Birth defects – should taxpayers subsidize consequences of FLDS practice of first-cousin marriages?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'm probably being too simplistic but why not have these folks pick up the tab?

I'm pretty sure that the LDS do not condone incest, so why should they pick up the tab?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

One step further, and we can agree the 'parents' should be responsible for their kids.

what an odd concept

Yea, but I get all confused when the parents and the kids are the same people.
I guess you could look on the bright side. When you invite your husband, father, brother and uncle over to dinner you may only need a table for two.
Ok, now that's just icky.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm probably being too simplistic but why not have these folks pick up the tab?

I'm pretty sure that the LDS do not condone incest, so why should they pick up the tab?

I honestly don't know that they should but it seems a better argument than putting it on the taxpayer. Maybe it's some notion I have about silent complicity, along the lines of the Catholic church and sex abuse accountability.
Just thinking out loud. Don't know if it's right.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I honestly don't know that they should but it seems a better argument than putting it on the taxpayer. Maybe it's some notion I have about silent complicity, along the lines of the Catholic church and sex abuse accountability.

The LDS claim that they have absolutely no affiliation with the FLDS, which would make it different than the Catholic Church situation. (Well, unless that claim is not true.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I honestly don't know that they should but it seems a better argument than putting it on the taxpayer.

I find I don't recall your position on Taxpayer (aka "Free") health care. But I'm happy to hold this discussion up to that mirror just for the sake of it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I find I don't recall your position on Taxpayer (aka "Free") health care. But I'm happy to hold this discussion up to that mirror just for the sake of it.

That's a tough one to answer for a number of reasons. I do think that it's in our national interest for promote a healthy and well educated society so I don't have a problem with the idea of our Federal government being involved. I think that a single payer system would probably work most efficiently. The problem with that though is that the government typically does a lousy job of running things efficiently. But if you leave it to the market then profit becomes more important that the quality of health care. Then of course you have the marriage of the market and our government and you get what we have today, which is an inefficient private sector operation that is hitched to the tit to the Federal government with the goal of maximizing profits, often at the expense of the health and wealth of the taxpayer.

But to address the question somewhat, the activity in question was criminal. My first instinct would be to put the burden on those responsible first, and then look to the taxpayer in a last effort to provide the necessary care. That's not unlike how I feel about "sick" too-big-to-fail corporations. I think that those who caused the illness should be held accountable first. Then, after the golden parachutes are collected, the tax money can be used to keep the "patient" from causing damage to our society.

I'm still working this one out. Complete government control doesn't work. Complete market control doesn't work. Like most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[rehmwa 2]

Seems reasonable.....
...
hmmm
...

well,
,
,,
,

ok then, nothing else
.
.


what's the fun in that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes we should without a doubt!

Those children have read American blood in their viens and have the same God given and constitution guaranteed rights as any other born/not born in this country.

Just want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly, neither agreeing nor disagreeing at this point:

You are claiming that socialized medicine is a "God given and constitutionally guaranteed right" ?

Therefore you're in favor of USG subsidized universal healthcare for all Americans?

VR/Marg

The United States Constitution guarantees that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them. We already have a socialized medical program that is not very affective, and should be overhauled to include more treatments and greater access. We have a duty, as humans, to provide healthcare to everyone. It is barbaric to do otherwise.

Our current medical care system is based on greed.
Now, what about that room?

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[Lindsey 0]

...that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them.

What do you mean when you say that public health is a "basic liberty?" I think of liberty as meaning freedom from outside control, from government control especially. It's hard for me to reconcile that statement. Currently, the government does not control your access to healthcare. If the government DOES begin to control healthcare, you may LOSE some freedom of choice (both yours AND your physician's) where that's concerned.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

...that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them.

What do you mean when you say that public health is a "basic liberty?" I think of liberty as meaning freedom from outside control, from government control especially. It's hard for me to reconcile that statement. Currently, the government does not control your access to healthcare. If the government DOES begin to control healthcare, you may LOSE some freedom of choice (both yours AND your physician's) where that's concerned.

There are no less than four definitions for liberty in the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and I think you will find one that fits my usage of the word.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

...that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them.

What do you mean when you say that public health is a "basic liberty?" I think of liberty as meaning freedom from outside control, from government control especially. It's hard for me to reconcile that statement. Currently, the government does not control your access to healthcare. If the government DOES begin to control healthcare, you may LOSE some freedom of choice (both yours AND your physician's) where that's concerned.

There are no less than four definitions for liberty in the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and I think you will find one that fits my usage of the word.

Really?

Quote

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3: an action going beyond normal limits: as a: a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b: risk, chance c: a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d: a distortion of fact
4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

synonyms see freedom

Nope, don't see it.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them.

What do you mean when you say that public health is a "basic liberty?" I think of liberty as meaning freedom from outside control, from government control especially. It's hard for me to reconcile that statement. Currently, the government does not control your access to healthcare. If the government DOES begin to control healthcare, you may LOSE some freedom of choice (both yours AND your physician's) where that's concerned.

There are no less than four definitions for liberty in the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and I think you will find one that fits my usage of the word.

Really?

Quote

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3: an action going beyond normal limits: as a: a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b: risk, chance c: a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d: a distortion of fact
4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

synonyms see freedom

Nope, don't see it.

d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Our current medical care system is based on greed.

But if you leave it to the market then profit becomes more important that the quality of health care.



I don't believe that profit and quality are mutually exclusive. Free markets, in the long run, would be the best. People are greedy. The desire for profit would ultimately drive the product to be acceptable.

However, part of the current problem is all of those ambulance chasers who thrive on bad things happening (whether caused by the caregiver or not - Sometimes, bad things just happen). My sister is an ER doctor and half of the tests she orders is to cover her ass (and that of the hospital) from lawsuits. This drives a lot of the healthcare costs.

On top of that, most of her patients are on some sort of public assistance. She had a guy come in and ask for a scrip for Preparation H (yes, the stuff for hemorrhoids). He said that he could get it at the store, but then he would have to pay for it. He needed the scrip so that it would be free to him (again, at the expense of the taxpayers). His problem might be solved if he got off his ass (and did something productive).

[likearock 2]

Quote

d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

And that translates to a universal right to health care, how?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The United States Constitution guarantees that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them. We already have a socialized medical program that is not very affective, and should be overhauled to include more treatments and greater access.

We have a duty, as humans, to provide healthcare to everyone. It is barbaric to do otherwise.

Clarification:

You're claiming that healthcare is a "God given and constitutionally guaranteed right" but investigating allegations of child abuse, acting on probable cause to remove children from abusive or neglectful situations is wrong?

By analogy, are you really saying that a parent has the right to break a child's arm & the state is required to pay for medical care to set the bone? That's what it sounds like you're asserting?

I don't get it. Please explain it to me so that I can understand you logic and rationale.

Quote

Now, what about that room?

Huh? What room?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The 'encouraging the perp' argument gains no traction with me; I put it on par with "condom availability encourages teen sex" or "if young women go about in public dressed like that they get what they deserve."

Thanks. I appreciate the well-thought out criticisms/challenges.

Quote

The state is always wrong to sacrifice the welfare of some of its citizens in order to protect others.

That's an incredibly intellectually provocative statement! Counter-utilitarian.

Quote

I believe a 'less wrong' action would be a law that provides for permanent removal of all children of first cousin or closer parentage.

How does the State or Provincial govt go about doing that? I do think it's a good point to start a discussion. The 'Devil's Advocate' in me starts posing all sorts of questions, e.g., how does one identify those children? (A Gattaca-esque DNA screening upon entry into primary school?)
Policy & ethical questions applied to the most upstanding, responsible, law-abiding, groups (& the ones w/which one agrees or sympathizes philosophically) are easy.

The more I read and the more I learn about the group, its practices, their behavior, and the consequences, the more apt the ‘American-style Taliban’ analogy is.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

We could just concede that religious and reproductive freedom have their costs. Or go after the parents who committed crimes resulting in damages to their children and the tax payers.

I like this policy. Ensure individual and group freedoms while exercising due process of law. It sounds very good in electrons.

It also sounds pretty much like what the Texas Rangers, sheriffs, and CPS in west Texas did (!)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I like this policy. Ensure individual and group freedoms while exercising due process of law. It sounds very good in electrons.

This reminds me of the case from a couple of years ago, when the UDV church got into trouble for importing hoasca tea (which contains DMT, a Schedule I drug) into the US.

They argued that it was used for religious purposes and that to confiscate their tea violated their rights to religious freedom. The case ended up at the Supreme Court, and the Court decided that the UDV could continue using their tea.

I am sort of wondering if the FLDS case will end up at the Supreme Court. What exactly does "religious freedom" give people the right to do? If I start my own religion, can I ignore certain aspects of the law and get away with it if I say that it is necessary for practicing my religion?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I like this policy. Ensure individual and group freedoms while exercising due process of law. It sounds very good in electrons.

This reminds me of the case from a couple of years ago, when the UDV church got into trouble for importing hoasca tea (which contains DMT, a Schedule I drug) into the US.

They argued that it was used for religious purposes and that to confiscate their tea violated their rights to religious freedom. The case ended up at the Supreme Court, and the Court decided that the UDV could continue using their tea.

I am sort of wondering if the FLDS case will end up at the Supreme Court. What exactly does "religious freedom" give people the right to do? If I start my own religion, can I ignore certain aspects of the law and get away with it if I say that it is necessary for practicing my religion?

That's an interesting question. I'm guessing that the difference might be related to the identity of the victim of the infraction/crime. If it's a crime against yourself then that's one thing. If it's a crime against another person then that's where the line is drawn. I guessing, but you make a good point. It seems that the judges get to decide if the crime is victimless.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am sort of wondering if the FLDS case will end up at the Supreme Court. What exactly does "religious freedom" give people the right to do? If I start my own religion, can I ignore certain aspects of the law and get away with it if I say that it is necessary for practicing my religion?

What was the final verdict on Christian Scientists not getting medical care for their ill children? My recollection was that this was not supported by religious freedom.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

that's where the line is drawn.

I'm hoping that there isn't too clear a line, because if ever an area called for serious consideration of a whole lot of extenuating circumstances, it's a family unit's behavior within their religious/cultural/social circle.

Even in the case of Christian Scientists, there is noticeable latitude. Even among non-Christian Scientists -- I didn't take my son to the doctor for things that other parents would definitely have taken him for. Who's excessive, and in which direction? The answer really shouldn't be legislated, because that's how freedoms are whittled away. One of our freedoms is the freedom to do stupid things.

Abuse of children is a very tender area, because they cannot always speak for themselves. But even there, no one minds if a family won't allow its girls to wear trousers, or its boys to play with dolls, because "it's against natural order." Within some religious circles, the divisions between the genders are far greater.

I'm by no means condoning sexual abuse. But we have to be very careful to remember that freedom includes the freedom to be different from us.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

And that translates to a universal right to health care, how?

Obviously modern health care is a product of our society, and all in our society should share what it has to offer. Do you not think that we have an obligation to provide the most basic liberties to those who cannot afford these benefits? Or do you think we should be so inhuman as to let people by the masses die in the streets while you step over them to get you morning Starbucks? If you do not thing the US Constitution protects or even influences health care, do some research.
What does that Dali mean to you?

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

that's where the line is drawn.

I'm hoping that there isn't too clear a line, because if ever an area called for serious consideration of a whole lot of extenuating circumstances, it's a family unit's behavior within their religious/cultural/social circle.

Even in the case of Christian Scientists, there is noticeable latitude. Even among non-Christian Scientists -- I didn't take my son to the doctor for things that other parents would definitely have taken him for. Who's excessive, and in which direction? The answer really shouldn't be legislated, because that's how freedoms are whittled away. One of our freedoms is the freedom to do stupid things.

Abuse of children is a very tender area, because they cannot always speak for themselves. But even there, no one minds if a family won't allow its girls to wear trousers, or its boys to play with dolls, because "it's against natural order." Within some religious circles, the divisions between the genders are far greater.

I'm by no means condoning sexual abuse. But we have to be very careful to remember that freedom includes the freedom to be different from us.

Wendy W.

It also implies a willingness to be responsible for the negative consequences of one's actions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

The United States Constitution guarantees that all people in this country get the very basic liberties this country has to offer and public health is one of them. We already have a socialized medical program that is not very affective, and should be overhauled to include more treatments and greater access.

We have a duty, as humans, to provide healthcare to everyone. It is barbaric to do otherwise.

Clarification:

You're claiming that healthcare is a "God given and constitutionally guaranteed right" but investigating allegations of child abuse, acting on probable cause to remove children from abusive or neglectful situations is wrong?

By analogy, are you really saying that a parent has the right to break a child's arm & the state is required to pay for medical care to set the bone? That's what it sounds like you're asserting?

I don't get it. Please explain it to me so that I can understand you logic and rationale.

Quote

Now, what about that room?

Huh? What room?

/Marg

I have answered your question and provided my opinion concerning the probable cause time and time again, and you still keep asking as if you are expecting a different answer. Re-read my post concerning the lame probable cause the cops used to invade the compound. Try not to over-think it.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Try not to over-think it.

Good luck getting her not to think.