America - The Official Thread

[GBO Possum]

This link is hopefully not behind a paywall. Read on about the amygdala

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10

Am I guilty of oversimplification? Yes, of course!

 

[Danoff]

Am I guilty of oversimplification? Yes, of course!

It's a bit more complicated than that, don't you think?

 

[Dotini]

This link is hopefully not behind a paywall. Read on about the amygdala

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10

Thank you for this interesting and valuable contribution to the thread.

It seems, according to your source, that it might be easier to turn liberals into conservatives than vice versa. This would be since making people fearful might be easier than making them feel safer. It's not hard to imagine this practice is well-known to politicians and policy makers looking for votes and budget.

from the link...
Several studies have shown that when social scientists get liberal-leaning experiment subjects to think about their own deaths or make them feel threatened, some left-wingers adopt more conservative values. This phenomenon played out after 9/11 — researchers found that there was a "very strong conservative shift" in the US after the attacks, with more liberals supporting Republican President George W. Bush and favoring increases in military spending.

The hypothesis social scientists developed about this effect is perhaps best summed up in a 2003 review of research on the subject: "People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals," it said.

Edit:
It's conceivable Trump has green lighted projects to increase fear, division and conflict.

 

[Imari]

Perhaps you could explain why religious support for Trump is all over the map among the various major religions.

As in between Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.? What specifically is it about the idea that different religions have different appetites for support of a president strikes you as unusual that requires explanation?

 

[DG_Silva]

I'm not particularly hard left or anything, and I kind of avoid putting myself into political categories as I'd rather evaluate my own feelings on each issue as it comes rather than blanketing my opinion by sticking a massive label on it. But I do tend to in general agree more with the leftist flattening of social structure.

I think you've fallen into the trap of generalising entire groups of millions of people based on what you think you know, not what you've actually observed. I find it hard to believe that you're over 13 and have never met a leftist willing to discuss and compromise. Merely that you've never met one that was both willing to discuss and compromise and aggressively and overtly leftist.

I sincerely apologise if I've offended anyone with my comments, and don't deny that there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. I think you may be probably right with your surmising, and it's possible that I associate with people with a similar political outlook.

You think so? Which countries in particular, and what sort of problems are they facing because of this lack of controls? What would a rightist immigration policy look like?

What problems do you think might replace the current ones if, say, immigration was halted completely? If that's unappealing, how does one identify the optimal level of immigration at any given time?

I don't think I've said I wanted a ban on immigration but we need controls. I've no doubt that most developed countries would grind to a halt, or at least the standards of living would diminish if immigration was stopped completely, but what's wrong with wanting a system where individuals need a sponsor or prove financial independence from the state before entering? Countries like your own and Canada have this system in place.

If you're wondering where it shows that uncontrolled immigration has hurt the country, you only need to see the amount of debt the UK is in from over-borrowing as an enticement to bring in more immigrants than we could cope with. The NHS is at breaking point with the demand placed on it - and don't say 'without immigrants, where would the NHS be?'; we know that the NHS needs the HCAs, nurses, doctors and specialists to help it keep going, but what's wrong with accepting people of the world who provide a net gain?

Without turning into a Daily Fail reader, a decrease in available housing has meant that house prices have increased far quicker than they should have done, and local councils not able to build new houses at the rate they need to; this means people are losing their homes because they can't afford an ever increasing rent, or buy their own house because the prices are a significant multiple of their salary. There has been an increase in demand on the whole infrastructure - roads, utilities, emergency services, and so on - but the country has not been able to cope with this.

In terms of the optimal level of immigration, that's a tricky one which is not going to ever satisfy some people. I would suggest that a net migration of 0.2-0.3% of the overall population would be an adequate level of immigration.

I live in a country where we put legitimate asylum seekers in what amounts to internment camps, for years. They are denied basic care. We'll let people drown instead of letting them into our waters and ports. I struggle to see how that's so far to the left, and so I ask for some insight into how it works elsewhere that I might better understand your view.

I agree that Australia does seem to be an exception rather than the rule. Germany is a perfect example of the rule.

In the UK, we do try to refuse entry to asylum seekers or at least bargain with a host country, but when they do come in they are kept in hostels until processed. Anything that they require, such as housing, living allowance, clothing, etc., is given as they're unable to work while their claim is being processed, and for six months after their case is processed. So this places additional strains on an already overstretched system. Neither system is perfect (possibly ours is better), but it's got to be better an more uncontrolled system that led to the introduction of female-only sections of new year celebrations because of the sexual assaults from a small minority of the social-political immigrants of the last couple of years.

I hope this has come out right, but I've probably made a hash of it again.

 

[Imari]

I don't think I've said I wanted a ban on immigration but we need controls. I've no doubt that most developed countries would grind to a halt, or at least the standards of living would diminish if immigration was stopped completely, but what's wrong with wanting a system where individuals need a sponsor or prove financial independence from the state before entering? Countries like your own and Canada have this system in place.

I wasn't suggesting that you said or implied that you wanted a ban on immigration. I was curious about what you thought that state of affairs would look like as an attempt to establish where the two ends of the scale lay for you.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a system where individuals need a sponsor or to prove financial independence from the state before entering, but I'd probably consider how I justified that as best for the country overall in terms of things like it's international relations, provisions of humanitarian aid, and importing people who are hard working and enthusiastic but not necessarily already rich.

If you're wondering where it shows that uncontrolled immigration has hurt the country, you only need to see the amount of debt the UK is in from over-borrowing as an enticement to bring in more immigrants than we could cope with.

How do I see that? Remember, I'm in Australia. It's not obvious to me, and I'm not exactly sure where I'd start to look for that information.

The NHS is at breaking point with the demand placed on it - and don't say 'without immigrants, where would the NHS be?'; we know that the NHS needs the HCAs, nurses, doctors and specialists to help it keep going, but what's wrong with accepting people of the world who provide a net gain?

So you're simultaneously saying that immigrants are placing an unsustainable demand on it (something that I'd think would be easy enough to find factual justification for) and that the immigrants are the ones providing the manpower to prop the system up and keep it running?

Is this the point at which I point out that you want to have your cake and eat it too?

Without turning into a Daily Fail reader, a decrease in available housing has meant that house prices have increased far quicker than they should have done, and local councils not able to build new houses at the rate they need to; this means people are losing their homes because they can't afford an ever increasing rent, or buy their own house because the prices are a significant multiple of their salary. There has been an increase in demand on the whole infrastructure - roads, utilities, emergency services, and so on - but the country has not been able to cope with this.

OK, let's stop beating around the bush and put some actual facts on the table instead of emotions, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

In 2001, there's ~5 million foreign born people living in the UK.
In 2011, there's ~8 million foreign born people living in the UK.

So you've had a net immigration of non-UK born people of 3 million in ten years. The population in 2011 was ~63 million.

Do you think that reducing the population to 60 million would make a significant impact on any of the problems you outlined above? It helps, but I doubt that removing 3 million people actually makes that much different to the housing or infrastructure problems given that a significant proportion of the UK population is already jammed into a few very densely populated areas.

In terms of the optimal level of immigration, that's a tricky one which is not going to ever satisfy some people. I would suggest that a net migration of 0.2-0.3% of the overall population would be an adequate level of immigration.

And how did you arrive at that number? The number is not what's important, the justification is what's important. You're never going to satisfy everyone, but at least you can be clear about the decision making process and why you've chosen to let a certain number of people into the country.

I agree that Australia does seem to be an exception rather than the rule. Germany is a perfect example of the rule.

So given that we're in a thread about America, are you relating the German system to the American system? What's the point about America you're making here?

Neither system is perfect (possibly ours is better), but it's got to be better an more uncontrolled system that led to the introduction of female-only sections of new year celebrations because of the sexual assaults from a small minority of the social-political immigrants of the last couple of years.

Sounds like you're making an appeal to emotion there rather than providing solid reasoning. A terrible crime committed by immigrants does not in and of itself make the immigration policy faulty. Demonstrate how an immigration system screens for rapists, please. Do you just ask them if they like raping white women?

 

[Scaff]

OK, let's stop beating around the bush and put some actual facts on the table instead of emotions, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

In 2001, there's ~5 million foreign born people living in the UK.
In 2011, there's ~8 million foreign born people living in the UK.

So you've had a net immigration of non-UK born people of 3 million in ten years. The population in 2011 was ~63 million.

Do you think that reducing the population to 60 million would make a significant impact on any of the problems you outlined above? It helps, but I doubt that removing 3 million people actually makes that much different to the housing or infrastructure problems given that a significant proportion of the UK population is already jammed into a few very densely populated areas.

Its also important to note that the ease of immigration into the UK differs significantly depending on if its from the EU or non-EU (currently).

Currently little control exists for EU migrants and significant controls exist for non-EU migrants (and contrary to claims refugees get very, very little and have no right to work), yet the ones with little control are actually a net benefit to the UK economy (and we voted to ban all of that) and those who we do have controls over are a net drain to the UK economy.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Unsurprisingly Brexit has seen EU migration to the UK drop, which will see an overall loss to the UK economy and a skills drain, while it will have no effect at all on Non-EU migration to the UK (as the EU never had any control over the UK's Non-EU migration policy).

 

[eran0004]

Without turning into a Daily Fail reader, a decrease in available housing has meant that house prices have increased far quicker than they should have done, and local councils not able to build new houses at the rate they need to; this means people are losing their homes because they can't afford an ever increasing rent, or buy their own house because the prices are a significant multiple of their salary. There has been an increase in demand on the whole infrastructure - roads, utilities, emergency services, and so on - but the country has not been able to cope with this.

Sure, but immigration is only one of many contributing factors. You also need to look at the urbanisation trend and the increase in single households.
In 1996, there were 45.6 million people living in urban areas in the UK, while in 2015 there were 53.6 million.
In 1996 there were 6.6 million single households in UK, while in 2017 there were 7.7 million.

The single biggest factor though is probably the financial crisis of 2007-2008, which saw the number of new homes built by private enterprises drop rapidly, and since local authorities haven't built many (if any) new homes since the 1980's, that brought the production figures to the lowest level since at least 1950.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As in between Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.? What specifically is it about the idea that different religions have different appetites for support of a president strikes you as unusual that requires explanation?

I disagree with the notion that, "Trump's ability to con people correlates positively with their tendency to "believe" bizarre stuff rather than make decisions based on facts.", when referring to the religious among us, in that case Mormon's specifically. Since most western religions believe in things that some might consider bizarre, like the dead coming back to life, a big guy up in the sky who lives forever etc, I don't accept that position. The fact that Trump's support among the various religions is all over the map from high to middle to low tells me there's very little connection between religion and voting habits, generally speaking.

 

[Joey D]

I disagree with the notion that, "Trump's ability to con people correlates positively with their tendency to "believe" bizarre stuff rather than make decisions based on facts.", when referring to the religious among us, in that case Mormon's specifically. Since most western religions believe in things that some might consider bizarre, like the dead coming back to life, a big guy up in the sky who lives forever etc, I don't accept that position. The fact that Trump's support among the various religions is all over the map from high to middle to low tells me there's very little connection between religion and voting habits, generally speaking.

You are aware of what Mormon's believe right? Out of all the major religions they're one of the most bizarre. It's like someone wrote fan-fiction of the Bible and then spiced it up with some sci-fi elements coupled with Indiana Jones.

And voting habits are tied with religion, at least with the two major parties. Much of it comes down to support of church and state, views on evolution, abortion, marriage equality, and tax-exempt status for religious institutions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are aware of what Mormon's believe right? Out of all the major religions they're one of the most bizarre. It's like someone wrote fan-fiction of the Bible and then spiced it up with some sci-fi elements coupled with Indiana Jones.

And voting habits are tied with religion, at least with the two major parties. Much of it comes down to support of church and state, views on evolution, abortion, marriage equality, and tax-exempt status for religious institutions.

Already addressed each of those points.

 

[Joey D]

Already addressed each of those points.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where you addressed any of these pointed in either of the previous two pages.

While Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews have bizarre beliefs to a non-believer, Mormons have by far stranger beliefs than any of them. I live in the heart of their religion and have learned more about it than I'd ever care too. As far as religion goes it's up there with Scientology in terms of weirdness.

And all I saw was your statement that religion isn't connected to voting habits. I disagree with that since the very religious almost always vote for Republican because of the reasons I mention in my previous post. Abortion seems to be the biggest sticking point. Democrats tend to support the right to choose, while Republicans don't.

 

[DK]

Sloppy Steve has just been subpoenaed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where you addressed any of these pointed in either of the previous two pages.

While Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews have bizarre beliefs to a non-believer, Mormons have by far stranger beliefs than any of them. I live in the heart of their religion and have learned more about it than I'd ever care too. As far as religion goes it's up there with Scientology in terms of weirdness.

And all I saw was your statement that religion isn't connected to voting habits. I disagree with that since the very religious almost always vote for Republican because of the reasons I mention in my previous post. Abortion seems to be the biggest sticking point. Democrats tend to support the right to choose, while Republicans don't.

Stranger than a big man with a beard in the sky who lives forever? Stranger than being resurrected from the dead? I think once you've gone that far you're already into the suspension of logic and science phase and you're just splitting hairs after that.

The voting habits of the various Christian offshoots all hover within reach of the 50% mark except for the Jews and Mormons/Evangelicas which are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The evangelical vote hasn't changed more than a couple of percentage points towards Trump vs. Bush/McCain/Romney indicating no significant shift in voting habits due to Trump's ability to "con people". Again, I think you're just making up the connection between religious beliefs, Mormons in particular, and Trump. All religious beliefs are extreme from a scientific or logic perspective and there's no clear pattern that covers voters who claim a religious affiliation. The clear pattern among Mormons is high support for Republicans but that wasn't the point you were making, it was about a shift towards Trump when, in fact, voting support for Trump among Mormons was down significantly in 2016 vs. either Romney or Bush.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Nearly all members of National Park Service advisory panel resign in frustration.

 

[Liquid]

Twitter has apparently exploded about the alleged measurements from Donald Trump's medical examination. Apparently it is not credible to accept that he is 6' 2" and 239lbs (17st 1lbs or 108kg).

 

[Imari]

I disagree with the notion that, "Trump's ability to con people correlates positively with their tendency to "believe" bizarre stuff rather than make decisions based on facts.", when referring to the religious among us, in that case Mormon's specifically. Since most western religions believe in things that some might consider bizarre, like the dead coming back to life, a big guy up in the sky who lives forever etc, I don't accept that position. The fact that Trump's support among the various religions is all over the map from high to middle to low tells me there's very little connection between religion and voting habits, generally speaking.

And I totally agree with you. Your quoted text is not something that I typed. I responded to this:

Or one might assume that a person's religion is only one aspect of their personality and, like other folks, they vote in their personal self interest and in the broader policy positions.

I disagree with labeling a person's religion as "only one" aspect of people's personalities. Technically it's one of many, but it tends to be a major driving factor. That said, Mormon religion doesn't drive people to behave in the same way that Islam does, or Catholicism. Even within a religion people will take that religion's precepts and apply them to their lives differently. Some people give more strength to the parts of Christianity that emphasise love and giving, others prefer the parts that advocate rape and murder.

Religion is often a major part of a person's personality. But that's not to say that simply having a religion makes all these people behave the same. I feel like you've assumed that I agreed with the points that the person you replied to said, when that's not the case. I merely wished to make comment on something that you said, and I expressed no opinion on correlations to Trump's ability to con people until this post. It's unfortunate that the part of your post that I made comment on was in reply to something that neither of us agree with, but I don't think it was inseparable from the rest of the discussion.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree with labeling a person's religion as "only one" aspect of people's personalities. Technically it's one of many, but it tends to be a major driving factor.

I tend to agree with this as well. Especially if it is identified as "religion" instead of "spirituality". Religion tends to be associated with some degree of dogma, while spirituality can be more nebulous and less... defining. It is amazing just how pervasive religion can be. Having spent plenty of time trying to talk to people that I know are religious without actually bringing up the subject of religion, it is remarkable just how many seemingly-unrelated subjects religion can bleed into.

The other day I was working on my yard and one of my neighbors asked me what I was up to. I said I was installing a walkway and some rocks. She said... "hallelujah". Ok so that's a bit of an extreme example but... still... it's hard to say or do anything at all without it being evidence of God's greatness to some.

 

[TexRex]

I tend to agree with this as well. Especially if it is identified as "religion" instead of "spirituality". Religion tends to be associated with some degree of dogma, while spirituality can be more nebulous and less... defining. It is amazing just how pervasive religion can be. Having spent plenty of time trying to talk to people that I know are religious without actually bringing up the subject of religion, it is remarkable just how many seemingly-unrelated subjects religion can bleed into.

The other day I was working on my yard and one of my neighbors asked me what I was up to. I said I was installing a walkway and some rocks. She said... "hallelujah". Ok so that's a bit of an extreme example but... still... it's hard to say or do anything at all without it being evidence of God's greatness to some.

Well...God made the rocks, sooooo...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I tend to agree with this as well. Especially if it is identified as "religion" instead of "spirituality". Religion tends to be associated with some degree of dogma, while spirituality can be more nebulous and less... defining. It is amazing just how pervasive religion can be. Having spent plenty of time trying to talk to people that I know are religious without actually bringing up the subject of religion, it is remarkable just how many seemingly-unrelated subjects religion can bleed into.

The other day I was working on my yard and one of my neighbors asked me what I was up to. I said I was installing a walkway and some rocks. She said... "hallelujah". Ok so that's a bit of an extreme example but... still... it's hard to say or do anything at all without it being evidence of God's greatness to some.

I agree as well.

The best example I have is part of my girlfriend's family. During a year abroad in France during university, she was diagnosed with leukemia. Modern medicine took care of it there and here, but an (admittedly older) member of her family repeatedly told her she was cured because she and people she told had prayed for her. It was odd.

There's a lot of friendly ribbing from both our families about when we'll get married too. Some of it is just because family weddings are a blast, but there's also the side that assumes it'll be wedding followed by kids, because that's just how it goes for some folks. Neither of us are interested in that at the time (the kids bit — love the idea of being an aunt and uncle, just don't want our own), and that's resulted in a handful of awkward discussions. My side too — mostly my mom's.

Religion was a major source of argument a few years ago in my family, all because of folks' views on cremation versus traditional burial. Because it involved buying a plot of land for multiple caskets, it meant a whole bunch of money was tied up in peoples' beliefs.

I don't think many people realize how much religion has steered their general view of life. I'm not saying it's always a bad thing, and it's undoubtedly hard to separate the two if you've been involved in it since birth.

 

[Johnnypenso]

For the most part, people say religion does not frequently affect their voting decisions. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say their religious beliefs seldom if ever affect their voting decisions, while 38% say their vote choices are at least occasionally affected by their beliefs. White evangelicals and African-American Protestants are most likely to report that their religion shapes their votes at least occasionally, while white mainline Protestants and Catholics mostly say that religion has little or no impact on their votes.

The survey underscores an important and often overlooked fact of American politics: African-Americans and white evangelical Christians are remarkably similar in their views about the role of religion in politics, yet they come to sharply different partisan conclusions. Both groups think the country would be better off if religion were more influential, both defend the role of religious leaders as political spokesmen, and both share similar views on important social issues, such as assisted suicide and gay marriage. Yet their attitudes toward President Bush and partisan politics are almost diametrically opposed. White evangelicals lean strongly toward Bush and the Republicans, and African-Americans lean strongly against both the president and his party. These two groups both of them highly engaged and religious stand as important countervailing forces in American public life.

Source

 

[TexRex]

Religion was a major source of argument a few years ago in my family, all because of folks' views on cremation versus traditional burial. Because it involved buying a plot of land for multiple caskets, it meant a whole bunch of money was tied up in peoples' beliefs.

Care of loved ones, in life and end-of-life, can be touchy as religion relates to it.

A good friend of mine was married to, and had a son with, a devout woman of the LDS faith. It wasn't particularly intrusive early on, as he's always been on the more homeopathic side of medicine when it comes to his own treatment, avoiding chemicals if possible. Home bitth didn't strike him as odd either, because it isn't necessarily faith-related.

Things took a significant turn when it was determined their son has CP. She was vehemently opposed to medical treatment--it may not have even been diagnosed if he hadn't been able to go to the emergency room had she been present when it first manifested--and resulted in devorce with him thankfully getting sole custody as the courts accepted his assertion that her refusal to seek professional help threatened their son's life.

I shudder to think how situations such as this might turn out if not for the separation of church and state we have now--this may be an extreme case, but where is the line drawn if the separation becomes lax?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apple is spending $350,000,000,000 in the U.S. in the next 5 years. Apple will make payments of around $38 billion in tax money from its profits that it currently holds overseas — a decision that comes after a Trump administration tax plan changed how foreign profits brought back to the United States are taxed. Apple has for years lobbied for corporate tax reform....but it's all probably just a coincidence. Source

 

[Joey D]

And now the Trump administration is working with the department of HHS to continue to pander to the religious.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...kers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds

Healthcare worker will now be protected if they refuse service to patients that go against their moral or religious beliefs. Never mind this violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I get not performing abortions, fertility treatments for same-sex couples, or even gender reassignment surgery. All of these are not life threatening conditions, and you can find someone else to perform the procedure. However, in an emergency situation, if you deny a transgender patient care who's having a heart attack or a stroke because you morally object to their existence, then you're in the wrong profession.

Hopefully, most hospitals will continue to have their own policies that require the treatment of patients regardless of their sexual orientation or gender (even though gender discrimination is illegal at a federal level). And even then, if you chose a career in the medical profession, you should understand that you'll treat people you might not agree with.

One example in the article makes me particularly mad:

a pediatrician who declined to see a child because his parents were lesbians

Refusing to treat a child because of their parents shows that you're a horrible doctor and don't really care about the well being of your patients.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Neither of us are interested in that at the time (the kids bit — love the idea of being an aunt and uncle, just don't want our own), and that's resulted in a handful of awkward discussions. My side too — mostly my mom's.

I get the same from my family from time to time. Thankfully my brother already has 2, with another on the way. Keeps them occupied.

 

[TexRex]

And now the Trump administration is working with the department of HHS to continue to pander to the religious.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...kers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds

Healthcare worker will now be protected if they refuse service to patients that go against their moral or religious beliefs. Never mind this violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I get not performing abortions, fertility treatments for same-sex couples, or even gender reassignment surgery. All of these are not life threatening conditions, and you can find someone else to perform the procedure. However, in an emergency situation, if you deny a transgender patient care who's having a heart attack or a stroke because you morally object to their existence, then you're in the wrong profession.

Hopefully, most hospitals will continue to have their own policies that require the treatment of patients regardless of their sexual orientation or gender (even though gender discrimination is illegal at a federal level). And even then, if you chose a career in the medical profession, you should understand that you'll treat people you might not agree with.

One example in the article makes me particularly mad:



Refusing to treat a child because of their parents shows that you're a horrible doctor and don't really care about the well being of your patients.

Am I the only one who looks at this and sees religious fanaticism?

If your job is to ensure the well-being of individuals, even save lives, with people seeking you out to do so, making the decision to not do so is comparable to causing harm. Making the decision not to intervene based on religious views is comparable to beheading infidels, and the administration is saying it's okay.

 

[Danoff]

And now the Trump administration is working with the department of HHS to continue to pander to the religious.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...kers-who-reject-patients-on-religious-grounds

Healthcare worker will now be protected if they refuse service to patients that go against their moral or religious beliefs. Never mind this violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I get not performing abortions, fertility treatments for same-sex couples, or even gender reassignment surgery. All of these are not life threatening conditions, and you can find someone else to perform the procedure. However, in an emergency situation, if you deny a transgender patient care who's having a heart attack or a stroke because you morally object to their existence, then you're in the wrong profession.

Hopefully, most hospitals will continue to have their own policies that require the treatment of patients regardless of their sexual orientation or gender (even though gender discrimination is illegal at a federal level). And even then, if you chose a career in the medical profession, you should understand that you'll treat people you might not agree with.

One example in the article makes me particularly mad:



Refusing to treat a child because of their parents shows that you're a horrible doctor and don't really care about the well being of your patients.

Am I the only one who looks at this and sees religious fanaticism?

If your job is to ensure the well-being of individuals, even save lives, with people seeking you out to do so, making the decision to not do so is comparable to causing harm. Making the decision not to intervene based on religious views is comparable to beheading infidels, and the administration is saying it's okay.

The article says that the idea is that religious beliefs trump discrimination rules. I'm personally of the mind that healthcare workers should be allowed to discriminate. I don't know exactly what kind of protections are being offered here, but I'm in favor of doctors and nurses being allowed to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. Of course the hospital may not allow it, or the parent healthcare company, or insurance, and they may not get customers. If the protections talked about in that article prevent hospitals from refusing to hire someone who doesn't sign a wavier saying that they'll serve every who walks in the door equally... then I'd be opposed to this.

 

[UKMikey]

Am I the only one who looks at this and sees religious fanaticism?

If your job is to ensure the well-being of individuals, even save lives, with people seeking you out to do so, making the decision to not do so is comparable to causing harm. Making the decision not to intervene based on religious views is comparable to beheading infidels, and the administration is saying it's okay.

Is the Hippocratic oath still a thing in the US these days or are certain healthcare professionals exempt from first doing no harm?

 

[Joey D]

The article says that the idea is that religious beliefs trump discrimination rules. I'm personally of the mind that healthcare workers should be allowed to discriminate. I don't know exactly what kind of protections are being offered here, but I'm in favor of doctors and nurses being allowed to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. Of course the hospital may not allow it, or the parent healthcare company, or insurance, and they may not get customers. If the protections talked about in that article prevent hospitals from refusing to hire someone who doesn't sign a wavier saying that they'll serve every who walks in the door equally... then I'd be opposed to this.

My biggest objection is when it comes to emergency care, which there's already a law that states you need to stabilize a patient in an emergency situation. You don't have to continue to provide care for them once their stabilized, but until they are, it's on you.

In many areas, there's also a lack of choice in healthcare. Due to the way laws work, there can only be so many licensed beds in a given area. This means in several areas there's one health system with a monopoly. If that health system happens to be Catholic (which many of them are), under this law they could refuse to treat you if you happen to be gay and are in need of emergency medical care.

My other objection is that under this law, patients will be even less truthful with their provider. Say you're on hormone replacement therapy from you psychiatrist. You go to your family doctor for some reason and you do not disclose you're on that medication for the fear of a refusal to treat. The doctor prescribes you medication that interacts poorly with the HRP meds you're on. It's not a good situation.

I am OK with discrimination if a health system doesn't want to treat certain things that are considered elective or are non-life threatening. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to allow abortions or prescribed birth control, then so be it. Or if they don't want to perform sex reassignment surgery, then they shouldn't have too. But they shouldn't deny care for someone in the midst of a stroke because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Danoff]

under this law

Well... administrative law. Which is not really law , but kinda is. I hate admin law.

But they shouldn't deny care for someone in the midst of a stroke because of their sexual orientation.

Should you? Should I? Let's say random racist person sees someone having a stroke. If it were a white person, they'd call 911, but it's a black person, so they walk on. Should that be a crime?