posted
We'll disagree, then. I think prositution a fine profession. Maybe not as fine as being a writer, though.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. And it works like this: I don't want to live in a world where if a lady is on welfare, the community thinks it's acceptable to expect her to get off dole and work as a whore, but if a certified M.D. were in a similar situation, I think it's perfectly acceptable to expect the doctor to put a good faith effort into finding a job practicing medicine.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm talking about women who don't want to be doctors or who haven't decided yet what career to persue. Do you think it's okay to pressure them to be doctors just because you approve of that career?
My answer may not answer your question, but for it to match up with the prostitute scenario, we needed to assume that the doctor was already qualifed.
As to whether I think it's okay to pressure women to be doctors for no other reason than I approve of the career, sure, but not exclusively doctors. Our society provides a long list of professions I find becoming on a lady. Prostitution is not on that list.
My problem with prostitution is not so much with the independent woman with options who chooses to be a hooker. I have concerns about her, but not so much as to make it illegal. My problem is that with prostitution legal, the mother/brother/friend/conscience of the girl has coverage to push her to become a prostitute, whereas if her conscience leads her to feed her family by becoming a doctor, fantastic.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves? "
"Sometimes it is, Cheiros do ender. For example, seatbelt laws."
The government wouldn't care if the rest of us didn't have to pay for the hospitalization&recuperation of seatbelt non-users.
Yeah, public healthcare is part of the "government protecting us against ourselves", too. They also stand to lose tax revenue from working people that are injured from not wearing a seatbelt.
And you still havn't answered pH's question, Irami.
[ February 04, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it were just the public tax-paid portion of healthcare costs and tax revenue loss, I suspect that mandatory seatbelt laws would still be a proposal up for debate. However private insurance companies, HMOs, hospitals, and businesses REALLY dislike the extra costs that they incur from unseatbelted car accident victims. And they had the lobbying clout to make mandatory seatbelt laws into reality.
Since the rest of us (who make up the public) have to pay higher premiums for health and income-replacement insurance, make higher payments for non-insured medical treatment, and pay higher amounts for goods&services due to recruitment&training costs for replacements because of those unseatbelted victims, the rest of us benefit from the success of those private lobbying efforts.
posted
Or they could simply not cover people injured in a car accident whilst not wearing a seatbelt. And then whose problem would that be? The governments? If so, why?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without government or insurance coverage, the rest of us would still have to deal with the problems. Not all of us are willing to murder people for being stupid, which is what withholding medical treatment would be.
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Or they could simply not cover people injured in a car accident whilst not wearing a seatbelt. And then whose problem would that be? The governments? If so, why?
How does this work? (No, seriously, honest question.)
When the accident victims are at the scene, how do the paramedics make an unequivocal decision as to whether the person was belted and the belt malfunctioned, or belted but slipped out anyway, or not belted? And when they bring those injured to the ER, what do they do with those not covered? Prop them in the corner while those who were verified unequivocably to be belted get taken care of?
What happens is that everyone who is injured at the scene gets taken in, and then the insurance issue gets sorted out later. Someone will eat the costs, be it an insurance company, or the hospital, or the individual. Since these things are so expensive that you can't really collect from individuals unless they are millionaires (in practice, the money just isn't there), it's almost always hospitals or insurance companies, and those costs will -- assuredly -- be passed on.
---
Edited to add: And the hospital eating costs is in part how the government comes in. There have to be hospitals to provide the care, and Medicare & Medicaid are a big chunk of hospital budgets. When those compensation costs are set, they can't be so low that hospitals can't stay in business. And the hospital costs to be covered go up if they are inflated by spread-out costs of the under- and uninsured.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of healthcare, I just want to mention an example in my life. There's this girl who is in my Model UN club and she moved here from England. She has very very severe bone problems and has to get weekly treatments. The treatments are expensive here so now her family has the dilemma of bearing the expense of her treatments here or moving back to England where the public health care covers her treatments. What about people who can't move out of the country and are stuck without health care?
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
