unlike the ultrasound bill, which would apply to all women seeking an abortion -- established an informed-consent procedure. It requires the state to send a letter telling parents that the HPV vaccination is available for their daughters and then lets them opt out of having their children vaccinated if they wish.
Proponents of the vaccine say it's no different from the other immunizations the state requires, such as polio, tetanus and hepatitis. Of the 6.2 million American women who contract HPV each year, about 10,000 develop cervical cancer as a result, and doctors argue that widespread use of the vaccine would greatly reduce those numbers.
"The HPV vaccine is fundamentally different from the mandatory ultrasound because it's a public health issue," said Del. Chris Stolle (D), who is also a gynecologist. "From my perspective, the ultrasound is too much government intrusion into health care. But HPV is a communicable disease" that can be prevented by a vaccine.
The current argument in Virginia mimics the national debate over the HPV vaccine mandate late last year. Fellow GOP presidential candidates attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for having signed an executive order in 2007 requiring the vaccine. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) described the mandate as "having little girls inoculated at the force and compulsion of the government," and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) slammed it for being a "government injection."
But Bachmann proposed a federal mandatory ultrasound bill in October similar to the original ultrasound bill that Virginia Republicans proposed. The congressional bill would force women to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound procedure before having an abortion.
"These positions are totally in conflict with each other," said Del. Charniele Herring (D), the Virginia House minority whip. "It doesn't make sense -- your government can reach into the doctor's office at this point, but not at that point. They want it both ways."
The Virginia Senate passed the mandatory ultrasound bill on Tuesday by a vote of 21 to 19. They had voted on Monday to delay the HPV vaccine repeal until next year's legislative session.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/mandatory-ultrasound-hpv-vaccine-virginia-legislature_n_1307110.html?ref=mostpopular
Originally posted by FMFI already stated my opposition for this law. I'm trying to find out how moon decides when it's okay for government to intervene in medical decisions and when it's not.
If you seriously think members of Britain's Tory Party in parliament can vote specifically to make it mandatory to have metal objects inserted in women's vaginas whether they agree or not, then I suppose I can understand why you wouldn't be well disposed towards the U.K.'s NHS.
Originally posted by dryhumpIn Britain, for instance, do you consider "the NHS" to be "the Government" and a doctor treating a patient on the National Health, as we say, to be a member of "the Government" and that his treatment is "the Government" "intervening"?
I already stated my opposition for this law. I'm trying to find out how moon decides when it's okay for government to intervene in medical decisions and when it's not.
Originally posted by vistesdRepublicans want to punish women who get pregnant by forcing them to carry the child to term because women should not have sex unless they are trying to get pregnant.
The following article, from Huffpo today (2/28), compares views on mandatory ultrasound in abortion cases to mandatory HPV vaccination—
The Virginia Senate, following in the lower house's footsteps, considered two bills this week that expose a major philosophical difference dividing Republicans and Democrats: the line between a law that properly protects ...[text shortened]... -vaccine-virginia-legislature_n_1307110.html?ref=mostpopular
They don't want young, unmarried girls to get HPV inoculations because that might encourage them to have sex since it would make sexual intercourse less dangerous. Girls who never have sex don't need the vaccination, and girls who get cancer as a result of sex are appropriately punished.
The Republican party views sex as sinful except in certain church-approved contexts and actively seeks to impose that view on others.
Originally posted by FMFI don't know much about Britain's system. I have read several articles online about the rise in MRSA in NHS hospitals. I have also read of several instances of treatments being denied based on cost. I even read one case where a man was denied surgery because he was a smoker. Is the NHS the government? Are the doctors government employees?
In Britain, for instance, do you consider "the NHS" to be "the Government" and a doctor treating a patient on the National Health, as we say, to be a member of "the Government" and that his treatment is "the Government" "intervening"?
Originally posted by dryhumpSure, you can label the Democrat opposition to the bill disingenous or hypocritical if you like. But it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who campaign relentlessly on being the party of less government and getting government out of our lives. And that includes the Republicans in the Virginia and Texas state legislatures who voted for the forced sonogram bills. I know you oppose the bill, but do you find these Republicans hypocrites in their support of the bill?
I already stated my opposition for this law. I'm trying to find out how moon decides when it's okay for government to intervene in medical decisions and when it's not.
Originally posted by dryhumpDo you find the Republican party who has come to be controlled by christian fundamentalists hypocritical when they campaign on want to be known as the party of less government but then support theocracy-type laws that invade private lives? There is a reason for their "Taliban" nickname.
I already stated my opposition for this law. I'm trying to find out how moon decides when it's okay for government to intervene in medical decisions and when it's not.
Originally posted by dryhumpIn other words the only thing you know about Britain's system is what you might hear on Fox News. Brilliant.
I don't know much about Britain's system. I have read several articles online about the rise in MRSA in NHS hospitals. I have also read of several instances of treatments being denied based on cost. I even read one case where a man was denied surgery because he was a smoker. Is the NHS the government? Are the doctors government employees?
In the U.S. treatments are denied by private insurance companies based on cost all the time, and you can be denied, say, a liver transplant because you're a drinker. Also seldom noticed or discussed by most Americans is that almost all private medical insurance policies have a "lifetime limit" buried in the fine print. Once you exceed your limit (it might be a few hundred thousand dollars -- not much in medical terms), the policy will no longer cover anything.
Originally posted by SoothfastI never said all of that wasn't a problem. I'm not opposed to healthcare reform, only to the government becoming the insurer. Honestly, what's the difference? We already have a system where people can be denied based on cost, or lifestyle choices. Also, if you read my post, you would see that my information came from the daily telegraph. Most of my daily news comes from NPR, if you really want to know.
In other words the only thing you know about Britain's system is what you might hear on Fox News. Brilliant.
In the U.S. treatments are denied by private insurance companies based on cost all the time, and you can be denied, say, a liver transplant because you're a drinker. Also seldom noticed or discussed by most Americans is that almost all privat ...[text shortened]... ed thousand dollars -- not much in medical terms), the policy will no longer cover anything.
Originally posted by SoothfastOne definitely gets the impression that decorum is a concept utterly foreign to you.
One almost gets the impression that the only way Republicans can get laid is vicariously through legislation that essentially rapes women with the long arm of the law. Get lives, theocrats.
Originally posted by moon1969Sure it's hypocritical. Now admit it, you're in favor of higher taxes on smokers.
Do you find the Republican party who has come to be controlled by christian fundamentalists hypocritical when they campaign on want to be known as the party of less government but then support theocracy-type laws that invade private lives? There is a reason for their "Taliban" nickname.
Originally posted by dryhumpI think some Americans ( and possibly some brits who reside in a deep dark hole) are under the impression that the N.H.S is the only option for healthcare in the U.K. If the n.h.s cannot or will not give the individual the treatment they want/need the individual has a private option if they can afford it; if they cannot afford it I fail to see how having no state provision at all would alleviate their plight.
Ask skin cancer patients in the uk if the nhs gets in between doctors and patients.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8824659/Death-sentence-as-NHS-watchdog-rejects-skin-cancer-drug.html
Or prostate cancer patients.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/men_shealth/8797295/NHS-rationing-body-rejects-prostate-cancer-drug.html
It's a perfectly leg ...[text shortened]... ave to cut costs somehow. How will they do that? By picking doctors and picking treatments.