Yeah, okay.

I am advocating a daughter knowing the truth about her father's beliefs. OBVIOUSLY Mrs. W feels the same way as she has told her the truth.

IF you believe something is RIGHT, have the BALLS to stand up for it in all of its ugly glory.


Coming from an atheist, this means NOTHING to me.

Jayne, I hear you, that there may be a few extreme instances where the humane thing is to save one baby at the expense of the other. But I have several friends who have had this procedure, and all of those specific cases would have been prevented by Stellakat's triple contraceptive advice. I haven't heard anyone, pro-choice or pro-life, who is FOR the huge numbers of abortions we have in our country, with the other options available today.

I don't see that making health care benefits taxable will cause employers to drop benefits. What they will likely do instead is to pass the payment to the employee. It's an accounting gimmick, but it will be legal (unless there are more changes than I've heard about).

Here's how it would work: Your employer gives you a "raise" equal to the cost of your health benefits (in your example, $12,000). They then deduct that amount from your wages and pay it to the health insurance company. At the end of the year, it shows up as taxable income in your W-2s.

The employer is paying the premiums now and deducting them as health insurance benefits. Under the McCain plan, they'll still pay them, but they'll deduct them as wages they pay you. It's a total wash for them.

Come tax time, you pay tax on that money at whatever your marginal rate is (15% of $12k is $1800; 25% is $3000). Your tax credit of $5000 per family would more than cover it.

Krazy - It is clear from this that you go way beyond even being a Socialist. You want the government to control and run everything.

You can something close to that right now if you want it, but you might not like "all the rest" that comes with it.

But you could send Vladimir Puten an email and see if he has room for you in his country.

In case you hadn't noticed, the entire subprime mortgage mess and the need for the taxpayers to "rescue" the banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is PRECISELY because the government told them to MAKE loans to people who couldn't afford the houses GOING INTO THE MORTGAGE. That's your idea of "government efficiency" in running anything?

The Social Security System is bankrupt because of government pilfering of the funds. Medicare is in big trouble because we "poor dumb" citizens are simply living too long instead of just rolling over and dying from our medical conditions.

The government has been AGAINST any sort of Tort Reform that would put a halt to the outrageous legal fees and awards from their litigation against hospitals and doctors.

Yep, the government sure knows how to run things. Runs them right into the ground and then taxes us more to pay for their folly.

SMIDGEN!!!


Finally somebody with common sense and a calculator can SEE the difference between reality and hysterical postings!


Smidgen, you are GREAT!

Rest assured, MyRev, our dd loves her daddy VERY much...She is taught and required to respect him...She does not believe that her daddy is a bad man, because that isn't the truth - he is a wonderful man...The abortion issue is a quandry, but our household is a peaceful one...We discuss things openly, truthfully and with respect here...

Mrs. W

Hi ears,

I'm confused, which situation are you talking about could have been prevented with contraceptions? The example I mentioned, the pregnancy was wanted, both children were wanted, it just wasn't medically possible. The decision to terminate one to save the other was heart-wrenching for them.

I'm also reminded of the conjoined twins, I think from Iran, where one little girl was supporting her sister, who was attached at the neck. But she was slowly dying from the effort of supporting both of them, and they would eventually have both died.

Here the children were born, and so it was a heart-wrenching decision but a legal decision to separate them which meant the certain death of one.

The parents who decided to abort one of the twins wouldn't have been given that choice if abortion had been illegal except to save the mother's life, because the mother's health wasn't in danger, and the babies would not have survived until birth when it would have been legal to save one.

Many years ago,my sister and I made a decision regarding our abhorrence to abortion-on-demand. We felt we could not do a lot of the public protest kind of things, but needed to do more than just SAY we were opposed.

We realized that recycling is VERY important to our government. Even conservatives feel that recycling is an easy, responsible way to care for the environment. And I certainly have NO basic objection to the recycling concept. But we found it thoroughly disgusting to think there was more care taken to re-use a plastic pop bottle or a pile of old newspapers than to totally protect the life of an un-born human being.

Our motto became, "When the government stops throwing babies in the trash, we'll stop throwing trash in the trash.'

I know that not everyone sees the sense of this, but it works for us. Everytime I throw something away I am reminded to pray for the unborn.

WH2LE

Thanks, FH. I studied enough accounting to have a minor in it, before going on to get an engineering degree instead.

I was hoping a real accountant would check up on me and make sure my assumptions were valid, but I don't see any reason they wouldn't be.

Jayne, no doubt about it, that would have been a gutwrenching and heartwrenching decision.

However, no is currently advocating making abortion "illegal" in total or "only" to save the life of the mother. I think most of us who DO think that each baby is a gift from God WOULD like to see all babies survive, but not all can.

Furthermore, most of us are also "willing" to have some exceptions, as has been stated many times, for things such as rape, incest, etc. The scenario you cited would also apply as an "exception."

What I am against, and I'll let others speak for themselves, is the VAST majority of abortions for reasons of the mother simply wants one. Even if a husband wanted the baby and the mother did not, the mother can go ahead and get an abortion. But even beyond that, MOST abortions are for "convenience," to avoid the responsibility of "irresponsible sex" of a WILLFUL nature. It used as a "method" of birth control.

"Ooops, I didn't mean to kill your kid when I hit you while I was driving drunk. I just wanted to be able to drive without any consequences." That sort thing.

I'm not for restricting anyone's right to engage in consensual sex if that is what they want to do. If they contract AIDS as a consequence, I would feel badly that they had a "negative consequence" of their choice to engage in unprotected sex. Unfortunately, they can't "abort" HIV/AIDS like they can a baby.

But they can, and do, kill babies to "get out of the consequences" of their previous choices.

How many FWS's "wish" they could go back and "undo" their choice to commit adultery? I'd say a large percentage of them, especially if they have ended the adultery and are attempting to recover their marriage. But it can't be "undone. It CAN be forgiven and the action CAN be "not chosen" in the future. But there are also a lot of women who have had multiple abortions as a result of continuing their sexual behavior.

I do not "get" the idea that a baby should "pay" for the choices of the mother merely because a baby is "inconvenient."

I don't know if that makes sense to you or to anyone else, but LIMITED abortion I can "live with" if it means literally saving millions of children from the butchers like "Planned Parenthood" and others who are simply getting rich off of killing babies.

And then leaving a good many of those young women to "deal with" the mental and emotional problems as they get older and begin to realize just what they did, like Norma McCorvey...THE woman (Jane Roe) in "Roe v. Wade.

Here's an article you might find very interesting by Norma McCorvey:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032498/posts

WH2LE

Jayne, I read there are 1.3 million abortions a year in the US. Like FH said, the vast majority of these are not to save a sibling baby. Most situations where babies are aborted can be prevented with using the contraceptives available. This is a tragedy that this number is still so high.

Krazy.....Why do you want to blame the Health Insurance industry for this problem??

Do you think the Health Insurance industry is to blame for Health Insurance being so high? Why do YOU think that those of us that work are paying high premiums?


I thought you LIBERALS were all for saving jobs and creating new ones, not getting rid of them. Do you have any idea how many millions of people work in the Health Insurance industry in this country???

How about the first steps should be getting the lazy low-lifes and welfare mothers who don't know what birth control is, OFF MEDICAID and stopping the slezy lawyers for filing Tort lawsuits which in turn drive up Malpractice insurance, which in turns causes the Dr's to have to charge more for their services which in turn caused the insurance company to pay out more, then charge the consumer more.

Yeah....getting rid of the Health Insurance industry is going to solve the problem......

Liberals need to take off the rose-colored glasses for just a few minutes....

The proposal that is on the ballot where I live is to make abortion illegal except in cases where the life (and maybe the health?) of the mother is in danger, and in cases of rape and incest provided the mother files charges with the police within a certain amount of time and consents to DNA testing.

There isn't any language in there for unforeseen "special circumstances".

That's incorrect. It's not about far right or far left. That's your perception. To me life is the most important issue. I'm not 'right' or 'left'.

You may be right about us being a 'small group'. I find that so sad.

Jayne - so what other "special circumstances" would you like to have included to broaden the number of legal abortions allowed by the proposed legislation?

Besides, you may not have to worry about it if Barack Obama gets elected. He has promised to make signing the FEDERAL legislation called the "Freedom of Choice" act into law as one of his highest priorities.

THAT law would prevent ANY State from limiting abortion in any way.

And by the way, the current law states the "health of the mother." THAT very broad definition of "health" is what the proponents of abortion on demand have used to classify anything as "health of the mother," like "not having an abortion she wants would affect her mental health."

Right. More "legalese" to make it read "abortion on demand for any woman for any reason she can come up with, including 'I want sex, I don't want a child, and I'm not willing to use anything to prevent a pregnancy'."


How about if we just change the laws concerning murder in a similar fashion?

Most folks would agree that it is "okay" to kill someone in self-defense, if your family is threatened, or if some terrorist is planning to kill people for no particular reason other than he/she wants to kill people he doesn't like. Why not simply change the law to allow people to kill whomever they want to kill for any reason they want to, including the fact that if they don't kill the person their "mental health" will be adversely affected by their mere existence?

Why not?

Because the liberals and proponents of abortion want everyone to believe that a baby is NOT a human being and is just some "lump of tissue" that the mother can dispose of as she wants to.

And why not if we are all just freaky accident of nature with NO INTRINSIC value anyway? The consequences of "evolutionary faith" are far reaching and have already cost MILLIONS of babies their lives.

[Admittedly...I'm gonna ramble a bit here...sorry.]

This is an example of the insurance cartels dream scenario. They no longer have to compete and negotiate health insurance contracts with corporations. They now only have to sell to individuals...individuals they can hoodwink with lengthy convoluted contracts, hidden co-pays, hidden "adjustments", hidden escape clauses, etc. Individuals, who will only find themselves "rated" once they actually get sick. Individuals they can boot for whatever they can cooked up (maybe they failed to disclose a tonsilectemy they had when they were 12 years old) once they get a devastating illness (even if they are stick working and would have been remained covered today).

In addition, MANY American families unexpectedly find themselves with a sick family member at home that can no longer work. For example, husband has a heart attack and is no longer able to work full time at his job that currently provides him and his family health insurance. He needs extensive medical care and medicines. He can't afford an individual policy and knows that shortly he'll lose his company health insurance. Thus...wife to the rescue. She goes out and acquires a job at a company that provides great benefits including wonderful health insurance. She doesn't have to disclose her husbands illness when interviewing. The company (and it's health insurer carrier) only glean the "liability" once she becomes health insurance eligible and, for now...most times the husband is covered. The company...with it's bargaining power requires it (though the insurance industry has fought hard to find ways and write contracts to exclude any and all pre-existing conditions but for now...since he was covered when he got sick most states (Michigan for sure) don't allow them to deny coverage). This will all change. Individuals won't have ANY negotiating power. Individuals will be at THEIR mercy. Everything will end up being a "preexisting condition" and it WILL happen to you because we are all going to die sometime.

Other people...young healthy people may find a way or a reason to just forego buying a policy. They will just pocket the bonus/raise proposed above and not give a crap about the tax credit. In time...such "raise" won't be considered a raise at all...but simply your wages with which you can choose to purchase health insurance with. Most won't. MOST young healthy people live paycheck to paycheck anyway, have no savings and can "afford" to just rely on mandatory emergency room care to back them up in an emergency. Besides...they don't forsee getting sick (who does), they don't have savings and can just go bankrupt if something does happen. Someone earlier pointed out that emergency room visits really cost $100 but they charge $200 because "someone" has to pay for the uninsured and God forbid anyone in the health insurance industry take a pay cut when the rest of the economy is in shreds. Well...under this McCain plan MORE people will be uninsured than ever....and these extra costs MUST be doled out to those of us that can still afford and choose to buy policies to protect our health AND savings.

Finally...two points.

1. "should more than cover it"...for how long? Under the McCain plan health insurance companies will set up shop in the most favorable insurance state in the country where the laws will allow them to do whatever they want. They will be able to "rate" individuals at will and achieve what they always wanted..."NO COVERED SICK PEOPLE" and all the healthy people buying policies "subsidized" by a tax credit. Since it's "almost" free with the tax credit...rates could just go up unimpeded. However...get sick and it won't "cover it" guaranteed.

2. Isn't a tax credit really the government paying for it (Socialism). Sure it has the illusion that the individual is writing the check but the insurance companies are the ones cashing in on this plan as well as big business that gets to "wash" out the traditional responsibility of providing health insurance benefits with this [censored] and bull crap that it's a "wash" to the employee and they become thereafter off the hook for negotiating health insurance and the risks of skyrocketing costs. Big Business must love this idea too (another reason to be suspicious of it).


Mr. Wondering

p.s. - JoJo. Saving jobs in the health insurance industry is not my concern at all. I think it's immoral to profit by speculation on sick people. In addition, blaming the malpractice attorneys is rhetoric that no longer works. Malpractice claims represent such a SMALL percentage of the total cost of healthcare in this country it's shameful that argument is even made anymore. When all else fails...blame the lawyers to distract the public from the con man picking their pockets. You can hate on attorneys all you want but when some doctor makes a life altering screw up on YOU and you discover you're limited to say $50,000...you'll find out just how fair these caps are. I don't mind reasonable caps but some of these states have convoluted and harsh laws that the state legislatures basically allowed the Medical Lobby to write for them making lawsuits next to impossible and/or just unlikely to undertake even in extreme cases where ANYONE would reasonable expect and demand someone take some responsibilty and pay up. No. IMO, the Unregulated private Health insurance companies are the biggest blight on the system.

Well I think that just about coveres all bases.

Edited to add that this thread is a continuation of an argument from a locked thread. This is a TOS violation.