Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread [Archive]

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 01:46 PM

I am politically on the RIGHT. I did not come on this thread to fight. However, I do have one question, how is it possible for a Christian to support a candidate that is pro abortion?

Great question bro, can you find a "Pro-Abortion" candidate?

There is a difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion. One can believe abortion is absolutely wrong, a terrible moral evil, but not believe that it’s the role of Government to address it. For example, let’s say we ban abortion today. If a woman procures an abortion tomorrow what will be the penalty? If we classify it as murder we must try her and any assisting medical professional with murder. Sentence them to execution or life in prison. But that will not fly. So we suggest taking the license of a doctor (most abortionists aren’t licensed) and fine a woman. Great, life is reduced to the value of a parking ticket or moving violation. Anything short of trying her and the medical professional with first degree murder is an injustice. Or…we can look at the situation as the SCOTUS has. It’s primarily an issue the government isn’t tasked to address. It’s a grave social evil but there isn’t a political answer.

Find me a politician that believes women who procure abortion should be tried for murder and I’ll consider it. Until then, it’s an issue that doesn’t have a political answer.

Another way to look at it is to compare it to the rest of the world. Belgium is a very pro-choice liberal nation but has had one of the lowest (if not the lowest) abortion rate in the world. Chile serves as a good example of a nation that had some very strict abortion law. Their abortion rate was one of the highest in the world.

Those were just examples. There are many more. Why is it that so many liberal pro-choice nations have lower abortion rates than nearly every deeply conservative pro-life nation?

Well think about this…in Belgium child care is subsidized, national health insurance, struggling single mothers can receive assistance with paying rent and utilities. Women know they can raise a child well. In America a young woman has a crisis pregnancy or an unexpected pregnancy doesn’t know where help will come from. And frankly, there isn’t much help out there. How will she get health insurance for her and her child? Afford child care? Keep her job? It’s all very terrifying for those women in those circumstances. So they give in to fear and choose to abort. The CDC reported that 2 out of every 3 abortions in the US were procured by women living under poverty level who stated economic hardship was the primary reason for seeking abortion. Frankly, Satan convinced them to abort because there isn’t a family friendly social infrastructure in the US like there is in Belgium. That’s why our abortion rate is nearly triple that found in Belgium. Progressives often see the issue of abortion as the byproduct of non-progressive social policy. They intend to reduce abortion by addressing the needs and issues that women face (health care, child care, education, living wage, and job security).

Besides, most Republican politicians don’t care a bit about abortion. They want to keep the issue alive to manipulate our religious values to corner us into voting for them. Frankly, like good capitalists…they’re capitalizing on the issue of abortion and playing lip service to the Pro-Life position.

It’s an issue that isn’t going away. Address the issues women face and do more than moralize. That will reduce the rate of abortion and save lives. That's the progressive approach. It's working in other countries...it can work here too. We just have to have the will to do it. Or we can argue over it for another thirty years while abortion rates stay where they are or go higher.

Lastly, they'll never tell you this...but the Democrats submitted a plan aimed at reducing the abortion rate in the United States by 95% in 10% known as the 95-10 Initiative. The Republican congress locked arms with leftwing Pro-Choice Democrats and sidelined it.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 01:50 PM

I think the term "progressive" is just double speak for liberal. And there's nothing progressive about liberalism. And neither is there any room for Christianity in liberalism. It's all about replacing God ordained roles with government ordained ones. In the church of liberalism, government is god.

Let me educate you then bro. LOL

A progressive is more centrist and favors a mixed economy. A liberal is closer to socialist.

And as for Government...like marriage...it's an institution ordained by God, read Romans 13.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 01:59 PM

I love ya too Ferd. LOL I think it takes both sides to meet in the middle. An extreme in either direction would be bad for the nation.

bishopnl

01-04-2008, 02:00 PM

Or…we can look at the situation as the SCOTUS has. It’s primarily an issue the government isn’t tasked to address.

Chris, I'm sorry, but that's not the position SCOTUS took. To say so either means you don't know what position SCOTUS takes, or you are willing to obfuscate their position.

The fact is, SCOTUS's position is that abortion, under the Constitution, is a right PROTECTED by the government. Prior to Roe v. Wade, state governments had the power to ban abortion...prior to Connecticut v. Griswold, even the "right to privacy" wasn't protected by the Constitution. The fact is that Roe v. Wade simply said that if state governments were going to ban abortion, then the federal government was going to PROTECT it. It took a heretofore unrecognized right and placed it under the protection of the Constitution.

And further, liberal candidates may say they are "pro-choice"...but the fact that federal funds go to abortion advocacy groups shows that they don't have any problem with the federal government interfering in the issue of abortion....just not limiting it.

bishopnl

01-04-2008, 02:04 PM

Let me educate you then bro. LOL

A progressive is more centrist and favors a mixed economy. A liberal is closer to socialist.

And as for Government...like marriage...it's an institution ordained by God, read Romans 13.

Your education system, like the Department of Education, is sadly lacking. It cannot call a spade a spade. ;)

As for government...yes, it is ordained by God. It has it's place, and the church has it's place. And the government isn't supposed to take the place of the church...read Acts 6. That's why conservatives want limited government...government in it's God ordained place. We don't advocate anarchy.

BoredOutOfMyMind

01-04-2008, 02:09 PM

ChristopherHall> If you want European Health Care and European Socialism- simply move to Belgium

Do you think for even one half a second anyone in America thinks a hoot about what party is in power. They are disgusted with a Democratic party that moved so far left it abandoned it's own base. They are digusted with the GOP given a mandate in 1994 that is a dismal failure. Instead of shrinking Government, they have grown it to exceed what LBJ did with the Great Society of the late 60's. But instead of thought, they are hypnotized by the **** tube and some girly man telling them what to say and do. To top it off, antics like algore pulled in Florida and the debauchery of "hanging chad" cause more apathy. They will simply stay home and we get a mess like we have never seen before.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 02:41 PM

Bishop, you wrote some good stuff, I just think it needs to be developed better.

I do believe that liberalism, at it's core, is about greed. That doesn't mean everyone who suscribes to it is greedy...some people, apparently you included, honestly believe it's purported good intentions.

In all honesty, politics is a very worldly system and both liberalism and conservatism are fueled by greed. Some good well meaning folks are on both sides, but in all honesty the system is very corrupt. I think the best thing for the Republicans, and our nation, will be to spank the Republicans in the general election. They’ve lost their way, they spend worse than liberals, and jump at war as a first resort. Kennedy had hard evidence of WMDs pointed right at us and used military strength and diplomacy without waging pre-emptive war. Bush rushed blindly into a war he was repeatedly advised against. And don’t get me started on no-bid contracts that are allowing war profiteers to milk the national treasury dry. War is bidness…and bidness is good. They don’t care if it was necessary or not. Don’t reward the Republicans for nearly ruining our nation. Punish them, it will make them better in the long run. The Democrats will jump like boyscouts to do good by the American people and be more responsive to what the people they represent desire…until maybe the second term or the next Democratic Presidency. Then the Democrats will need a good whippin’ and by then hopefully the Republicans will have learned their lessons.

I firmly believe that to be sold out to a body politic and it’s philosophy is foolish. Times change and we need to adapt to survive. Sometimes a rough and tumble un-regulated economy is good for us…then we need to tighten the reigns and bring those horses back under control for a while. It’s always in a state of flux, it’s dynamic not static. What happens is we foolishly pick sides and then become mindless followers. Frankly, I believe if the Antichrist is an American President he will be a Republican. Why? Well, he knows Christians will vote for the devil himself if he’s a card carrying, pro-life, Republican. ;)

As for you not being a socialist: Maybe not a pure socialist...but wealth redistribution, government control, and heavy progressive taxation are all hallmarks of socialistic systems. A rose by any other name would smell as...well, not sweet, but I'm sure you understand my point.

Do you believe a person can be socially conditioned to the point that any mention of regulation or taxation rings of socialism? I do…I see it all the time. Sometimes I have to step up and confront a company for overcharging or not meeting governmental standards and guess what…they call me a socialist. Good grief. Whiny free-market monkeys just don’t get it. No…you can’t dump that there, we need that water. I don’t care how many of YOUR experts say it’s cool. And no…we’re not going to buy your snake oil chemical to reduce odor at wastewater, our chemists have shown that you’re chemical doesn’t meet standards and frankly…will not work for us. They virtually refuse to be refused…then they go buddy up to some politician and get the contract that way. Then five years later here we are…the chemical didn’t meet standards and has actually done some damage to the local ecology. Then we try to get them to make things right according to the contract and then they call us…”Socialists!” Get real dude. I just want my son to be able to fish in clean water man, back off. Hey, let your kid go play in your chemicals. LOL Man, I could tell you stories…and we deal with relatively smaller companies. Imagine what multibillion dollar companies try to get by with. Those incidents are documented too if you’re interested and want to look them up.

Anyway, my point is that both conservatism and liberalism is about greed…that’s the nature of things on planet earth man. Get out more if you don’t believe me. The goal is to have as many good folks in both parties at least some good is done.

Frankly, Chris, I hate liberalism. Call me unChristian, a jerk, whatever. I believe liberalism is a destructive and humanistic philosophy that encourages reliance on man and not on God.

This is only an example to illustrate my above point:

“Frankly, Chris, I dislike conservatism. Call me unChristian, a jerk, whatever. I believe conservatism is a destructive and social Darwinist philosophy that encourages reliance on the power of money and not on God.”

I don’t hate conservatism or liberalism. I see it like driving a car. You’re not going to get very far if you only make right turns. Sometimes a left turn is in order and sometimes a right turn is in order. As we drive this country through history occasionally we’ll need to make some left turns.

As for other nations being more "progressive" than us...America is the most powerful and richest nation on earth.

But our people don’t live as long or have as many perks for living here as in other countries. Visit Britain, France, Norway, or even Canada. I enjoy Canada, my wife and I go up there every year for vacation. I get to meet some good people and talk about international politics. Sometimes I’m embarrassed because they just wonder when we’ll get it together and move into the modern era.

People spend years trying to get into this country.

From Mexico, South America, and third world countries maybe. But most Canadians aren’t lining up to come south, and most Europeans enjoy visiting but wouldn’t want to live here. We can find an international or European forum and talk with some European or Canadians if you like. The internet is indeed a wonderful thing.

So what in the world makes you believe other countries have it better than we do?

I’m going to assume you honestly don’t know. Bro….I mean this with all due respect, you need to stop chanting, “We’re #1!”, and study up a bit on that one. You’ll be shocked.

Because their people can wait in line for a year or so for critical surgery at the hands of incompetent physicians, but the government pays for it so they are better?

That’s a myth bro. I know of a Canadian who knows of one case of anyone waiting for a procedure, an MRI in this case, and it was because it was non-life threatening. They gave the man time off work with a percent of his wages and some real nice pain killers until the procedure. I’ve been to Canada, talked to Canadians, and even a few Europeans. I guess you could say I’ve had my own personal “Sicko” experience. LOL That’s why I’m so passionate about it and can’t deny it. Been there, seen it, talked with the folks, yadda, yadda, yadda. Bro, myths prevail and the wise search out the truth in a matter.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 02:43 PM

ChristopherHall> If you want European Health Care and European Socialism- simply move to Belgium

Do you think for even one half a second anyone in America thinks a hoot about what party is in power. They are disgusted with a Democratic party that moved so far left it abandoned it's own base. They are digusted with the GOP given a mandate in 1994 that is a dismal failure. Instead of shrinking Government, they have grown it to exceed what LBJ did with the Great Society of the late 60's. But instead of thought, they are hypnotized by the boob tube and some girly man telling them what to say and do. To top it off, antics like algore pulled in Florida and the debauchery of "hanging chad" cause more apathy. They will simply stay home and we get a mess like we have never seen before.

I take it you had a bad experience in Europe? LOL

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 02:44 PM

Chris, I'm sorry, but that's not the position SCOTUS took. To say so either means you don't know what position SCOTUS takes, or you are willing to obfuscate their position.

The fact is, SCOTUS's position is that abortion, under the Constitution, is a right PROTECTED by the government. Prior to Roe v. Wade, state governments had the power to ban abortion...prior to Connecticut v. Griswold, even the "right to privacy" wasn't protected by the Constitution. The fact is that Roe v. Wade simply said that if state governments were going to ban abortion, then the federal government was going to PROTECT it. It took a heretofore unrecognized right and placed it under the protection of the Constitution.

And further, liberal candidates may say they are "pro-choice"...but the fact that federal funds go to abortion advocacy groups shows that they don't have any problem with the federal government interfering in the issue of abortion....just not limiting it.

You know there have been more court cases about abortion than Roe v. Wade right? lol

bishopnl

01-04-2008, 02:57 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to respond to all that right now...maybe over the weekend if I get a chance.

You know there have been more court cases about abortion than Roe v. Wade right? lol

Yes, I know. I'm just concerned that since you don't seem to understand the defining one, there's not much point in discussing any of the others.

LordChocolate

01-04-2008, 03:17 PM

Great question bro, can you find a "Pro-Abortion" candidate?

There is a difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion. One can believe abortion is absolutely wrong, a terrible moral evil, but not believe that it’s the role of Government to address it. For example, let’s say we ban abortion today. If a woman procures an abortion tomorrow what will be the penalty? If we classify it as murder we must try her and any assisting medical professional with murder. Sentence them to execution or life in prison. But that will not fly. So we suggest taking the license of a doctor (most abortionists aren’t licensed) and fine a woman. Great, life is reduced to the value of a parking ticket or moving violation. Anything short of trying her and the medical professional with first degree murder is an injustice. Or…we can look at the situation as the SCOTUS has. It’s primarily an issue the government isn’t tasked to address. It’s a grave social evil but there isn’t a political answer.

Find me a politician that believes women who procure abortion should be tried for murder and I’ll consider it. Until then, it’s an issue that doesn’t have a political answer.

Another way to look at it is to compare it to the rest of the world. Belgium is a very pro-choice liberal nation but has had one of the lowest (if not the lowest) abortion rate in the world. Chile serves as a good example of a nation that had some very strict abortion law. Their abortion rate was one of the highest in the world.

Those were just examples. There are many more. Why is it that so many liberal pro-choice nations have lower abortion rates than nearly every deeply conservative pro-life nation?

Well think about this…in Belgium child care is subsidized, national health insurance, struggling single mothers can receive assistance with paying rent and utilities. Women know they can raise a child well. In America a young woman has a crisis pregnancy or an unexpected pregnancy doesn’t know where help will come from. And frankly, there isn’t much help out there. How will she get health insurance for her and her child? Afford child care? Keep her job? It’s all very terrifying for those women in those circumstances. So they give in to fear and choose to abort. The CDC reported that 2 out of every 3 abortions in the US were procured by women living under poverty level who stated economic hardship was the primary reason for seeking abortion. Frankly, Satan convinced them to abort because there isn’t a family friendly social infrastructure in the US like there is in Belgium. That’s why our abortion rate is nearly triple that found in Belgium. Progressives often see the issue of abortion as the byproduct of non-progressive social policy. They intend to reduce abortion by addressing the needs and issues that women face (health care, child care, education, living wage, and job security).

Besides, most Republican politicians don’t care a bit about abortion. They want to keep the issue alive to manipulate our religious values to corner us into voting for them. Frankly, like good capitalists…they’re capitalizing on the issue of abortion and playing lip service to the Pro-Life position.

It’s an issue that isn’t going away. Address the issues women face and do more than moralize. That will reduce the rate of abortion and save lives. That's the progressive approach. It's working in other countries...it can work here too. We just have to have the will to do it. Or we can argue over it for another thirty years while abortion rates stay where they are or go higher.

Lastly, they'll never tell you this...but the Democrats submitted a plan aimed at reducing the abortion rate in the United States by 95% in 10% known as the 95-10 Initiative. The Republican congress locked arms with leftwing Pro-Choice Democrats and sidelined it.

A "Pro-Choice" candidate is PRO ABORTION. A child is NOT a choice. You either let it live or you kill it. This is the "Choice". Nowhere else will you EVER in our society see where murder is considered ok as long as it was a choice.

Charles Manson Made a choice to start helter skelter. He personally never killed anyone but is spending his life in prison because he was an accomplice. ALL doctors, nurses, etc, should go to prison for life if they participate in an abortion.
Hitler did not personally kill 20 million people but he was responsible. Pro-choice candidates do not kill 1.25+ million CHILDREN per year in this country but THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE!!

A Christian who promotes or advocates murder, by voting for those who kill the innocent, should really take another look at the cross. JMO.

Aquila

01-04-2008, 10:24 PM

I think you're being unfair, LordChocolate. Chris is obviously not "Pro-Abortion." Chris voiced that political progressives and liberals feel that government is incapable of adequately addressing the issue of abortion. He may be correct. He asked an interesting question, if we banned abortion what do we do with violators? Do we issue a fine or take licenses if they have them? That's merely cosmetic. It essentially generates money for the government and ties up our legal system. The only true penalty for abortion would be trial for murder, but how many would support trying women who have procured and so procure abortion with murder? That just won't fly. It becomes a rather shallow response. To insinuate that Chris is "Pro-Abortion" is a mischaracterization. Chris just thinks government can't adequately address the issue. Let's be truthful, government almost never adequately addresses anything! Odds are you're a Republican or at least a Conservative. Most Republicans don't believe in banning alcohol, tobacco, pornography, or violent entertainment. They believe that government is better off to leave these issues alone and allow private indivduals to choose rather they will particiate in these things or not. Would it be fare to say that if you vote Republican you're pro-alcohol, pro-smoking, pro-pornography, and pro-movie violence? Of course not, but according to the logic behind your judgment about Christopher, you are these things if you measure yourself the same way you're measuring him. In that I believe you'd best present to him an explaination or an apology for slandering him. He's even got is real name on this so frankly he's got a lot to loose, we hide behind our screen names. :)

I lean Libertarian so I see Chris' point. Government really should keep it's nose out of the abortion issue. It's too complex and no answer will adequately address the issue. I like what the Libertarian Party says in it's platform regarding abortion.

I.8 Reproductive Rights

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients, or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

Transitional Action: We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.
I think that's the best GOVERNMENTAL POLICY. But we should continue to preach the value of life. You see by leaving the choice in the hands of the individuals...you keep individuals morally responsible before God. If government chooses to keep it's hands off the issue and leave the choice in the hands of the woman the government is clean, the sin lays at her feet.

I just think it's unfair to label Chris or liberals "Pro-Abortion" when in fact they are relectantly pro-choice because they feel government intervention here would only complicate matters. If libs are "Pro-Abortion" for holding a choice position....conservatives are pro-porn, pro-alcohol, and pro-smoking because Republicans don't plan on banning these things but wish to leave them as personal choices. For example, here's what our beloved Ron Paul believes regarding abortion...

Ron Paul on Abortion
Click here for 20 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Obviously Ron Paul believes that the Federal Government has no place on the issue and relegates it to an issue for the states to choose, rather they choose to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Is Ron Paul Pro-Abortion for thinking the Federal Government shouldn't involve itself in the matter? Of course not. But if you judge him as harshly as you're judging Chris, Ron Paul is "Pro-Transporting Minors to get an abortion" and "Pro-no federal protection of the fetus during a crime". Do you see the vitrolic mischaracterization?

The measure with which we judge is the measure we must meet.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 11:40 PM

Both of yall are missing my point. I'm not Pro-Choice, I was just explaining why progressives believe as they do. Personally, I'm Pro-Life. If I were to actually choose to be a Democrat I'd be a Pro-Life Democrat. Yes, there are Pro-Life Democrats.

Dec 05, 2007 at 08:26 AM

Senator Robert Casey Introduces the
Pregnant Women Support Act

DFLA 95-10 Initiative Gains Momentum

Washington D.C. - Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) announced today that Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act into the United States Senate. S. 2407, similar to legislation (H.R. 3192) introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) earlier this year in the U.S. House, is designed to reduce the number of abortions by aiding those women who feel they have no other option.

"We applaud Senator Casey for leading the charge to reduce the abortion rate in this country by helping pregnant women,” said DFLA’s Executive Director, Kristen Day. “Our goal since the beginning was to craft a bill that would find common ground and have a positive chance of not only becoming law, but truly helping pregnant women and their families. Senator Casey’s leadership will help tremendously with our goal to reduce the abortion rate by 95 percent in 10 years.”

The battle over abortion in the United States has long been characterized by bitter partisan rhetoric and suspicion. This bill will help shape a common-sense solution that people on all sides of the political spectrum can support. DFLA believes that it should be the goal of all people to end abortion in this country and to help mothers and young children.

"The Pregnant Women Support Act is about showing that it is possible for people from different ideological positions to come together and help those who are in need,” said DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day. “All Americans should be strongly in favor of helping mothers and saving babies, regardless of their political ideology or position on the legality of abortion.”

One of the key provisions of the proposal calls for banning the discriminatory practice against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all "pre-existing condition" lists in health care. Other provisions call for making adoption tax credits permanent, provides grants for low-income parenting college students, fully funding the federal WIC program, increased funding for domestic violence programs, and provides free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Since its founding, Democrats For Life has propounded what they see as a more consistent approach to being pro-life, challenging both the pro-life community to broaden its view of defending life and also the Democratic Party to come back to its roots of defending those who cannot defend themselves. They hope that this bill will further both objectives, as well as create common ground for all to stand on in the fight to defend human life.

The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.
Last Updated ( Dec 05, 2007 at 08:31 AM )
http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297&Itemid=2

Pro-Life Democrats are about to do more to reduce abortions in our country than the Republicans with all the Pro-Life rhetoric. And amazingly, Pro Life Democrats will do this without wrangling over abortion's legality.

ChristopherHall

01-04-2008, 11:49 PM

Here's an explaination of the 95-10 Initiative supported by Pro-Life Democrats and progressives:

Democrats for Life of America
Introduce the 95-10 Initiative

The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.

While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality.

With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.

The 95-10 Initiative

Reduce 95% of abortions in 10 years

Empower Women

Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program

Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers.
*Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services.

Conduct a National Study & Update Abortion Data

National Institutes of Health will collect accurate data on why women choose abortions. Within five years of enactment, the NIH will present its findings to Congress.
*This will be compiled on a confidential and voluntary basis.

Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education

Provide grants to school districts that are in need of funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention education.

Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses

Provide grants for universities and colleges to support pregnant women; provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.
*These grants will help universities establish an on-campus office for counseling, referral, and parenting services for pregnant women and daycare services for parents.

Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests.

Pregnant women who choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing should be provided with information on the accuracy of these tests.
There can be false-positive results, indicating a problem when the fetus is actually healthy.

Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent

Repeal the sunset on adoption tax credits and make them permanent.

Ban Pregnancy as a “Pre-Existing Condition” in the Health Care Industry

End the discriminatory practices against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all “pre-existing condition” lists in health care.

Require Adoption Referral Information

Require pregnancy centers and women’s health centers that provide pregnancy counseling and that receive federal funding to provide adoption referral information.

Women’s Right to Know

Any women’s health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman’s health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.

Provide Ultrasound Equipment

Provide grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services. This equipment will be operated by licensed professionals.

Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs

Offer additional federal funding for programs that have received grants by the Department of Justice for providing counseling and shelter for women and children in crisis pregnancies. The leading cause of death against pregnant women is murder.

Contraception Equity

Require insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (Modeled after Missouri legislation that was supported by both pro-life and pro-choice groups.)

Protect our Children

Fully Fund Federal WIC Program

Special Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is funded at about $4.9 billion, which advocates say is $268 million less than what’s needed to serve the current 7.86–7.90 million participants.
The administration expects 8.2 million pregnant women, infants, and young children to be served by the program. Thus, this analysis assumes that an eight percent reduction translates into 670,000 fewer people being served (which is eight percent of 8.2 million).
The administration also proposes placing an overall cap on all non-defense, non-Homeland Security discretionary spending for the next five years. By 2010, those discretionary caps could force 660,000 recipients to lose WIC in 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, the WIC cuts could total $657 million.
In addition, it is estimated that every dollar spent on WIC results in between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers (Food Research and Action Center).

Parental Notification

Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws.

Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws

Forty-six states now have some type of safe haven legislation. (The following states do not have safe haven legislation: AK, HI (Vetoed 7/2/03), NE and VT.) Most of the laws designate hospitals, emergency medical services, fire stations and police stations as safe locations. One exception is New York, which stipulates that the baby may be left with a suitable person or may be left in a suitable location so long as an appropriate person is promptly notified.

Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes

Adoption counseling in federally funded maternity group homes and teaching of parenting skills.

Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women

HR 2268—Strickland (D-OH)/HR 4350—Dingell (D-MI)—108th Congress

Mandate SCHIP coverage for pregnant women.

Expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and to newborns through the first full year of life.

As you can see, these are policies aimed at targeting the issues women face when confronted with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. I commend my Pro-Life Republican friends for all the wonderful arguments in favor of life in the market place of ideas. But truth be told they're all talk and no action. They want to address abortion without it costing them anything. Talk money and programs that might save lives and instantly the dollar is far more important. While the Republicans want to philosophize about the value of life and wrangle in the courts, we can take measures to reduce America's abortion rate. Prayerfully we can bring it lower than the Belgium's.

BoredOutOfMyMind

01-04-2008, 11:51 PM

I take it you had a bad experience in Europe? LOL

No, I have never been there. I simply responded to your remark on Belgium.

I lean Libertarian so I see Chris' point. Government really should keep it's nose out of the abortion issue. It's too complex and no answer will adequately address the issue. I like what the Libertarian Party says in it's platform regarding abortion.

I with 55% of Americans recently polled find less Government entertaining. Gaining 4% of the electorial vote means The Libertarian Party is not viable. They don't even address property rights, and more Americans would be upset on that hot button.
Let me state as a Holy Ghost Believer, I find murder of unborn children abhorrent.

Sister Alvear

01-05-2008, 07:25 AM

ChristopherHall

01-05-2008, 10:46 AM

Maybe should move to Brazil where our hospitals are filled beyond capacity..the sick die in the halls...lines for everything...laws are elastic...free medicine but they never have any...free doctors hospital service but seldom find any where to check in..

lol..

Maybe Canada yes...

You can never imagine how blessed you are in America...run it down all you want but just come and live in a 3rd world country and you will sing another tune..
As far as politics the early church voted in no election...I take their stand...I pray for rulers but vote for no one...Yes, some laugh...at least I live my convictions and that is what is important and I do keep up with what is going on...the stage has been set...long before we were players on life´s stage...

Sis. Alvear, I know American is fine country, but my family and I go to Canada every year and I have a couple good friends there. When it comes to health care, they are better off than we are. Every year in the United States 18,000 people die of treatable illness simply because the system will not insure them because it wouldn't be profitable. In my heart of hearts, that's a national tragedy. We fight for an unborn life...but when that child is born to a poor family and his mother or father becomes ill, we pray some charity might help them, if the charity doesn't come or is insufficient we just let them die and we pat ourselves on our backs about our free market medicine system. I go to Canada every year and I had my own personal "Sicko" (a documentary supporting universal health insurance) experience long before "Sicko" was ever produced. I've been outside of this country and was shocked when I really looked into how other nations invest in each other as a society. The myths behind universal health care became evident to me and I was shocked to hear conservative men I respected repeat them.

Here are the statistics ranking health care systems throughout the world according to the World Health Organization:

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb) Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

The United States is 37th on the list while Brazil is 125th. Yes, we are thankful that we are that blessed, but the point is...we are the most wealthy and most powerful nation on earth. We can do better if we can get past thinking like mental midgets 2008. Right above us is Costa Rica and right below us is Slovenia. What's that tell you about our health care system? It's antiquated. It's not the worst but it's far from being the best. It's nowhere near the top 5.

We can do better than this! And it's going to take progressives and centrists to make it happen.

Walkbyfaith7

01-05-2008, 11:27 AM

BoredOutOfMyMind

01-05-2008, 11:41 AM

Sis. Alvear, I know American is fine country, but my family and I go to Canada every year and I have a couple good friends there. When it comes to health care, they are better off than we are. Every year in the United States 18,000 people die of treatable illness simply because the system will not insure them because it wouldn't be profitable. In my heart of hearts, that's a national tragedy. We fight for an unborn life...but when that child is born to a poor family and his mother or father becomes ill, we pray some charity might help them, if the charity doesn't come or is insufficient we just let them die and we pat ourselves on our backs about our free market medicine system. I go to Canada every year and I had my own personal "Sicko" (a documentary supporting universal health insurance) experience long before "Sicko" was ever produced. I've been outside of this country and was shocked when I really looked into how other nations invest in each other as a society. The myths behind universal health care became evident to me and I was shocked to hear conservative men I respected repeat them.

Here are the statistics ranking health care systems throughout the world according to the World Health Organization:

The United States is 37th on the list while Brazil is 125th. Yes, we are thankful that we are that blessed, but the point is...we are the most wealthy and most powerful nation on earth. We can do better if we can get past thinking like mental midgets 2008. Right above us is Costa Rica and right below us is Slovenia. What's that tell you about our health care system? It's antiquated. It's not the worst but it's far from being the best. It's nowhere near the top 5.

We can do better than this! And it's going to take progressives and centrists to make it happen.

Christopher, you seem like a highly intelligent person. Your post shows you don't know beans about how a health care system socialized in America would work. If you want Canadian Healthcare, move to Canada. No need to elect a man who made a living extorting drug companies and driving up costs (John Edwards).

Only this week in the news a lady in ICU could not return to Vancouver, BC. Seems the government reduced the number of beds, and now there is not an empty bed to allow her to return.

The healthcare companies did not count on a hospital charging $56 for a bottle of eyedrops, or $5 to dispense an aspirin tablet. I don't care for large executives getting Billion US Dollar bonuses while a $7 clerk determines my health "benefits" either. Sponsored by the Government, we would see the calls eventually outsourced and not only do you have 2 hr phone waiting, you then get someone you cannot understand, and who can understand you less pushing a button to deny your case without any means of appeal.

trickledown

01-05-2008, 12:05 PM

Chris
This is from the report that ABC's John Stossel made about the failure of the WHO to report accurately due to politically motivated methods: he starts with the weight of life expectancy in the findings, I'll pick up here "Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine."

John Stossel is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.

I am troubled that your coup d’état to Sis Alvear is based on absurd findings by an organization that is as much a joke as the United Nations. You apparently have had some problems yourself with healthcare in our country. I am sorry that you have had these problems, but healthcare is not a right that is guaranteed nor is it a Biblical ideal. That doesn't mean that your advocacy of so many social ideals is wrong. You seem to simply be looking out for what you feel is best for yourself and using information from the lies of someone like Michael Moore to do it. Thankfully our country still has a population that desires less government and more of their own paycheck. We are however at the tipping point. I suspect that in our lifetime we will see the pendulum swing in favor of the have nots who expect that others who have more should do more for them.
Reading your post about the sad state of affairs in this country leaves me wondering if you remember how bad things were in 79 when we didn't have all of "Reagan’s failures" as you see them to contend with? If we forget our history; we may have to repeat it.
Perhaps you should look into the writings of Carl Marx. He along with Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand may help you with your outlook.

May God bless your Christian endeavors.

Sister Truth Seeker

01-05-2008, 12:11 PM

PRO CHOICE IS PRO ABORTION....GOOD GRIEF HOW CAN YOU BE SO DECIEVED*** ****************** :search

Sister Alvear

01-05-2008, 12:29 PM

I am not a political person but I do keep up some with what is going on. I admire Canada but what works there might not work in the states...

If we say we are for this one or that one we must think long and hard.

I live in the rugged northeast of Brazil where politicans have hit men and most carry guns...we have political killings all the time...Politics and God do not mix...Politics is far more evil than television in my opinion...and that reasoning is from someone that does not have a television...

MissBrattified

01-05-2008, 12:44 PM

MissBrattified

01-05-2008, 12:50 PM

Furthermore, to suggest that abortion is a humane option in some cases where the child that lives may be poor, neglected or abused is ridiculous. Shall we now begin exterminating children born into uneducated, poor families, where neglect and abuse are likely to occur? Murdering children is NEVER humane, nor is it EVER necessary. It is never moral, it is always criminal, whether our government has laws that allow it or not, and it should never be endorsed or supported by any Christian.

In the last election, I thoroughly appreciated it when my pastor stated the following: "Christians should vote on principle; not according to their pocketbook."

LordChocolate

01-05-2008, 01:11 PM

Aquila

01-05-2008, 03:32 PM

Here in Oregon, my 15 year old daughter can have an abortion without parental consent- they don't even have to tell us!

Do you know who voted this in? Liberals, progressive types!

And guess what? You have to be 18 to watch a rated R movie!

Do you think a 15 year old has the cognitive and psychological maturity to be able to determine the impact of her one decision could affect the rest of her life and that she is taking another human being's life?

Chris- this is why most people who have a heart and are faithful to Jesus will never become liberal or 'progressive', (a nice way to describe someone who puts down their conservative values and puts on liberal ones).

I hope nobody minds me jumping in here. Let's look at this logically and prayerfully. First, I don't believe it's right to ever choose abortion, but this world being fallen as it is women do choose abortion. Now, this issue about a 15 year old being able to get an abortion is the stuff politicians love and the mindlessly biased never really evaluate. On the surface it looks like it is saying, "Hey, 15 year old girls can just have an abortion without parental consent." But all too often that's not the reason people vote against parental notification laws. Typically it's because they fear that they would have to notify the father or guardian of the girl...how may even be the abuser. This potentially places a young girl in danger. So often additional measures allowing for a doctor's notification or the notification of a significant adult in the child's life. But often if the fine print of the actual law is read in relation to current law and statute what evolves is an intensive that erects road blocks along the way...it also increases legal liabilities on the system. Therefore many vote against this measures to protect the young girl and allow the abortion without putting legal obstacles in her way, places the resonsiblity in the hands of the court or civil authority, or the need to notify a potentially abusive parent or guardian. So they simply vote to allow her to have the abortion. In all honesty, any REAL parent will know where their child is at all times and will periodically review their child's medical records. And then there is the political fall out. What politician is going to back up a parental notification law that may notify an abusive parent? Politically speaking, and I know this is sad, but politicians would rather place the responsibility of knowing what a child is doing on the parent. Parents the secret to keeping your 15 year old daughter from getting an abortion is...to PARENT your children. If you properly parent she will not get pregnant. If you properly parent she will not have the opportunity to seek an abortion without your knowledge. Parental notification or not the responsibility is on the parent.

And then I have to address the comparison with allowing a 15 year old to watch a rated R movie. First, most parents will not beat their child half to death or kill them for watching a rated R movie. The abortion issue is far more serious and has far more serious implications.

But I agree, any parent would want to be notified. I WOULD. But at the same time many leary of having a law in which a potentially violent and abusive parent is notified by edict of the government. It's a difficult situation. Again the solution is in the home not in legislation. Parent your kids properly and odds are you'll never have to worry about this issue facing your family.

So as you can see there are two sides of every issue. No one relishes the idea of 15 year olds choosing an abortion...but often there are deep complexities in regards to the issue and neither side is evil, both sides have serious concerns. Both sides even have advocates. There was a woman who was repeatedly abused by her father who didn't turn to authorities until she left home. She had become pregnant and had an abortion. Had there been a law requiring that her parents be notified she said she most likely would have been too afraid to seek an abortion. She would have tried to do it herself in her bathroom. If her father found out either way she feared for her life. These women often explain their case with tears and pleading. They aren't proud to have had an abortion but they seriously fear what could happen to many abused girls if parental notification laws were in place.

Interestingly though, I see a lot of people wanting more and more governemnt to control some of the most difficult issues of people's private lives...yet government isn't the solution. Living right is. Proper parenting is. We as individuals have to be responsible for ourselves. It's not the government's job to require that you be notified of what your kids do. It's your responsiblity to be involved enough to know what your kids are doing.

Aquila

01-05-2008, 03:33 PM

PRO CHOICE IS PRO ABORTION....GOOD GRIEF HOW CAN YOU BE SO DECIEVED*** ****************** :search

Do you believe that atheistic writings should be banned?

Aquila

01-05-2008, 03:40 PM

Christopher, you seem like a highly intelligent person. Your post shows you don't know beans about how a health care system socialized in America would work. If you want Canadian Healthcare, move to Canada. No need to elect a man who made a living extorting drug companies and driving up costs (John Edwards).

I'm not for universal health care, BUT, since you claim you know how it would work here in the ol' USA I'm interested. One thing about the Universal Health Insurance notion that does interest me is the stimulation of competition. Christopher is right. If all Americans were insured the cost of health care would go down because hospitals and doctors would actually receive payment for so many of the bills that presently go unpaid. And if a universal health insurance system were optional it would force private insurance to compete with the system, thereby bringing insurance costs down. That's a no brainer. That's market forces of competition at work. With health care costs down insurance would have to become affordable to compete with the national system or go out of business. It's really an interesting idea. But the libertarian in me is hesitant to embrace the idea of a universal health insurance system right now.

The healthcare companies did not count on a hospital charging $56 for a bottle of eyedrops, or $5 to dispense an aspirin tablet. I don't care for large executives getting Billion US Dollar bonuses while a $7 clerk determines my health "benefits" either. Sponsored by the Government, we would see the calls eventually outsourced and not only do you have 2 hr phone waiting, you then get someone you cannot understand, and who can understand you less pushing a button to deny your case without any means of appeal.

Not necessarily true.

Walkbyfaith7

01-05-2008, 03:45 PM

I hope nobody minds me jumping in here. Let's look at this logically and prayerfully. First, I don't believe it's right to ever choose abortion, but this world being fallen as it is women do choose abortion. Now, this issue about a 15 year old being able to get an abortion is the stuff politicians love and the mindlessly biased never really evaluate. On the surface it looks like it is saying, "Hey, 15 year old girls can just have an abortion without parental consent." But all too often that's not the reason people vote against parental notification laws. Typically it's because they fear that they would have to notify the father or guardian of the girl...how may even be the abuser. This potentially places a young girl in danger. So often additional measures allowing for a doctor's notification or the notification of a significant adult in the child's life. But often if the fine print of the actual law is read in relation to current law and statute what evolves is an intensive that erects road blocks along the way...it also increases legal liabilities on the system. Therefore many vote against this measures to protect the young girl and allow the abortion without putting legal obstacles in her way, places the resonsiblity in the hands of the court or civil authority, or the need to notify a potentially abusive parent or guardian. So they simply vote to allow her to have the abortion. In all honesty, any REAL parent will know where their child is at all times and will periodically review their child's medical records. And then there is the political fall out. What politician is going to back up a parental notification law that may notify an abusive parent? Politically speaking, and I know this is sad, but politicians would rather place the responsibility of knowing what a child is doing on the parent. Parents the secret to keeping your 15 year old daughter from getting an abortion is...to PARENT your children. If you properly parent she will not get pregnant. If you properly parent she will not have the opportunity to seek an abortion without your knowledge. Parental notification or not the responsibility is on the parent.

And then I have to address the comparison with allowing a 15 year old to watch a rated R movie. First, most parents will not beat their child half to death or kill them for watching a rated R movie. The abortion issue is far more serious and has far more serious implications.

But I agree, any parent would want to be notified. I WOULD. But at the same time many leary of having a law in which a potentially violent and abusive parent is notified by edict of the government. It's a difficult situation. Again the solution is in the home not in legislation. Parent your kids properly and odds are you'll never have to worry about this issue facing your family.

So as you can see there are two sides of every issue. No one relishes the idea of 15 year olds choosing an abortion...but often there are deep complexities in regards to the issue and neither side is evil, both sides have serious concerns. Both sides even have advocates. There was a woman who was repeatedly abused by her father who didn't turn to authorities until she left home. She had become pregnant and had an abortion. Had there been a law requiring that her parents be notified she said she most likely would have been too afraid to seek an abortion. She would have tried to do it herself in her bathroom. If her father found out either way she feared for her life. These women often explain their case with tears and pleading. They aren't proud to have had an abortion but they seriously fear what could happen to many abused girls if parental notification laws were in place.

Interestingly though, I see a lot of people wanting more and more governemnt to control some of the most difficult issues of people's private lives...yet government isn't the solution. Living right is. Proper parenting is. We as individuals have to be responsible for ourselves. It's not the government's job to require that you be notified of what your kids do. It's your responsiblity to be involved enough to know what your kids are doing.

I think you are speaking about the minority here. I am talking about the average 15 year old girl here. Not the minority messed situation you seem to think is common.

What rights do 15 years old have? They are not old or mature enough for a rated R movie. They can not receive anything controversial from our school system or take a FIELD TRIP without parental consent.

They can not smoke. They can not drink. They can not fight for our country. They can not vote for our president. 15 year olds can't have a license and drive on their own in my state. They can not get married. They can not sign anything on their own.

But you think they should be able to go to a clinic and get an abortion?

Their brains are not fully developed
Their mental health is very unstable

Sorry but it won't get my vote. This vote was NOT up to politicians by the way. It was up to the people and it barely passed because the majority of this state comprises of an evil liberal city called Portland. If the Lord got rid of Portland, it would have passed 95 percent.

MissBrattified

01-05-2008, 03:52 PM

Do you believe that atheistic writings should be banned?

Do you believe that things that offend sensibilities are in any way comparable to actions which threaten, harm or end human life?

Walkbyfaith7

01-05-2008, 04:00 PM

Interestingly though, I see a lot of people wanting more and more governemnt to control some of the most difficult issues of people's private lives...yet government isn't the solution. Living right is. Proper parenting is. We as individuals have to be responsible for ourselves. It's not the government's job to require that you be notified of what your kids do. It's your responsiblity to be involved enough to know what your kids are doing.

Exactly my point- the government is controlling my parental rights. I don't want them to control my right as a parent. If my child gets pregnant at 15, (I have two daughters by the way) my wife, I and her will take care of this situation. She is in no way mature enough, nor physically development enough to make this decision on her own.

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:05 PM

I understand that abortion is a complicated matter for some people, and I also understand that even when laws are passed, they may not be adequately carried out. HOWEVER, I still cannot morally place a vote for someone who openly supports abortion by their own voting practice, such as refusing to BAN particularly heinous procedures like the partial-birth abortion.

When you say, "openly supports abortion", are you talking about politicians that believe abortion is a good thing and say, "Hey everybody, let's all go get abortions!", or are you talking about a politician that just believes that abortion isn't an issue government can or should address and that women should maintain the right to be morally responsible about the issue individually?

Pornography is a self-imposed immorality that only harms the adult participant, and hopefully no one else, unless they are viewing pornography that is made up of minors or that involves criminal acts. That is not even comparable to abortion, which terminates an innocent life.

Actually pornography is very evil. Those who film these things tyically find women who are willing to do the movies because these women are on drugs and need money to support their drug habbit. They are recorded and the movie is distributed so others can watch. It's sexual slavery and abuse at it's most henious. Also a number of abortions are no doubt the result of some of this pornographic encounters. So in a way pornography may have contributed to the deaths of a number of the unborn. Also it contributes to a highly sexualized society in which more unmarried people are having sex, a major factor in regards to abortion. So I see the issue of pornography just is vile as abortion. It may not be actual murder, but it contributes to the culture of death and is in the realm of sexual slavery.

I don't believe that activism helps reduce abortion; I believe that voting in strong leaders who will pass strong laws is what will reduce abortion. Quite frankly, I do not CARE if someone has to resort to a back-alley abortion if abortions were illegal. That is their choice to break the law, and unnecessary in this present day where it is relatively easy to give a child up for adoption.

Actually I think the facts are contrary to what you're saying. Today the abortion rate in the United States is lower than it was when it was illegal. In the late 90's abortion rates in the US hit a 30 year all time low. And that's in the wake of more liberal abortion laws. Activism does work. As we speak up against the moral evil of abortion more and more women choose life even if abortion is legal.

As for back alley abortions, most of that stuff was exaggerated and wasn't happening as often as it was proposed.

And yes, to address the hypothetical, IF abortion were a crime, then women who commit that crime should be prosecuted, along with the medical staff who facilitates it. Obviously that will never happen, but it was mentioned as if it is a crime that shouldn't or can't really be prosecuted, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

What should be the penalty for an abortion? A fine? Loss of license? Jail? I'm courious because it will set a legal standard for the value of life. If it's just a fine and maybe jail time life is reduced to the value of outstanding parking tickets. Only outright prosecution for MURDER will provide legal justice. Since there isn't a statute of limitations on murder, even women who are walking around today who have procured abortions should be prosecuted, even if they're attending church and now living Christian lives.

This is why so many believe government isn't the solution. Addressing abortion with bans and laws is only a shallow cosmetic fix that relieves the conscience but doesn't resolve the issue. So many who are liberal or liberatarian opt to believe that the ultimate responsiblity should be placed with the individual. Let that individual choose what they will do as an individual and answer to it before Almighty God. As a Libertarian, I just don't want my tax dollars going for it. They choose it on their own, they pay for it on their own.

When it comes to whether a person should be allowed to take another human life, then YES, the government should have a say-so. Criminal acts should be prevented and prosecuted, and murder is certainly a criminal act. It is a crying shame that not only is murder being allowed and supported in this country, but the pro-abortion rhetoric is so pervasive that even Christians have bought into the idea that abortion isn't murder, that it isn't really criminal, that it may not be immoral in all cases, and that the women who choose such action are to be sympathized with in any manner.

I know a pastor's wife who before they were saved had an abortion. If abortion is legally addressed as murder, which would be the only moral legal response, then she would have to face charges for murder. Remember, murder has no statute of limitations. If it was done 80 years ago it doesn't matter, a woman should be prosecuted. If one says they are prolife and disagrees...they're obviously not as prolife as they claim to be. However, again, this is why many are realizing that government and laws aren't capable of addressing this issue. It's a heneous moral act that is murderous...but it's so complex government would only make it worse. Thank about it this way...government waged a war on poverty and we have more poverty. Government waged a war on illiteracy and we have more illiteracy, government waged a war on drugs and we have more drugs. Government waged a war on terror and we have more terror. Do you really want the government to wage a war on abortion? Trust me...if the government get's involved it will only make matters worse.

To be pro-choice is to be pro-abortion, because if you believe it is alright for a woman to choose whether her child can live or die, then you essentially believe it is alright for a person to choose murder without personal consequence.

I believe that government involvement in the issue of abortion only makes issues worse. I believe that abortion is a terrible crime against humanity, a grave sin in the eyes of God, an abomination. But I also believe that the responsiblity to choose life should lay in the hands of individual women. They alone know if an abortion is necessary for medical reasons or if it is the result of rape and they are feeling suicidal. And those individual women will have to stand before God and answer for their choice and be judged by a God who knows all things and judges righteously. For this opinion many call me "ProChoice" though I believe that the only right choice is life. But I'm definately not proabortion. I resent the very notion that I am. I would never advise a woman to have an abortion and I teach that it is a grave sin against God. I just think government is incapable of properly addressing the issue by satisifying the moral demands that it brings to the table.

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:10 PM

Exactly my point- the government is controlling my parental rights. I don't want them to control my right as a parent. If my child gets pregnant at 15, (I have two daughters by the way) my wife, I and her will take care of this situation. She is in no way mature enough, nor physically development enough to make this decision on her own.

It is your resonsibility to control your daughter's sexual behaviors. If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you. It's your responsibility to know where your child is at at all times and in all circumstances. It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion. That lame parent should have known where their daughter was in the first place! If parents can't parent that's a domestic issue not a political one.

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:16 PM

I think you are speaking about the minority here. I am talking about the average 15 year old girl here. Not the minority messed situation you seem to think is common.

It may not be "common" but it's more common that it should be. And even if it were one girl it's an unacceptable outcome.

What rights do 15 years old have? They are not old or mature enough for a rated R movie. They can not receive anything controversial from our school system or take a FIELD TRIP without parental consent.

You have to parent. You have to know what your daughter is doing and who she's doing it with. It's not the government's job to use my tax dollars to babysit American daughters because their parents can't keep tabs on them.

They can not smoke. They can not drink. They can not fight for our country. They can not vote for our president. 15 year olds can't have a license and drive on their own in my state. They can not get married. They can not sign anything on their own.

This issue is more complex than any of those issues. You and I both know that.

But you think they should be able to go to a clinic and get an abortion?

No. I think it's their parent's responsibility to keep them from getting pregnant in the first place. And if allowed to become pregnant it's their parent's responsibility to know where they are and if they are even going to a clinic.

Their brains are not fully developed
Their mental health is very unstable

Same can be said for most adults. LOL

Sorry but it won't get my vote. This vote was NOT up to politicians by the way. It was up to the people and it barely passed because the majority of this state comprises of an evil liberal city called Portland. If the Lord got rid of Portland, it would have passed 95 percent.

Oh the evil peole who don't think like you! lol

As you can see...there isn't a political answer. Something like this shouldn't even be up for a vote.

John Atkinson

01-05-2008, 04:17 PM

what we need is a king. Forget this circus we go through every 4 years, give us a king. Case in point: Richard I Plantagenet, AKA Lionheart. When he did the "war in the middle east" thing at least he had the decency to go there and fight it himself, leaving his silly brother in charge who signed the magna carta. Worked out great for everyone.

We need a king

Iwould be a good king.

JOHN FOR KING!

JOHN FOR KING!

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:19 PM

Do you believe that things that offend sensibilities are in any way comparable to actions which threaten, harm or end human life?

Atheistic writings are the philosophical heart of the holocausts in NAZI Germany, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Communist China.

Back to my question,

Do you believe that atheistic writings should be banned?

Walkbyfaith7

01-05-2008, 04:22 PM

Actually I think the facts are contrary to what you're saying. Today the abortion rate in the United States is lower than it was when it was illegal. In the late 90's abortion rates in the US hit a 30 year all time low. And that's in the wake of more liberal abortion laws. Activism does work. As we speak up against the moral evil of abortion more and more women choose life even if abortion is legal.

Where do you get your statistics? According to the historical abortion rates by country, the US didn't have a 30 year low in the late 1990's. I would like you to post your source. Did you study this subject or you basing your statement off of what you heard somebody tell you?

What should be the penalty for an abortion? A fine? Loss of license? Jail? I'm courious because it will set a legal standard for the value of life. If it's just a fine and maybe jail time life is reduced to the value of outstanding parking tickets. Only outright prosecution for MURDER will provide legal justice. Since there isn't a statute of limitations on murder, even women who are walking around today who have procured abortions should be prosecuted, even if they're attending church and now living Christian lives.

I know a pastor's wife who before they were saved had an abortion. If abortion is legally addressed as murder, which would be the only moral legal response, then she would have to face charges for murder. Remember, murder has no statute of limitations. If it was done 80 years ago it doesn't matter, a woman should be prosecuted. If one says they are prolife and disagrees...they're obviously not as prolife as they claim to be. However, again, this is why many are realizing that government and laws aren't capable of addressing this issue. It's a heneous moral act that is murderous...but it's so complex government would only make it worse. Thank about it this way...government waged a war on poverty and we have more poverty. Government waged a war on illiteracy and we have more illiteracy, government waged a war on drugs and we have more drugs. Government waged a war on terror and we have more terror. Do you really want the government to wage a war on abortion? Trust me...if the government get's involved it will only make matters worse.

What do you think abortion is? Do you think it's the taking of a life?
Do you think the fetus is a living person? Do you believe God gave them a soul? Do you think it is murder?

How is killing a living person not murder? Of course it is murder!

Most abortions are done FOR SELFISH reasons because they don't want to sacrifice their body, or their time, etc. They say they can't afford them. Right, well, you can't afford to have SEX then. Sometimes in life there are consequences for our actions and killing a baby shouldn't be a solution.

You say it's an abomination, yet you seem to support it.

We should be supporting Rite to Life campaigns and giving money to the girls who desire to keep their children. Don't let them talk to the abortionists. Heck, they want their money anyway. They might as well be their pimp.

Dr. Pimp is what I should call those 'doctors'. They don't recall the oath to do no harm. The only thing they do take away life and make big money by the way doing it.

I couldn't imagine being in that room when the spread your legs and shove a knife up and rip away at the flesh of the baby and suck out it's brains, heart, and flesh.

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:23 PM

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:29 PM

What do you think abortion is? Do you think it's the taking of a life?
Do you think the fetus is a living person? Do you believe God gave them a soul? Do you think it is murder?

How is killing a living person not murder? Of course it is murder!

You say it's an abomination, yet you seem to support it.

Yes I believe abortion is the taking of a human life. Yes I believe that morally it is murder. Yes I believe it is an abomination. I DON'T support abortion. I'm highly offended that you would think such a thing. I clearly said that I would never advise a woman to have an abortion and that I teach it's a grave sin against God. Did you not read that part?

You say it's murder and for that reason should be legally addressed as such. I know a woman who is a pastor's wife. Years ago before she was even a Christian she had an abortion. If you really believe that abortion is legally murder as strongly as you let on, would you argue that first she be disqualified from operating in any ministerial fashion and second that she be brought up on charges for murder should abortion be banned?

Don't dodge these questions. They are the logical outcome of the logic you're judging me and others with. My point isn't that abortion is acceptable. My point is that government cannot adequately address the issue. It's an evil every society has wrestled with and in most societies they ultimately decide to place the ultimate responsibility in the hands of individual women.

I've answered your questions. I await your answers.

rrford

01-05-2008, 04:33 PM

With all the threads supporting right-wing politics and politically conservative notions I thought it would be only fair to step up to the plate and create a thread where those few who are politically moderate, centrist, or progressive can feel free to talk about politics and political developments. Sure, our conservative brothers and sisters are welcome here, but this is a place were we can talk about the issues, our opinions, and the role of our Christian faith in progressive and centrist politics.

What are some of your thoughts on the political developments in Iowa?

Hilarious! Only the moderate is progresive? :toofunny

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:41 PM

Hilarious! Only the moderate is progresive? :toofunny

Actually, you should read it again,

those few who are politically moderate, centrist, or progressive

There are moderates, centrists, and progressives. This doesn't say that only moderates are progressive.

I was taken aback because he left out Libertarians. :)

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:47 PM

Let's face it, the Republicans have the Christian vote because they are Prolife. Nothing else matters. They could support moving all American jobs to foreign lands, invade other countries without just cause, allow health care costs to skyrocket until your family can't afford it, allow preditory home loan tactics that leave thousands of Christian families living under bridges...but by golly...we're not voting for a prochoice candidate!

No single prochoice candidate has forced a woman to have an abortion. The choice is strictly on individual women. Maybe we choose to take out our frustration on prochoice candidates because it's easier to take it out on a politician than to cast murderous women out of our churches.

Walkbyfaith7

01-05-2008, 04:47 PM

Yes I believe abortion is the taking of a human life. Yes I believe that morally it is murder. Yes I believe it is an abomination. I DON'T support abortion. I'm highly offended that you would think such a thing. I clearly said that I would never advise a woman to have an abortion and that I teach it's a grave sin against God. Did you not read that part?

Ok I think we understand each other on this.

You say it's murder and for that reason should be legally addressed as such. I know a woman who is a pastor's wife. Years ago before she was even a Christian she had an abortion. If you really believe that abortion is legally murder as strongly as you let on, would you argue that first she be disqualified from operating in any ministerial fashion and second that she be brought up on charges for murder should abortion be banned?

All previous abortions would be grandfathered in as legal as such the law at the time. All future abortions could be penalized by law if abortion was illegal.
Doesn't seem like a hard fix here bro.

Don't dodge these questions. They are the logical outcome of the logic you're judging me and others with. My point isn't that abortion is acceptable. My point is that government cannot adequately address the issue. It's an evil every society has wrestled with and in most societies they ultimately decide to place the ultimate responsibility in the hands of individual women.

I've answered your questions. I await your answers.

In the hands of a woman? Sorry, I don't think a 15 year old is a woman!
I have two girls- do you?

John Atkinson

01-05-2008, 04:48 PM

Actually, you should read it again,

There are moderates, centrists, and progressives. This doesn't say that only moderates are progressive.

I was taken aback because he left out Libertarians. :)
Does the fact that I think we need a king make me regressive?:queen

Aquila

01-05-2008, 04:51 PM

Does the fact that I think we need a king make me regressive?:queen

Not if that king is Jesus. ;)

You see, most social conservatives under estimate the power of the gospel. They think we need the governments help to resolve difficult social issues. I don't believe that's so. I think Government should protect our boarders and keep the economy stable. Out side of that let freedom ring and the church preach the truth. The power of the truth will change hearts and that's when these issues will be really dealt with.

ChristopherHall

01-05-2008, 05:06 PM

Christopher, you seem like a highly intelligent person. Your post shows you don't know beans about how a health care system socialized in America would work. Actually, while I currently work for the government I was a medic in the military and have worked in the health care field as a therapeutic programming assistant. I know more about health care than you might think.

[QUOTE]Only this week in the news a lady in ICU could not return to Vancouver, BC. Seems the government reduced the number of beds, and now there is not an empty bed to allow her to return.

I'm interested in reading the story can you provide your source?

Was she moved to another hospital? Even private hospitals can choose to reduce the number of beds and one can find themselves having to go elsewhere. This problem isn't endemic to the national health care system seeing it can be found in the private system also. Give our readers some credit for having some brains bro. LOL

I want to know details, please provide your source so I can research this one. My experience is that most of these stories are exaggerated. Most likely this one is too.

The healthcare companies did not count on a hospital charging $56 for a bottle of eyedrops, or $5 to dispense an aspirin tablet. I don't care for large executives getting Billion US Dollar bonuses while a $7 clerk determines my health "benefits" either. Sponsored by the Government, we would see the calls eventually outsourced and not only do you have 2 hr phone waiting, you then get someone you cannot understand, and who can understand you less pushing a button to deny your case without any means of appeal.

Not really. A national system would require insurance work and records be handled much like those in the Medicare system. It's been deemed one of the most efficient systems we have. Also it would most likely be handled by government employees, like myself, who operate under government employee labor laws that would restrict outsourcing. Where in the world did you get this stuff?

ChristopherHall

01-05-2008, 05:15 PM

Chris
This is from the report that ABC's John Stossel made about the failure of the WHO to report accurately due to politically motivated methods: he starts with the weight of life expectancy in the findings, I'll pick up here...

You need to critically examine things better dear friend:

Stossel's Healthcare Distortions
One-sided report omits context--and facts

9/25/07

ABC's 20/20 host John Stossel got an hour of prime time on September 14 to launch a one-sided attack on single-payer healthcare, and advocate for the so-called "free market" solutions that Stossel and his favorite sources prefer.

"Tonight, we ask some provocative questions about your healthcare. We get some surprising answers," explained Stossel at the beginning of the "Sick in America" special. But "surprising" is not the first thing that comes to mind for anyone familiar with Stossel's journalism; as usual, Stossel relied largely on interviews with people who endorse the ABC host's platitudes about the virtues of the marketplace ("Private sector does everything better because they compete," for example). Except for an appearance by filmmaker Michael Moore, which serves to set up some of Stossel's complaints, the experts interviewed all share Stossel's vision: right-wing think tank spokespeople, a Harvard business school professor, a CEO who offers employees "health savings accounts" instead of insurance, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute identified only as a "Canadian doctor" who criticizes his country's health system, and so forth.

Stossel tries to make the familiar argument that public healthcare programs in countries like Canada and Great Britain don't live up to the hype. "Many people say that healthcare in countries like France, Germany, Britain and Canada is great because it's free. Government pays for everything. No one has to worry. And free is good, right? Well, not so fast." In an effort to debunk the idea that "free" is always good, Stossel presents footage of giveaways for gasoline and ice cream causing chaos.

This is a classic straw-man attack, as actual advocates for single-payer healthcare rarely describe it as "free"; instead, they accurately point out that governments that provide healthcare for everyone spend far less money than the United States does to provide healthcare for some. It's a central point of his opponents' argument that Stossel never directly addresses.

When Stossel does get around to the quality of care under public systems, he relies on showcasing a few anecdotes, omitting mention of research that would undermine his point. "Waits are so long, some people do it themselves," he says, before launching into a string of anecdotes--each premised on the assumption that Americans are accustomed to timely care. But studies of these systems arrive at a strikingly different conclusion; when the Commonwealth Fund studied (5/15/07) various government healthcare systems--including Britain--all but one (Canada) were found to have shorter wait times than the United States. It's a staple of Stossel's journalism to showcase a few anecdotes when more careful research would undermine his point.

Later in the special, Stossel admits, "Now, I should say all of Canadian healthcare is not long lines." But this is merely a set-up for another slam on Canadian care--that animals get better healthcare than humans.

Stossel claims another advantage for for-profit medicine--that it drives medical improvements: "People competing for profit-- that's lifted us out of the 13th century and given us 21st century medicine. Drug companies looking to make money create things that improve our quality of life and save lives." When Stossel notes that government researchers do research of their own, one of his favored guests--Grace-Marie Turner of the pro-free market Galen Institute--responds, "Government is responsible for 4 percent of the drugs on the market today." Stossel follows up with a reference to an earlier guest's medical care: "Those expensive cancer drugs Vicki needs? They were made by companies looking to make a profit. So were these amazing artificial legs and artificial hearts. All invented for profit."

Actually, many of the advances Stossel referred to received significant public sector research support. Reporter and medical industry expert Merrill Goozner summarized the evidence that undermines this industry-friendly argument (American Prospect, 11/30/02):

Every independent study that's ever looked at the sources of medical innovation has concluded that research funded by the public sector--not the private sector--is chiefly responsible for a majority of the medically significant advances that have led to new treatments of disease.

Goozner cited a Joint Economic Committee of Congress (JEC) report that

pointed to a 1997 National Bureau of Economic Research study showing that public research led to 15 of the 21 drugs considered to have the highest therapeutic value introduced between 1965 and 1992. The JEC also cited a 1990 study by Robert Maxwell and Shohreh Eckhardt, "Drug Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis." That study found that 60 percent of 32 innovative drugs would not have been discovered or would have taken much longer to discover without research contributions from government labs and noncommercial institutions.

Goozner also pointed out that the National Cancer Institute had sponsored research for most anticancer drugs (as of 1995). It's also worth pointing out that artificial heart research has received significant government research funding over the years (New York Times, 12/10/87). Once again, Stossel's simple free-market fable turns out to be much more complicated in real life.

Stossel is critical of the health insurance industry, but largely because he views health plans that cover a wide range of care and treatment as interfering with the discipline of the market. A better alternative, he argues, are health savings accounts, where employers give workers a fixed amount of money and a high-deductible plan, and care is paid for out of that fund. Healthy workers who don't need care can save up the money themselves, making it a free-market dream. Stossel's account is based almost entirely on the case presented by guest and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, a staunch supporter of this approach to healthcare.

A balanced report would have interviewed critics of health savings accounts, who point out that while this arrangement works well for younger, healthier workers, it would have little effect on total healthcare spending, since a relatively small number of patients who require much greater levels of care incur the majority of total healthcare costs (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/12/06).

Stossel also championed healthcare providers who avoid traditional insurance and sell their services directly to consumers. His leading example is laser eye surgery, which is not often covered by insurance. These doctors are competing and keeping costs down for consumers, enthused Stossel: "Prices dropped, even though doctors pay for advertising."

Stossel may have made a stronger point had he chosen a different example, though: Two major laser eye surgery providers were cited for deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission in March 2003.

Such inconvenient facts can't stop Stossel from reaching utterly predictable conclusions: "Where consumers decide for themselves rather than having governments or insurance companies make decisions for them, competition erupts. And competition gives us more choices.... Choice gives us power."

Ironically, Stossel criticizes Michael Moore for not interviewing more health insurance companies for his documentary Sicko ("Why didn't you confront them?"). But the same should be asked of Stossel: Why was his "Sick in America" special so heavily slanted in favor of the arguments he favors?

John Stossel is a rightwing political hack who distorts the facts.

trickledown

01-05-2008, 07:58 PM

Chris,
You seem to have a problem understanding my post. Clearly the article I sighted was used to support the case that the WHO is not entirely credible. Not unlike a politician you chose to slander my articles source. This is your ploy that ends with you calling the author a rightwing hack. Does this prove the validity of your WHO stats? ...
Let’s look at the source of your article. FAIR:

Quote:

[I]Tax-exempt leftist "media watchdog" organization
Noam Chomsky was keynote speaker at its 15th Anniversary party.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a tax-exempt "media watchdog" organization founded in 1986 by radical activist Jeff Cohen, who regards the Democratic Party as "right wing." FAIR's position, as summarized in a 2004 article co-authored by its senior analyst Steve Rendall and staffer Anna Kosseff, is that, contrary to the claims of conservatives, the mainstream media in America are biased to the right, not to the left.
Edited by Admin- This is a copyrighted article (http://tinyurl.com/2u7ly6)

From the looks of things... the source of your article would seem to have a substantial bias of their own.
This is the reason that there isn't debate that can sway your mind. You choose to attack the arguments that you can't answer to. I simply wanted you to realize that in the eyes of many informed people it is laughable to see the healthcare in our country as poorly as the WHO presents it. I intend no disrespect but while I can see your thought process about Jon Stossel, what bearing does it have to quote from a totally unrelated piece as a means of discrediting my comments?
Hoping that you can see the facts in these comments and better understand how to stick with a single argument without stooping to character assassinations that seem unrelated.

Thanks,
Trickle

TRFrance

01-05-2008, 08:18 PM

I think the term "progressive" is just double speak for liberal. And there's nothing progressive about liberalism. And neither is there any room for Christianity in liberalism. It's all about replacing God ordained roles with government ordained ones. In the church of liberalism, government is god.

Interesting observation.

I notice many liberals don't even like to call themselves liberals any more. So they use the word progressive. I guess they think it sounds better?

It kinda reminds me of how homosexuals don't like to be called homosexuals, but rather "gay" instead.

(Not that I'm equating liberalism with homosexuality, mind you. I'm just saying... )

TRFrance

01-05-2008, 08:46 PM

It is your resonsibility to control your daughter's sexual behaviors. If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you. It's your responsibility to know where your child is at at all times and in all circumstances. It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion. That lame parent should have known where their daughter was in the first place! If parents can't parent that's a domestic issue not a political one.

Good grief. Lets not paint with such a broad brush here. What world do you live in?

Kids play hooky from school...Kids fool around in school stairways etc... Kids tell their parents theyre going to Jill's house but end up going over to Jack's house. These things can happen, even with good parent. If a kid goes and fools around sexually behind their parent's back, it doesn't make them a "lame" parent. Get real .

News flash for you sir: No parent can "control" their daughter's sexual behavior unless you're with them 24/7/365.

If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you.... It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion.

Absurd.
A 15 year old can't choose to have plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian. So why should abortion be any different ?? Isnt abortion a medical procedure, and one with potentially harmful or fatal complications?

Why are abortion doctors the only ones out there that can perform a medical procedure on your child without telling you, the parent, about it?

Aquila

01-05-2008, 09:51 PM

Aquila

01-05-2008, 09:56 PM

Good grief. Lets not paint with such a broad brush here. What world do you live in?

Kids play hooky from school...Kids fool around in school stairways etc... Kids tell their parents theyre going to Jill's house but end up going over to Jack's house. These things can happen, even with good parent. If a kid goes and fools around sexually behind their parent's back, it doesn't make them a "lame" parent. Get real .

News flash for you sir: No parent can "control" their daughter's sexual behavior unless you're with them 24/7/365.

Absurd.
A 15 year old can't choose to have plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian. So why should abortion be any different ?? Isnt abortion a medical procedure, and one with potentially harmful or fatal complications?

Why are abortion doctors the only ones out there that can perform a medical procedure on your child without telling you, the parent, about it?

My point is that the other side has valid concerns. Personally I'd rather be notified. Most liberals here in my neck of the woods would agree with me and would like to be notified too. There are extremists on both sides. I believe it was a gallop poll that revealded that 42 or 43% of registered Democrats believed abortion was immoral and the taking of a human life. I know the extremists on the fringe are the loudest but we have to be careful, the rank and file are just blue collar workers who want this country to be just as good if not better than the way we found it. Liberals don't have horns and eat human flesh like everyone thinks they do.

I believe more in personal responsibility. It's my opinion that if you don't home school or send your child to a church run school in which absence is immediately verified you're lacking in the parenting department. Kids have no place in the public schools (public schools should be shut down) nor, as Apostolics, do they belong in larger non-denominational Christian schools. Stay home and educate your children. Live with one car instead of two. Listen the radio instead of pay for cable tv. Buy less expensive food. Don't eat out as much. Do whatever you have to do to afford to raise your kids and home school them. The truth is, if you want to YOU CAN do it. The sad fact is that most parents don't want to.

If you home school it would be pretty hard for Jane to play hooky and get preggers. That's being a biblical parent in my opinion.

TRFrance

01-05-2008, 11:45 PM

I believe more in personal responsibility. It's my opinion that if you don't home school or send your child to a church run school in which absence is immediately verified you're lacking in the parenting department. Kids have no place in the public schools (public schools should be shut down) nor, as Apostolics, do they belong in larger non-denominational Christian schools. Stay home and educate your children. Live with one car instead of two. Listen the radio instead of pay for cable tv. Buy less expensive food. Don't eat out as much. Do whatever you have to do to afford to raise your kids and home school them. The truth is, if you want to YOU CAN do it. The sad fact is that most parents don't want to.

If you home school it would be pretty hard for Jane to play hooky and get preggers. That's being a biblical parent in my opinion.

Get off your high horse, Aquila, and stop looking down on people.
Do you have any idea how closed-minded and judgmental you sound? Has God appointed you to judge the parenting skills of other Apostolics? I think not.

To me, its just outlandish and preposterous you would declare that someone is "lacking in the parental department" or not being "a biblical parent" if their kids are not home-schooled or in Apostolic schools. Please.

Stop the madness.

BoredOutOfMyMind

01-06-2008, 12:38 AM

I'm not for universal health care, BUT, since you claim you know how it would work here in the ol' USA I'm interested. One thing about the Universal Health Insurance notion that does interest me is the stimulation of competition. Christopher is right. If all Americans were insured the cost of health care would go down because hospitals and doctors would actually receive payment for so many of the bills that presently go unpaid. And if a universal health insurance system were optional it would force private insurance to compete with the system, thereby bringing insurance costs down. That's a no brainer. That's market forces of competition at work. With health care costs down insurance would have to become affordable to compete with the national system or go out of business. It's really an interesting idea. But the libertarian in me is hesitant to embrace the idea of a universal health insurance system right now.

Do you really think you are incapable of deciding what is best for YOUR health care? Do you need a government program to decide for you. Are you libertarian or NOT? Seems you are listening to the wrong voice.

:offkey

Not necessarily true.

I had a PPO. That to the uneducated is a Physician Provider Organization. I had a problem where I suddenly could not walk, and so I went to a chiropractor. I was authorized for six visits. It was better, but not totally, so I requested six more. They were approved. Then on visit 12, not only were the additional six denied, so were all future chiropractor visits FOREVER. Seems the new person in the office approved the additional six and no way were they going to approve anymore.

Next, click the quote back and see the $56 eyedrops and $5 asparin tablets. That was two items of the $88,000 hospital bill for MrsB last year.

Prices go down for DOCTORS? I think anyone who spends 80 hrs a week for THREE years deserves every penny they can earn. I know doctors in my town who were at the hospital at 6 AM, and there even at 8 PM at night. And that also included weekends. My wife had a specialized test. The hospital earned $4000. The doctor $146, and this year the allowed amount is going to be cut in half. The doctor admitted he soon will decide to not take on patients since he cannot work for free.

:ouch

Exactly true my friend. Sadly exactly what is the condition of future care. Sadly also is that many Americans will march to this goose step of the Gimme Generation without much thought, study or education on what they are talking about.

BoredOutOfMyMind

01-06-2008, 12:44 AM

Oh, I self paid my Chiropractor visits and in FOUR visits, or a total of 16, I could function fine. I had never been to a chiropractor before and have not been back.

Walkbyfaith7

01-06-2008, 02:34 AM

ChristopherHall

01-06-2008, 06:43 AM

Do you really think you are incapable of deciding what is best for YOUR health care? Do you need a government program to decide for you. Are you libertarian or NOT? Seems you are listening to the wrong voice.

:offkey

I think you've believed a myth friend. In Canada you can go to the doctor whenever you need to. The government doesn't make your health care decisions for you, they only assist in providing coverage for all. It's just like having private insurance accept everyone pays into it. Europe has very similar systems. I've been outside of the United States, have you? Here's an invite....let's find a Canadian forum and chat with some of those folks about it and get it first hand.

I had a PPO. That to the uneducated is a Physician Provider Organization. I had a problem where I suddenly could not walk, and so I went to a chiropractor. I was authorized for six visits. It was better, but not totally, so I requested six more. They were approved. Then on visit 12, not only were the additional six denied, so were all future chiropractor visits FOREVER. Seems the new person in the office approved the additional six and no way were they going to approve anymore.

Who made those decisions for you, the government or your private insurer?

Next, click the quote back and see the $56 eyedrops and $5 asparin tablets. That was two items of the $88,000 hospital bill for MrsB last year.

Why do you suppose they are that expensive? And why do you supposed the private pharmasuetical industry doesn't want compitition from Canada when it comes to medication?

Prices go down for DOCTORS? I think anyone who spends 80 hrs a week for THREE years deserves every penny they can earn. I know doctors in my town who were at the hospital at 6 AM, and there even at 8 PM at night. And that also included weekends. My wife had a specialized test. The hospital earned $4000. The doctor $146, and this year the allowed amount is going to be cut in half. The doctor admitted he soon will decide to not take on patients since he cannot work for free.

You obvious have some gross distortions of the issue at hand. Healthcare costs are inflated. They are inflated because doctors and hospitals aren't getting paid (because they often have to treat the uninsured who cannot pay the bill) and that loss is handed down to you in higher health care costs that bring higher premiums. In a Universal System all doctors and hospitals would be paid for what they do and therefore there wouldn't be a loss to hand down to you. That's why an ever increasing number of doctors and hospitals are supporting a Universal Health Insurance program. Of course...the insurance companies aren't too happy with it because they wouldn't want to compete with a nationalized system. That would mean lowering premiums and that would just cramp their profit margin.

Aquila

01-06-2008, 09:36 PM

Well, I asked if any Canadians would like to have a health care system like America's and the answers were:

"Definately not."

"Nope."

"Never."

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=349598#post349598

I'm courious. Is there something that we as Americans don't understand about this national health insurance stuff.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 08:09 AM

Well....lol....since the thread has ballooned way past the initial comments, I'm not going to bother following up with any point by point rebuttals, especially since most of my comments have already been echoed here in much more efficient responses than I would have done.

I would like to point out a few things though.

The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates...pointing to that one factor shows how weak and ineffectual the arguments for universal health care are.

The second is that using a group like FAIR to come to the conclusion that John Stossel is a "right wing hack" whose analysis can't be trusted shows that there probably isn't any point in continuing debating with you. Hopefully, America will wake up before your kind of ideology wins the day.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 09:37 AM

I would like to point out a few things though.

The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates...pointing to that one factor shows how weak and ineffectual the arguments for universal health care are.

I agree completely, for example, Europeans and Canadians are more health conscious as individuals, meaning they eat healthier and exercise more. Some are satisfied with that and say, “Ah, ha! Universal health care coverage has nothing to do with that.” Oh, to the contrary my dear friend. People with health insurance tend to visit their doctors more often for physicals and checkups. They also visit their doctor more when confronted with aches and discomfort. For example, a Canadian or a European may visit their doctor for a physical at least once a year at the very least. This means they have regular medical advisory to exercise more and eat right with a full explanation of the repercussions should they fail to do so. In America, most Americans put off going to the doctor far more than Canadians or Europeans. Americans typically discover from their doctors that they are already suffering from hypertension, diabetes, or symptoms relating to unaddressed obesity. Why do Americans often put off visiting the doctor? Well for many Americans they cannot afford it. Or if they have a plan like mine, an HSA, they are in a position to seriously budget their doctor visits. I can speak from experience. I was suffering from minor symptoms relating to hypertension for nearly 8 months. Once my symptoms progressed and became more serious I decided that I absolutely had to see a doctor. Viola! The doctor found my problems and put me on a plan and now my health is much better. I also had no idea just how overweight I was according to current medical standards. Why did I put off going to the doctor so long? Money. I simply couldn’t afford an expense like that for something that I thought wasn’t that important. As you know I have contacts in Canada and my wife and I spend time in Ontario most summers. A Canadian friend of mine sees his doctor twice yearly at the least and has headed off most preventable health problems. I couldn’t imagine how much better my health would be if I were able to visit a doctor regularly without having to worry about my budget.

Here’s another interesting detail. The family plan I had before the HSA was nearly $365 a month. My friend in Canada told me that he pays roughly $110 into the provincial health care system monthly and has full coverage for his family. As private health insurance premiums rise higher and higher a national system will be far more economical.

The second is that using a group like FAIR to come to the conclusion that John Stossel is a "right wing hack" whose analysis can't be trusted shows that there probably isn't any point in continuing debating with you. Hopefully, America will wake up before your kind of ideology wins the day.

My point with FAIR is that commentary is just that…commentary. Stossel provided some commentary but it’s not real reporting. Facts are what matter, not what Stossel thinks about those facts.

Here is what we’re up against:

In America nearly 50 million are uninsured.

We who have insurance pay higher premiums to make up the difference left by the uninsured who seek medical assistance.

The number of uninsured are growing. At the current rate that premiums are increasing, my family will be part of that growing statistic in roughly 4 years. Odds are…so will yours.

The higher premiums are putting a killing on American businesses. Employers are finding it harder and harder to afford health insurance plans for their employees and maintain their current profits. This causes American business to be at a disadvantage in the local and global markets.

Premiums are already more expensive than a national system would be. As the cost of premiums increase the nationalized system will even look better to a growing number of Americans.

More and more Republicans are operating stateside by drafting legislation to cover all citizens in their given states to help drive down the cost of health care regionally but without a national standard plans are facing difficulties.

Last year roughly 25,000 Americans lost nearly everything they owned and declared bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

Last year roughly 18,000 Americans lost their lives because they couldn’t afford necessary treatments that could have saved their lives or were denied coverage by private insurance companies. (Remember, at one time these were the unborn you would have argued to save from abortion…yet they were allowed to lay and die by a profit driven health care system because saving their lives was deemed unprofitable).

It’s easy to sit here and philosophize on a stupid web-forum. The rubber meets the road when we decide as a society to do what is best for us all. Bishopl, I love ya, but you’re only offer philosophical answers as to why you’re AGAINST insuring all Americans. But your philosophizing doesn’t matter to a mother whose 26 year old son is dying of cancer and the health insurance company denied coverage for the second half of his treatments. Your philosophizing doesn’t matter to a man who has been uninsured for the past 5 years because he couldn’t afford it and now he finally breaks down because of the pain and goes to the emergency room…to find after being examined that he has cancerous tumors growing throughout his body. Then he’s told it would have been treatable if he had caught it nearly 4 months ago…but he didn’t have insurance 4 months ago, because of well meaning, but misguided, people like you who are standing in our way in our effort to insure him. At this juncture your philosophizing and internet debating doesn’t amount to anything significant. What matters is what you plan to do to help remedy the situation and help the 50 million, and growing, who don’t have health insurance.

So, aside form your philosophizing…what do you plan to do? Don’t compromise patient rights by giving doctors a license to kill or be negligent. Don’t compromise by just accepting the Social Darwinist ideals that the strong will survive. And don’t claim that health benefits will trickle down as we benefit these multibillion dollar corporations. They’ve reported RECORD PROFITS. If your ideology were correct we would have record numbers insured!

I’m not asking you what you “believe”…I’m asking you what you plan to do and if you have the guts to do it though it go against your Republican social conditioning. This subject isn’t about debating. This subject is about motivating. Motivating you to look around you and consider that maybe you’re mistaken. I was there bro. Leaving the country and talking to people outside of the US was quite a shocker for me. I was confronted with a reality that I had denied far too long. I walked away honestly believing in my heart that America can and should do better. We’re the only Western Nation that doesn’t have a national health insurance program. And we’re lagging behind with third world nations that don’t. That’s no coincidence.

What do you suggest we do to save these people? I’m sure if they were unborn you’d scream bloody murder that we do something. We need to honor live from the womb to the tomb. And that requires adequate health care between the two. You can’t tell me a young person has the right to live before they’re born… but then tell me its fine if they die because they cannot afford treatments after their born. The 18,000 or so Americans who died last year because they couldn’t afford treatments that could have saved their lives had a right to live and were denied that right by our privatized system. I’m sure if United Health Care flew a plane into a building killing 18,000 Americans you’d care.

What do you suggest we do bro?

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 10:45 AM

Chris,

I think you missed my point regarding correlation and causation. My point is that just because European countries have longer life expectancy rates and universal health care, that does not mean that universal health care is the cause of longer life expectancy rates. Instead, you launch into personal anecdotes and how government paid doctor visits save lives.

If the US homicide rate is 10x higher than that of various European nations, it is A. going to effect life expectancy rates here in the US, and B. cannot be prevented by the federal government paying for you to go to the doctor. You seem to want to overlook these kinds of vital points...instead, you choose to believe that b/c European countries have universal health care and higher life expectancy, that that must be the determining factor. THIS IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

Further, personal anecdotes don't mean squat too me. Meeting two dozen people in Canada who love their health care system means nothing to me, nor does it say anything to me about the overall health care system in Canada. In fact, as has already been suggested, it's my opinion that just like everyone else, your personal life experiences color your perception. You are a liberal government employee making the occassional trip to a liberal country. Am I supposed to be swayed by the fact that you met a fellow liberal who has no complaints about his country's health care system? I acknowledge that I'm a conservative working in the private sector who has made the occassional trip down south, so my perception is tainted as well...but the difference is that I'm not demanding of other people that they pay out of pocket for my beliefs.

As for Stossel and the lack of facts, he says:

The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

Assuming that he isn't misrepresenting those numbers, (and I freely confess that right now I don't have time to look them up), it says to me that he had plenty of facts. They are facts that groups like FAIR do not like.

As for the rest of the post, I'll post an article that does a pretty good job of explaining how health care costs can be lowered/handled without the government intervention you are advocating.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 10:50 AM

Lowering the Cost of Health Care

by Ron Paul

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

August 23, 2006

----------------------------------------------------------

The fact is, Chris, that it was government intervention that messed health care up in the first place. More government intervention is not the answer. Give people BACK their money...then they'll have the money to pay for medical costs.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 10:53 AM

I’m asking you what you plan to do and if you have the guts to do it though it go against your Republican social conditioning.

So in other words, your way is the only right way?

Sorry, Chris, I'm not buying it. Government intervention is a fast track to disaster. The "guts" i have are going to be used standing up against facist liberal politicians who, rather than giving people back their hard earned money, want to take it with vague promises of "taking care" of people. In the meantime, Christians have shirked their God given responsibility of helping the needy b/c big daddy government is doing it for them. In my opinion, it's not just a wrong headed philosophy, it is an immoral one contradictory to God's chosen plan.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 11:50 AM

I think we agree that the current system is failing. I look at my son and wonder if we'll have health insurance in the next four years. I think most Americans are concerned with the well being of their families. It's not pro-goverment, it's pro-family. The corporate powers that be are hanging our families out to dry and milking us into poverty. These guys recorded record profits...yet rates increased. It would make sense if they were taking a beating but they're not. It's pure greed.

Something has to be done.

If the US homicide rate is 10x higher than that of various European nations, it is A. going to effect life expectancy rates here in the US, and B. cannot be prevented by the federal government paying for you to go to the doctor. You seem to want to overlook these kinds of vital points...instead, you choose to believe that b/c European countries have universal health care and higher life expectancy, that that must be the determining factor. THIS IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

The statistics are based on an overall statistical comparison of health. For example, they will take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians. Some studies might take more, some might take less. There has been more than one study on this. Regardless, each group is demographically the same. The overall life expectancy is higher among every 1,000 (in this example) Canadians and Europeans when compared to demographically matched grouping of 1,000 Americans. Some studies use smaller groupings and some may use more. The interesting thing is that statistically the data matches percentage wise regardless as to size of grouping. This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda.

…your personal life experiences color your perception. ….so my perception is tainted as well...but the difference is that I'm not demanding of other people that they pay out of pocket for my beliefs.

Really, many don’t want to pay for the unjustified war in Iraq. Pre-emptively bombing a country without solid intelligence as to if they are indeed a significant threat is something many cannot support. Hey, bomb the Taliban all you like. Pursue bin Laden…but don’t bomb a nation pre-emptively without rock solid evidence and make me pay for it. I don’t like the idea of paying for corporate bail outs because the company couldn’t manage its money. Also when these companies are given massive tax breaks, the government doesn’t go out of business, we pay the difference. So technically we pay for corporate tax breaks. I don’t like the idea of paying for that. I’m not a big advocate of the death penalty, I don’t like my money being used for that. But you know what…you would use the police power of government to force me to pay for things that I find questionable. We all got to pay for things we don’t personally support or desire. I’d rather pay for the uninsured to have health insurance than for bombing a nation under false pretenses. Tax breaks and corporate bailouts…those may be justified given the climate of the economy so I don’t swear against them entirely.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

You’re exactly right on the money here! However, I look at it as a mandate. The reason so many living in well to do house holds don’t have health insurance is because it’s so expensive. It’s a crime that so many work hard enough to make a good living but don’t have health insurance. The 19% that making more than $75,000 a year most likely don’t have insurance because they choose to pay out of pocket. The 20% that are not yet citizens I can understand not insuring, but you have to ask yourself…if they are sick, like those who make $50,000, they still go to the emergency room and therefore we still pay for them in higher premiums. The 33% who qualify for existing government programs but are not enrolled are scattered throughout the states and are mostly uninformed about the program’s existence or unaware that they qualify. On these level we are talking about state programs that receive federal dollars. And it’s important to note that since these programs are on the state level the entire 33% are not eligible for all the same programs because they live in different states. A resolution would be to at the very least expand Medicare to cover these individuals by channeling those funds for these unused programs into Medicare. Those using the programs would be integrated into the national system. All would then be eligible for the same programs and all could be made aware that they qualify for the new federal program. Because these programs are often unused by so many who are eligible, if we were to channel all this funding into a federal system to cover all Americans that system will be funded roughly 60% at current levels. The increase in taxes would therefore be relatively minimal. Then factor this into the equation; let’s say that you were paying $365 a month for your current family plan. If you choose to go with the government system you would no longer have to pay that premium. Instead you would specify on your taxes that you are using the government system and the cost would be applied to your taxes. At current estimates most Americans wouldn’t even pay what Canadians pay, but let’s say you’d pay around $110 extra on your taxes a month…you’re not paying the $365 premiums any more…you just got to keep $255 a month of your own money that would have otherwise been spent on the inflated premiums.

As for the rest of the post, I'll post an article that does a pretty good job of explaining how health care costs can be lowered/handled without the government intervention you are advocating.

I’ll look it over. Traditionally I hear whining about the cost of malpractice insurance and the suggestion of capping malpractice claims. But what they don’t understand is that this insurance only accounts for a little over 6% of the over all cost of American health care. Over 30% is spent on records and clerical staff alone. Even if we just used a national records database that doctors and private insurers could tap into it would reduce costs drastically. I believe that was one plan suggested by Newt Gingritch, it’s really not a bad idea.

I think we agree that something has to be done. And theoretical trickledown schemes aren’t going to work. We need to look at what has worked elsewhere modify it for our nation, and make it the best health care system on the planet.

TRFrance

01-07-2008, 11:53 AM

The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates

Not only are homicide rates higher, but the rate of death by auto accident is higher here also than in many industrialized countries (partly influenced by a very high DWI rate). Between homicides and accidental deaths, the numbers are skewed to such an extent that we really cant draw any valid conclusion based on the life expectancy numbers. For advocates of Universal Health care to still use the "life expectancy" argument is either an indication of a lack of knowledge, or intellectual dishonesty.

Walkbyfaith7

01-07-2008, 12:11 PM

Not only are homicide rates higher, but the rate of death by auto accident is higher here also than in many industrialized countries (partly influenced by a very high DWI rate). Between homicides and accidental deaths, the numbers are skewed to such an extent that we really cant draw any valid conclusion based on the life expectancy numbers. For advocates of Universal Health care to still use the "life expectancy" argument is either an indication of a lack of knowledge, or intellectual dishonesty.

This is because we have:

1.) We raised the legal drinking age to 21 and created stigma with drinking. We say at 18 they can vote, die for our country, etc but not have a glass of wine or a beer? This also creats binge drinking and irresponsible drinking. They have to hide everything and that means hiding it from supports in their life that could help drive if they are drunk, etc.

2.) We have softer punishments for DUII in RELATION to these other countries who have lower death rates in auto wrecks.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 12:17 PM

So in other words, your way is the only right way?

Sorry, Chris, I'm not buying it. Government intervention is a fast track to disaster. The "guts" i have are going to be used standing up against facist liberal politicians who, rather than giving people back their hard earned money, want to take it with vague promises of "taking care" of people. In the meantime, Christians have shirked their God given responsibility of helping the needy b/c big daddy government is doing it for them. In my opinion, it's not just a wrong headed philosophy, it is an immoral one contradictory to God's chosen plan.

I’d rather the government take a smaller chunk of my hard earned money to pay for something I will use regularly than have a corporation take a larger chuck of my hard earned money to pay for something I have to ration and only use in dire circumstances as is the case with the higher premiums and HSAs.

Bishopl…you’ll let a corporation rob you, smile, give them a back rub, and ask for more. Sorry bro…I’m not that much of a pushover. But hey, the corporate powers that by own most conservative politicians (and even a sizeable number of liberal politicians). You’ll support whatever they tell you to. It’s election day and their call all their lap dogs to bark for them. “Roll over and bark sparky.” Woof, woof.

Sorry bro…I look at excessive fees, premiums, and limited benefits the same why you do taxes. The only thing is the taxes I’m willing to pay are far less than the premiums you’re ideology forces me to pay to keep the corporations in record profits ever quarter.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 12:21 PM

Oh my gawd!

I'm discovering that the lock steady conservatives get more goofy with each page of this debate. It's obvious they don't understand how a scientific study comparing samplings of matching demographics work. Homicide and auto-accidents are being considered as factors in a comparable study of matching samplings of between 1,000 and 10,000 adults from other countries compared with that of 1,000 and 10,000 Americans? This is outrageous.

I think the word "ignorant" is too dignified in this case...I think the word "goofy" applies. lol

Ferd

01-07-2008, 12:32 PM

One thing is for sure, Chris can type lots of words!

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 12:33 PM

The statistics are based on an overall statistical comparison of health. For example, they will take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians. Some studies might take more, some might take less. There has been more than one study on this. Regardless, each group is demographically the same. The overall life expectancy is higher among every 1,000 (in this example) Canadians and Europeans when compared to demographically matched grouping of 1,000 Americans. Some studies use smaller groupings and some may use more. The interesting thing is that statistically the data matches percentage wise regardless as to size of grouping. This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda.

2 things i note about this. First, your earlier feigned indignation over my comments regarding liberalism must have clearly been contrived, seeing that you don't see a problem terming my comments as "ignorant." Calling me "dear brother" doesn't negate negative discourse. Don't get the wrong idea...I'm not offended. I frankly think that your arguments, despite your good intentions, are naive and indirectly based on immoral leanings (even if your intentions themselves aren't immoral). I just find it rather ironic that you get a bit upset about my comments regarding liberalism, and yet now are calling my own arguments ignorant.

Second, it's clear that you either still are misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are trying to obfuscate my point with a smoke screen in order to admit that your comments regarding life expectancy have no relevance or are just flat out incorrect.

My point was not and is not that homicide rates are solely responsible for life expectancy rates. It was, and is, that homicide rates, among other things, are factors in life expectancy rates, and yet it is a factor completely unacknowledged by those who support nationalized health care. There are a BILLION other factors (figuratively speaking) that affect life expectancy rates, so no study that you can point too can show that nationalized health care is the sole or even primary factor in longer life expectancy rates. Show me one study group who says they have definitively proven this, and I'll show you a liberal group that is full of it. You continue to insist, in spite of the fact that your argument doesn't stand up to logic or science, that there is a direct correlation between life expectancy rates and nationalized health care, without one speck of evidence to back you up. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. My suggestion is to take an introductory logic class at your local community college.

Really, many don’t want to pay for the unjustified war in Iraq.

As far as Iraq, I've said here and other places that due to Middle Eastern mindsets, I don't think long term military occupation and continued war is going to solve the problem. I'm for finding an energy policy that will weed us away from our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, for eventual military withdrawal from Middle Eastern countries, etc. etc. And if the plan is to stay in Iraq, Congress should have and needs to officially declare war. I'm not in favor of this, seeing that I don't see much evidence it's possible to establish a stable, right thinking democracy in a predominately Muslim country. I'm also against pre-emptive strikes on Iran.

However, the military and it's direction thereof, is constitutionally under the control of the federal government. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing people the right to healthcare, or giving the federal government the right to control all healthcare in the country.

Part of your problem, Chris, is that you want to believe that you're somehow a moderate centrist and conservatives can be whitewashed into one category. The fact is that just because a person is against nationalized health care doesn't mean they support intrusive foreign policy or are in love with the death penalty.

You’re exactly right on the money here! However, I look at it as a mandate. The reason so many living in well to do house holds don’t have health insurance is because it’s so expensive.

yes, and a great deal of the blame can be laid directly on the shoulders of the federal government. Yet your answer is to give the government more control.

I think we agree that something has to be done. And theoretical trickledown schemes aren’t going to work. We need to look at what has worked elsewhere modify it for our nation, and make it the best health care system on the planet.

We need to decide what will work best for us, not based on what has "worked elsewhere" but what will be best for America, and still be constitutionally correct. In 1776 we weren't bent on following after the other countries of the world...why should we be now? America doesn't need to look at Europe to lead her...IMO, Europe is disintegrating from within due to immigration policies, socialistic economic policies, etc.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 12:40 PM

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 12:43 PM

One thing is for sure, Chris can type lots of words!

LOL

I love to write. I'm a born writer. And by virtue of that I've learned to type quite well.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 12:46 PM

One thing is for sure, Chris can type lots of words!

Yes, indeed. The perfect government employee...writes pages upon pages and still gets it wrong. ;)

Unfortunately, I've wasted far too much time responding to this already, especially when it's doubtful he'll ever get it. You all have a lovely day....

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 12:59 PM

Bishopl, how do you believe the statistical data was arrived at and then we can examine some of these studies in detail. Explain why you feel homicide rates have any bearing on the study seeing that none of the comparative demographic samples were murdered? LOL

Maybe I’ll explain it real simple again, this is only an example: Let’s say you take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians, each from the very same socioeconomic demographic. You examine their overall health and life expectancy in relation to morbidity as tracked over time. None of the sample taken on either side died of homicide. However, the Canadian sample lived on average an additional 5-7 years than the American sample. When examined in detail you find that Canadians had nearly twice the regular medical check ups, ate healthier diets as recommended by their physician, and had affordable access to needed prescription medications. Their American counterparts had far fewer regular check ups or doctor visits found directly in relation to coverage or the lack thereof. They didn’t eat according to their rarely visited physician’s recommended diet, and due to sporadic prescription drug coverage in relation to change of employment, change of insurance coverage, or change of location the American sample had less access to needed prescription medications. The conclusion would be that Americans don’t live as long because they have inadequate health care in relation to their Canadian counter parts. Especially seeing that they died from health problems untreated, under-treated, non-diagnosed that would have been preventable with regular check-ups and attention from a family physician.

Please explain how homicide is a factor in or example of the study?

Ferd

01-07-2008, 01:02 PM

Yes, indeed. The perfect government employee...writes pages upon pages and still gets it wrong. ;)

Unfortunately, I've wasted far too much time responding to this already, especially when it's doubtful he'll ever get it. You all have a lovely day....

Now that there was funny. I dont care who you are that was funny!

Sorry Chris, I apprecate you, I think you are a great guy, but the above was just plain funny!

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 01:06 PM

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 01:08 PM

Not as funny as not knowing how a scientific study is conducted and arguing from "goofy" logic. lol

Ferd

01-07-2008, 01:11 PM

Not as funny as not knowing how a scientific study is conducted and arguing from "goofy" logic. lol

oh it was funny alright.....

by the way, anyone quoting FARE or th WTO will not be taken seriously by us conservitives. we dont like them people, they is commies.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 01:34 PM

I’d also like to take the time to mention a glaring truth that Bishopnl’s generalizations fail to consider.

A person can believe the Liberals are right about a given issue, however be conservative in every other respect. One can be Pro-Life (yes there are even Pro-Life Democrats), one can be pro-marriage, one can believe in the infallibility of Scripture and many other “Conservative” positions and issues.

I submit to you that no one is entirely “conservative” or “liberal”. I may feel that the liberals are right regarding health care…that doesn’t mean I personally believe in everything the liberal believes in. So I think it’s unfair for a fellow conservative to call me a “liberal” when most “liberals” denounce me as a raving conservative Bible fundamentalist. LOL

We cannot classify one another based on what we feel about one issue. In Canada there are solid conservative men who defend the Canadian health system. The entire Liberal vs. Conservative thing is strictly a tool in American politics to motivate a voter base. It has no reflection on the average voter.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 01:35 PM

oh it was funny alright.....

by the way, anyone quoting FARE or th WTO will not be taken seriously by us conservitives. we dont like them people, they is commies.

Here is a question most don't have the stones to ask...what if they're right?

Walkbyfaith7

01-07-2008, 01:39 PM

Ferd

01-07-2008, 01:40 PM

Here is a question most don't have the stones to ask...what if they're right?

well, Ive asked that question and here is what i come up with.

WTO is the same people that want Lybia on the UN committee to oversee terrorism and such.

FAIR is made of of some of the most partisian people in America and they are pushing for a restriction by the government of first amendment rights to free speach. (Fairness Doctrine)

that alone is enough for me to say what ever they say is tainted to the point it cannot be accepted. sorry bro, I aint buying what they are selling.

DividedThigh

01-07-2008, 01:44 PM

well, Ive asked that question and here is what i come up with.

WTO is the same people that want Lybia on the UN committee to oversee terrorism and such.

FAIR is made of of some of the most partisian people in America and they are pushing for a restriction by the government of first amendment rights to free speach. (Fairness Doctrine)

that alone is enough for me to say what ever they say is tainted to the point it cannot be accepted. sorry bro, I aint buying what they are selling.

dont waste your breat ferd my friend they aint listenin, just tryin to spout there lib ideas, which is there right, lol,dt:drama

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 01:52 PM

I just got called a liberal for the first time in my life today on this forum lol.
It's just plain hate.

Sadly, many of our fellow conservatives have been conditioned to label and "hate" anyone who disagrees with them.

The truth be told...no philosophical or economic approach is absolutely right. In their eyes "conservatism" is absolutely correct without any possiblity of error...it's a religio/political form of idolatry. Their religion is "Conservative Christianity"...not "Christianity". The same can be said of the liberal ideologues. Their religion is a "Liberal Christianity" not just "Christianity".

But there will always be those of us who see the truth. Sometimes the liberals are right and sometimes the conservatives are right. Neither are right 100% of the time on every issue. And my latest skirmish here is based on the the fact that I believe the liberals are right regarding health insurance.

Since Republicans have had office for so long and done virtually nothing aboutu abortion or gay marriage...I'm not going to let them fool me with these issues. They don't plan on EVER addressing these issues. Why? Because they need them every election to manipulate the gullible. Same on the liberal side. The truth is that neither of these issues will ever be resolved. So I've chosen to move forward. I want to secure health insurance for my family. It's my primary issue this election.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 01:57 PM

As you can see the study is a targeted slice of the pie sampling. Not a statistic over overall deaths in either nation that might include homicide or traffic accidents. LOL

That's why I called the homicide deal "goofy" when compared to the health study.

And again, you are STILL missing the point. The point wasn't about homicides or car accidents. The point was that there are MULTIPLE reasons for lower life expectancy rate. You referenced a few of them yourself...diet and exercise. These do not have to be recommended by a physician...the fact is that anyone with a basic education or common sense can live a healthy lifestyle. Even if you exclude any deaths by non-natural causes, there are still multiple variables to consider, even besides diet and exercise. On average Americans work more hours and for a longer period than Europeans...work related stress might cause life expectancy to dip. Lifestyle choices might play a part. There are a variety of things to be looked at. The fact is that you, using your flawed logic, have looked at one factor and concluded that must be the cause.

Perchance have you looked at the WHO studies and concluded that their data ommitted all accidental deaths or any deaths by causes that weren't natural? These are the particular studies under discussion, not some study you saw somewhere else. So far, the WHO study is the only one referenced. I would be interested to know if this study excluded any person of any demographic that died by causes that weren't natural. Which, by the way, makes me wonder. If you exclude death by any cause which is not natural (disease or old age or whatever), how would that give the overall "life-expectancy of a country?"

Goofy is your entire premise, Chris.

Walkbyfaith7

01-07-2008, 01:58 PM

Sadly, many of our fellow conservatives have been conditioned to label and "hate" anyone who disagrees with them.

The truth be told...no philosophical or economic approach is absolutely right. In their eyes "conservatism" is absolutely correct without any possiblity of error...it's a religio/political form of idolatry. Their religion is "Conservative Christianity"...not "Christianity". The same can be said of the liberal ideologues. Their religion is a "Liberal Christianity" not just "Christianity".

But there will always be those of us who see the truth. Sometimes the liberals are right and sometimes the conservatives are right. Neither are right 100% of the time on every issue. And my latest skirmish here is based on the the fact that I believe the liberals are right regarding health insurance.

Since Republicans have had office for so long and done virtually nothing aboutu abortion or gay marriage...I'm not going to let them fool me with these issues. They don't plan on EVER addressing these issues. Why? Because they need them every election to manipulate the gullible. Same on the liberal side. The truth is that neither of these issues will ever be resolved. So I've chosen to move forward. I want to secure health insurance for my family. It's my primary issue this election.

Good point. They use prolife to get the vote but what is done? Bush did seem to uphold marriage between a man and a woman so I will give him credit for that. As far as health insurance goes...well nevermind. :)

Ferd

01-07-2008, 02:05 PM

Sadly, many of our fellow conservatives have been conditioned to label and "hate" anyone who disagrees with them.

The truth be told...no philosophical or economic approach is absolutely right. In their eyes "conservatism" is absolutely correct without any possiblity of error...it's a religio/political form of idolatry. Their religion is "Conservative Christianity"...not "Christianity". The same can be said of the liberal ideologues. Their religion is a "Liberal Christianity" not just "Christianity".

But there will always be those of us who see the truth. Sometimes the liberals are right and sometimes the conservatives are right. Neither are right 100% of the time on every issue. And my latest skirmish here is based on the the fact that I believe the liberals are right regarding health insurance.

Since Republicans have had office for so long and done virtually nothing aboutu abortion or gay marriage...I'm not going to let them fool me with these issues. They don't plan on EVER addressing these issues. Why? Because they need them every election to manipulate the gullible. Same on the liberal side. The truth is that neither of these issues will ever be resolved. So I've chosen to move forward. I want to secure health insurance for my family. It's my primary issue this election.
On one level this is just sad... but you are factuall wrong about republicans doing virtually nothing about abortion and gay marriage. the fact is, republicans have limited partial birth, and GWB appointed 2 guys to the supreme court that might be willing to drive abortion back to the legislators.

that is quite a bit. on the subject of Gay Marriage, how can you do something about something that doesnt exist? goofy.

I want secure health insurance too. I just dont want the government being involved in the process. they mess everything up.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:07 PM

well, Ive asked that question and here is what i come up with.

WTO is the same people that want Lybia on the UN committee to oversee terrorism and such.

The WTO is the World Trade Organization. It’s the world’s largest body of free market thinkers working on a global economy for the coming world government. These are indeed globalists and most free market libertarian and republican types worship at their feet.

The WHO is the World Health Organization is a division of the United Nations staffed with participating members and physicians from many different countries including the US. But in my opinion the WHO is also very liberal in many ways. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong 100% of the time, especially when studies conducted by other private and non-profit organizations find the same results.

It’s important that if you critique the WHO, which is justified in some cases, you understand that they are not the WTO. LOL

FAIR is made of of some of the most partisian people in America and they are pushing for a restriction by the government of first amendment rights to free speach. (Fairness Doctrine)

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

Ferd

01-07-2008, 02:14 PM

The WTO is the World Trade Organization. It’s the world’s largest body of free market thinkers working on a global economy for the coming world government. These are indeed globalists and most free market libertarian and republican types worship at their feet.

The WHO is the World Health Organization is a division of the United Nations staffed with participating members and physicians from many different countries including the US. But in my opinion the WHO is also very liberal in many ways. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong 100% of the time, especially when studies conducted by other private and non-profit organizations find the same results.

It’s important that if you critique the WHO, which is justified in some cases, you understand that they are not the WTO. LOL

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

I am very sorry. I typed WTO instead of WHO.... i was speaking of WHO.

good grief.

Ferd

01-07-2008, 02:19 PM

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Some folks would believe the Devil himself over an honest liberal if he were a card caring Republican.

the devil himself is a card carrying liberal so even if he were a republican, we still would not trust him.

Fairness doctrine is absolutly the federal government restricting FREE SPEACH.

this is the only thing I can think of that absolutly will get me to march on washington. if the dems push this horrible attack on the American people I will go and protest.

Chris, IF you are serious, you have just dropped a peg in my estimation. this is the worst attack on American Freedom in the last hundred years!

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:22 PM

And again, you are STILL missing the point. The point wasn't about homicides or car accidents. The point was that there are MULTIPLE reasons for lower life expectancy rate. You referenced a few of them yourself...diet and exercise.

The study showed that Canadians who have universal coverage visit the doctor more often. Therefore they are twice as likely to follow a physicians advice to diet and exercise. Most Americans don’t begin dieting or exercising until they’ve had their first major health problem. Typically that problem was undiagnosed for some time, typically due to more infrequent visits to the doctor. Statistically this was found to be primarily because most Americans didn’t have adequate health insurance on a consistent basis.

These do not have to be recommended by a physician...the fact is that anyone with a basic education or common sense can live a healthy lifestyle.

Studies show that most Americans who diet and exercise do not maintain it as a lifestyle unless they have a physician finally warn them of impending health problems. Again the numbers are in agreement with and reflect the lack of or availability of insurance being a primary factor in frequency of physicians visits, physicals, and preventative exams (prostate exams for example).

But hey…if you think “common sense” helps a loving mother who’s watching her husband die of cancer half way through treatments because his insurance company denied them coverage for the needed treatments, be my guest.

Even if you exclude any deaths by non-natural causes, there are still multiple variables to consider, even besides diet and exercise. On average Americans work more hours and for a longer period than Europeans...work related stress might cause life expectancy to dip.

You are correct here, especially if comparing with France. Stress related illness is very low in comparison to the United States. Our corporate task masters work us to death for profit. We’re “wage slaves”. LOL

Lifestyle choices might play a part. There are a variety of things to be looked at. The fact is that you, using your flawed logic, have looked at one factor and concluded that must be the cause.

Lifestyle choices are typically based on information. Canadians visit their physician and have preventative exams and physicians twice as much as Americans. Americans that didn’t visit their doctor as frequently didn’t do so typically because of cost.

Perchance have you looked at the WHO studies and concluded that their data ommitted all accidental deaths or any deaths by causes that weren't natural? These are the particular studies under discussion, not some study you saw somewhere else. So far, the WHO study is the only one referenced. I would be interested to know if this study excluded any person of any demographic that died by causes that weren't natural. Which, by the way, makes me wonder. If you exclude death by any cause which is not natural (disease or old age or whatever), how would that give the overall "life-expectancy of a country?"

Simply by studying a scientifically chosen sample and comparing it to another scientifically chosen sample. You’ll figure it out eventually bro.

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 02:42 PM

Tell you what, Chris. Link me to the particular study you are referring too, and we'll discuss it from there.

The particular study I'm referring to is the WHO study. This may not be the most recent version of it, but this is essentially the same one.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?strISO3_select=ALL&strIndicator_select=LEX0Male,LEX0Female&intYear_select=all&language=english

Listed on the site:

Rationale for use
Life expectancy at birth reflects the overall mortality level of a population. It summarizes the mortality pattern that prevails across all age groups - children and adolescents, adults and the elderly.

Definition
Average number of years that a newborn is expected to live if current mortality rates continue to apply.

As it is, I'm sick of arguing with you. I don't think you have any particular study in mind, and I have my doubts that you've even studied the WHO data. It might be amusing if it weren't so sad.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:42 PM

I am very sorry. I typed WTO instead of WHO.... i was speaking of WHO.

good grief.

Please offer sources on WHO's activities.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:43 PM

On one level this is just sad... but you are factuall wrong about republicans doing virtually nothing about abortion and gay marriage. the fact is, republicans have limited partial birth, and GWB appointed 2 guys to the supreme court that might be willing to drive abortion back to the legislators.

Republicans have produced a limitation on partial birth abortions that has so far been seriously challenged because it didn’t meet SCOTUS standards. The legislation was drafted by purposefully disregarding the standards set by the SCOTUS. Many circuit courts are already showing cases challenging it’s Constitutionality. In addition the legislation, should it be ruled Constitutional only effects less that 1% of abortions procured. It’s a bone tossed to the gullible to keep ‘em barking for the Republicans on election day. However, I give him credit, even if it does save one life it’s a good thing and I stand firmly behind it. It just doesn’t impress me as much as it does you bro.

As as for the Supreme Court Justices…give me a break. Those cats aren’t going to do anything about abortion and in your heart you know it. The Republicans can’t afford to have this issue resolved….they need it to keep them values voters votin’ their values. I’m indignant because I believe my values are being used to try to manipulate me politically. I’ll give them my values vote when they stand and deliver. Right now I want to know I’ll have health insurance in 4 years for me, my wife, and my 18 month old son.

that is quite a bit. on the subject of Gay Marriage, how can you do something about something that doesnt exist? goofy.

I think GM is sick. But you know what…I’m not going to let them steal my family’s health insurance over it. Those who participate in GM are “doing” eachother….UHC, who is cutting my benefits after multiple quarters of record profits and giving CEO Dr. William McGuire 1.7 billion dollars in stock options will “do” your family and my family if we don’t stand up to them. ;)

I want secure health insurance too. I just dont want the government being involved in the process. they mess everything up.

Next time your house is on fire…don’t call the municipal fire department. They’ll just mess it up. LOL
Water main break in front of your house? Don’t call the city water department…they’ll mess it up.

Did you know that the private health care industry spends over 30% of it’s overall costs primarily on paperwork, clerical, and records keeping? The government runs Medicare, guess how much they spend on the same service? Roughly 10%.

Also consider this… in 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the US, it totaled US $6,096; in Canada, US $3,038. Through all entities the United States spends more per capita than any other nation in the world, but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care coverage. Health insurance here in the U.S. is expensive, rapidly rising costs are affecting employers and consumers as well as the government, and a study in Health Affairs concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills.

Frankly, the government can’t mess it up much worse than the private sector with their lobbying already has. LOL

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:45 PM

WHO's data isn't the only study out there bro.

Are you meaning to tell me that Americans wouldn't benefit from seeing their doctor more often?

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 02:46 PM

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 03:01 PM

WHO's data isn't the only study out there bro.

Are you meaning to tell me that Americans wouldn't benefit from seeing their doctor more often?

It's this kind of post that makes me scratch my head and wonder why I wasted any time with this asinine debate.

I've stated repeatedly that WHO's study is the one in question. It was the one first referenced. It's been the only one cited. And yet, for some odd reasons, now it's vague allusions to "other" studies.

I give, Chris. When I cited the hallmark SC case Roe v. Wade, you state that there are "other" abortion cases out there. After you had a good laugh at people pointing out other factors that affect life expectancy studies (hint hint the WHO study, which is the one referenced) now there are "other" studies. If you have another study that compares a certain demographic and excludes deaths that are not natural (i.e. disease or old age), then feel free to show it. The one I'm talking about is the WHO study which combines demographics and studies the overall life expectancy rate for a population...and I haven't seen anything on their site that leads me to believe they exclude car accidents and homicides, although I do believe those studies are weighted for things like natural disasters and war, because those things can obviously skew mortality rates. If it's on there, show it to me and I apologize in advance for my stupidity, because I've looked at the WHO site several times today and in the past and just didn't see it. To me, a study that looked at a demographic and didn't include things like accidents can't be valued for showing life-expectancy rates for an entire demographic....especially when you are comparing demographics from different countries. It might be valuable for some reasons, but overall life expectancy, IMO, would not truly be one of them. Maybe "life-expectancy for people who only die of natural causes"...even then, it wouldn't be proof that nationalized health care is the difference maker in societies.

And no one has said Americans wouldn't benefit from seeing a doctor more. They also would benefit from dieting and exercise, and probably working a tad less too. I don't deny that there are problems with health care that need to be fixed. You act like we think the current system is great...no one is maintaining that. I even posted an article by Ron Paul, a licensed medical physician and politician, regarding ways to change the current system WITHOUT involvement from the federal government. And individual states can certaintly decide for themselves whether they want to help citizens with the cost of healthcare. But I see no reason, practically or constitutionally, why nationalizing health care and allowing the federal government to take control of it, would be a good thing.

TRFrance

01-07-2008, 03:08 PM

And to think... this is only January... elections are in November..

...so we get to argue over this stuff for 10 more months.

HURRAY!!! (not)

bishopnl

01-07-2008, 03:09 PM

What I offered you was an example as to how a scientific study in this area is done. Please look at the finer details of the WHO's study.

Chris, I have. Nowhere do I see that they are excluding people in any demographic who died of causes that weren't natural. Perhaps you can help me out. You point out to me in the fine print where only disease or old age is considered in mortality rates, and other forms of death are not. As I said in my previous post, I do see that it's weighted for natural disasters or war...but why would they even need to reference that fact if they are excluding ANY cause of death that wasn't by natural causes?

I guess I'm missing the point. How does one arrive a life expectancy rate for a population if the only causes of death that can be considered are those that are natural? Do people who drown not count? People who are electrocuted shouldn't have any affect on overall life expectancy?

If you have another study, show me. If the WHO study factors out anyone who dies by anything other than natural causes, show me. Because I'm a bit lost. So far I've only seen your derisive commentary and your speculation on "other" studies. The WHO site is freely available, and judging by the comments I posted from it, the life expectancy rate factors in mortality rates from every demographic, not just mortality rates of people who died by natural causes. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong, or be corrected. I just am not seeing it.

TRFrance

01-07-2008, 03:13 PM

Please explain how the fairness doctrine restricts free speech. I’ve not really looked at the issue.

Here's an article that deals with the topic fairly well...

'The Un-Fairness Doctrine': Unevening the playing field

Posted: January 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David Limbaugh

© 2007 Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.
The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded – Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 – and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted – fittingly – in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.
The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.

Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views … will also be heard. … People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard – and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing – except consumer resistance – precludes liberal entry into the talk-radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed, we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.
With the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.
Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.
What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides"? Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh – many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct – the only proper way to view the world – and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media have presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.

The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53840

...

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:37 PM

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:37 PM

Interesting article:

September 28, 2007
Editorial Observer
The Socialists Are Coming! The Socialists Are Coming!
By Philip M. Boffey
The New York Times

The epithet of choice these days for Republicans who oppose any expansion of government's role in health care programs is "socialized" medicine.

Rudy Giuliani has used the "s-word" to denounce legislation that would enlarge a children's health insurance program and to besmirch Hillary Clinton's health plan. Mitt Romney has added a xenophobic twist, calling the Clinton plan "European-style socialized medicine," while ignoring its similarities to a much-touted health care reform he championed as governor of Massachusetts. Other conservative critics have wielded the "s-word" to deplore efforts to expand government health care programs or regulation over the private health care markets.

Our political discourse is so debased that the term is typically applied where it is least appropriate and never applied where it most fits the case.

No one has the nerve to brand this country's purest systems of "socialized medicine" — the military and veterans hospitals — for what they are. In both systems, care is not only paid for by the government but delivered in government facilities by doctors who are government employees. Even so, a parade of Washington's political dignitaries, including President Bush, has turned to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for checkups and treatment, without ideological complaint. Politicians who deplore government-run health care for average Americans are only too happy to use it themselves.

Nor are they eager to tar the vast array of government hospitals and clinics that serve our nation's veterans. For one thing, the veterans' hospitals, once considered a second-rate backwater, now lead their private sector competitors in adopting electronic medical records and score well for delivering high quality care at relatively low cost. Even when the veterans' hospitals were rightly criticized this year for their part in the disgraceful failure to care adequately for soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no clamor to junk or privatize the system, only demands to make it better.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg startled most New Yorkers two years ago when he asserted that the city's public hospitals are "better than the great teaching hospitals" all around them. Although some deemed his praise hyperbolic, the city's billionaire, entrepreneurial, free-market-enriched mayor thought he knew quality when he saw it, even if it was socialist at its core.

The country's vast Medicare program is one step less socialized — a "single-payer" program in which the government pays for the care and sets reimbursement rates, but the actual care is delivered by private doctors and hospitals. When Medicare was launched in 1965 it was routinely denounced as socialized medicine, but it has become so popular that politicians deem it the third rail of American politics, sure to electrocute anyone who tries to cut it or privatize it. No politician is eager to brand 43 million beneficiaries as socialists at heart.

Meanwhile, the two current butts of the "s-word" are such hybrids of public and private elements that it is hard to know how to characterize them. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, was denigrated by one Republican congressman this week as "a government-run socialized wolf masquerading in the sheep skin of children's health." It might better be thought of as a "double-payer system" in which the states and the federal government put up the money, the states take the lead in defining the program and the actual care is typically delivered through private health plans by private doctors and hospitals.

The "s-word" seems even less appropriate for Senator Clinton's proposed universal health care plan, which seeks to bolster employer-provided health benefits and create new purchasing pools to help individuals buy private policies at low group rates.

True, her plan would expand government regulation, and she wants to make a Medicare-like option available to compete with private policies. But that would only lead to a socialized, single-payer system if everybody were to choose the Medicare-like option.

There is no special magic in government-run or government-financed health care. Medicare has serious cost-control and financing problems, and the veterans' hospitals could take a turn for the worse, as they have in the past, should federal funding shrivel. Private health care systems have strengths of their own, are favored by many patients and often provide care as good as any.

The take-home message for voters is this: Look behind the labels to judge health care proposals on their merits. Whenever you hear a candidate denounce something as a step toward socialized medicine, it probably isn't. More likely the politician is demagoguing the issue or is abysmally ignorant of the inner workings — and real, not ideological, failings — of the country's multifaceted health care system.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:39 PM

I liked the cartoon with this one.

Single-Payer National Health Insurance

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
http://www.pnhp.org/images/cartoons/hightower_cartoon.gif
The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.
A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
The links below will lead you to more specific information on the details of single-payer:

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:40 PM

For those wishing to begin solid research on the subject:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:43 PM

Interesting data:

Physicians for A National Health Program FAQ:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes
Won’t this raise my taxes?

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 20% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.
A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s rationing. No other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the U.S. does.
If there is this much rationing why don’t we hear about it? And if other countries do not ration the way we do, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public, ours are not. In U.S. health care no one is ultimately accountable for how it works. No one takes full responsibility.
The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably the General Accounting office report in 1991, and the Congressional Budget office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are far higher in the U.S. than in other countries’ systems. These inflated costs are directly tied to our failure to have a publicly-financed, universal health care system. We spend at least twice more per person than any other country, and still find it necessary to deny health care.

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.
The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:46 PM

Consider the following:

The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.

Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.

We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.

We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.

Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.

Nationalized medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:47 PM

Here is a listing of interesting statistical data collected from the American Society of Registered Nurses:

When we surveyed select counties across the world for life expectancy, which was defined as the life expectancy at birth for both sexes, the U.S. fared very poorly.

The U.S. came in 17th, tied with Cyprus, with a life expectancy of 78.0. Here are the countries in the top 17: Japan (81.4); Switzerland (80.6); Sweden (80.6); Australia (80.6); Canada (80.3); Italy (79.9); France (79.9); Spain (79.8); Norway (79.7); Israel (79.6); Greece (79.4); Austria (79.2); New Zealand (79.0); Germany (79.0); U.K. (78.7); Finland (78.7); Cyprus (78.0); and the U.S. (78.0).

In our survey of select countries across the world for infant mortality, which was defined as the number of deaths per 1,000 live births, the U.S. again did poorly.

The U.S. came in 16th, below South Korea, with an infant mortality rate of 6.4. Here are the countries in the top 16: Sweden (2.8); Japan (3.2); Finland (3.5); Norway (3.6); Czech Republic (3.9); France (4.2); Spain (4.3); Denmark (4.5); Austria (4.5); Canada (4.6); Australia (4.6); Portugal (4.9); UK (5.0); New Zealand (5.7); South Korea (6.1); U.S. (6.4).

The next question is whether the U.S. truly spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare. This would indeed indicate a mismanagement of funds budgeted for the healthcare system.

While there may be mitigating circumstances, these would have to be deemed controllable by the most powerful nation on earth.

We then surveyed per capita health expenditures, by country, which was defined as the sum of public and private expenditures, in U.S. dollars, divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative); family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation.

The U.S. spends $5,711 per person. That's a whopping 33% more the next highest spending country, Norway. Norway spends only $3,809 per person.

Here are the top 27 highest per capita spending countries in the world: U.S. ($5,711); Norway ($3,809); Switzerland ($3,776); Luxembourg ($3,776); Iceland ($3,110); Germany ($3,001); Canada ($2,989); Netherlands ($2,987); France ($2,902); Australia ($2,874); Denmark ($2,762); Sweden ($2,704); Ireland ($2,496); U.K. ($2,389); Austria ($2,306); Italy ($2,266); Japan ($2,244); Finland ($2,108); Greece ($1,997); Israel ($1,911); New Zealand ($1,893); Spain ($1,853); Portugal ($1,791); Slovenia ($1,669); Malta ($1,436); Czech Republic ($1,302).

Finally, If the U.S. truly has the "best health care system in the world" you'd expect it to have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people. Or else it should be very, very close to the top of the list.

However, this time the results are shocking. The U.S. isn't even on the list of the top thirty countries in the world that have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people.

These top 30 countries are, by number of physicians to 100,000 people: Cuba (591); Saint Lucia (517); Belarus (455); Belgium (449); Estonia (448); Greece (438); Russian Federation (425); Italy (420); Turkmenistan (418); Georgia (409); Lithuania (397); Israel (382); Uruguay (365); Iceland (362); Switzerland (361); Armenia (359); Bulgaria (356); Azerbaijan (355); Kazakhstan (354); Czech Republic (351); Portugal (342); Austria (338); France (337); Germany (337); Hungary (333); Spain (330); Sweden (328); Lebanon (325); Malta (318); Slovakia (318).

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 06:48 PM

If a "conservative" told you that the world was flat...would you believe them?

ChristopherHall

01-07-2008, 07:13 PM

Here's an article that deals with the topic fairly well...

TRFrance...very interesting article. However, it's rather one sided. What does the other side have to say?

bishopnl

01-08-2008, 07:38 AM

Bishopl, the study was about far more than your link discusses. It rated at least 191 nations and I have a .pdf copy of the report that is over 200 pages long. Do you really think your post properly addressed the issue? Go back and do your home work Bishop.

Chris,

It's clear that you have no clue what you are talking about, and also clear that you don't even want to bother to look at the data. Yes, the study was more, but we were only talking about one aspect of the study. The study also included a lot of other data irrelevant to this argument...we were discussing life expectancy.

You cannot accurately gauge the life expectancy of a population of any country and omit certain causes of death. It would cause your data to be inaccurate and faulty. Which is pretty much what your whole argument is. I don't have time to waste with such foolishness.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 07:46 AM

Interesting article for those interested:

A study in the current issue of Health Affairs finds the that the U.S. lags behind other developed countries in preventable deaths.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080108082944.htm

US Ranks Last Among Other Industrialized Nations On Preventable Deaths, Report Shows

ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research. While other nations dramatically improved these rates between 1997--98 and 2002--03, the U.S. improved only slightly.

If the U.S. had performed as well as the top three countries out of the19 industrialized countries in the study there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths in the U.S. per year by the end of the study period. The top performers were France, Japan, and Australia.

In "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine compare trends in deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care. Specifically, they looked at deaths "amenable to health care before age 75 between 1997--98 and 2002--03."

Nolte and McKee found that while other countries made strides and saw these types of deaths decline by an average of 16%, the U.S. experienced only a 4% decline. "It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the U.S.," said Nolte, lead author of the study. The authors also note that "it is difficult to disregard the observation that the slow decline in U.S. amenable mortality has coincided with an increase in the uninsured population, an issue that is now receiving renewed attention in several states and among presidential candidates from both parties."

"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference."

In 1997--98 the U.S. ranked 15th out of 19 countries on the "mortality amenable to health care" measure. However, by 2002--03 the U.S. fell to last place, with 109 deaths amenable to health care for every 100,000 people. In contrast, mortality rates per 100,000 people in the leading countries were: France (64), Japan (71), and Australia (71). The other countries included in the study were Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Study authors state that the measure of deaths amenable to health care is a valuable indicator of health system performance because it is sensitive to improved care, including public health initiatives. It considers a range of conditions from which it is reasonable to expect death to be averted even after the condition develops. This includes causes such as appendicitis and hypertension, where the medical nature of the intervention is apparent; it also includes illnesses that can be detected early with effective screenings such as cervical or colon cancer, and tuberculosis which, while acquisition is largely driven by socio-economic conditions, is not fatal when treated in a timely manner.

"Cross-national studies conducted by The Commonwealth Fund indicate that our failure to cover all Americans results in financial barriers that are much more likely to prevent many U.S. adults from getting the care they need, compared with adults in other countries," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "While no one country provides a perfect model of care, there are many lessons to be learned from the strategies at work abroad."

This research was supported by The Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of Health Affairs. The Commonwealth Fund is an independent foundation working toward health policy reform and a high performance health system.

Graphic chart from NPR:

http://media.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/jan/preventable.gif

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 08:02 AM

Ferd

01-08-2008, 08:03 AM

If a "conservative" told you that the world was flat...would you believe them?

If a "conservative" told me the world was flat, I would call him a liberal.

Ferd

01-08-2008, 08:05 AM

Remember when Galileo argued that the sun was in the center of the Solar System and religious authorities charged him with heresy? Their narrow minded religo-political dogma thought his conclusions would threaten the authority of the church and the faith. Today we all know he was right. I'm here to tell you, you're theory is misplaced and the data is overwhelmingly in favor of national health insurance. You can rebuke me and call me a liberal heretic all you like...but it doesn't change the facts. Eventually America will have one of the best national health insurance programs on earth. In that day Christians, Conservatives, and Liberals alike will simply accept that it was the best and most economic option and the heated debate on the issue will be forgotten...just as we agree with Galileo today that the Sun is indeed in the center of the Solar System.

Bishop...the world isn't flat, and the Sun is in the center of the Solar System. You might as well stop arguing that the data is wrong.

You know Chris, this is a two way street.

Liberal worship at the alter of single payer healthcare and wont listen to reason

Liberal worship at the alter of soak the rich and all our problems will be solved despite proof of the oppostie.

Liberals worship at the alter of throw money at a problem regardless of the fact that the approach has failed for 40 years.

If you want to play that game, im willing. I suspect you wont like me when we are done.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 08:08 AM

And for our Canadian brethren. Congrats!

Our health care rated 'excellent value'
New British study gives Canada's system high marks for preventing people from dying from treatable conditions
Joanne Laucius, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e12a5abb-b4e3-471f-b343-9a298f7cd98f

OTTAWA -- Canada's health care system offers "excellent value for the money" says a British researcher who has studied preventable deaths in 19 industrialized nations.

The study, to be released today in Health Affairs, looks at "amenable mortality" -- deaths that would not have occurred if effective health care had been available.

Conditions that caused these deaths included bacterial infections, treatable cancers, diabetes, some cardiovascular disease and the complications of common surgical procedures. The study, which looked at figures from 2002-03, updated a similar report based on 1997-98 figures. Its goal was to compare amenable deaths in the United States with 14 western European nations, plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

The study also tracked whether gaps in these countries had narrowed or widened. The figures were computed according to amenable deaths per 100,000 population under the age of 75. In the first study, the researchers found that amenable deaths in the U.S. stood at 114.74 per 100,000 population, exceeded only by Ireland, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom.

In that time period, Canada's amenable mortality rate was 88.77 -- the seventh-lowest rate after France, Japan, Spain, Australia, Sweden and Italy. In the most recent study, Canada's amenable death rate had dropped to 76.83, putting Canada sixth after France, Japan, Australia, Spain and Italy.

Meanwhile, amenable mortality rates in the U.S. have barely budged from 114.74 to 109.65 in 2002-03, taking the U.S. from 15th place to last place among the 19 countries.

"This study shows that Canada's health system has performed very well in its ability to prevent people from dying from treatable conditions," said Martin McKee, a researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and co-author of the study.

"While everyone has to die from something, sometime, in an ideal world, no-one would die from the causes we have looked at, in the age groups we have included." Of course, we don't live in an ideal world, said said McKee.

"However, the bottom line is that the Canadian health system delivers outcomes that are substantially better than those in its southern neighbour."

More importantly, outcomes in Canada are improving more quickly than those in the U.S., he said. "Given that the U.S health care system is far more expensive, this suggests that Canadians are getting excellent value for money."

The researchers expect there will be further improvements in amenable mortality rates in industrialized countries, but the rate will slow down.

The most significant gains were made in the 1970s and 1980s, when drugs to treat common conditions such as hypertension became widely available, said McKee. That raises questions about whether the U.S. will be able to narrow the gap between itself and countries with much lower amenable mortality rates, he said.

"Other research shows that many Americans are unable to afford the prescription drugs they need. So, if some future administration can tackle this then we could see real improvements there."

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 08:11 AM

You know Chris, this is a two way street.

Liberal worship at the alter of single payer healthcare and wont listen to reason

Liberal worship at the alter of soak the rich and all our problems will be solved despite proof of the oppostie.

Liberals worship at the alter of throw money at a problem regardless of the fact that the approach has failed for 40 years.

If you want to play that game, im willing. I suspect you wont like me when we are done.

As the the number of the uninsured grows it will inflate premiums. It's not fair that corporations make those who can afford health insurance (the "rich" as you put them) pay for the uninsured with ever rising costs. A national health insurance program would require far less in taxes than current premiums, thereby saving "the rich" money...it's the massive insurance companies who are pushing for higher profit margins (they are reporting record profits) that are soaking the rich...not those advocating for a single payer system.

This may be too personal, and I apologize if it is bro, but if you don't mind sharing with us...how much do you pay a month in premiums for your health insurance?

Ferd

01-08-2008, 08:16 AM

As the the numbers of the uninsured grows it will inflate premiums. It's not fair that corporations make those who can afford health insurance (the "rich" as you put them) pay for the uninsured with ever rising costs. A national health insurance program would require far less in taxes than current premiums, thereby saving the rich money...it's the massive insurance companies that are soaking the rich...not those advocating for a single payer system.

what a joke.

so you simply end how many companies out there? how many jobs are you willing to just toss?

good grief.

And lets not even get into the reality that eliminating competition drives up prices.

and lets not even talk about the reality in places like Canada where their taxes for health care are going thru the roof... Or England where they are TURNING SHEETS OVER because it costs too much to WASH THEM, and where they are talking about not treating people for cancer if they smoke, or heart desiese if they weight too much, all to cut health care costs.

dude, how about you just change jobs and find a job with good insurance? quite blaming me for your issues.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 08:29 AM

what a joke.

so you simply end how many companies out there? how many jobs are you willing to just toss?

I wouldn't advocate ending private insurance. I think a national system should be an option for all citizens. This will force the private companies to compete and lower their prices. They have recorded record profits bro...they're not hurting.

And lets not even get into the reality that eliminating competition drives up prices.

Bro...an optional national health insurance system would stimulate competition. That's been proven.

and lets not even talk about the reality in places like Canada where their taxes for health care are going thru the roof... Or England where they are TURNING SHEETS OVER because it costs too much to WASH THEM, and where they are talking about not treating people for cancer if they smoke, or heart desiese if they weight too much, all to cut health care costs.

Bro, that's a myth, wanna go to the Canadian thread and talk to some Canadians first hand about it? Most Canadians pay far less toward health insurance in their taxes than we do in premiums paid to private companies. A Canadian Apostolic living in Canada named Ron on this very form stated that his premium paid into their national system is only $108.00 for a family of five. The family plan my wife and I had cost $365.00 a month in premiums.

Bro...you've believed a lie.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=213465&postcount=77

dude, how about you just change jobs and find a job with good insurance? quite blaming me for your issues.

Actually bro, I work for the government and I have a relatively good health insurance plan with UHC right now. The plan we did have would have cost us $365.00 a month for the family plan in the private sector and was an excellent full coverage plan. We paid only $40.00 a month for that plan though (remember, it was a government plan). However, plan we have now is an HSA with a high deductible of $4,000 and when that deductible is paid the insurance picks up 100% of costs. The government front loads the HSA with $3,000 at the beginning of every year, so I actually only pay $1,000 of the deductible if needed, if I use less than $3,000 a year in health care spending I essentially pay nothing. In theory my plan can accumulate funds seeing that it is an HSA, at the end of 3 years the government will have front loaded $9,000 into our health savings account. The funds can be taken out and used for non-medical purposes, however we have to pay taxes and a non-medical usage penalty. In the end I can use all funds accumulated in the HSA for retirement without penalty on top of my OPERS retirement plan. Oh...and my premium is only $40.00 a month for the family plan (so essentially our monthly premiums didn't change). But remember...mine is a government negotiated/funded plan. ;) I'm worried about others, not myself bro. I'm willing to pay an additional $70 a month into a national health insurance program if it means every American has decent health insurance.

I'd much rather see my tax dollars going to work for all of us as a people.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 09:01 AM

I seem to remember hearing that President Bush is directing funds for universal health insurance coverage for Iraqi families. Is this true? If so, what about Americans?

bishopnl

01-08-2008, 09:02 AM

Bishop...the world isn't flat, and the Sun is in the center of the Solar System. You might as well stop arguing that the data is wrong.

I'm not arguing that the data is wrong.

Chris, talking to you is enough to give me a migraine. You have no clue what you are talking about, and yet you are smugly trying to assert that the rest of us are "goofy" b/c we point out the flaws in your conclusions.

I'M NOT ARGUING WITH THE DATA. I'm arguing with your assertion that life expectancy rates for a population exclude all forms of death that are not natural. If you took a sample of 10 people, 5 of them died at the age of 20 in car accidents, the other 5 died at the age of 75 of old age, the average life expectancy from that sample group is not 75. This is what you are asserting. The WHO study takes into account these kinds of factors. I'm not arguing with the WHO's assertion that the US is 37th in terms of life expectancy. I'm only arguing with your conclusion that A. all forms of death except disease and old age were excluded and B. that this proves that nationalized health care is the deciding factor in this study. If car accidents account for a million deaths a year (just a hypothetical number) then that is going to lower the average life expectancy for a population--just like heart attacks, cancer, and other forms of death that are not old age.

Sheesh.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 09:06 AM

Here's a good one. LOL

Here is an American Apostolic brother on this forum who happens to live in Canada. When asked if Canadians wanted a health care system like America's he wrote in response:

as an American living in Canada.....NOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=351085&postcount=111

Bishop, instead of traveling south you need to open your experiences to something that might challenge you and cause you to reflect beyond WorldNetDaily articles. LOL Get out more bro. Visit Canada or Europe, live there a while. Then you'll be able to speak from personal first hand, eye-witness experience. Then when these studies come out and you hear the sort of retorts offered you'll realize out absolutely off the wall and detached from reality you sound bro.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 09:10 AM

I'm not arguing that the data is wrong.

Chris, talking to you is enough to give me a migraine. You have no clue what you are talking about, and yet you are smugly trying to assert that the rest of us are "goofy" b/c we point out the flaws in your conclusions.

I'M NOT ARGUING WITH THE DATA. I'm arguing with your assertion that life expectancy rates for a population exclude all forms of death that are not natural. If you took a sample of 10 people, 5 of them died at the age of 20 in car accidents, the other 5 died at the age of 75 of old age, the average life expectancy from that sample group is not 75. This is what you are asserting. The WHO study takes into account these kinds of factors. I'm not arguing with the WHO's assertion that the US is 37th in terms of life expectancy. I'm only arguing with your conclusion that A. all forms of death except disease and old age were excluded and B. that this proves that nationalized health care is the deciding factor in this study. If car accidents account for a million deaths a year (just a hypothetical number) then that is going to lower the average life expectancy for a population--just like heart attacks, cancer, and other forms of death that are not old age.

Sheesh.

Since the first study was too difficult for you to grasp bro, I cited a more recent study released today, if my memory serves me correctly. Maybe it's more specific in how it arrived at it's conclusions.

If you wish to continue talking strictly about health care we can go to the Canadian Flavor thread on the topic and discuss this with Canadians and internationals who may be able to shed some light on any misconceptions in the discussion.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5559

bishopnl

01-08-2008, 09:16 AM

From Ask.com:

Life Expectancy at Birth:
The life expectancies that you usually read about are life expectancies at birth. The current U.S. life expectancy is 77.5 years. This number takes the current rates of mortality at each age and figures out where the average is. Deaths at young ages impact life expectancy averages much more than older deaths. If a person dies at 18, that is 59.5 years lost. A person dying at age 70 only loses 7.5 years. Young deaths impact life expectancy at birth statistics. If you can reduce your risk to some of the most common causes of death of young people, such as car accidents, you can significantly beat this number.

Chris, I would just like to hear an apology from you for calling the conservatives "goofy" for daring to assert that car accidents and homicides might have an impact on life expectancy at birth rates. That is, after all, what the referenced part of the WHO study is about.

You were wrong, Chris. Wrong. And an apology is owed.

Bishop, instead of traveling south you need to open your experiences to something that might challenge you and cause you to reflect beyond WorldNetDaily articles. LOL Get out more bro. Visit Canada or Europe, live there a while. Then you'll be able to speak from personal first hand, eye-witness experience.

:ohplease This from the guy who quotes FAIR and says he is not a liberal. Here's a reading recommendation. It's called the Constitution. You might find it gives you a new perspective.

bishopnl

01-08-2008, 09:57 AM

Since the first study was too difficult for you to grasp bro, I cited a more recent study released today, if my memory serves me correctly. Maybe it's more specific in how it arrived at it's conclusions.

I'm assuming this is the study you are referring to, since it's the only one I saw that was centered around life expectancy. If it's another study, show me which one.

When we surveyed select counties across the world for life expectancy, which was defined as the life expectancy at birth for both sexes, the U.S. fared very poorly.

The U.S. came in 17th, tied with Cyprus, with a life expectancy of 78.0. Here are the countries in the top 17: Japan (81.4); Switzerland (80.6); Sweden (80.6); Australia (80.6); Canada (80.3); Italy (79.9); France (79.9); Spain (79.8); Norway (79.7); Israel (79.6); Greece (79.4); Austria (79.2); New Zealand (79.0); Germany (79.0); U.K. (78.7); Finland (78.7); Cyprus (78.0); and the U.S. (78.0).

In our survey of select countries across the world for infant mortality, which was defined as the number of deaths per 1,000 live births, the U.S. again did poorly.

The U.S. came in 16th, below South Korea, with an infant mortality rate of 6.4. Here are the countries in the top 16: Sweden (2.8); Japan (3.2); Finland (3.5); Norway (3.6); Czech Republic (3.9); France (4.2); Spain (4.3); Denmark (4.5); Austria (4.5); Canada (4.6); Australia (4.6); Portugal (4.9); UK (5.0); New Zealand (5.7); South Korea (6.1); U.S. (6.4).

The next question is whether the U.S. truly spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare. This would indeed indicate a mismanagement of funds budgeted for the healthcare system.

While there may be mitigating circumstances, these would have to be deemed controllable by the most powerful nation on earth.

We then surveyed per capita health expenditures, by country, which was defined as the sum of public and private expenditures, in U.S. dollars, divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative); family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation.

The U.S. spends $5,711 per person. That's a whopping 33% more the next highest spending country, Norway. Norway spends only $3,809 per person.

Here are the top 27 highest per capita spending countries in the world: U.S. ($5,711); Norway ($3,809); Switzerland ($3,776); Luxembourg ($3,776); Iceland ($3,110); Germany ($3,001); Canada ($2,989); Netherlands ($2,987); France ($2,902); Australia ($2,874); Denmark ($2,762); Sweden ($2,704); Ireland ($2,496); U.K. ($2,389); Austria ($2,306); Italy ($2,266); Japan ($2,244); Finland ($2,108); Greece ($1,997); Israel ($1,911); New Zealand ($1,893); Spain ($1,853); Portugal ($1,791); Slovenia ($1,669); Malta ($1,436); Czech Republic ($1,302).

Finally, If the U.S. truly has the "best health care system in the world" you'd expect it to have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people. Or else it should be very, very close to the top of the list.

However, this time the results are shocking. The U.S. isn't even on the list of the top thirty countries in the world that have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people.

These top 30 countries are, by number of physicians to 100,000 people: Cuba (591); Saint Lucia (517); Belarus (455); Belgium (449); Estonia (448); Greece (438); Russian Federation (425); Italy (420); Turkmenistan (418); Georgia (409); Lithuania (397); Israel (382); Uruguay (365); Iceland (362); Switzerland (361); Armenia (359); Bulgaria (356); Azerbaijan (355); Kazakhstan (354); Czech Republic (351); Portugal (342); Austria (338); France (337); Germany (337); Hungary (333); Spain (330); Sweden (328); Lebanon (325); Malta (318); Slovakia (318).

Once again, Chris, you have proven that you don't have a clue in the world what you are talking about. This particular study again points to an average life expectancy at birth in the US of about 78 years. This doesn't contain a lot of details about the methods used, but again, since it falls in line with the WHO study, we have to assume that life expectancy at birth considers all deaths in a population, not just those those from old age or disease. There is NOTHING in this study that supports your assertion. Zip, nada, nothing.

Chris, you asserted earlier that life expectancy rates at birth, per the WHO and any other study that has been cited on here, did not include accidents, homicides, etc. I think I've shown pretty convincingly that it does include those things. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd like an apology for your smug comments earlier.

This is just one reason why I don't want nationalized health care. You're representative of a government employee, but you can't seem to grasp the simplicity of a concept like life expectancy at birth.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 10:04 AM

Bishop...go back and read my post...the study I was referring to wasn't the study found in post #113 as you propose. As indicated in post #128 the study I'm currently referring to was released today and can be found in post #s 117 and 121.

Bishop, you're slipping because your stuck on the subject of life expectancy. We are examining far more than that, we're looking at all the factors combined.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 10:09 AM

I'm assuming this is the study you are referring to, since it's the only one I saw that was centered around life expectancy. If it's another study, show me which one.

When we surveyed select counties across the world for life expectancy, which was defined as the life expectancy at birth for both sexes, the U.S. fared very poorly.

The U.S. came in 17th, tied with Cyprus, with a life expectancy of 78.0. Here are the countries in the top 17: Japan (81.4); Switzerland (80.6); Sweden (80.6); Australia (80.6); Canada (80.3); Italy (79.9); France (79.9); Spain (79.8); Norway (79.7); Israel (79.6); Greece (79.4); Austria (79.2); New Zealand (79.0); Germany (79.0); U.K. (78.7); Finland (78.7); Cyprus (78.0); and the U.S. (78.0).

In our survey of select countries across the world for infant mortality, which was defined as the number of deaths per 1,000 live births, the U.S. again did poorly.

The U.S. came in 16th, below South Korea, with an infant mortality rate of 6.4. Here are the countries in the top 16: Sweden (2.8); Japan (3.2); Finland (3.5); Norway (3.6); Czech Republic (3.9); France (4.2); Spain (4.3); Denmark (4.5); Austria (4.5); Canada (4.6); Australia (4.6); Portugal (4.9); UK (5.0); New Zealand (5.7); South Korea (6.1); U.S. (6.4).

The next question is whether the U.S. truly spends more than any other country in the world on healthcare. This would indeed indicate a mismanagement of funds budgeted for the healthcare system.

While there may be mitigating circumstances, these would have to be deemed controllable by the most powerful nation on earth.

We then surveyed per capita health expenditures, by country, which was defined as the sum of public and private expenditures, in U.S. dollars, divided by the population. Health expenditure includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative); family planning activities, nutrition activities and emergency aid designated for health, but excludes the provision of water and sanitation.

The U.S. spends $5,711 per person. That's a whopping 33% more the next highest spending country, Norway. Norway spends only $3,809 per person.

Here are the top 27 highest per capita spending countries in the world: U.S. ($5,711); Norway ($3,809); Switzerland ($3,776); Luxembourg ($3,776); Iceland ($3,110); Germany ($3,001); Canada ($2,989); Netherlands ($2,987); France ($2,902); Australia ($2,874); Denmark ($2,762); Sweden ($2,704); Ireland ($2,496); U.K. ($2,389); Austria ($2,306); Italy ($2,266); Japan ($2,244); Finland ($2,108); Greece ($1,997); Israel ($1,911); New Zealand ($1,893); Spain ($1,853); Portugal ($1,791); Slovenia ($1,669); Malta ($1,436); Czech Republic ($1,302).

Finally, If the U.S. truly has the "best health care system in the world" you'd expect it to have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people. Or else it should be very, very close to the top of the list.

However, this time the results are shocking. The U.S. isn't even on the list of the top thirty countries in the world that have the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people.

These top 30 countries are, by number of physicians to 100,000 people: Cuba (591); Saint Lucia (517); Belarus (455); Belgium (449); Estonia (448); Greece (438); Russian Federation (425); Italy (420); Turkmenistan (418); Georgia (409); Lithuania (397); Israel (382); Uruguay (365); Iceland (362); Switzerland (361); Armenia (359); Bulgaria (356); Azerbaijan (355); Kazakhstan (354); Czech Republic (351); Portugal (342); Austria (338); France (337); Germany (337); Hungary (333); Spain (330); Sweden (328); Lebanon (325); Malta (318); Slovakia (318).

Once again, Chris, you have proven that you don't have a clue in the world what you are talking about. This particular study again points to an average life expectancy at birth in the US of about 78 years. This doesn't contain a lot of details about the methods used, but again, since it falls in line with the WHO study, we have to assume that life expectancy at birth considers all deaths in a population, not just those those from old age or disease. There is NOTHING in this study that supports your assertion. Zip, nada, nothing.

Chris, you asserted earlier that life expectancy rates at birth, per the WHO and any other study that has been cited on here, did not include accidents, homicides, etc. I think I've shown pretty convincingly that it does include those things. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd like an apology for your smug comments earlier.

This is just one reason why I don't want nationalized health care. You're representative of a government employee, but you can't seem to grasp the simplicity of a concept like life expectancy at birth.

The WHO's study (not the rock group) wasn't based on life expectancy. It was based on an examination of health care systems in 190 countries in relation to accessibility, cost, and reported morbidity from preventable conditions. Again the report is over 200 pages long. You may be able to find it on their website. Not sure why you think it's merely about life expectancy. LOL

bishopnl

01-08-2008, 10:32 AM

Bishop...go back and read my post...the study I was referring to wasn't the study found in post #113 as you propose. As indicated in post #128 the study I'm currently referring to was released today and can be found in post #s 117 and 121.

Chris,

Neither post #117 nor post #121 deal with life expectancy at birth rates. They deal with amenable mortality or preventable death rates. These are vastly different than life expectancy at birth rates, and the fact that you don't seem to know the difference is a bit scary.

Bishop, you're slipping because your stuck on the subject of life expectancy. We are examining far more than that, we're looking at all the factors combined.

The reason why I'm "stuck" on the subject of life expectancy is because you said, back in post #179: "This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda."

But life expectancy at birth rates (which is what we were discussing at the time) has to do with every kind of death. It has to do with homicide rates, deaths by car accident, etc. So as far back as page 7, you either were not understanding the concept of life expectancy rates, or else you were being dishonest. Either way, if you can't grasp the simplicity of a concept like life expectancy at birth rates, why should I bother to hear you out on anything else?

The WHO's study (not the rock group) wasn't based on life expectancy. It was based on an examination of health care systems in 190 countries in relation to accessibility, cost, and reported morbidity from preventable conditions. Again the report is over 200 pages long. You may be able to find it on their website. Not sure why you think it's merely about life expectancy. LOL

I have said, again and again and again, I KNOW THE STUDY ISN'T BASED SOLELY ON LIFE EXPECTANCY. I know there is more to it than that. But the argument about life expectancy began with the article posted by John Stossel. Stossel points out that life expectancy played a part in how the WHO arrived at their conclusions...and yet, life expectancy has a lot more factors than just health care. Stossel pointed out that the homicide rate is 10x higher here than in Britain. Yet you deny that this has any bearing, because homicide is not factored into life expectancy rates.

Your words were: "I'm discovering that the lock steady conservatives get more goofy with each page of this debate. It's obvious they don't understand how a scientific study comparing samplings of matching demographics work. Homicide and auto-accidents are being considered as factors in a comparable study of matching samplings of between 1,000 and 10,000 adults from other countries compared with that of 1,000 and 10,000 Americans? This is outrageous."

And yet, homicide rates and auto-accidents are factors in studies done by the WHO in life expectancy at birth rates. All deaths are. No, it doesn't settle the issue and mark the overall WHO rankings as worthless...but it does play a part in a better understanding of the WHO study. Instead of acknowledging this, you deny that homicides and auto-accidents are even factors in the study, which is blatantly false, and either represents your lack of knowledge or willingness to be dishonest when putting forth facts and figures to support your argument.

So fess up, Chris. You owe us conservatives an apology. ;)

MissBrattified

01-08-2008, 04:43 PM

According to the WHO mortality tables for all registered deaths in Canada and U.S. in 2000, deaths of all causes were around 0.065%(of the population) for Canada, and approx. 0.80% for the U.S. That is actually a fairly large per capita difference, with Canada being the clear winner.

Instead of viewing the tables linked earlier on this thread, look at the "mortality tables", and compare country to country by year. The information is much more detailed and informative.

The problem is, there is not really any way to attribute that success to Canada's health care system. It could be as simple as better eating habits, more exercise, better genetics, lifestyles that include more activity and less tv watching/car riding, etc etc.

Mortality tables and life expectancy tables (at birth or otherwise) do not offer definitive proof of the success of any country's health care system. What would support a health care system would be data that is shown within a single country showing a reduction in that country's mortality rates after a new system has been implemented. That way many of the regional and cultural influences remain the same. Comparing country to country is erroneous in many ways.

The WHO mortality tables DO include death by homicide, suicide and other deaths by unnatural causes/other-than-illness (in the all-causes column), however, it does break it down further to allow examination of each individual statistic, but they are tiresome to look over.

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 07:55 PM

ChristopherHall

01-08-2008, 08:03 PM

The problem is, there is not really any way to attribute that success to Canada's health care system. It could be as simple as better eating habits, more exercise, better genetics, lifestyles that include more activity and less tv watching/car riding, etc etc.

Studies have shown that Americans typically adjust their diets after being diagnosed with a serious health condition by a medical professional. Canadians do eat better and exercise more than Americans. However, they also visit their doctors far more regularly and therefore one has to consider that such regular medical counsel contributes to their health lifestyle choices. Think about it...they visit a doctor maybe twice more than we do. They most likely have a far better picture of their overall health than most Americans. Therefore when their numbers don't look as good as they did last quarter their doctor informs them and they diet and exercise. There is strong evidence that the two are significantly related.

So yes, Canadians may make better lifestyle choices than Americans...but these choices may be influenced by the fact that they see their doctor far more often than most Americans see theirs. Why? Because they can afford it and Americans typically cannot unless they can afford health insurance.

The article about the British study stated:

"It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference."

Still no body willing to visit the Canadian thread to actually talk with some Canadians who are willing to comment about this?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=351085#post351085