Michigan Senate Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Moyank24, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #1
    Source

    Welcome to America in 1712 2012.

    I have nothing against people of faith, but I absolutely don't believe religion should be used as justification for discrimination.
     
  2. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #2
    It's just a committee. As a Michigan resident, I will hope and assume it will die on the Senate floor. It could have enough support in the House, unfortunately.

    Either way, Gov. Snyder would veto it. He's great in some ways, but in others not so much. If it's not a project of his, he's pretty hands off and just ignores things until he absolutely has to address it.
     
  3. vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #3
    How embarrassing for Michigan.

    I would hope that doctors would know better than to violate the Hippocratic Oath and their own conscience.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.
     
  5. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #5
    Doctors that discriminate shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. They're obviously not of the right intelligence level to be dealing with peoples lives.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Agreed. If you can't do your job, then go find another profession.
     
  7. Moyank24 thread starter macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #7
    There's some comfort in that - however, the fact that this bill has been written and given the opportunity to be passed is the scary part. This isn't one nut - this is someone that has gotten support from many others in an effort to write and drum up votes for it. This is someone who has been elected. That's the scary part. In this day and age, this is a bill that should never be typed, let alone presented to a state senate committee.

    As Americans, we think we are so enlightened - but we are still being lead by those whose thinking is a thousand years old.
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....
     
  9. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    It should. But you know they would cry foul over that.
     
  10. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #10
    Primum non nocere, or ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν if you prefer.

    Poor, dead, Hippocrates. Maybe it's better he's not still around.

    I'm still waiting for them to withhold treatment to gun-shot victims who clam-up to the cops.

    That might actually be beneficial to Society. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #11
    There is something called the Hippocratic Oath, which determines that no medical professional should refuse to treat anyone based on ethical or moral justification - any nurse or doctor supporting that bill should have their license revoked.

    Frankly, certain Americans should get over that religion-thing because in the long run it doesn't do them any good nor do they any good by discriminating others (What would Jesus think?). And medical professionals should be ashamed to even think of narrowing down the number of people they "should" treat, it's plain disgusting.
     
  12. hulugu, Dec 5, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    That's pretty good. Or, a vegan doctor refusing to treat a hunter.

    A road to hell is paved with allowing doctors to arbitrarily deny care based on "conscience."


    Also, this would still run aground of the AMA's Code of Ethics:

     
  13. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #13
    FWIW, the way I read it (based on the posted summary - I haven't read the actual bill) is that the service can be denied by a facility, but if it is denied it must be denied to EVERYBODY by the facility. So if a facility objects to providing a basic checkup to Group A people, it must deny basic checkups to everybody, regardless of whether they are members for Group A.

    So a facility could say "No blood tansfusions for anybody" but would not be allowed to say "No blood transfusions for hunters."
     
  14. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #14
    Funny. I have been told "love it or leave it' quite a few times as a "libertarian" when mentioning my distaste for paying taxes. It's a very silly notion that when you object to oppression, you should just forsake your property and life to change location.

    It's not a libertarian point of view to say move to another state. That is completely false. Libertarianism opposes such bias.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    That's a good point, but it still creates really interesting inequities in care based on the arbitrary doctor "conscience." And, it gives doctors the ability to garner financial recompense should they be forced to give care.

    It's a terrible bill regardless.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Then you need to talk to your fellow libertarians, because that's exactly the kind of thing I hear form you guys about marriage equality.
     
  17. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #17
    I'm no big fan of the LP, but:

    And any actual libertarian believes the same.

    If you've met a "libertarian" (not to be confused with conservatives or Tea Party) and they claimed that you should just move states or anything other than "I agree you should be able to marry whom you want" (though they may be against the proposition of state run marriage license all together, which is a pro-gay marriage stance inherently) than they aren't a libertarian because they oppose basic libertarian principles.

    So whomever you met that said "love it or leave it" they were using a fallacy, and they were spouting a non-libertarian point of view.

    Hope that clears things up.
     
  18. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #18
    Here's an applicable song:


    We call the heartland not very smart land, IQ's are very low but threat levels are high.
    They got a mandate, they don't want man-dates, they got so many hates and people to despise.

    In the dust bowl, cerebral black hole, the average weight is well over 200 pounds.
    I hate to generalize, but have you seen the thighs, most haven't seen their genitalia in a while.

    Maybe that's why they're so scared of us We've concerns other than fear and hunger pangs.

    Queers, transgends, and lesbians, vegans and vegetarians.
    All you brownish red and yellow ones come and join us on the coast.

    No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

    They've blown out the fire under the melting pot, the red blood of America is starting to clot.
    No compromise, no sight through others' eyes, they're just flies spreading pieces of ****.
    You gotta emigrate, stop living in hate, what makes this country great is dwelling on either side.

    They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
    They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

    We want people with college degrees, drug use experience and STD's.
    People with open-minded philosophies, come hug California trees.
    Cultural revolution now, neo-conservatives run outta town.
    We're gonna burn Orange County down,
    And then we're off to Riverside,
    Bakersfield and Fresno too,
    then we're coming after you.

    The fear stricken, born again Christian, they got a vision a homogenized state.
    Textbook decline, Intelligent Design.
    They got bill nye on the list execrate.

    They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
    They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

    Punk Rockers and emo kids, people doing things the church forbids. Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists we're moving out of jesusland.
    Art students and thespians, excluding country, all the musicians.
    We want all hookers and comedians, nihilists are welcome too.

    No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

    NOFX

    because I prefer the direct approach just break their noses ;)
     
  19. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #19
    You beat me to it.

    But I also pose this: In relation to the Hippocratic Oath, you have the following two English translations:

    Emphasis on the bold. What this doesn't get into is what if your choice to NOT do anything has the opposite effect and does harm to their patient? This would mean that their choosing to not treat a patient due to their conscience would do more harm than throwing their conscience aside and helping them, violating the oath they swore.

    It falls into the logic that not choosing is a choice in itself. A good analogy: with the topic of abortion, those who are pro-life are inherently pro-choice; they chose to be pro-life. They consciously made the choice. That same analogy could apply here. So what happens when this law and the actions to release them of all liability puts them in violation of an oath they swore to when they entered this field?

    BL.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Then would you say Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

    His belief here would indeed force many to move to another state.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
     
  21. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    I see. So only people you agree with can be libertarians? Be sure to let Mr Paul know.
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    Typical. Instead of learning about something you are apparently confused about, you throw in Ron Paul, who runs on a Republican platform every year, not a Libertarian one, claim that he's a Libertarian, point out where he isn't a libertarian, then tell me that since I disagree with his stance that Libertarians are only people I agree with.

    If you ever feel like learning about something, start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    Whenever you want to have an adult conversation about the subject not filled with strawmen and malice, let me know.
     
  24. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #24
    So a christian who does not follow Christ but expects Christ to save them it is just hard to understand. At this rate the only Christians that will be left are the hard core ones everyone else will be fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
     
  25. leekohler, Dec 5, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012

    leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    The quit being disingenuous in the first place. Mr Paul considers himself a Libertarian. I am not to the one to argue with, he is.

    Hey, I'll have an adult conversation when you start acknowledging reality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...on-paul-and-be-the-face-of-the-libertarianism

    And, looks like a lot of people consider Paul to be a Libertarian:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/u...a-libertarian-legion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
     

Share This Page