Is the War on women an organized effort?

[JoB]

dyn99

could you please tell me what emergency room you use so i can go there?

this summer i inhaled something i shouldn’t have and got hives on my tongue. I avoid the emergency room like the plague.. but when your tongue swells large enough to cut off air flow you go to the emergency room..

the bill for giving me a couple of shots, hooking me up to an EKG and watching the swelling go down was much more than your projected $400 to $800.

Heck, the fee the emergency room docs tried to stick me with .. after insurance.. for out of network physicians in an in-network facility was higher than that.

the flex-ben account hubby and I invest in each year to cover that which is not covered by our medical insurance is nearly as large as the HSA you use to cover all of your family’s medical charges… and we use it.

this year, we didn’t need it for catastrophic care..

so we got prescription sunglasses.. which really helps with that driving thing…

and i got computer and reading glasses which allow me to spend time here

and read myself to sleep every night without killer headaches…

the lenses for one pair of glasses for either of us now exceed $800 ..

unless of course you count the single lens computer and reading glasses which were less.

even spending flex-ben dollars..

i bought all of those those lenses during the half price sale :(

this year’s fund is going into dentistry and will be gone by mid-summer..

and i won’t be having any cosmetic work done :(

So much for our cushion for catastrophic care:(

like i said..

i am guessing you are too young to be watching the medical costs pile up…

thank god we believe in preventative care.

I hate to think what the bills would be like if we didn’t.

Share This

[redblack]

But I want the right to opt out. And so does every other conservative.

well, until everyone is in and everyone is covered, you basically spent 8 or 9 paragraphs describing “the public option.”

but let us liberals set up the rules and co-pays and deductibles and whatnot, eh? you can set up your little HSA program and we won’t fuss with it.

deal?

oh. and you can’t tell anyone on the public option what procedures the government can’t cover based on moral objections, because you opted out, and except for some seed money, you’re not paying for it. abortions should be available, cheap, safe, and rare. birth control should be handed out like candy.

and for kootch: if you like your insurance the way it is, you get to keep it as-is.

but if you’re a wage-earner, and the government plan provides better benefits for you, you should have the right to opt out of your employers plan if it sucks and replace your premium deduction with a payroll tax.

in addition to the public option – where the single payer doesn’t necessarily have to be the government, you know – you want the government or someone else to administer an optional HSA program? ’cause even if you have that account at a private bank, someone has to recognize it as legal tender for medical procedures. you have to have some kind of infrastructure and standardization and administration.

fine by me. go for it. i’ll let you hammer out the niceties there. maybe i’ll even enroll.

maybe we should take away the health insurance industry’s ability to lobby against it first, though. just to be fair.

and, no, my beer was beer colored. but someone did give me some very tender corned beef.

Share This

[dyn99]

JoB,

First – let’s define these terms so everyone understands them:

Co-pay – a fixed amount that you pay for each visit to the doctor

Co-insurance – a percentage of the total bill that you’re responsible for (in this case 25%)

Deductible – an amount that you have to meet prior to the policy paying out anything

Out-of-pocket maximum – the total amount of money that you would have to pay under any circumstance (in this case $2500 for individual/$5000 for a family)

So my plan has a 75/25% co-insurance – the government pays 75% of all costs, and the individual pays 25%. There are NO deductibles or co-pays.

The maximum amount any individual on the “basic” care provided by the government would pay is $2500/year and $5000/year for a family. Most people with private insurance policies these days have total out-of-pocket maximums higher than this currently. Unless they’re like Redblack or are a partner at Goldman Sachs and have cadillac plans.

So please limit your criticism to what my proposal actually says, not how you mis-interpret it.

As I said earlier “I still think they should have to have some contribution. But I am open to some sort of subsidy for people in extreme poverty like you mention. I think most other conservatives would be too…at least if they have a heart.”

So if you had to choose between food and medical care, I would suspect that you’d be both on food stamps, and some sort of medical voucher system that mirrors food stamps that covers a large portion of that co-insurance requirement.

Are you satisfied that it would adequately protect truly poor people now? The fact of the matter is that they’d get basic health care under my proposal, and many of them don’t now. Basic care with a 25% co-insurance requirement and $2500 out of pocket max is WAY better than going to the ER for all of your care.

I’m also guessing that hospitals and medical practices aren’t going to go after poor people for their 25%, given that they’re already receiving 75% compensation for their services. Most hospitals have a charity program that many people would qualify for in a major medical event, and I can guarantee you than an individual doctor isn’t going to go after someone for not paying their $25 office call fee. It’s simply not worth it.

As to your question about major medical events – let me anwer your question and give you an example:

I am in my 30’s and although I have not had any major medical problems that have required excessive costs, my wife has. I do have a sports-related injury that I have to get regular massage/acupuncture to keep under control, most of which is NOT covered by my insurance policy, and I therefore pay out of pocket for.

My wife dislocated her patella (kneecap) multiple times over a two year period and tore her meniscus requiring arthroscopic surgery.

We had a very good orthopedic surgeon at Group Health that was frank with us about costs vs. outcomes.

He said that she would likely dislocate her patella again if it went untreated. But we had two reasonable treatment options:

1) Get fitted for a knee brace that she would use for athletics/exercise/other times that would put stress on her knee. Cost – a few hundred dollars (mostly covered by insurance). As long as she wears the brace, then it keeps the patella in place. Over time, the patella will stabilize as long as it doesn’t continue getting dislocated.

2) Have a patella tracking surgery, which basically cuts the tendons and ligaments that support the patella, tightens them and prevents it from moving in the future (I’m not a doctor, so I don’t need someone’s more technical description of this – you get the big picture idea). Cost – $10k+, recovery time of 6-8 weeks with no walking or weight on the knee, 6+ months to get back to normal. Results were mixed, but would probably not require her to wear the knee brace forever.

We chose the first option, not just for cost, but for the impact on her body by having to go through major surgery. In our opinion, wearing a brace during athletics or other high stress times was acceptable to not have to go through the cost/recovery time of the surgery.

If people were regularly given choices like this in health care decisions, costs would be reduced.

In any case, for your husband’s detatched retina, any treatment would have wiped out the $2500/$5000 out of pocket max, so the cost is irrelevant. As it would be for many other medical decisions or conditions like Jan’s.

But at least you would know. And could make decisions that were in the best interest of your health and pocketbook.

Any successful healthcare plan necessarily has to balance the two. If you have a better idea, let’s hear it!

Share This

[dyn99]

Redblack – the HSA opt-out option would still require you to purchase a private insurance plan from a private carrier that provided at least catastrophic coverage – say a maximum deductible of $10k.

But those of us who would rather control our own healthcare spending, could do so through a combination of private coverage plus HSA funds (which were subject to the same HSA rules as currently exist, but with a higher contribution limit).

And I’m all for getting rid of the lobbyists, but they have their first amendment rights just like everyone else.

I would be in favor of publicly funded elections though, so that politicians didn’t show up in office the first day owing a bunch of favors to people. It would be nice to think that they were actually capable of working in the public’s best interest instead of special interests.

Share This

[dyn99]

Oh Redblack – to answer your question about who makes decisions on procedures/coverage, etc:

A panel comprised of 50% physicians, 25% health care economists, and 25% health industry executives, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A total of 12 people, so 6/3/3.

It would be legislated that coverage should be weighted on the following factors: 50% individual outcomes, 30% cost/economic factors, 20% public health.

The plan cannot run a deficit, so if costs come in higher than expectations, then coverage needs to be reduced or taxes increased annually. I agree with Kootch that this would have to be done via constitutional amendment.

Abortion coverage would only be provided in the first trimester, or in the case of rape, incest, or if it threatens the life of the mother at any time.

Any individual could opt-out of abortion coverage for the single-payer option, and the funds that would normally be devoted to this coverage would be redirected to a personal HSA. Same for birth control. Religious individuals that don’t believe in those procedures could opt-out but still participate in the single-payer plan.

And no employer-based plans, unless you want to pay income tax on them. So if you like your private insurance the way it is, you can keep it, but you now have to pay income tax on the benefit amount + the new single-payer health care tax. EVERYONE gets to pay the single-payer tax. So you really aren’t going to want to keep that employer-based plan.

Deal?

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99..

LOL..

i am so glad your medical costs have been so easy to control.

i am still walking on the knee that needed surgery when i was 16…

walking… well hobbling.. not skipping, running or jumping

i am still using the jaw that needed corrective surgery when i was 16…

and needed “emergency” corrective surgery about a decade ago when it was regularly falling out of place…

it mostly stays in place now as long as i am careful what i eat …

and we won’t talk about that other bit of “corrective” surgery for … well, that’s personal.. that i “needed” 20 years ago…

they make product for that..

I have spent a lifetime weighing the cost benefit options of medical procedures.

this assumption that those of us who consume health care dollars do so frivolously is another one of those “a.. out of you and me” things…

and if you think giving me a tutorial on health management terms makes any difference in the lack of affordability of the health care plan you propose.. think again.

while you now admit that something would have to be done for those in “extreme” poverty..

you haven’t addressed the fact that the percentage of our population that subsists under the federal poverty level is growing daily…

and it’s a pretty healthy percentage already.

and that they can no more afford the first $2500 of medical expenses than those who live in extreme poverty.

In fact, they can afford it less because they don’t qualify for charity care or other available medical programs.

Do you really believe that hospitals aren’t going to go after that $2500 if they think that person has any assets they can tap?

I have seen collections on as little as $50…

the number one financial cause of foreclosures in America is medical bills.

and you would be astounded at how low the amounts are that some bankruptcy filings are based on.

You are out of touch with the reality that is most American’s lives.

my America doesn’t exist any more

let alone the one my parents enjoyed…

what shouldn’t, couldn’t be happening in America is

it’s time to look at solutions that address today’s problems

Share This

[redblack]

A panel comprised of 50% physicians, 25% health care economists, and 25% health industry executives, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A total of 12 people, so 6/3/3.

sounds like a bunch of rich guys to me. why not expand the panel to 24, to be balanced with consumers and patients?

* * *

to be clear, we’re just spit-balling what public/state-administered health insurance would look like, correct? we’re starting from scratch and scrapping all systems that are currently in place, right?

i’m not signing anything yet. okay?

and keep in mind that i’m not an accountant. let’s keep it simple.

And no employer-based plans, unless you want to pay income tax on them. So if you like your private insurance the way it is, you can keep it, but you now have to pay income tax on the benefit amount + the new single-payer health care tax. EVERYONE gets to pay the single-payer tax. So you really aren’t going to want to keep that employer-based plan.

effectively eliminate employer-based plans. check. everyone pays the single-payer tax, and everyone can then use the system. when you fill out a W-4 or whatever forms you have to fill out to file as self-employed, you are issued a card which could be presented at any health care provider. (excluding, of course, things like elective cosmetic surgery.) cards would also available through the military, the VA, unemployment departments, and through HHS.

which employers would love, since most people’s employer-based insurance premiums are borne or at least matched by the employer. and most people in this country are currently covered through their employers.

and you effectively reduce the cost of labor by about 15%. wages remain the same, but the cost of health insurance gets shifted to employees through the tax. (let’s forget about niceties like deductibles and co-payment for now.)

but if i have to give up my cadillac plan, i should have the same or nearly-as-good coverage that i have now. and so should everyone else. in other words, give everyone better coverage instead of punishing those who currently have good plans.

so, onto the HSA. you want to opt out of single-payer coverage in favor of the HSA.

i assume you want to set up some kind of bank account or credit/debit card through a private entity. or do you envision a government-run bank administering the HSA and issuing you a card?

do you then get a tax credit that’s attached directly to that account?

does that tax credit derive from the single-payer pool?

doesn’t that effectively allow the wealthy to defund the insurance pool?

i guess i don’t understand why a single-payer system would be inadequate if all citizens are entitled to coverage, or why, if we had such a system in place, you would want or need an HSA.

but let me try to guess.

first, i’d say it’s a matter of wanting to keep your tax money in favor of not paying for things that you don’t agree with.

secondly, the claims i hear from conservatives about socialized medicine are mainly about the medical care itself in other countries. but we obviously have the best health care institutions in the world, right? so that’s kind of a moot argument.

it’s access to that care that is at stake here, because currently, it’s not equal for everyone.

so if you equalize and simplify access for everyone, how would the quality of your care suffer?

i can see why people have PTSD about this issue, though, and why they conflate medical costs with insurance costs. and why it sometimes takes so long or costs so much for poorer people to get life-saving procedures. insurance companies are acting as gatekeepers and gouging consumers and employers. they have effectively attached themselves to the host body of the medical industry, and they’re currently driving costs up, not down.

if we have single-payer, we have to ensure that the government is going to step out of the way, to the consumer’s side, and help them pay the bill without affecting quality of care or meddling with procedures; that all procedures agreed upon by the doctor and the patient are covered without question.

[edit: and look at it this way: you would eliminate medicaid block grants to the states, reducing the federal budget. you would also either eliminate medicare or replace it with medicare-for-all, so employees payroll deductions wouldn’t increase by a huge margin.]

Share This

[JanS]

I was going to address that. I would have no way to come up with $2500. So I would put off anything that I needed. Now, how is that working so far? Reality vs. what you think would work…well, there’s always a monkey wrench in there somewhere. And then it get’s complicated. And then you have to modify your little perfect plan to take those wrenches into consideration..and there goes your easy plan, your one size fits all, because it doesn’t.

Share This

[dyn99]

First of all, yes, we’re starting from scratch. Ignore anything we currently have. We’re pressing the “reset” button.

Okay, I’m not going to argue the composition of the panel, but needless to say, I’d rather have people who are qualified and educated making healthcare decisions for the whole country over Joe the Plumber. We will all have input – it’s called an election.

But I want educated people that understand the industry, standards of care, outcomes and economics to be making the decisions on what’s covered and what’s not. Like that prostate cancer drug that costs $150,000 for a course of treatment but only extends your life by an average of 90 days. That’s just not going to be viable under a single-payer system. The government will have to make cost-based decisions not to pay for certain things that don’t actually heal you. If you have a condition that is terminal, and the government can spend $500k to keep you alive for 6 more months, or $5k to keep you comfortable for the next 30 days, then government is going to spend the $5k and make you comfortable while you wait to pass.

I personally don’t want the government making that decision for me, but I’ll address that later. Here’s how the plan would work:

When you are born, you get a SS Card and we’ll call it a MediCard. The MediCard entitles you to the right to the government health insurance program from the date of birth.

Medicare goes away, or, effectively is overhauled to allow everyone to participate regardless of age under new rules. Look at it either way – I don’t care, at this point you’re just changing names, so I’ll call it “Medicare for All”.

Employer based health benefits become taxable as ordinary income and are subject to the “medicare for all tax” along with income tax. Which means your employer will stop offering it pretty quickly. If you’re going to pay tax on it, but you’re already paying the government for essentially the same thing, then your employer would rather give you the money they’re spending on healthcare toward wages instead (which would be taxed at the same rates, but you can spend on anything at your discretion, including healthcare).

If your employer is very generous, they may pay for a supplemental plan through a private insurer, but if they do, then you’ll be taxed on the benefit, so more likely, they may negotiate group rates, and it could be something you “opt-in” to like a company-sponsored retirement plan.

The plan will be a basic plan – it will not come close to your Cadillac plan, Redblack. The quality of YOUR coverage will go down, as it won’t cover any alternative therapies or things we typically consider “optional”. You can always buy a supplemental plan (just like you can for Medicare currently) if you want something better.

But everyone will have access to care, get preventative care, family planning (maternity/contraception) and traditional treatment of disease. The plan has to be basic. Like it’s not going to cover your $800 glasses. It might cover $100 for you to go buy a pair at Costco (who will get reimbursed by the government), but that’s it. You WILL ALWAYS be able to go to the doctor, hospital, etc, and NEVER worry about any significant disease not being treatable because you’re unable to pay.

The Europeans have already tried the “Cadillac for all” method and is has caused half of Europe to go virtually bankrupt because of the mountain of debt, so the only way this is going to work is if we provide basic coverage and make everyone pay something toward their care. And put the costs out there for everyone to see, so they can be aware of what their spending and try to keep it under control.

So Redblack, Cadillac has to go, unless you want to pay for it yourself through a supplement, and pay income tax on the dollars you spend on it. But, your union will probably negotiate a significant raise for you, given that your employer won’t have to spend as much on benefits, and they should devote most if not all of those dollars toward wages instead. Goodness knows the Goldman Sachs partner who gets the same quality of healthcare you do will get the money. The only significant savings to the employer will be not having to pay the roughly 2.3% medicare tax that they currently have to pay on wages.

Jan/Jo – okay, I just raised the out-of-pocket maximum to $3000 per individual and $6000 per family. But I am now going to subsidize that $3000/$6000 on a sliding scale up from the poverty line (~$22k/year) to the median income in your area (here median family income is ~$68k/year) – 100% subsidy below the poverty line and $0 subsidy for median income.

For a family of four making $35k/year (which I am the first one to admit that would be very challenging), the government covers roughly for 72% of that out of pocket, so you’re down to ~$1700/year. You probably can’t afford to pay that still. But the care provider will get 93% payment for your healthcare from the government, and no reasonable provider is going to refuse care from your inability to pay the 7% left over. We can even legislate that they have to provide necessary care to you if you want – not just hospitals this time.

They may even try to come after you for the 7%. But given that you make $35k/year (as a family), you probably don’t keep any money in a bank account (if you even have one) and if you even have credit score, it’s sub-600, so it really doesn’t matter if the load up your credit report with a bunch of delinquencies, you’ll never be qualified to borrow money from any institution until you raise that income anyway. The fact is that you and your children will get access to the same healthcare that every other American does, and that that is a big step forward.

For a family making $45k/year, the maximum you would have to pay out of pocket is $3k/year. If your family makes the median (~$68k), then you’re up to $6k/year. Again, the government covers 75% of the cost until you hit the out-of-pocket maximum and then the government pays 100%. So the out-of-pocket max is only relevant if you have a significant health event or need regular treatment for a disease. 80% of American families won’t regularly hit this out-of-pocket max, and most of those who do will be older and require more healthcare services, so in some sense, they should be paying more.

Okay, now to the HSA. I can pick any local bank or credit union I want to create an HSA account at (same way it works currently), and the government auto-transfers whatever the amount of the adjusted, equalized premium (everybody gets the same amount) would be for the government plan into this account every month (yes, I’m aware this could cause widespread fraud, but we’re talking big-picture here).

I use those funds to have whatever private insurance policy auto-debit from this account, and whatever is left over, I can spend however I want toward healthcare services. Alternative treatment, $800 glasses, natural supplements (legal ones), you name it. How I spend the money is up to me. I can also have $5k/year that I can contribute to this account (individual) or $10k/year (family) tax-free, that I can use to supplement my health care costs. The money is mine (just like an IRA), and I can build up an account balance over time (same as the current HSA laws). If I save enough money, when I’m 90 and on my death bed, I can have private nursing care (paid by my HSA balance) so I can pass in the comfort of my own home.

There’s no tax credit – I simply get to deduct contributions to my HSA the same way I can currently deduct contributions to an IRA (no income limitation though). I just don’t have to pay income tax (or medicare for all tax) on those dollars that I put into this account – but they follow current HSA laws so they have to be used on qualified health care expenses.

As to why I want this – I don’t really care about my dollars being spent toward abortion or contraception – those aren’t big picture issues to me. I just think that I can manage my healthcare dollars better than the government can, and I don’t want the government’s panel telling me what should or shouldn’t be covered. I want the right to choose an insurer that will provide the services I want, and I want the right to sue the insurer for treble damages if they unreasonably deny a claim. And I want a menu of choices – I want 50 options that I can then choose the best one for me. Given that the government will only be providing basic coverage, I will have the choice to pay more for better coverage, if I want it. The more choices the better. I would revel in starting a website that consumers could go to and plug in what’s important to them for their healthcare, and it would rank the plans in order, based on one, large, national marketplace of plans – they can choose the one that fits them best.

Essentially, I want freedom. I don’t want the government making my choices for me. I want to make them myself. I think I can make better choices for my family than a government bureaucrat (or panel) can. But I also understand that a large portion of the population can’t make better choices for themselves, largely because of economics.

So do we have a deal? Remember, this is for the good of the country – not just your own good. If you’re unwilling to give up your Cadillac plan so everyone can have coverage, then you can’t criticize the a**holes at Goldman for refusing to do the same.

Share This

[dyn99]

And JoB – nobody’s going bankrupt with this plan. Nor will their house go into foreclosure because the healthcare provider is going after them for 10% of their costs.

The reason this is an issue now is because they had no insurance and got some horrible disease that caused $10k or $100k or $500k in medical bills. They have to file bankruptcy because they will never be able to pay those amounts back on $25k/year.

But if they’re making so little that they are getting the subsidy, they can’t afford to own a home anyway, and have no assets to protect nor ability to borrow (meaning no significant debt) to warrant a bankruptcy. People supporting a family of four on $25k/year don’t have $20k in credit card debt, because no credit card company in their right mind would ever lend that person $20k. They may have $2k, but it would cost them more to hire an attorney to file the bankruptcy than to pay back the $2k.

Share This

[JanS]

now that we’ve overhauled the insurance/healthcare industry, how do you feel, dyn, about the topic of the thread?

Share This

[dyn99]

Both parties should stay the hell out of people’s right to make their own decisions. So should the government.

Republicans who want to require others to share their religious beliefs through legislation are just as bad as democrats that think every taxpayer should pay for their social agenda, even if it violates their religious beliefs.

There is no war on women, there is an attempt to overturn separation between church and state, and your uterus just happens to be the first battle in a war that they will lose.

And fiscal conservatives and free marketeers need to take the Republican party back from the religious right who want to use their religious beliefs to prevent others freedom. The Republican party should be one of smaller government, more freedom, and less intervention in our lives. Instead, it tries unsuccessfully to do both.

And if Santorum gets the nomination, I am getting the biggest Obama sign I can find.

Share This

[JanS]

well, yes, should…but..the question was…Is the War on Women an organized effort, considering the number of bills that are being introduced that almost sound the same, word for word?

Many of us do feel that there is a “war on women”, for lack of a better term. Many of us older women who lived through the 60’s, fought for “equality” only to see it go down in flames ( ERA not ratified in all states) are chagrinned at the latest stuff going on that is focused not on healthcare, but specifically on women’s healthcare, to the point where one state wants you to have to actually tell your employer why you’re using contraception. Who thinks this stuff up? Who has such a limited view of things that are important that this is the only legislation they can come up with, that this is the most important thing in our world?

You bring up Santorum, and I have to chuckle. I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about how we both thought until very recently that his religious beliefs were fundamental evangelical whatever, and were both surprised to find that he’s a practicing Catholic. Amazing. Hopefully, people are getting the message that he’s pretty much a wackjob.

Share This

[kootchman]

I read the ERA over and over… what’s in it that you don’t have now? If you thought that, it’s scary. Fundamentalists have been anti-Catholic for years.. fact, even before they took on Blacks, the KKK had Roman Catholics in their sights. But history is subject to change. The enemy of my enemy is my friend still is human nature. The see the assault on the Catholic church as furtherance of the same assault on Southern Baptists by a effete liberal minority. The ERA failed and will fail, and I wil vote against it until they remove the “special favors clause” … when it is a gender neutral document, I will support it. I will probably vote for Anbut Huoba

Share This

[JanS]

what we don’t have is having it be in the Constitution…

gender neutral? It’s not about men, for G-d’s sake..not everything in the world is..

Share This

[JanS]

and you know what? I think many of us are sick of hearing about the “assault on the Catholic church”…

Share This

[dyn99]

But…I don’t think it’s actually a war on women. I really don’t think they are looking at this as a male vs. female issue.

It’s a religion vs. government issue. They want religious beliefs to rule government. They feel that government is ruling religion.

You are just the unlucky recipients of the first wave – they succeeded in conservatizing the supreme court. Now they’re going to pass some laws on a state level and test the water. It takes 5+ years to make their way up to the supreme court. They ultimately want to overturn Roe v. Wade. But it’s not because they want to take rights away from women. They simply believe that their religious beliefs trump your right to choose what to do with a pregnancy.

I will say this – the legal decison of Roe v. Wade was questionable at best – from a pure legal perspective. They know that – they think it’s a weak legal argument, and want to take a shot at it. I don’t think the framers of the constitution ever intended an implied right to privacy that somehow includes your ability to terminate a pregnancy. And I’m gonna take a stab and say that a bunch of the supreme court justices don’t either.

But I also don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell you what to do with your body. And I’m sure there’s not a woman out there that really wants to be in the situation that they have to terminate a pregnancy. Although I will say that I am the product of an unwanted pregnancy…at least to start. I can also say that my parents would now tell you the best decision they ever made was not to terminate the pregnancy (me). But they were married and economically capable of raising a kid, unlike many.

I also can tell you from a sociological perspective, if abortion wasn’t legal, our society would be full of unwanted children, further sinking families into poverty and children into abuse and neglect.

If I have to pick between these two, I’ll pick the lesser evil, which I think is the termination of the pregnancy. Better never to have the kid than to sentence him or her to a life of neglect, poverty and abuse.

In reality, if these guys were really conservatives, they would just butt out. It’s none of their damn business what you do.

It’s just too bad that they believe that it’s their responsibility to tell you what you can or can’t do.

Share This

[kootchman]

Here Jan… some more history. The ERA was a republican initiative … vehemently opposed by Democrats for years.

The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980

The National Woman’s Party took the ERA to Congress in the 1920s, where Senator Charles Curtis, a future Vice President, and Representative Daniel R. Anthony, Jr.—Susan B. Anthony’s nephew, both Kansas Republicans, introduced it for the first time as Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 on December 10, 1923, and as House Joint Resolution No. 75 on December 13, 1923, respectively.

ERA was also opposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers, who either contended that women needed government protection, that men did not or otherwise did not want the only labor protections abolished before they could be extended to men as well, as it would likely be a blow to unions and the movement for labor laws. (see that? JaN?)

Women and liberals are always trying to subvert the constitution. The ratification failed. That means after 10 years… ya start the process all over again. All 50 states have to vote on the issue again. That’s what the constitution says. Instead, the ERA advocates said ahhh “f—- the constitution (as they did in the First Amendment and the Catholic Church) all the yea votes count forever until they get the requisite three states. Course the map has changed and they know ERA will not pass in half the states now… it is losing ground. All but for that little clause that makes it toxic…. the same abuse Obama used….liberals look for hidden meanings and use legislation for their higher moral ends.

And that would be this….

“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

That is unacceptable. This is… American no longer trust the congress or the administration… because “appropriate legislation” is the open gate for special interest meddling and vote buying. We know that the commerce clause, gave these very same powers to congress and they have used it to ram legisltive agendas to pander ever since.

“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.”

Share This

[kootchman]

well redblack… they can and have the right to sue other negligent parties. It’s in every insurance contract i ever signed. No big deal to me… cause” we are a NO FAULT state. They have to pay. And they did.

Can’t follow you down that path dyn99.. cause… Santorum as odious as he is… it’s better than what we have.

Now rdblack… if under dyna99 plan … contraceptives are covered under a single payer system. Then abortion by definition becomes “elective surgery” except in the horrible choices of health of the mother. Not illegal, but elective. No federal funds. We are not yet the SS, where we are willing to give the state the say in when life begins. Those “rights” grow…and soon we have a genocidal monster on our hands. The state then defines entitlement to life… no friggin way!!! China does it because of population pressures.forced abortions… when will we do it? Budget deficits? Excess labor and depressed wages? Bankrupt healthcare system? Too many students pressing state and federal budgets school budgets? Race inequality in academic achievement? How about limiting family size by economic prospects? One child if you and the wife are not college grads and you have no genetic history of 120 plus IQ’s in the bloodline? No children if you don’t complet HsS?… It can’t happen here… except it has. Domestic servant Catholic girls, slaves, American Indians in boarding schools… forced abortions in the greater interest of the state… Remember the foundation of the nation you all wan to abuse ? LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Jan… IF..and I say IF… that trillion in stimulus money went only to men would that have been sexist?

Or

If all that stimulus money went to 8% of the US population… just Orientals… would that have been racist?

Share This

[jamminj]

http://blisstree.com/live/georgia-rep-wants-to-force-women-to-carry-stillborn-fetuses-like-cows-do-693/

Share This

[dyn99]

Nope, Kootch. Abortion in the first trimester would be covered. But individuals could opt out of coverage for abortion and receive the $$ instead, if they have a religious objection to paying for it.

Not interested in getting involved in family planning on a governmental level personally, but I know there’s no way many liberals would go along without some coverage, so I’ll compromise.

Share This

[kootchman]

jamminj….those are called outlyer issues. First, a stillborn, not vital fetus is removed. Ask any Montana farmer whose domestic cattle have non viable calves by virtue of contact with bison carried brucellosis. The dead (presumed) calves are not carried to term.. the vet induces a “miscarriage”…the loss of the cow is almost assured if a non viable fetus is left inside. There on’t be a natural birth…the movement of the fetus itself is neccesary for the birth process to progress… There is no medical way in hell that will pass. Posting that kinda stuff is comical and makes the left look ever more desperate. Sorta reminds me of the WPPS system commissioner who was appointed to the governing board. directing the construction, desiign and procurement for nuclear generating plants….he was a barber in Winthrope I believe…. not every politicians thoughts are cogent.. look at our congress! Look at the decisions they make! Obama is pretending he has business acumen…

Nope… we have a horrible, tainted history of letting states make life and death their purview. I am fine for choice. Call it what it is though..in the vast vast majority of cases it is .. elective surgery. Neutral, hands off.. no involvement. Give the women what they want… “it’s a personal choice between women their healtcare provider”..that’s what they want, the right they claim.. it’s a non starter.. the country is 50/50 split on the issue. There won’ be consensus. Take it off the table, let Roe v. Wade stand. … or be prepared to defend Roe v Wade at every turn, for decades to come. No federal funds is working fine other than for the far left old women from the days of yore… we worked out a compromise… over 325,000 abortions last year and not a federal dime was permitted by legislation. It’s not like they aren’t happening.

Share This

[JoB]

kootch..

have you ever looked at the political platform of the states that have no ratified the ERA?

Share This

[JoB]

dyn99

they aren’t just after church and state..

they are also after labor rates

if women can’t control reproduction

they can’t compete in the work force

lowered women’s wages

brings men’s wages down as well

Share This

[mirabile]

Myth

Muriel Rukeyser

Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the

roads. He smelled a familiar smell. It was

the Sphinx Oedipus said, “I want to ask one question.

Why didn’t I recognize my mother?” “You gave the

wrong answer,” said the Sphinx “But that was what

made everything possible,” said Oedipus “No,” she said.

“When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning,

two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered,

Man You didn’t say anything about woman.”

“When you say Man,” said Oedipus, “you include women

too. Everyone knows that.” She said, “That’s what

you think.”

Share This

[Author]

Posts