Donkeys were the focus of multiple political cartoons this week – all lame, sick, injured, emaciated, dying, or dead…
by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
by Jerry Holbert at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Jerry Holbert at Townhall.com…
by Steve Sack at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m really not into decapitation. That would include donkeys.
It’s time for Nancy Pelosi to sit down to a slice of humble pie. A big slice. And we don’t mind if she has a little tea or coffee to wash it down. Sometimes humility helps build character. The cartoonists are awake. Some of the rest of the mainstream media is still hitting the snooze button.
I said during the health care battle many times, it would be worth it for the Dems to pass a key part of their platform even if it meant surrendering the house and senate. So they lost the house. Down the road it will flip back, and then back again…these things happen. They passed health care reform and wall street reform. Getting those things through were massive and well worth the losses.
When Geoge Bush Senior lost to Bill Clinton Peggy Noonan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that was as brilliant as it was insightful. In it she gave both a condolence and a caution that apply every bit as much after this election. She stated;
Every defeat contains within it the seeds of victory, and every victory contains within it the seeds of defeat. Cooperation with the Republicans in rescinding Obamacare will guarantee Democrat victories in two years that will keep the Republicans from a commanding majority. Therein lie the seeds of victory for this present defeat.
The Republicans should especially bear this in mind and not return to the hubris and contempt that the party establishment shows their conservative and pro-life base. They are very much on probation here, and should keep that upper-most in their minds.
On the Democrat’s part, this largest-ever shift in the balance of power at mid-term with their man in the White House is a strong signal from the American people. Enough Dems should join Republicans in a veto-proof majority and repeal Obama-care in its entirety. If they do not, they will be finished off at the polls in two years.
Sure EGV, whatever,
Visit Drudgereport.com and you’ll find that 111 companies and unions have been granted waivers from Obamacare. Also, if you want to find this on HHS website, it’ll take about six seperate clicks. Don’t you just love all this openness and honesty? Looks like we’ll have another bureaucracy to decide who has to obey the law and who doesn’t. If there is something we really need, its more bureaucracies.
I’m glad though that you are as happy about the Democrat losses as the rest of us.
Hello Gerard,
Exactly. I view both the GOP and Democrat establishment as the Ruling Class, a bunch of cigar chomping backslappers in smoke filled rooms. That is why I have and remain an Independent. This new group is on probation and the electorate is angry, well informed, and very observant. I’m sorry to say I don’t underestimate the ability of the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I hope they’ve learned that winners do not compromise, losers do. Make the Democrats reach across the aisle.
Mary and Ex:
The back and forth on the ”merits” of Obamacare needs to be front and center while there is still a chance to make a meaningful intervention.
Ex–you are basically on board with the whole ball of wax. Mary and I (and the proposals offered by the Repubs) want reforms, but not of the type and extent of those contained in Obamacare.
The next two years will be full of the usual MSM lies and distortions about everything, especially how terrible the Repubs are for wanting to take away health care from millions and similar blather. It is tough to overcome distortions, but it can be done.
A good place to start is bringing in those who were silenced by the Dems to address congressional hearings.
As long as people are willing to believe in socialist fairy tales we as a country will be in a steep uphill battle to regain a realistic sense of how best to deal with health care. The same can be said about most other issues as well.
This election showed that the American people do not like to be lied to and fleeced by their elected “representatives”. It was phase one of taking our country back. To all the libs who think it was a fluke, please continue to fool yourselves.
I hope the GOP makes the same mistake as you guys are…the clear call from the election was the Dems were punished because they didn’t concentrate on the economy. Strong poll numbers after the election said economy and jobs were 1-2 to concentrate on. Two new polls – nation exit polls, and now Gallup, say the majority of people do NOT want a repeal of healthcare – but I hope the GOP goes for it because without an alternate solution much better than what they have thrown out so far – the CBO score is going to say they’ll be raising the deficit while covering a lot less people. That will tough to spin, even with Glenn Beck on your side!
EGV,
No one has argued the economy was the issue. That doesn’t mean there are not other issues such as national security, out of control gov’t spending and yes, Obama care.
Apparently at least 111 corporations and unions representing how many millions of people aren’t too thrilled with Obamacare. Yes you read that right, unions. Usually the Democrats biggest supporters.
I’m glad we agree on the GOP going after this monstrosity. Maybe this time Obama will consider the alternatives the GOP previously offered but that he chose to ignore.
Mary – I don’t think you read my response correctly – you hope they go after it because you don’t like it. I hope they go after it because I believe the end result won’t be what they bargained for (I don’t think the GOP can come up with a workable plan, and I think the public, already polling that they want the law to stay, will hammer on the GOP and their numbers will be hurt).
Ex-GOP Voter,
I just read your comment at 11:41. I never thought of it like that. I doubt that the new health care (or is it healthcare- I think that one is American and one is British…or something…) that the Democrats have set up will go anywhere. I doubt that the Republicans will do anything about that. What I hope the most, however, is that this motivates Obama. I respect him, and I admire what he’s trying to do as far as compromise is concerned, but now he can get to work on the economy. He’s already fought for healthcare and made gains for the environment, but now if I could see him tackle any issue, it would have to be either the economy, Darfur, or immigration. Darfur counts a lot with me (even if no one else seems to know where Darfur is on the map, those #%&*$^# jerks).
What would you like to see changed now, Ex?
—
As an aside, Tom Mullins lost. Hu-zzah! His policy on immigration involved landmines. Never, ever a good idea. However, Susana Martinez and Steve Pearce won. *smacks hand to face*
Goodbye, New Mexico. It was nice having you in good condition.
Vannah – changed now in regards to the health care law? Strengthen and work more on the Medicare pay for value/results vs pay for services. Gains were made in this, but not enough. The system the GOP is advocating for is what we’ve had, in which results don’t matter and facilities in Texas see higher billing and worse outcomes than facilities in the upper midwest, simply because those facilities (like mayo) are more results based than just racking up tests.
Want to help the economy?
De-fund Planned Parenthood! 350 million back into either local training for the unemployed, local medical clinics, education or affordable housing. All of those can help people get training, build skills, serve the poor and help keep people healthy.
How about undoing the pork-barrel projects and use that money for helping real people.
And of course – why fund abortions with taxpayer money? Build schools, affordable housing, etc. instead!
EGV,
I support sensible reform, a far cry from ham fisted gov’t takeover. I’ve pointed out to you on a previous thread the billions in cost and corruption of Medicare. What makes you think Obamacare would run any more efficiently or be any more cost effective than insurance reform, HSAs, and increased tax deductions for medical care and insurance? Free market forces worked for years until the gov’t stepped in and insurance companies began expanding coverage, which at one time was only for catastrophic illness or accident.
Mary –
A couple of thoughts:
– If there was a strong public option, then it would have been a government takeover. “Takeover”, well, means, taking over. There’s a lot of new regulation – but nothing was “taken over”. Just a pointer.
– Yes – billions in cost and corruption, and you should be glad that Obama targets that. Yeah Obama!
– The GOP had plenty of time under Bush to do some of the things you said. They instead decided to expand Medicare. Now it is Obama’s time.
– Catastrophic illness coverage works really well if you have a lot of money in the bank. What about a family making $40k a year? Should they skip bringing Johnny in when he has the flu, and wait for it to become serious enough to warrant being a “catastrophe”?
We can take a lot of these things on locally – here a local free clinic just closed due to lack of funding, but our local United Way pours in many dollars to PP – a federally and State funded entity that gets lots of money thru donations and fees. And this was the PP that swore it would ONLY use the money to help poor women have their babies (a service which they STOPPED in January 2009).
So instead of helping a free clinic with helping people with their diabetes, heart trouble, asthma, etc, we turned a blind eye and let a great clinic go under.
It would have been better to re-appropriate the funds toward this clinic so that the poor could have been helped.
With poor oversight, the money collected does not get used properly. And that includes the Medicaid payments too.
EGV,
-There is no need for any gov’t involvement, period. Regulations are a means by which the gov’t controls your business, life, and yes your healthcare. Just a point.
-Obama will target Medicaid cost and corruption. Sure, as soon as he’s finished lowering the sea levels and healing the planet.
-The GOP turned into the spend and get along elite of Washington. That’s why they got the boot.
-Because of the free market forces EGV, which you may be too young to remember, if doctors and hospitals wanted patients they had to compete in the free market, which meant they had to keep costs under control and competitive. No longer necessary with insurance and the gov’t. When third parties pay the cost goes up.
That’s how you get $10.00 tongue depressers.
-EGV, catastrophic covered the cost if Johnny’s flu became anything more serious than something that could be handled with an office visit, phone call or plenty of bedrest and fluids, which in most cases it does not. When I worked ER years ago people piled into the ER for flu symptons rather than simply calling their doctors or climbing into bed for a few days, which ran up the costs. Who cared, insurance and medicare/medicaid were paying for it. When people had to pay, the costs were kept under control.
Hi joy,
You’d think PP could get all the help they need from the wealthy liberals that support it. Obviously they aren’t donating to clinics like the one you describe being shut down.
Mary – Ah yes, because without regulations, then business is free to police itself. Works well in oil drilling in the gulf, yes? An how about the financial markets? How did less regulation work out there? In theory, it would be GREAT if we didn’t have to have regulation – but if we don’t make insurance companies keep a kid with cancer on their plan…well, it is better for profit if they just bounce the kid – which we saw too much of.
I think your plans probably would work great back in the 1920’s – we’re in a different world now. Plus, I think it is reckless to just tell people who have the flu to stay home and see how it turns out – if it gets really bad, come on in. That is how people die Mary. That is how people die.
Mary – My thoughts exactly – and most people are too busy/tired/overwhelmed to stop their donations to United Way. Really unfortunate.
UnitedWay is controlled at the low level – funds go local, funding goes out local – so really, you have to check on a community by community basis.
EGV,
Well we’ve got gov’t regulation with Medicare. Great isn’t it? Ask small business what they want and they’ll tell you to get the gov’t out of their way.
EGV, a child with cancer kept on insurance? That’s called insurance reform. If the parents paid for the coverage, they should get what they paid for. Period.
Back in the 1920’s. While I’m old I’m not quite THAT old. Actually it worked well in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which is what I remember. My grandmother spent 6 weeks in the hospital in 1962 and the bill didn’t break her or my mother. I remember my grandfather having numerous hospitalizations as well. That didn’t break our family either. Tell me why free market forces won’t work now.
Mary – just so I can properly answer this…in the 1960’s, health care was good. When, in your mind, did it become bad. Just with Obama, or was it sometime in between?
Ex:
“Strong poll numbers after the election said economy and jobs were 1-2 to concentrate on. Two new polls – nation exit polls, and now Gallup, say the majority of people do NOT want a repeal of healthcare..”
Indeed, the economy and jobs are the top issues (and so is health care): not exactly a ringing endorsement of Dems. We have seen surveys time and again that ask the reader to prioritize those issues most important to them. Unfortunately the number “1” can only be used once even though there is hardly a dimes worth of difference among the issues listed. That is how I take the results of the exit polls you refer to. By the way, please link to those polls.
Ever since the passage of Obamacare almost all polls show a majority of those polled want repeal. The way Obama, Nancy and Harry rammed it through against the wishes of the majority was reflected in nearly EVERY poll…the majority of people did not want it passed. Despite that they went ahead and passed it and it was a game changer. Make no mistake about that.
If a person really wanted to do an in depth study of Obamacare they ought to avail themselves to the series of studies/surveys and editorials done by the Wall Street Journal.
Jerry – no problem sir:
Here’s the gallup one regarding repeal – note that 49% say the law does not go far enough, and of the 42% that says the law goes to far, not all of those people even favor a repeal: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144422/Four-Americans-Believe-Healthcare-Law-Goes-Far.aspx
One exit poll – again, health care deep in the shadow of economy. Also, note that while once you might have been right on ‘repeal’, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Also note the various approval ratings – interesting: http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/exit.shtml?state=US&jurisdiction=0&race=H&tag=contentBody;electionCenterHome
Good summation here of the AP exit polling: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7276691.html
Heck, even Rasmussen has found a 6 point swing in the numbers since Mid-September – and their pollster ratings show a pretty heavy GOP lean – so you can easily knock another 4.5 or so points off their polls (can link to that as well if you’d like). http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Jerry – I’ll also note – it was a brilliant strategy for the GOP getting seats back – drive the economy near the brink of a depression, and then hammer on the Dems for not bouncing it back fast enough!
Vannah,
As far as Darfur is concerned, I’m afraid you’ll be in for a very long wait.
Obama will be too busy fighting his upcoming scandal.
You heard it here first.
People and their sick kids have been showing up in ERs for years and have not been turned away, (especially at Catholic, not for profit hospitals which gives millions of dollars in care to uninsured and underinsured and Medicaid patients, unlike Michelle Obama’s ex-employer, Univ of Chicago Hospital that was routing patients without insurance to other hospitals to keep their cost down). I worked in healthcare for years we gave excellent care to our patients no matter their socioeconomic, racial or ethnic background, insurance or not. Yes, we need to make some changes in healthcare, we need to insure the disabled, elderly, those with catastrophic illnesses, uninsured children or others in difficult circumstances but we do not need the Obamacare thug-style “takeover”.
The Merits of Obama care:
Well,
I tried.
“I’ll also note – it was a brilliant strategy for the GOP getting seats back – drive the economy near the brink of a depression, and then hammer on the Dems for not bouncing it back fast enough!”
Brink of depression?
See you in 2012!
Sincerely,
The Happy Warrior
“People and their sick kids have been showing up in ERs for years and have not been turned away, (especially at Catholic, not for profit hospitals which gives millions of dollars in care to uninsured and underinsured and Medicaid patients, unlike Michelle Obama’s ex-employer, Univ of Chicago Hospital that was routing patients without insurance to other hospitals to keep their cost down).”
That’s total rubbish!
In April 1970, a Catholic-run hospital in California attempted to turn away my father, who was suffering a major heart attack.
I know. I was there.
The only reason they don’t do it now is because Federal law now requires every emergency room patient to be treated.
God, please help the righteous.
Really William?
Nothing good?
You a big fan of kicking people out of coverage, or denying them flat out because of some condition they had years ago?
You a big fan of millions more people going without insurance, waiting until the last minute when the situation has gotten really dire? And the waste of tax money picking up the tab for pneumonia instead of dealing with it when it was minor?
You hate the various medicare/medicaid reforms in the bill? Big fan of waste and fraud? Paying places for running up tests instead of actual results?
You a big fan of letting insurance companies in some states spend so much more on marketing and admin work instead of care than they do in other states?
Nothing good at all? You one of those ‘pro-birthers’ – be born, then “good luck!”
EGV,
I never said health care was bad. I said gov’t involvement only resulted in waste and corruption, like it usually does.
Mary — I agree with you about Dems and Repubs. I am an independent, too. A plague on both their houses!
Hi phillymiss,
Amen sister!! Its always good to see you here.
Ex:
“Jerry – I’ll also note – it was a brilliant strategy for the GOP getting seats back – drive the economy near the brink of a depression, and then hammer on the Dems for not bouncing it back fast enough!”
We have gone over this before. Nancy and company have been in charge of the purse since 2006. The Democrats have financed the largest expansion in government in the shortest period of time in our history. Nancy said going in that there would be no deficit spending and what does she do but preside over 5 trillion dollars in deficit spending with annual trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. And now they heap another couple of trillion or more (once the actual costs of Obamacare are tallied) onto our children, even as coverages and quality of care will be reduced.
A lot of people apparently think that the backlash against the Dems was a fluke…Obama and Nancy among them. Are you one of them?
EGV, I was hoping that you’d have abandoned the “pro-birthers” nonsense, months ago. You really are willing to sacrifice morality for political expediency, aren’t you? You’re not pro-life, EGV. You’re abortion-tolerant, at the very least. Sad.
In Heaven, where there are no political parties or factions, I really wonder if you’d be miserable. No more pundits, no more “evil republicans” against whom to fight, no more elections, lobbyists, polls, statistics, and the rest of that ilk. Would you prefer hell? At least there’s be rival factions, there…
William:
I agree. How did we ever manage to accomplish a thing in health care until Obamacare came along? Now, thanks to Obamacare, the quality of coverages will decrease even as costs go up. I like the quote attributed to Reagan: “The scariest words in the English language are…I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Ex: If people want to fund health care for everyone there is no one stopping them from contributing to chairities. Charity is indeed a good thing and I heartily subscribe to it. Even before Obamacare our health care outlays were on an unsustainable projectory thanks to Dems adding more and more recipients. Adding recipients has not only overburdened the costs of government financed health care at all levels, but has also destroyed social security. Its reform we need, not expansion.
mp sorry you had a bad experience but I have had the exact opposite as a healthcare worker, as a patient and as a caretaker of family members. and my experience is a whole lot more recent than 1970 like within the last few months and years not 30+ years ago. I will say that my experience is much more typical than yours after having family members with multiple hospitalizations at medical centers all over the midwest. Some of the most compassionate care is given at faith-based healthcare facilities and it is reported that the best HIV-AIDS hospice care is given in the midwest at a Catholic hospital. Like I said we need to make changes and have improvements, I know that and we could go on for hours discussing ways to do that but your pro-abort or pro-choice tone tells me it would be a total waste of my time.
Hi mp,
I too am sorry for your experience but I’m afraid federal regulations can be gotten around. “Dumping” of patients who don’t have insurance on other hospitals, is a way of keeping the non payers off their wards and out of their ERs. Read how Michelle Obama created such a “dumping” program at the university of Chicago Hospitals in the March 2, 2009 “American Thinker” by David Carton.
Mary – actually you said it worked great in the 60’s, but now it doesn’t – wasn’t sure when it flipped in your mind. I’ll flip back to my statement then before…we saw what happened to the financial markets and drilling in the gulf with lack of regulations. I don’t buy the argument that an unregulated health care market is the way to go.
Jerry – you never commented on the links I provided.
There was also a good study by the NY Times in regards to the current deficit, and how much came out of the Bush presidency and would have existed regardless of who was in office. Obama had a stimulus bill you can give him credit for, but the GOP was arguing for a bill themselves – just a smaller bill.
In regards to health care reform – should I provide a link for the CBO report on it? It vetted out as deficit positive – so when you say you want to repeal it, then you want to raise the deficit further.
Paladin –
I enjoy that I debate a group of folks who spend half their posts demonizing large chunks of the population, and I’m the one who, and I quote, “prefer hell”. Classy sir – very classy.
Two comments:
– I hadn’t used the “pro-birth” in a long time- but sometimes, is there a better way to describe it? When somebody would like to outlaw abortion of all forms, yet at the same time, get rid of health insurance for a lot of families and kids, cut education budgets, and are quite fine jumping into wars all over the place – well, how would you describe it? Even scaling back the education and war part – do you not see the odd combo of saying “yup, have kids, but make sure you collect your medical bill on the way out the door – and if your new baby has issues…well, maybe we’ll take your house in the process…” Come on – let’s go for quality of life throughout.
– Sacrifice morality? If everyone in the world was just like me, this board wouldn’t need to even exist! Three beautiful kids – no abortions in our tally. Maybe I’d be better in your eyes if my family had a few abortions, or participated in some, but then started to “vote the right way”.
Oh, I’m sorry – I’m being a snot here…I forget, a vote for the GOP is a vote for less regulation, lower taxes, big business favors, immigration reform, stronger national defense, smaller government, less union voice…and maybe, if they get around to it, some abortion law changes. 20 of 28 years of running the country didn’t result in much…but sure, maybe this time around (even though the GOP has already said they don’t give a darn about abortion – at least the house did), the GOP will suddenly deliver.
Yes Paladin – me with my zero abortion record, yet voting for things like covering kids with cancer and lessening their insurance bills – yes, I’m a terrible soul!
Jerry…your part two.
Well, I could give you a break down of my insurances rates from 2005 through 2009 until I got a different job – you can be the judge of how well my costs were under control before health care reform. The status quo had gone from 80% of people covered under employee plans to under 60% in a couple of short years. Costs were out of control. Did you not see that happening? The GOP’s response? They expanded Medicare and didn’t pay for it. Interesting response.
But you say costs are out of control because we add too many people? So is the response you are suggestion to ration health care? Seems to be. Maybe a lottery of who gets covered, and anyone else, we’ll just leave for themselves. I suppose the rich get first dibs?
I do enjoy the charity argument – should we try that for everything? Maybe have a telethon next time we need to attack a country. Or if we want to build better security on the mexican border, we could setup an account with the united way to send your check into. That is a fabulous idea though – my family just had a baby recently – we’re lucky, just a couple thousand in bills. Do you have a church I can call up for help? Maybe a favorite charity?
Mary
One side of your mouth, you talk about how medicare has waste and fraud and we needs to do things more efficiently, and on the other side of your mouth, you hammer on Michelle Obama for sending somebody who shows up at an ER to a smaller clinic which can reduce the bill by a ton of money. Here’s the response from UCMC:
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/uhi/news/post.html
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
I enjoy that I debate a group of folks who spend half their posts demonizing large chunks of the population,
You “enjoy” that? Question: do you mean “enjoy” as in “enjoy”, or “enjoy” as in “don’t enjoy”? We pro-lifers can be a bit picky about fine definitions and minutae (such as whether you mean what you say, or whether you mean the exact opposite), like that… in-between stints of “demonizing large chunks of the population”, I imagine. (I’m tempted to ask you for statistics to that effect…)
and I’m the one who, and I quote, “prefer hell”. Classy sir – very classy.
(*sigh*) You do have a gift for using a unique blend of maudlin snark; I’ll give you that. You also have a skill for missing salient points. I was in earnest, believe it or not: and I really do think you’re rather vague on the whole notion of “God, heaven, Christ”, and all that sort of thing, since you’ve shown no reluctance to let (allegedly) good ends justify evil means, over and over again. Your moniker (and your entire on-line persona) is dominated by politics–and by “anti-” politics, at that (i.e. whom you oppose, as opposed to whom you support); you’re quite willing to let abortion run quietly in the background, since your politicized and utopian idea of socialized health care takes priority over such petty concerns as supporting efforts to denounce, criminalize, stigmatize, and otherwise eradicate the horror and the poison of abortion from our nation.
Your proffered reasons for doing so are genuinely mind-boggling and heart-wrenching: “the GOP hasn’t done anything about abortion, so why should I support them?” If you were one who devoted all his political energies toward the Constitution Party, or some other party which condemned abortion categorically (and did not tolerate it), I could see (and even applaud) your point. But no: you choose to align yourself with the current Democratic Party, whose platform enshrines abortion-on-demand as a civil right! That fact doesn’t seem to faze you at all… and I now invite you to make me understand why this is so, EGV. Can you? Can you put into words the motives that change what would have been a horror for child-murder into a semi-apathetic shrug, followed by renewed zeal for your pet political ideas, in harmony with the very party which wants to cement abortion into our land? I’m genuinely in earnest, here!
I hadn’t used the “pro-birth” in a long time- but sometimes, is there a better way to describe it?
That depends. What’s more important to you: being seen as pro-life, or being seen as anti-GOP? By using such a foolish phrase, you distance yourself from those who are pro-life and anti-abortion; and you really don’t seem to mind that fact.
When somebody would like to outlaw abortion of all forms, yet at the same time, get rid of health insurance for a lot of families and kids, cut education budgets, and are quite fine jumping into wars all over the place – well, how would you describe it?
Friend, these issues have been debated to death, on this board and on others; if you think that even all of these so-called evils (even as painted with your ridiculously and fallaciously broad brush), taken all together, could possibly rival the conscious choice to ENSHRINE abortion–with its 50,000,000+ death toll in the USA alone–as a right… well… then I really don’t know what to tell you. Let’s take your anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-everyone-who-isn’t-liberal ideas, and inflame them to their most nightmarish proportions: are you seriously saying that the death toll from these, and the evil which might result, would even come close to the deliberate dismemberment of over 50,000,000 babies? Either you don’t see abortion for what it is, or your devotion to your political ideology has blinded you to whatever might speak against it, right or wrong.
Even scaling back the education and war part – do you not see the odd combo of saying “yup, have kids, but make sure you collect your medical bill on the way out the door – and if your new baby has issues…well, maybe we’ll take your house in the process…”
You may’ve heard me talk of “painting with a broad brush”, before; now, let’s nail you down.
1) You assume that health insurance is the only possible way to ensure health care. Pure, unadulterated balderdash. You assume, beyond this, that government-run health care would be the optimal way to ensure equitable and efficient management of that health care. Utter delusion. You claim that such socialized medicine will “reduce abortions”, while you turn a blind and/or ignorant eye to the fact that your “saviour”–socialized medicine–is the very VEHICLE by which abortions will be subsidized, and the acceptance of abortion reinforced (and thereby sustained or increased). Complete insanity. Your blind trust in federal oversight would be inspiring in its intensity, if it were not so utterly perverse and misplaced.
2) You assume that government-run education is utterly necessary to the well-functioning of education in our country. Piffle. You further assume that federal oversight, above and beyond state bureaucracies, is utterly necessary for the further smooth, efficient and economical management of that education. Lunacy. You also turn a blind and/or ignorant eye to the “social programming” (e.g. attempted normalization of homosexuality, dismantling of modesty and reverence for human sexuality, minimization of parental rights, etc., normalization of the abortion-tolerant mentality, etc.) which the same government-run schools explicitly endorses–and mandates–in its classrooms. How enlightened of you. I can only say that, when you speak of public education, you haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.
3) You assume that, since the death of innocents (and even deliberate atrocities done by individuals and groups) happen during war, and since liberals disapproved of the motives for various wars, that the entire business can be condemned as utter evil and as unjustified, from top to bottom. Raving nonsense.
Come on – let’s go for quality of life throughout.
Perhaps the simple logical fact that “one’s quality of life [whatever that means, to you] must be predicated on one’s right to life” has escaped you, yet again?
Sacrifice morality? If everyone in the world was just like me, this board wouldn’t need to even exist! Three beautiful kids – no abortions in our tally.
Ah. I see. You don’t perform or procure abortions yourself; you simply empower and enable others to do so, with your nod of approval? Praiseworthy, indeed.
Maybe I’d be better in your eyes if my family had a few abortions, or participated in some, but then started to “vote the right way”.
EGV, that may quite well be the most stupid sentence you’ve typed on this board, yet. Despite the fact that this is blisteringly obvious to all pro-lifers on this board, let me put this in plain words: what’s stopping you from doing BOTH? Does some cosmic force keep you from voting 100% pro-life, while still managing the Herculean feat of refraining from abortions, yourself? Perhaps this might come as a shock to you, but many on this forum manage precisely that, with no ill effects to their psyches.
Oh, I’m sorry – I’m being a snot here…I forget, a vote for the GOP is a vote for less regulation, lower taxes, big business favors, immigration reform, stronger national defense, smaller government, less union voice…and maybe, if they get around to it, some abortion law changes.
I think I’ll let your own words address that: “[you’re] being a snot, here.”
20 of 28 years of running the country didn’t result in much…
“…so if we can’t beat the pro-aborts, let’s join ’em!” I really do want you to explain to me how you’re not saying precisely this. I also can’t fathom why you blame the GOP for the actions of its liberal members, and then run right into the arms of more liberals who explicitly condone abortion. Explain this, please?
but sure, maybe this time around (even though the GOP has already said they don’t give a darn about abortion – at least the house did), the GOP will suddenly deliver.
…and the Democratic party (in its current incarnation) will, at least, deliver on its promises, that’s true: “safe and legal” (the height of Orwellian newspeak) abortions, paid by taxpayer funds and de-stigmatized throughout the land. Embryonic stem-cell research on the tax-payer’s dime (or billion dollars–but why dispute trifles?). You find that preferable. I find that insane.
Yes Paladin – me with my zero abortion record, yet voting for things like covering kids with cancer and lessening their insurance bills – yes, I’m a terrible soul!
First… just in case you haven’t already pieced it together: nowhere have I called you a terrible soul, nor do I presume to say whether you’re in a state of grace or not, nor do I presume to say whether you’d go to hell if you died now. What I do say is this: your ideas (as presented here) are confused, your rationales are weak and shallow, and your tolerance for abortion (in exchange for a “mess-o’-pottage”) is monstrous. Your near-obsession with all things political has, by all evidence you’ve shown here, deadened any sense of “morality beyond politics”. Your comments are almost exclusively sculpted to shower contempt for “the GOP” and non-liberals (despite the fact that liberal GOP members are responsible for the very “lack of anti-abortion progress” that you decry–see the irony?). Your political views eclipse all other concerns for you, it seems… at least, insofar as abortion is concerned. You’d rather enable someone’s conscious choice to kill their child, rather than jeopardize anything which could support your “political utopia”. It’s truly heart-rending, EGV. I speak so stridently, because reading what you’ve written wrenches my heart, almost to tears. It’s base and vile, and it’s not worthy of you. You’re currently part of the problem. I wish you weren’t.
Paladin –
Quite the charmer you are – I mean, after questioning my Christianity, 1500 words later, you sum it up to the point of near tears. It is as if you truly think you know me, from viewing about 7 posts a week on an obscure political debate board. It’s rather odd – I’d take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your only knowledge of me is a handful of words thrown out in spirited debate. You don’t know my age, state, background, nothing…so really, don’t worry about all this dramatic wrestling and lighten up a little. Go to the main page – it is a pretty political board. Most of the last ten posts are heavy into politics. Most of the debate here is centered on politics. And yet you are shocked that I talk politics. Again, you also know nothing about the rest of my life, and how little I actually talk politics outside of a couple of boards like this!
I’m not going to counter point this whole thing – I need to go to work in about 10 hours, and have a baby that doesn’t sleep too well. Remember – I have those kids…not abortions here (though that doesn’t seem good enough still…very odd).
Let me step back though because you really seem confused as to how somebody who doesn’t like abortion votes towards the left (at least at the federal level).
It is rather quite simple. Both parties seem to treat abortion as settled law. And quite frankly, the nation does to. South Dakota – one of the most conservative states in the country? Shot down their choice. Colorado? Heck, what were the numbers – 3 to 1? GOP held the white house all those years…no legislation. In fact, take a look at what the GOP digs their heals in on – is it anything related to abortion? They put up the biggest fuss this last year over unemployment benefits. Their next biggest “dig their heals in” moment is going to being the tax cuts (for the top bracket). The “Pledge to America” – they say they stuck clear of social issues because the economy is number one.
So maybe you haven’t decided as such, but for me, the whole choice of a “pro-life” party is a false choice – I don’t see a party actually doing anything with legislation.
So what are the things that are going to reduce abortions? Biggest statistical one – socio-economic factors. Another one? Access to health care. I simply think the Dems are better in both those areas.
Furthermore, on other issues, from looking at recent history, I simply think the Dems are better in regards to actually balancing a budget and spurring economic growth. Both highly debatable – I know – but that’s my feeling.
So again, for you, you are faced with a “party of death” against a “party of life”.
I don’t see that – I see two parties who have said “here’s what the law is going to be”. Sure, they’ll argue a bit about funding and insurance plans and such – but those things are trivial compared to the bigger issue of actual legality. So while you see this choice that in your mind, when made, means the country is one step closer to eliminating abortion…I just don’t see that as a step.
Again, feel free to put the fancy words and dramatic reasoning aside. It really isn’t that complicated. You see a choice that I don’t believe exists. Case closed.
EGV,
I was explaining the practice of “dumping” to mp. And if you really believe this is done to save the patient money, I’ve got some great ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Quite the charmer you are – I mean, after questioning my Christianity, 1500 words later, you sum it up to the point of near tears.
(*sigh*) Your scoffing at my style is noted and logged.
It is as if you truly think you know me, from viewing about 7 posts a week on an obscure political debate board.
This, from the fellow who ended his post by pleading for an end to fancy words and “dramatic reasoning” (whatever that bizarre phrase means)? I judge your views based on what you wrote; what’s so complex about that? You’ve given ample verbiage for me to analyze, I assure you… and your personal affairs really don’t enter into the matter at all, nor do they need to enter into it.
It’s rather odd – I’d take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your only knowledge of me is a handful of words thrown out in spirited debate. You don’t know my age, state, background, nothing…so really, don’t worry about all this dramatic wrestling and lighten up a little.
Nice attempt at a dodge, friend, but no goal. Is it not patently obvious that I need not know your age (when did I reference that?), your state (what possible relevance would that have?), your background (save that which you told me), and the like, in order to criticize your stated views and their logical implications? You stated your views, and I criticized them as being naive, and rather star-struck by the liberal agenda (to the extent that all other concerns are shoe-horned around it). Nowhere did I accuse you of mass-murder, or grand theft, or kicking puppies on your way to work; I accused your comments of being morally incoherent and wrong-headed, and I see nothing in your reply which changes my analysis in the least.
Go to the main page – it is a pretty political board. Most of the last ten posts are heavy into politics. Most of the debate here is centered on politics. And yet you are shocked that I talk politics.
No… and I told you this already, repeatedly: in general, I couldn’t care less if you talk politics 99% of the time or 1% of the time. What *does* shock me is that, at least per your comments, politics is a prime mover in (and programmer of) your moral compass. Re-read your very last comment, and perhaps you’ll see what I mean: you repeatedly refer to political pragmatism (“hey, it’s legal, and we have to deal with it! I don’t think it’s ever going away!”), and you never (in my sight, anyway) refer to moral principles beyond mere political expediency, sentiments, and personal taste (with the occasional bluster, thrown in). You seem utterly incapable of conceiving that some things need to be fought, even if the battle seems hopeless (which is not even the case, in this instance)… simply because the thing to be fought is intrinsically evil. You’ve “nuanced” yourself into moral knots, and I’m pointing them out.
Again, you also know nothing about the rest of my life, and how little I actually talk politics outside of a couple of boards like this!
Er… EGV, what possible relevance does this have? If you present an abortion-tolerant, Bernadin-esque “seamless garment” approach to morality 100% of the time on this board, then what difference do your other activities and comments make? Unless you’re saying that your comments here weren’t truthful, and they don’t really reflect what you believe?
Remember – I have those kids…not abortions here (though that doesn’t seem good enough still…very odd).
Good, yes. Good enough, no. Think about this reasonably, for a moment: “I didn’t have an abortion, so no one should criticize me if my votes support it!” makes no sense at all. Perhaps you’re not aware of the fact that a failure to kill your children is an obligation, and not a cause for a Nobel Prize? (Well… maybe nowadays, with the standards the Nobel committee has, that might no longer be true… but I digress.) For one who asked me to “temper the rhetoric”, you certainly seem fond of it, yourself; 9 out of every 10 of your comments is a sweeping generalization which is broad enough to be ridiculous.
Let me step back though because you really seem confused as to how somebody who doesn’t like abortion votes towards the left (at least at the federal level).
You seem to have a very short memory. I already told you, many times: I couldn’t care less whether you vote “to the left” on any issue that doesn’t affect non-negotiable moral principles (such as the right to life). You, on the other hand, don’t seem capable of performing any moral calculus beyond raw expediency: “hey, it’s here, it’s legal, it’s portrayed as popular, let’s learn to deal with it”.
It is rather quite simple. Both parties seem to treat abortion as settled law.
You’re talking utter, overgeneralized nonsense, here. Criticize the GOP (as I do) for their lack of action on this point, by all means; but if you seek to equivocate the Dems with the GOP re: their approach to abortion, you’ve gone delusional. Are you seriously suggesting that the worries of NARAL, NOW, Emily’s List, etc., are unfounded, and that a filibuster-proof GOP wouldn’t nominate anti-abortion supreme court justices (and approve anti-abortion judges), for example? You seriously don’t see a difference between “falling short of a supporting the good” and “actively promoting the evil”? This is simple logic, friend… and you don’t seem to have the knack of it, yet.
And quite frankly, the nation does to. South Dakota – one of the most conservative states in the country? Shot down their choice.
Well… doesn’t that show that they’re not “conservative” in that specific regard? And again: this is not a conservative/liberal issue, per se (though liberals largely embrace abortion with both arms); it’s a pro-life issue vs. pro-death issue. What’s your point, anyway? If an initiative fails once or even many times, “the matter’s settled”, in your mind? That’s foolish on its very face.
GOP held the white house all those years…no legislation.
Do you seriously think that legislation can be passed by the “White House” alone? Try telling that to the late Ted Kennedy! But again: if you find abortion to be a moral crime, then it’s utterly incoherent of you to “flee to the arms” of the party which embraces that evil as a “right”. Apparently, you simply don’t consider abortion to be a moral crime… and your verbiage is (among other things) a protracted effort to obfuscate that. Feel free to correct me, if I’ve misrepresented your view (and if you *do* regard abortion as a moral crime)…
In fact, take a look at what the GOP digs their heals in on – is it anything related to abortion? They put up the biggest fuss this last year over unemployment benefits.
All right: enough fluff, EGV. Let’s hear it, right now: is the fight against abortion a top priority for YOU? From everything you’ve ever said, here, the answer seems to be “no”. Correct me if I’m wrong. Otherwise, all your screed against the GOP (for “not being pro-active enough against abortion”) is bizarre, given your comfortable relationship with the abortion party of the USA.
So maybe you haven’t decided as such, but for me, the whole choice of a “pro-life” party is a false choice – I don’t see a party actually doing anything with legislation.
You see what you want to see, apparently. Have you even looked at the Democratic platform? Have you even watched the Democrats muscle through anti-life legislation at every available turn? (How, exactly, does repealing the Mexico City Policy, or fighting for taxpayer-funded abortions, reduce abortions?) If the Democrats worked to outlaw abortion AND worked to help poor families with health needs, I could support and applaud them (though I’d differ with them on methods); but so long as they “champion abortion rights”, you’re blowing foul-smelling smoke, here.
So what are the things that are going to reduce abortions? Biggest statistical one – socio-economic factors. Another one? Access to health care. I simply think the Dems are better in both those areas.
See above. If they changed their planks to outlaw abortion AND work for these things, I would have no complaint at all. I might even join them.
Furthermore, on other issues, from looking at recent history, I simply think the Dems are better in regards to actually balancing a budget and spurring economic growth. Both highly debatable – I know – but that’s my feeling.
And the necessity for supporting abortion while doing this is… what?
So again, for you, you are faced with a “party of death” against a “party of life”.
You see, EGV, I judge the views of people based on what they say, and what they do (as I’ve shown, here). When the Dems say that they champion abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and other pro-death causes, I take that to mean that they support such things, and that they’d pass such things, given the opportunity. You don’t agree?
I don’t see that – I see two parties who have said “here’s what the law is going to be”.
See above, re: fallacious equivocating.
Again, feel free to put the fancy words and dramatic reasoning aside.
(*wry look*) …said the pot to the kettle.
It really isn’t that complicated. You see a choice that I don’t believe exists. Case closed.
I see. You find Democratic support for (and willingness to work hard for) abortion to be irrelevant; you see their ambition for loading the judiciary with liberal, “pro-Roe” judges to be irrelevant. You find federal funding of abortions, and the war against every possible restriction on abortion to be irrelevant.
What more is there to say?
Whoops… caught a typo, a moment too late:
“abortion-tolerant, Bernadin-esque ‘seamless garment’ approach”
…should be:
“abortion-tolerant, Bernardin-esque ‘seamless garment’ approach”
Ex:
First: The links you sent were inconclusive.
Second: If you really want to know the ins and outs of Obamacare you really need to read the Wall Street Journal’s excellent compendium of articles, studies, and op-eds.
Third: You are sarcastic about my comments on charity. I expected that.
Ex:
I feel a need to explain in greater depth the error of your insistence that big government solutions to social issues trump individual responsibility and charity.
Your starting point on Obamacare is based upon an utopian redistributionist philosophy. Many, if not most Americans do not accept the premise that government should be in the business of social welfare.
But first, there are those who have come to expect their share after paying in all these years, and that is an entirely different animal. So please spare us the claptrap about giving up our social security benefits etc.
Here is the main failing of all socialist systems: They eventually collapse under their own weight. Millions become more and more dependent upon the state to provide for an ever increasing spectrum of needs. If you are so enamored with collectivism do not drag the rest of us down–go find a country where you think it works and live there for a year and then come back and report on how well it went. It is said that: “Experience is a dear teacher, but some will learn by none other.”
On a previous thread you suggested that it was our duty as Christians to support Obamacare. How is that? It is a good thing that the majority of your fellow citizens profess belief in our Lord. However, who are you or anyone else to tell the rest of us that an expression of our religious belief must find itself in support of wasteful, inefficient, over-reaching, unfair, excessively expensive government boondoggle programs?
Actually, if you have even read this far this may catch you by surprise: Christians profess to model their lives fundamentally by subscribing to the Ten Commandments. Perhaps you are a Christian as well. You are of course familiar with the tenth commandment: Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods. And yet the premise of Obamacare and all redistributionist fairy tales is based exactly upon the notion that we are to take from those who have and give to those who do not; i.e. coveting our neighbor’s goods.
Friend, you have found a home in the democratic socialist party of the United States. The demsocs have become naked collectivists. If what you want for your kids and your children’s children is the same kind of society that other failed socialist regimes bequeathed to their offspring then by all means continue to go down that path. But at the same time know that the political eruption that you just witnessed is not a fluke and is only the first phase of a grass roots reawakening of those who see in the demsoc party and Obama a real threat to a free America.
Jerry
(and Paladin – I’ll respond later when I have more time)
A couple of thoughts:
– First, “inconclusive” is an excellent way to sum up those polls – the American people aren’t, as you said, in favor of repeal anymore. A few polls show that, and others show the opposite.
– Jerry – I’m not sure I’ve ever said “Christian duty” – but I will say that when people lose their houses to medical bills – and families struggle to make ends meet because of medical bills – anything we as a society can do to help that is a good thing.
Now, you are kicking hard into the whole ‘Socialist’ thing…how are the tax rates of Obama and Reagan different? Both had progressive tax rates. Bush did too…Clinton…Bush Sr….all taxed the wealthy more than the poor and redistributed wealth. So who’s more socialist than others? The GOP expanded Medicare under Bush – taxing people higher and redistributing that money to seniors. Social security has existed all these years…same thing. So why now do we have a socialist label? I don’t see anything really different now?
We’re pretty quick to blindly throw the socialist label out there when it is convenient. Fact is, we’ve always had progressive taxation.
EGV,
No rush. Quite frankly: while I find this particular tete-a-tete *necessary*, since I think you’re in pretty serious error, here, I don’t particularly enjoy it. Only the fact that lives are literally at stake drives me to “enter the fray” like this, at all.
Sorry ex, but the tax rates under Obama are only what they are due to Reagan lowering them from as high as 70% for top brackets and across the board cuts for everyone else. These stimulated economic growth and the creation of 20 million jobs. Bush 2 added another round of cuts that resulted in 7 million jobs. Obama is clueless.
There have been scores of polls showing public disdain for Obamacare. In case you did not know there are always a couple of polls here and there on any issue that show results that claim the opposite. I bet you could find polls that showed the Dems not losing even a fraction of the seats that they just did. Apparently Nancy had read those.
I looked at your links and did not see a significant movement away from the results seen in the majority of polls–hence I see them as inconclusive.
Any student of history can see the movement of Dems into the territory of socialism. That Bush expanded drug coverage for Medicare does not change the fact that the Dems have done many times more. By the way, Bush was wrong on that.
Progressive taxation is one thing, socialism is quite another. In the interest of honesty your Democratic party really should rename themselves as Democratic Socialists.
Jerry –
Yeah, Reagan had great job growth – second only in modern Presidents to Clinton, who saw 23.1 million jobs created and a payroll expansion of 21% (to Reagan’s 17.6 percent). It is unfortunate that debt as a percentage of the GDP has grown so rapidly since the early 80’s – but maybe some job growth will start to bring that back down.
I have seen the polls against Health Care Reform – it has just come down steadily over the last few months – that’s it.
Well timed tax reform is a good thing – Reagan had one of the biggest (or was it the biggest) tax hikes in the history of the country – and the nation not only survived, but as you pointed out, thrived as well.
Paladin – you are right, we can end this quite quickly – you asked:
“Let’s hear it, right now: is the fight against abortion a top priority for YOU?”
Yes – but I only see Christ as the answer – I don’t see Government being able to solve this issue. They don’t care, either party – and that isn’t going to change. The fight is in the hearts and souls of people – and won’t be won through legislation. You scoff that all I’ve done is not had abortions (our family)…well, if everyone followed that lead, we’d not need this debate, would we?
I’m proud of you – i’m glad that you think that maybe, just maybe if the senate gets 60 GOP folks who are actually pro-life, that they could get a few more justices in, and then if a state actually passes legislation – that many years later it could come through and change abortion laws. Well, then we’d have a handful of states without abortion – many with it – we’d traffic people all over the country…but again, I’m glad for you that you think it is possible.
I don’t – thus, I stick to my guns. A big government response won’t win this war. So again, I vote for a party that I think will increase wealth for the largest group of folks who get abortions – and expand insurance, another money crunching scenario that leads people to abortions.
Are there things I hate about their stance? Sure there are. Am I glad that, like the right, not much is ever acted on? Yes.
Don’t worry though – not much of a matter of life and death. Take my vote out for Obama and he still wins by quite a bit. And I did vote for Scott Walker, a GOP governor (ex-gop should really change to be more specific on a federal level…) – so maybe I’m not all lost after all.
“So again, I vote for a party that I think will increase wealth for the largest group of folks who get abortions”
That has to be sarcasm or a typo right?
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Let’s hear it, right now: is the fight against abortion a top priority for YOU?
[EGV]
Yes – but I only see Christ as the answer – I don’t see Government being able to solve this issue.
I’m not sure if you mean “solve” in the pure sense of “completely eradicate, with no exceptions”, or whether you mean “help significantly”. If you mean the first, then of course you’re right… but that proves nothing beyond the fallenness of humanity. (Take the prevalence of rape and murder, despite their illegality, for example.) If you mean the second, then I can only shake my head in disbelief at your answer.
Yes, Christ is certainly the answer. But those words mean something. Christ is the answer, but I still need to prepare my own food and eat it. Christ is the answer, but I still need to do my job well and responsibly, to avoid getting justly fired. “Christ is the answer” is a mere bumper-sticker, unless we apply it rightly.
Let me move that question a step farther: do you think that women should have the legal right to “terminate their pregnancy” through a procured abortion? Set aside the “effectiveness” issue, just for a moment, and focus on the core principle: do you think abortion should be illegal, even if many people freely choose to violate the laws against it? “Change hearts and minds” is not at all incompatible with “make crimes illegal”; in fact, they can dovetail quite nicely.
They don’t care, either party – and that isn’t going to change.
I’m not sure how else to say this: your statement is not only an utter over-generalization to the point of vacuousness (“parties” don’t care about anything, anyway; only the people who are their members can “care”), but it’s nothing more than your own raw, cynical opinion–an expression of despair. (“That’s just the way it is… some things will never change…” -Bruce Hornsby) Pragmatism seems to trump principle, for you. If 10,000,000 starving people could be raised to prosperity and health by tolerating the cold-blooded murder of only one little girl, I really think you might vote for a candidate who supported it. Please prove me wrong.
The fight is in the hearts and souls of people – and won’t be won through legislation.
Perhaps it won’t be “won” in the absolute sense, by legislation (see above). But would you kindly explain to me why you OBJECT to legislation? What harm does it do, in your eyes? If the law prevents even one potential abortionist from following that career path, wouldn’t it be worthwhile? If even one woman lets her baby live because she doesn’t want to risk legal punishment, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Why not do BOTH (change hearts and minds, and pass anti-abortion legislation)? Even if it’s utterly useless (and it wouldn’t be), what harm would it do? I’m really serious about wanting to hear your answer, here… because it may be the crux of our disagreement.
You scoff that all I’ve done is not had abortions (our family)…well, if everyone followed that lead, we’d not need this debate, would we?
I do not scoff at the fact that you’ve not had abortions. I point out the fact that this is a basic requirement of justice, not heroism. I also point out that, whenever you enable a pro-death politician by your vote, you cooperate actively in that evil. I point out that, whenever you defend the “pro-choice” mentality, you mislead people away from the goal of “no abortions” that you claim to honour.
A big government response won’t win this war.
(*blink*) This, from the forum’s primary supporter of Obamacare and neo-Socialism? Be still, my heart…
So again, I vote for a party that I think will increase wealth for the largest group of folks who get abortions – and expand insurance, another money crunching scenario that leads people to abortions.
There are more than a few dozen poverty-stricken countries throughout the world whose members would laugh you off the stage, if you said that to them. “Wealth = no abortions?” You must be joking…
Are there things I hate about their stance? Sure there are. Am I glad that, like the right, not much is ever acted on? Yes.
See, I really get a sort of mental vertigo, when you say things like this. It’s a bit like seeing you watch an incompetent assassin shoot at you (and miss, every time so far) every morning with a high-powered rifle, as you leave for work, and knowing all the while that your next-door neighbour voluntarily gives him ammunition (while personally disapproving of the use to which the assassin puts the ammo, of course). Beyond this, you run into a bumbling fellow at work who keeps promising to fix your broken printer, but never gets around to it. You then think: “You know, I think I prefer the company of my neighbour; not only am I glad that his ammo-giving (though I don’t personally approve) never does much harm, but at least he’s trying to follow through on what he does, and he even volunteers a great deal at the soup kitchen!”
Case in point: how you can look at those who PROMOTE abortion as a “right” (though not as effectively as they might), and equivocate them with those who fail to STOP abortion as well as they should? Is motive completely irrelevant to you? As C.S. Lewis once pointed out: “I am not angry at the man who accidentally trips me up (save perhaps for a moment, until I come to my senses); but I am justly angry at the man who tries to trip me up, even if he does not succeed.” Do you seriously not see the distinction, here?
Don’t worry though – not much of a matter of life and death.
If only that were true, friend.
Take my vote out for Obama and he still wins by quite a bit.
Take out your own choice not to commit abortion, and the abortion total still “wins” by quite a bit, I think. Take your own example, above: if “everyone acted as I [Paladin] did”, Obama would have received 0 votes, yes? You seriously need to break this addiction you have to raw pragmatism…
And I did vote for Scott Walker, a GOP governor (ex-gop should really change to be more specific on a federal level…) – so maybe I’m not all lost after all.
Good! Now, we just need to break you of your addictions to neo-socialism, moral pragmatism, and abortion-tolerance, and you’ll start going toward moral excellence like a house on fire!
Current GOP voter (following vote for Walker):
“Well timed tax reform is a good thing – Reagan had one of the biggest (or was it the biggest) tax hikes in the history of the country…”
The facts:
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced Windfall Profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
Tax Reform Act of 1986
reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
repealed investment tax credit
lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
limited deduction for nonbusiness interest
repealed second earner deduction
limited passive losses
established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
revised corporate minimum tax
repealed sales tax deduction for individuals
set 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions
As you can see most of the above two reforms constituted tax cuts. He wanted even more but never had the cooperation of both houses–a testament to his leadership that he was able to get what he did.
Perhaps you were not around when Carter had us mired in double digit inflation and soaring interest rates. Not only did Reagan have to break the back of inflation, but at the same time had to rebuild the military which had suffered severly under Carter. He did all of this and managed to steer the economy into a job creation machine.
Clinton enjoyed a relatively stable and low inflation economy when he took office–an enviable position. He also benefited from both a world wide glut of oil (hence low energy costs) as well as the “peace dividend”, i.e. lower defense outlays due to the decline of the Soviet empire.
Now if we could only get Obama and his coterie of collectivists and utopian dreamers to see the destructiveness of their policies. That will not happen of course because Obama is an ideologue and a narcissicist. Look for him to become increasingly combative and isolated.
Jerry – a couple other thoughts:
When Reagan came in, the deficit was 2.6% of the GDP. In 83, it hit 6%, and was in the 5% range for a couple of years. Deficit is 9% this year of the GDP.
In 82 and 84, tax increases went through – huge ones in regards to revenue.
Regardless, both Reagan and Clinton produced huge amounts of jobs. Bush was a failure in that regard, but it appears that we’ve turned that boat around. Hopefully, it won’t take too many years to recoup those losses.
Paladin –
If I were supreme dictator of this land, abortion would be illegal. I’d make a heck of a lot of other changes as well, but to answer your one question, yes – abortion is something that I don’t think we should tolerate as a society.
Now, the GOP does. So does the Democrats. And I still contend that won’t change. Pro-life numbers are as high as they’ve ever been, yet top ranking folks all over the place made a point to say social issues aren’t an issue – economy is what will be attacked. What made it in the “pledge”? A little statement about funding – they’re okay with it as long as they personally don’t have to pay.
You do a good job hacking up my statements for quick little phrases you can jump on, but what is the end game? You skipped that part. Your argument is essentially I should throw away all over personal convictions in regards to the two political parties, and vote blindly for the GOP in hopes that they can get 60 senators who then pass through any sort of supreme court justice that they want – and then, find a state willing to pass abortion laws…at that point, we’ll then have a few more states pass through laws (yet we all know others won’t). We can spend millions and millions in the legal fight to redraw the lines of where abortion is and isn’t legal, all while women traffic across state lines to get abortions. That, my friend, is what I should cast aside all my other convictions for? The small chance that one day, a political party that hasn’t given a damn for years might change their mind?
Sorry – just doesn’t make much sense to me. In the mean time, while waiting for this moment of clarity that again, the GOP hasn’t had for decades – I’m going to sit and watch them block unemployment for families, cut health care for kids, break up families of illegal immigrants, and bomb country after country? Not going to happen.
EGV,
I really don’t know whether you genuinely have a short memory, whether you simply don’t understand what I’ve written (repeatedly), or whether you’re willfully ignoring my repeated comments to this effect, but: let me try to say this, as cleary as possible, yet again:
I couldn’t care less if you vote GOP or not!!! Just stop voting for pro-abortion politicians!!! Vote Constitution Party. Write in “Mickey Mouse”. Leave that particular race blank. Stay home during the election, and watch an old episode of “Brady Bunch”, if you must. Just stop voting pro-abortion!!! (And yes, in case there’s any doubt in your mind: that does include Obama.)
You seem to have settled on the idea that “pro-life = shill for the ‘GOP, right or wrong’ club”. That’s quite obviously your raw, personal (and somewhat paranoid-sounding) opinion. I’ve flatly denied your assumption (regarding me, at any rate) numerous times… and I don’t know what else will convince you, if you refuse to believe me.
Does that clarify, FINALLY?
EGV,
Re: your comments about elections: surely you realize that pro-lifers will vote pro-life in the STATE races, as well as in the federal elections? Certainly, it’s vital that pro-life (i.e. sane) people be placed on the SCOTUS and other federal judicial seats; but can’t you imagine that we’re also working to reform the state governments, as well?
You might also think that “pro-life” and “GOP” are inextricably wedded, in the eyes of pro-lifers. Not so. I know of no pro-lifer who would, for example, have voted for Arlen Specter over Zell Miller (in a hypothetical run-off). But the fact that the Dems have embraced “abortion as a right, here and abroad” really is a significant factor, EGV; and I can’t fathom why you don’t think so.
You criticize people for allegedly putting “party over principle”; but is it really more reasonable for you to put “anti-party over principle”?
Catching up on a few loose ends.
Ex:
“Bush was a failure in that regard, but it appears that we’ve turned that boat around.”
The latest job loss estimates under Obama are around 4 million lost since he took office. He turned it around alright, but in the wrong direction.
Ex:
“… but I will say that when people lose their houses to medical bills – and families struggle to make ends meet because of medical bills – anything we as a society can do to help that is a good thing.”
and…
“But you say costs are out of control because we add too many people? So is the response you are suggestion to ration health care? Seems to be. ”
That is what safety nets are for. Obamacare is far more than that. I think what you said, if applied to homeless people and foreclosures, that you would be in favor of allowing people to stay in foreclosed homes indefinitely, and people who have run out of unemployment to stay on until they found a job, and people who have run out of food stamps to receive additional monies so that they don’t run out of food…and so on. This, my friend, is unsustainable and will drive our country, the country you will be handing over to your beautiful children, into insolvency. You chided my suggestion that those who can should contribute to charity to address these problems, but short of a booming economy with jobs galore in the end that is the only workable solution.
As for rationing, that is exactly what Obamacare proposed as the solution for rising health costs. To be against Obamacare is to be against rationing.
Ex:
“Well, I could give you a break down of my insurances rates from 2005 through 2009 until I got a different job – you can be the judge of how well my costs were under control before health care reform.”
I have two solutions for this problem: One, you can purchase additional insurance to cover the shortfalls in your coverage. The other: you can support common sense reforms.
A reminder: no one is against health care reform. Obamacare is much more than reform…it is the takeover of 1/7 of our economy. You should not support Obamacare. It involves an incredible runup in bureaucracy–something like another 115 new agencies. It involves reaching into personal health care issues on a larger scale than ever before by any level of government. It involves assigning dictatorial powers over health care issues that affect us and our loved ones to the director of HHS, taking many decisions away from families and giving arbitrary powers to the state. (There is NO QUESTION that had Obamacare been in full swing when my elderly mother took ill that she would not have received the expensive life saving care that she did). It involves the establishment of appointed boards that will have carte blanche powers in setting directives and limits to how much care some of the sickest and most frail people will get. Again…Obamacare is all about rationing and that is the principle reason it must be repealed.
By the way..what part of the great state of Wisconsin are you from?
Jerry wrote, in reply to EGV,
By the way..what part of the great state of Wisconsin are you from?
Y’know, that’s a point! I wonder what the chances are of you being a next-door neighbour, EGV (being a cheddar-head, myself)…
Given your political leanings, I might guess Madison, Milwaukee, or the Appleton area, but the possibilities are vast…
Jerry – I think we’re wrapping up here – I’m guessing we could have a great conversation over a Spotted Cow (by the way, I’m in Ron Kind’s district), and like a lot of conversations I have with friends who lean right, I’d have fun, but we probably wouldn’t find much common ground.
I couldn’t find a year by year job creation total for past Presidents, but after two years of Reagan, unemployment had gone way higher as well. I know their policies for recovery differ – but the one thing that I think we can both agree on is that they were deal terrible hands coming in (from an economic standpoint). Reagan did turn it around with the help of wise tax cuts and deficit spending. We’ll see what the numbers look like in the economy in another few years.
On our healthcare numbers – saw an increase of about 40% in premiums while raising our deductible from $500/person to $3K a person. Again, we disagree on the solutions – but I think we can agree that by 2008, we had a massive health care issue in this country. I believe it needed massive reform, like we saw. You don’t. Again, we’ll see how things go. Quite frankly, if they don’t fix something, we’ll all be in real trouble.
You speak of government involvement…right now, just substitute government for insurance companies. Kick kids off of coverage? Sure. Deny pre-existing conditions? Great. What you fear from the government is what has gone on for years from insurance companies. Pick your poison sir!
Again – we could go on for years and we’ll disagree on the fundamentals of fixing health care and the economy – I’m just glad that the issue is being talked after years of being ignored.
Paladin –
You end with a compelling question regarding putting party over principal. Early, you stated (boldly, quite literally), “Just stop voting for pro-abortion politicians”
And here’s is where I’ll sum it up again. I no longer consider a politician’s abortion stance. There, I said it.
They don’t act on it anyways. Maybe a funding bill here or there – but the fundamental pillars of abortion haven’t even been put up for vote. Heck, before this election, most politicians said social issues weren’t even a consideration at this point.
So I’m not going to reduce my vote down to a single issue, especially one that isn’t going to see significant legislation one way or another. If a party ever comes up with a cute little pledge before the election and says, “yes, we’ll introduce a bill to ban abortion” – that would certainly wake me up.
But right now, what are the parties truly fighting for…what are they really digging in their heals on? That is what they value. And sorry, it ain’t abortion.
By the way, where in WI are you two at?
I’m in Ron Kind’s district.
Wish it were Dan Kapanke’s district.
EGV wrote:
You end with a compelling question regarding putting party over principal. Early, you stated (boldly, quite literally), “Just stop voting for pro-abortion politicians”. And here’s is where I’ll sum it up again. I no longer consider a politician’s abortion stance. There, I said it.
You did. I’ll address how unwise that is, below… but I appreciate the candour and clarity, at any rate.
They don’t act on it anyways.
(*sigh*) I really do wonder, sometimes, if you took some sort of “social artistry” college course called “Painting With a Broad Brush, 101”. Let’s ignore the Republican Party, for the moment (which, as I mentioned, I have no vested interest in supporting, per se), and focus on some specifics re: your claim that the Democrats “don’t act on [their pro-abortion principles], anyway”:
1) Are you aware of the fact that the so-called “Mexico City Policy”, which prohibited USAID money from being given to non-government organizations which promoted abortion overseas, was rescinded by Obama (for whom you voted)?
2) Are you aware of the fact that the “Health Care Reform” act which you esteem does, in fact, expand taxpayer funding for abortions significantly… and that such a fact has been admitted even by Kathleen Sebelius (who admitted that Obama’s subsequent executive order did nothing to change this fact)? Democrats, for whom you voted, pushed that legislation through Congress, and a Democrat (for whom you voted) signed it into law.
3) Are you aware of the fact that, in 2009, Obama (for whom you voted) lifted President Bush’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), which operates exclusively on the deaths of unborn children, and mandated its continuance through taxpayer funds?
4) Are you aware of the fact that, rather than appointing a pro-life justice to replace the die-hard pro-abort justice John Paul Stevens, he appointed the pro-abortion Elena Kagan, whose support for upholding Roe v. Wade is unquestioned by both parties?
5) Are you aware of the fact that Obama has appointed a virtual 100%-pure list of pro-abort staff members and cabinet members, including Hillary Clinton (whose job is to lobby other countries) and Kathleen Sebelius (who is secretary of Health and Human Services, which is intimately involved with government vs. abortion issues)
6) Are you aware of the fact that Obama actively worked to dismantle conscience protections for pro-life doctors (who would otherwise be forced to perform abortions, on pain of dismissal or worse)?
7) Are you aware that Obama signed taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia into law?
8 ) Are you aware that Obama ordered all military bases to stock the abortifacient “morning-after” pill, and that Obama is currently fighting to require taxpayer-funded abortions on military bases?
Perhaps that will do, for starters… ignoring the President’s “bully pulpit” influence and other less tangible efforts. Do you see, now, how your vote contributed to that?
Before you start with the red-herring-esque: “But I only had one vote; he would have won without my vote!”… I’m talking exclusively about your own morality, your own moral code, and your own stated opposition to abortion. That “one vote” made a hell of a difference (pun intended) for YOU. Had you openly tried to hire an assassin to kill your wife, and been thwarted (easily), would it make sense for you to claim, “But nothing happened; there was no reasonable chance that it would ever succeed!”…? The point is that YOU TRIED. Several million people made the same wretched choice to vote for Obama that you did… and you can now see the results. Obama has not been inert in pushing pro-death initiatives whenever he had the chance; you’ve just been oblivious to them, or minimized them for polemical reasons.
Maybe a funding bill here or there
…or a multi-trillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded, abortion-enabling law, here or there… or a pro-death executive order, here or there… or a pro-death judicial or administrative appointment, here or there. It’s rather striking how a few of these “here or theres” add up, isn’t it?
– but the fundamental pillars of abortion haven’t even been put up for vote.
And you persist in thinking that “a vote” is the ONLY venue by which these matters are addressed? You can’t possibly be that naive (or ignorant of civics).
Heck, before this election, most politicians said social issues weren’t even a consideration at this point.
(*sigh*) To quote Ronald Reagan: “There you go, again!” You have an inexorable habit of starting with an uncertain proposition or idea, making other uncertainties contingent on it, and then present the finished product as if it were established fact. Hint: if you have multiple contingencies like that, the probability of the outcome DECREASES with each uncertainty that you append (try multiplying lots of numbers greater than zero, but less than one, and see what happens). You throw about qualifiers such as “many”, “most”, “practically no”, etc. (I’ll pass over your uses of “all” and “no”, which were simply, flat-out wrong), with no certain connection to reality (or even inter-dependence); and that simply won’t do.
So I’m not going to reduce my vote down to a single issue,
You must have missed the first hundred (or so) discussions about “single-issue voting” on this forum; let me summarize:
Pro-lifers are not “single-issue” voters in the sense that nothing else matters to them (i.e. if the two candidates are pro-life, pro-lifers would be so baffled at the choice that they’d need to flip a coin). Pro-lifers ARE “single-issue” voters in the sense that “pro-abortion” is a deal-breaker for them (as is pro-rape, pro-slavery, and the like–though the latter isn’t as popular in the USA as it once was).
especially one that isn’t going to see significant legislation one way or another.
Tell me honestly, EGV: how many times, in your LIFE, have you ever contacted your elected representative (or either party) to urge them to support pro-life, anti-abortion initiatives? And yet, they still kept getting your vote, somehow.
If a party ever comes up with a cute little pledge before the election and says, “yes, we’ll introduce a bill to ban abortion” – that would certainly wake me up.
By “wake up”, do you mean “get you to support it”, or does it mean “motivate you to scoff at it, as an unrealistic fight against the current political climate?”
But right now, what are the parties truly fighting for…what are they really digging in their heals on?
In addition to “broad brush”, you might also want to look up the term, “reductionism”. For you to criticize other people as “one-issue” voters, and then turn around with a proclamation of “What are the parties truly fighting for?”, is thoughtless, at best. The parties are “fighting” for a plenitude of things (some good, some bad, some rational, some mutually exclusive), not just one thing.
That is what they value. And sorry, it ain’t abortion.
Your reductionist, broad-brush opinion is noted and logged. For someone who aspires to nuance, you have a lot of ‘splaining to do… :)
P.S. I’m in (Deo Gratias!) Rep-elect Sean Duffy’s district, still praying daily for Dave Obey’s conversion.
Carla and Ex: Ron Kind’s district. Make that three: I am as well, at least for part of the year–about 45 minutes north of LaCrosse. Paladin…southern part of Sean’s district?
Ex:
“Again – we could go on for years and we’ll disagree on the fundamentals of fixing health care and the economy – I’m just glad that the issue is being talked after years of being ignored.”
If I get your drift you seem to be saying that we must have some kind of gov involvement in the distribution of health care benefits. However with Obamacare it goes WAY BEYOND just some involvement–it actually takes away health care decisions from you. I do not know about you, but if it is my loved one that needs care I sure as h do not want bureaucrats (think DMV) saying what goes and what does not. At least if an insurance comp drops you there are options–but when the gov drops you there are no options. I do not want that for my loved ones and I suspect you do not as well.
Obamacare is a travesty. Someone said that health care is never so expensive as when it is free. The HUGE bureacratic nightmare awaits us all!!
Paladin –
Sorry – Still massively unchanged.
First off, quick hint – in 99% of elections, there are two parties with a chance to win. If a single issue is a “deal-breaker” for you, you are a single issue voter.
I won’t be a single issue voter.
Come on – not even all pro-lifers like the Mexico City Policy – you paint too broad of a brush (only bans funding if a place uses abortion as “family planning” – not in all cases) on your explanation. Furthermore, some folks say it leads to more abortions because of decrease contraceptive use.
And the Supreme Court justice – probably your best argument – but now you’re reduced to the “best case” argument I’ve presented a few times…which is about a 20 year plan to cause mass chaos.
Again though – the rest of your examples result to moving deck furniture – sure, funding here and there – but no game changers.
Best case – if the pre-born babies became millionaires. I mean, the one thing the right seems willing to dig their heals in on is the tax cuts for the wealthy (oh yeah, and halting unemployment checks). In that case, the GOP would be willing to draw the line. Everything else though – they’re okay compromising on…so again, I look at other issues.
Sorry to disappoint you – I’m just going to go for expanded healthcare over fake promises of abortion change on any day of the week.
Jerry – what specific decisions will be taken away from me?
Furthermore, what options do you have if insurance drops you now that you wouldn’t have if the government dropped you – and what plan are you even talking about? Some fake public option that doesn’t exist?
I’m a bit surprised quite frankly – I would think a conservative such as yourself would be happy with cost control methods, minimum spending on actual care, paying for value over running up tests… it is a bit surprising to see conservatives arguing for a higher deficit, reckless spending, less coverage, and no real plan to change things. Okay with the status quo. Crazy.
EGV wrote:
Sorry – Still massively unchanged.
Colour me unsurprised…
First off, quick hint – in 99% of elections, there are two parties with a chance to win. If a single issue is a “deal-breaker” for you, you are a single issue voter.
Again: yes, and no. Perhaps you missed the earlier thread where we distinguished between “necessary” and “sufficient”. It is necessary for a candidate to be pro-life, in order for him/her to get my vote; but it is not sufficient. A pro-life candidate who’s actively in support of homosexual marriage, for example, would (save for extraordinary circumstances) lose my vote. As another example: if two pro-life candidates are running against each other, neither one is disqualified on the basis of that; but you’d be dreaming if you thought I was unconcerned with anything else! No… rest assured that I consider many other issues, once the “non-negotiables” are cleared.
As for your apparent disdain and disparagement of “single-issue voting” (you *did* mean to disparage it as being “beneath you”, right?): are you seriously telling me that you have no “deal-breakers” of your own, when considering candidates? You’d vote for another Dr. Mengele, provided that his position on social security (and other pet issues) met with your approval? I realize that “scoffing at single-issue voters” helps some to feel erudite and superior… but they’re blowing mere smoke, if there exists positions (no matter how foul) which would disqualify them from your vote.
I won’t be a single issue voter.
See above. You already are, unless you’re completely and utterly amoral (which you aren’t).
Come on – not even all pro-lifers like the Mexico City Policy
What possible difference does that make? It’s explicitly designed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions, overseas; and anyone who wants it repealed is, by that very fact, acting to make taxpayer-funded abortion more available. This isn’t a popularity contest; we’re talking principles, not polls.
– you paint too broad of a brush (only bans funding if a place uses abortion as “family planning” – not in all cases) on your explanation.
Could you cite a reference for that interpretation? None of the versions of the Mexico City Policy (under Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43) say anything of the sort, in my reading.
Also: you really might try not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, sometime. The policy hurt nothing except abortion providers; and if you criticize it for being imperfect, I can hardly imagine why you think its absence would be any better. Care to explain?
Furthermore, some folks say it leads to more abortions because of decrease contraceptive use.
“Some folks say”? That’s compelling! Perhaps you could offer something a bit less tenuous? Even your own position of making all abortions illegal if you “were supreme dictator of this land” has been criticized for “encouraging abortions” (by piquing those who are offended by the seeming “lack of freedom”) and merely driving it underground; but such criticism is equally spurious.
And the Supreme Court justice – probably your best argument – but now you’re reduced to the “best case” argument I’ve presented a few times…which is about a 20 year plan to cause mass chaos.
Can you seriously not see that you’ve presented a raw opinion, here… and a sqeeping, equivocation-laden one, as well? How is this different from a simple, bold statement of, “Aaah, that’s just a bunch o’ garbage”…?
Again though – the rest of your examples result to moving deck furniture – sure, funding here and there – but no game changers.
Well, then! So long as you feel empowered to dismiss it so summarily… (*ahem!*)
Care to try again with *reasoning*, this time, rather than with flippant labels and outright dismissal?
Best case – if the pre-born babies became millionaires.
Jerry was right: you really seem to trot out the sarcasm in order to dismiss your opponents’ arguments, rather than reply to them with logic. Care to reconsider that tactic? It certainly isn’t logical, and it makes it more difficult to take your arguments seriously.
Everything else though – they’re okay compromising on…so again, I look at other issues.
“They”, again. (*sigh*) I assume you mean “GOP”? Didn’t I just get done saying, over and over (and in bold print), how irrelevant I find that, regarding this specific issue? Your slogan: “They didn’t do it right, so I’ll join those who do it wrongly and boldly!” is sheer insanity. You can’t seriously mean it.
Sorry to disappoint you – I’m just going to go for expanded healthcare over fake promises of abortion change on any day of the week.
Rhetorical content: high. Logical content: nearly zero. Read this again, and tell me what of this is not mere opinion (and sweeping generalization, at that).
Ex:
“Okay with the status quo.”
Where did I ever say that? I have consistently trumpeted the need for reform. However, reform is one thing, Obamacare is quite another.
With private insurance when disputes arise on coverages there are appeal procedures, usually ending up in some kind of hearings/mediation and maybe even an arbitration or court action. On the other hand with big gov it takes an act of congress to change something. What would happen for example if insurance companies were to suddenly start not paying for heart valve replacements on anyone over 80. Right now there are procedures in place to counter that. However if big gov decided that was the way it was going to be it would much harder to overcome that.
“Jerry – what specific decisions will be taken away from me?”
Because we do not have the directives from the agencies that have yet to be established and staffed what we go on is the experience of similar programs in other countries with gov health care. Based on that we do not want to subject the well being of our loved ones to these types. The 115 plus new agencies will not be sitting on their hands. The immense powers granted to the head of HHS will not be unused. All of these things point to an exercise of control over doctors and health care institutions that are not currently in play.
Because we can think forward through this, because we are grounded in the reality of how bureacracies function, and because we do not go through life with pollyanna-ish rose colored glasses on we can assign with relative certainty how these programs will be implemented.