ahhh Mr. Wondering. Resorting to ad hominem attacks again, eh?

More typical "liberal-speak," the same sort of "fog-talk" that we get from Wayward Spouses who don't want to actually deal with the REAL issues.

Nice try though.





Well I'm certainly glad to know you have a crystal ball.

Regardless, John McCain is ON RECORD for no new taxes (unlike Obama who wants MORE taxes to support BOTH his Income Redistribution Welfare Giveaway (i.e. Rob from the rich and the 'upper middle class' to give to the poor according to HIS schedule of who is worthy of his handout)) AND his addition ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in new spending.

John McCain is ON RECORD as opposing the wild spending that has gone on in Congress under BOTH parties. That's also why I am a Conservative first, not a RINO sort of Republican.

Obama is ON RECORD for increasing spending a trillion dollars ABOVE both the current levels AND above the 700 billion dollar "rescue package" that wouldn't have been needed if it were not for the Democrats and liberals in Congress (not to mention Billy Boy Clinton as President).

IF tax increases are NECESSARY and not just to fulfill Obama's "Socialist Wish List," then I'm betting even YOU would support it just as the "rescue bail out" has been supported.




Another baseless lie, and you know it Mr. Wondering. McCain has said that was quite sorry about his divorce from his first wife.

But for you to "read his mind" and "know his heart" is ridiculous. How do we know that your wife, my wife, anyone's WS is "truly repentant?" According to your past postings, it's only if they DIVORCE their current spouse and return to their divorced spouse.

All you are trying very hard to do is to "deflect" any scrutiny of what Obama HAS SAID is his position and NOT a "what if" scenario.



Mr. Wondering:

Mr. Wondering, in all due respect and with all sincerity, you really need to think about YOUR support for a man who unabashedly supports and advocates for UNLIMITED abortions. Abortions that have killed MILLIONS of babies on the altar of "convenience." THAT IS NOT a "Christian" position, and I, regardless of what I might think about McCain's status as a Christian, is a "defining difference" between Obama and McCain.

If you can be so cavalier with the Sanctity of Life of Babies, what's "next" on the list of things "not worth taking a stand over?" What's the next group that the government will think of as being "inconvenient" to others? Maybe the whole high cost of healthcare can be "solved" by euthanizing the elderly (who we all know account for the most heavy and costly USE of healthcare)?

NO Christian who believes in God, in what God HAS SAID, could vote for a man who has NO compunction about killing unborn babies and in NOT trying to treat a baby "unfortunate enough" to have SURVIVED an abortion attempt. Obama is FOR all abortions with NO restrictions. He is FOR "partial birth abortion" and FOR all abortions and views getting pregnant out of wedlock as a PUNISHMENT, and he doesn't want his daughters to be "punished" should they become pregnant. It certainly is fortunate for him that HE was not aborted, even though his father never divorced his Kenyan wife before "marrying" Obama's mother.

The rest of the issues, regardless of what "side" you might be on regarding them, PALE in comparison to Obama's support for abortion and infanticide of infants who survive abortion attempts.

In MY book, that makes the "wonderful oratory" of Obama the "nicely disguised words" of a Monster.

It's not the most important issue...it only is to a tiny group on the far right. It won't decide this election, nor will Roe v. Wade be overturned even if McCain does win.

McCain plans to tax companies' health care benefits. That will result in many businesses dropping coverage altogether.

McCain wants to give me a $5000 tax credit to go out and buy my own insurance.

Guess what, Skeletor? My family plan is quite typical, and it would cost me $12000 a year!!!

If 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices that are charged with "changing their philosophies" were nominated and appointed by Republican Presidents that you voted for than exactly whose hands have more blood on them????

Seriously though, I doubt very much that these Republican appointed Justices really went against their own philosophies so much so that they choose to become abortionists. Rather, I think they recognized that the LAW itself, the right to privacy, the right to liberty, HAS to be protected federally by life appointed members of the judiciary whom are thus insulated from the partisanship and mob-rule mentality that WOULD occur otherwise.

The Right to Privacy protects so much more than the right to reproductive freedom. Without it (as the true strict constructionalist would have it) each state would get to legislate according to it's own majority interests a bevy of matters that both you and I believe untouchable. Take, for instance, the Catholic promoted proposed Constituitional Amendment that you had long ago posted a link to. It not only wanted to outlaw abortion but it wanted to outlaw many common and accepted methods of birth control. Without Supreme Court protection, States would be free to ban the birth control pill and IUD's since such methods commonly act as abortifacients, or abortion causing agents and would be considered abortion by the Catholic proposal. They could ban contraceptives altoghter, even by married couples as Connecticut attempted to do and were deterred by the Supreme Court in 1964's Griswold v. Connecticut. In another state absent the "right to privacy", perhaps, Catholic Schools, or Lutheran Schools or home schooling CAN and WILL be banned by the state legislatures there depending on the whims of the majority (read Pierce v. Society of Sisters). Utah, for example, may pass laws allowing bigamy and attaching amendments calling for the arrest and detention of all homosexuals. States, unfettered by the restrictions of the first amendment of the Constitution which says "CONGRESS, shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." would be free to regulate speech and/or the press...if it so chose to.

You may think that's ridiculous, but these are REAL examples of what CAN occur. My point is...anyone that denies there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy would abdicate judicial responsibility in protecting themselves and all individuals from the threat of STUPID laws enacted by STUPID politicians in any given state at any given time elected by any given majority (Christians beware as we will NOT remain the majority for much longer in vast areas of this country and the removal of the right to privacy can pave the way to Christian persecution as described in the end times).

Finally, how do I allign this with my Christian beliefs? Well, I'd prefer to see LESS abortions (actually NONE but that's an impossible standard for either position). To solve this, I'd like to see the issue put to rest. If it became illegal, besides the fear of state legislatures...I envision vast resources being consumed to prosecute and jail offenders while the pro-choice people will continue to press for it's legality once again. Wealthy Americans will just take their daughters abroad leaving only the poorest American women enduring the chains of the government on their uterus's. I think keeping it legal and somehow ending the debate (with either a solid majority Supreme Court consensus or a Right to Reproductive Freedom Act or Amemdment) such that both sides of the issue stop fighting and can come together and resolve to make such "CHOICE" an expanded choice where women choose to forego abortions and endure their pregnancies would be for the best. Less unwanted pregnancies via more sex education...including abstinance training in both our public and private schools. Every 16 year old and over should KNOW what a condom is, how to use it and where to get them readily. I'd like to see women have real choices such as pregnancy homes for young women where they can get prenatal care, education (about parenting and sex education to avoid reccurence), adoption alternatives, etc. Parents of young adults also need eduction by our churches, schools and community organizations on how best to address these issues with their children. Of course, poverty needs to be addressed and MARRIAGE needs to be promoted in this country as well (less abortion occurs in marriage). Wouldn't it be great to see the vast resources spent fighting about this issue redirected at minimizing this issue. The MONEY is right there. To me...the legality of it is settled and calling me a butcher is the same as calling every American that lives under the Constitution a butcher. If you are not a fan of the Constitution...Delta is ready when you are. It's the document that provides the freedom to choose...not me (nor judges suddenly switching philosophies), so let's find ways TOGETHER to get women to choose responsibl before and after sex. In the end, it is my ardent belief that MORE of God's children will survive and thrive addressing the problem this way (which is the point) AND my/everyone's valued individual rights and privacy remain protected.

Aside...Republicans absent this false agenda, which they are only paying lip-service to anyway to capture the single-issue voters, would HAVE to come up with real agenda's and real leaders whose qualifications expand beyond the simple "I'm pro-life" litmus test to sway voters their way which will likely result in a better government eventually. I know I'd likely switch back to the Republicans.

Mr. Wondering

If you think Obama is a monster, you are delusional.

McCain is no monster. He's not an evil man.

At least I'm sane enough to admit that.

Yup...and the biggest reason they want this is because the health insurance cartels want it.

They want people on individual coverage versus company coverage as it's easier to pick off individuals and either deny them coverage when they actually need it or exponentially increase their premiums each year such that if they do get sick, they can longer switch policies without getting "rated" and eventually they won't be able to afford such increases. Either way...insurance companies wash the sick people out of the system (and on to public dole - illusionary Socialism) while they keep collecting their premiums from the otherwise "healthy" policy holders.

Mr. Wondering

That's about as anti-American as it gets.

Imagine this...

Killing is unchristian
Guns kill people.
McCain and the Republicans support the 2nd Amendment without any restrictions.
You support McCain
Therefore...YOU are not a Christian.



The fact that I believe the Constitution protects a womans right to choose does not make me an abortionist, just as your supporting McCain doesn't make you a murderer because he supports the 2nd Amendment without restriction.

Our Christian duty is to teach Christians right from wrong and how to make Christian decisions and choices in service to Him AND to spread His word to unbelievers. We are not called to rid the world of sin. That would be impossible.

Mr Wondering

What does the Bible say about judging others?

http://www.prolifeproobama.com/

From a Christian perspective (which is where I am coming from) my understanding is that we are NOT to judge non-believers because it serves no purpose. However, we ARE to judge other believers but there is a protocol to follow for even that.

Why do you ask?

Thank you FH for what I consider a most courageous post. You can not take that position without being attacked horrifically.

I had a most amazing experience Sunday as I sat in church. I was completely overwhelmed(to the point of tears)that no one sees that abortion is really a Civil War. We daily allow the destruction of our brother and sisters. The only problem is that they are defenseless and can not fight back. We have allowed the murder of tens of MILLIONS of our countrymen over the past 36 years. It is truly a HOLOCAUST. More dead in THIS holocaust than in any war in history.

I have known many women who have had abortions. Just yesterday I found out about another one(now in her 50's) who had an abortion in high school. The pain and anguish that these women experience after the abortion is almost unbearable. Almost to a one, they regret the abortion quickly, understand what they have done, and realize that NOW they can do nothing about it. Afterwards, when the fog of fear and uncertainty has lifted they see that they had MANY options but they allowed their fear to drive them.

And the abortion industry PLAYS on that fear. It is an industry. It makes money and those who make their living at it want it to stay that way. I no more believe that those in the abortion industry are interested in merely "helping" women than I believe that "politicians" merely want to improve society.

The worst case for me personally was a daycare mother of mine who had 2 abortions within 18 months. I begged her to allow me to take her baby(s). I told her that I would adopt the baby if she wanted and accept all responsibility, no matter the outcome. Or, if she preferred, I would foster the baby(s)until she felt she was ready to be a mother again. I gave her as many other alternatives as I could think of. She was interested in none of it. She wanted "rid of the problem"(her words, not mine).

Thank you again FH.

Blessings,
WH2LE

Mr Wondering - are you certain you want to get into a "courtroom debate" with this sort of reasoning?

"Killing is unchristian
Guns kill people.
McCain and the Republicans support the 2nd Amendment without any restrictions.
You support McCain
Therefore...YOU are not a Christian.


So let's "examine" your position by exchanging some words:

Killing is "unhuman" (or "inhuman" if you will, but I wonder how your attempt to misuse killing (instead of murder) would sit with defending your life or defending your country in war, according to your "reasoning?)
Guns kill people.
McCain and the Republicans support the 2nd Amendment without any restrictions.
You support McCain
Therefore...YOU are not a Human.

By the way, Mr. Wondering. Since WHEN has a "gun" ever been prosecuted for killing someone? I was always under the impression that it was the PERSON wielding the gun, knife, axe, garrott, poison, pick your TOOL or method of inflicting death upon someone.

This sort of nonsensical, hysterical, reasoning to justify the killing of innocent babies is unbelievable, especially from a Christian.

So let's get this straight then. You are of the philosophy that "I may personally be against something, but it's everyone's right to choose to do whatever they want to do simply because that's what THEY want to do, right?

And I suppose that when Jesus did NOT stone the woman, as the LAW in effect at the time DEMANDED as the "correct" punishment, ostensibly "voted on" or "Supreme Court Opined about," he was CONDONING adultery?

Mr. Wondering, it would appear that you have some real challenges in "logical thinking," to say nothing about reconciling that sort of belief with what God HAS said.

But just to "Humor" you a little further, I assume you are also, by way of your stated reasoning, also NOT in favor of proscuting someone for killing a baby in the womb when he/she kills the mother?

And you know what, there ARE some States who agree with that. My own State of North Carolina is one. Although with the recent killings of pregnant ladies perhaps enough people will get outraged enough to finally "force" the legislators to make the killing of the baby ALSO a murder charge. We'll see, but I guess it will depend on how many "liberal thinkers" there are in the State Congress.



Mr. W, we (Christians) ARE called to tell the world about Jesus and God's provision for salvation. We are also called to be "Salt and Light" in this fallen world by STANDING for what God has said is Truth and Light. We are NOT to "lose our saltiness" by becoming "just like the world." We are NOT to "hide our light under a bushel" and NOT shine the light of truth on a fallen, self-centered world that is following after the lies of Satan and self-indulgence.

So how would YOU teach your children, or other children for that matter, HOW to discern "right from wrong" if your STANDARDS of right and wrong are "relative" to whatever you or anyone wants them to be?

You have a bad habit of warping someone's statement, or altering it entirely, then using your own faulty logic to "run with it".

Your entire argument is invalid, because you've started with a statement by the "other side" that was never uttered.

Your "killing is inhuman" example is an extremely poor argument. It is ridiculous and nonsensical.


You said "Let's examine your position by exchanging some words".

The moment you start "exchanging some words", you've already failed to make a valid point. Why don't you try "examining the position" using the words that were actually typed?

When it comes to "faulty logic", you are the king.

What do you call a man who supports infanticide of infants who survive abortion attempts?

Folks rave about how cool and unruffled he is.

I say he's got to be much more than that in order to support the legislation he has.

Monster works for me.

I dont know the exact bill in Illinois that he voted against but understand that the argument used was this specific bill would erode the women's right and free access to abortion.

I guess the point I dont understand is in the same hospital one could have a premature birth and the staff are feverishly trying to save the child and the same time (perhaps in another room) a child who is further along in development is being eliminated and even if the baby gets past the womb still alive and breathing will meet his/her end at the end of a medical doctor's scalpel. Very chilling visual for me. No different than what the young mother did to her 2-3 yo child in Florida.

I think Medical establishment's silence on the issue is very disturbing.

Krazy, you are certainly free to pick whatever you want as YOUR "most important" issue. I happen to think that LIFE is the most important, not that other issues are not "important," but nothing is more important that life….just as the Founders said.

And if Mr. Wondering wants to think that your "example" regarding the healthcare issue is "as anti-American as it gets," he too is certainly free to think that way.

But Krazy, I work in the Health Insurance field. In fact I working with a client today to get health insurance for his wife because she is younger than him and he is going on Medicare. The "flaw" that you seem to be arguing for is that "healthcare is a right and I shouldn't have to pay for, someone else needs to be paying for my insurance."

Okay, there ARE people who have health conditions that prevent them from getting individually, medically underwritten, health insurance BECAUSE the risk of high medical expenses exists within their given health issue and would cause either the insurer to STOP offering plans or to RAISE the premium rates….because there IS NO FREE LUNCH. Somebody, somewhere, is paying an "unfair share" in order to insure the "unhealthy people." Now some people get "unhealthy" through circumstances NOT of their own making. Other people DO get "unhealthy" by their choices in life. Regardless, the FACT is that healthcare IS expensive.

But just to give you an example of how the Government will "address" this issue and make sure that the people who can't qualify for regular health insurance because of their "unhealthy condition," let me share with you the Premium RATE Structure for GUARANTEED COVERAGE. ONLY those people who ARE "unhealthy" can get this insurance. The "healthy folks" have to stay with their employer or individual plans.

I am only including the rates up to age 64, even though the plan does give rates for up to age 99, because MOST people WILL go on Medicare when they turn 65.


Non-Smoker
AGE Plan A -- $1,000 Plan B -- $2,500 Plan C – $5,000 HDHP
.......Male..Female...Male...Female...Male...Female
0-1--- $432-- $433--- $326--- $327--- $217-- $218--
2-12--$228-- $228--- $172--- $173--- $115--- $115--
13-17-$254-- $252--- $192--- $191--- $128--- $127
18-----$270-- $271--- $196--- $245--- $136--- $135
19-----$271-- $286--- $198--- $257--- $136--- $154
20-----$276-- $299--- $204--- $268--- $137--- $168
21-----$277-- $313--- $208--- $280--- $140--- $184
22-----$278-- $366--- $209--- $321--- $141--- $195
23-----$281-- $372--- $211--- $325--- $143--- $202
24-----$283-- $377--- $213--- $329--- $145--- $208
25-----$286-- $384--- $216--- $339--- $147--- $214
26-----$289-- $391--- $218--- $344--- $150--- $220
27-----$292-- $399--- $220--- $350--- $152--- $225
28-----$296-- $424--- $223--- $369--- $155--- $230
29-----$304-- $438--- $230--- $379--- $159--- $235
30-----$311-- $457--- $235--- $384--- $162--- $241
31-----$320-- $465--- $241--- $390--- $167--- $246
32-----$329-- $476--- $247--- $399--- $172--- $252
33-----$337-- $485--- $253--- $405--- $177--- $258
34-----$347-- $493--- $260--- $411--- $183--- $264
35-----$358-- $502--- $268--- $399--- $188--- $270
36-----$369-- $511---- $275--- $406--- $194--- $276
37-----$381-- $525--- $283--- $417--- $201--- $282
38-----$394-- $540--- $294--- $428--- $210--- $291
39-----$408-- $553--- $306--- $438--- $220--- $300
40-----$425-- $566--- $318--- $434--- $230--- $308
41-----$439-- $579--- $330--- $444--- $239--- $317
42-----$454-- $600--- $343--- $459--- $240--- $326
43-----$475-- $618--- $356--- $473--- $253--- $335
44-----$496-- $636--- $371--- $487--- $265--- $344
45-----$523-- $653--- $385--- $497--- $280--- $356
46-----$548-- $672--- $399--- $511--- $295--- $368
47-----$574-- $681--- $417--- $518--- $310--- $381
48-----$606-- $704--- $440--- $535--- $327--- $393
49-----$637-- $725--- $464--- $550--- $344--- $405
50-----$676-- $755--- $492--- $569--- $361--- $417
51-----$716-- $786---- $520--- $589--- $378--- $426
52-----$757-- $793--- $549--- $592--- $396--- $436
53-----$800-- $830--- $580--- $620--- $416--- $448
54-----$845-- $866--- $612--- $648--- $437--- $460
55-----$886-- $902--- $641--- $673--- $456--- $473
56-----$924-- $931--- $669--- $697--- $476--- $486
57-----$967-- $949--- $700--- $710--- $499--- $501
58-----$1,022 $992--- $740--- $743--- $528--- $517
59-----$1,078 $1,036- $781--- $777--- $559--- $534
60-----$1,139 $1,084- $826--- $811--- $589--- $550
61-----$1,198 $1,129- $869--- $837--- $621--- $568
62-----$1,258 $1,119- $912--- $846--- $654--- $586
63-----$1,297 $1,171- $940--- $878--- $691--- $615
64-----$1,340 $1,225- $970--- $918--- $731--- $645

Smoker
AGE Plan A -- $1,000 Plan B -- $2,500 Plan C – $5,000 HDHP
Male Female Male Female Male Female
0-1 $570 $572 $431 $432 $287 $288
2-12 $301 $302 $227 $228 $151 $152
13-17 $335 $333 $253 $252 $169 $168
18 $357 $358 $259 $323 $179 $178
19 $357 $378 $262 $339 $180 $203
20 $364 $395 $270 $354 $181 $221
21 $365 $413 $274 $369 $185 $243
22 $367 $484 $276 $424 $186 $258
23 $370 $490 $279 $429 $189 $266
24 $374 $497 $282 $435 $192 $274
25 $378 $507 $285 $447 $194 $282
26 $382 $516 $288 $454 $197 $290
27 $385 $526 $291 $462 $201 $297
28 $390 $560 $295 $487 $204 $304
29 $401 $579 $303 $500 $210 $311
30 $411 $603 $311 $507 $214 $318
31 $422 $614 $318 $515 $220 $325
32 $434 $628 $326 $526 $227 $332
33 $445 $640 $334 $535 $234 $340
34 $458 $651 $343 $543 $241 $348
35 $473 $662 $353 $527 $248 $356
36 $488 $674 $363 $536 $256 $364
37 $503 $693 $374 $550 $265 $372
38 $520 $713 $388 $565 $278 $384
39 $539 $730 $404 $578 $291 $395
40 $561 $747 $420 $573 $303 $407
41 $580 $764 $436 $586 $316 $419
42 $599 $792 $453 $607 $317 $431
43 $627 $816 $471 $625 $333 $443
44 $655 $839 $489 $642 $350 $454
45 $690 $862 $508 $656 $370 $470
46 $724 $888 $527 $675 $389 $486
47 $758 $899 $551 $684 $409 $503
48 $800 $929 $581 $706 $431 $519
49 $841 $957 $612 $727 $454 $535
50 $893 $997 $649 $751 $476 $551
51 $945 $1,037 $686 $778 $498 $563
52 $999 $1,047 $725 $781 $522 $575
53 $1,057 $1,095 $766 $818 $549 $591
54 $1,115 $1,144 $808 $856 $576 $607
55 $1,169 $1,191 $847 $888 $602 $624
56 $1,219 $1,229 $883 $920 $628 $641
57 $1,277 $1,252 $924 $937 $659 $661
58 $1,349 $1,309 $977 $981 $697 $683
59 $1,424 $1,367 $1,031 $1,026 $737 $705
60 $1,504 $1,430 $1,090 $1,070 $778 $727
61 $1,582 $1,491 $1,147 $1,116 $820 $750
62 $1,661 $1,477 $1,204 $1,105 $863 $773
63 $1,713 $1,546 $1,241 $1,158 $913 $812
64 $1,768 $1,617 $1,281 $1,212 $964 $851


Now these rates are PER PERSON PER MONTH. (Sorry, I didn't want to take the time to space out the Smoker rates so they would be easier to read on the UBB format.)

Obviously, just as I do every day, it would make "sense" to have healthy family members on their own "lower cost" individual health plan and to only have the "unhealthy" person on such a "guaranteed coverage" plan such as this.

Regardless of your opinion, however, I want you to SEE that this IS a Government run, Government sanctioned plan and that the RATES are not "cheap." Even the government recognizes that the plan will not work if it is NOT funded, and they WILL make you pay for it. And if not YOU, as Obama would like, then EVERYONE WILL PAY. Do you REALLY believe that you won't pay REALLY HIGH "premiums," errrr, Taxes, in order to support Nationalized Healthcare?


Now, if reality makes me "Skeletor," then I'm sorry. I live in the "real world" of healthcare every day and have since 1970. I know the costs and I know the bills.

But let me ask you this question, since when has Healthcare become a RIGHT? What Doctor MUST treat you?

The provision for treatment in the event of an Emergency already exists, and the ability to PAY for the treatment cannot be considered.

Now you want to "extend" that to ALL healthcare issues?

At what cost and who will pay for it?

And PLEASE do not resort to saying that the Government will DICTATE, as they do with Medicare, how much they will pay a PROVIDER of healthcare services. Doctors and Hospitals WILL leave because they cannot exist today on just what the Goverment "allows." If THAT occurs, good luck on getting ANY treatment for anything even if you had the deepest money pockets in the world. "Not available" in healthcare DOES MEAN "not available at any cost."

Check out Canada and Great Britain if you doubt it. WAITING and AVAILABILITY are "facts of life" there for anything other than an outright emergency.

On a related note, I found this LA Times column interesting, The End of the Catholic Vote

Some snippets:

Well, you need to get past the right wing talking points being spouted above, and look at the facts, which as always are sadly in short supply in the post above. Then it'll all make sense.

Obama voted against this bill because he backed a federal bill with an identical protection, but without restricting general access to abortion.

In addition, there are already protections in place for a viable fetus:


So no need to worry about "infanticide", that does not happen.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

AGG

Sorry, Krazy, but when someone posits an argument that is "always," as Mr. Wondering did with his example, it SHOULD hold true for similar circumstances or else the underlying ASSUMPTIONS used in the original example were false.

So if it makes you feel any better, feel free to substitute "unAmerican" for "unChristian".

I do not believe that your healthcare costs are 'typical' of most americans. My healthcare cost, for a family plan, an HMO healthcare policy, is $2916 a YEAR. This is coverage through my employer.

I think that you are holding McCains feet to the fire for his $5000 tax credit because you pay so much more. But what does the average american pay for help insurance?

My DH works for a global HVAC company and I work for a national company and our costs are about a third of yours.

Sounds like you either work for a really small company or have an individual policy.

From Fact Check - Obama's words - sorry I dont agree with him which is my right. My apologies to Obamabots

FH, thank you for taking this stand. So called Christians that support Obama are indeed hypocrites. The quotes you quoted from another poster continue to erode what little respect I have left for him. I do not blame those with no beliefs in God for their stance on abortion. I KNOW they are wrong, but if it nothing more than a lump of cells to them it is difficult to hold them to the same moral standard that I hold one who professes a belief in Christ.

I am still wondering if he described the procedure in detail to his child. I would say not as it would erode a child's respect for a parent that could stand for such an atrocity.

What Obama did was to vote FOR the inclusion of the federal verbage that he "said" was needed, THEN he voted to KILL THE BILL in its entirety.

Here, I don't have time to type up the relavant information, so if really want to know what Obamessiah DID in Illinios, and what his stance about abortion is, here are 3 three links among many that you can read for yourself.



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081101.html


IF you don't like the word "infanticide," fine. Why don't you post some other term you "like" to describe the killing of infants.

But the FACT is Obama IS for all abortions, and for any abortion attempt to end in the death of the baby even if it did live to breathe outside the womb despite the abortionists "best efforts."

Yes, it DOES happen.

A reporter from the Chicago Sun Times investigated this, and was horrified at his findings. He had expected the hospital to deny its procedure of putting live babies out w/ the trash. Instead he learned that it was happening.

"Most people would recoil at just the thought of such a gruesome, uncaring procedure, but it is practiced at at least one Chicago suburban hospital. When I called Christ Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, I frankly expected a denial that it uses the procedure, but instead a spokeswoman explained it is used for "a variety of second-trimester" abortions when the fetus has not yet reached viability. That's up to 23 weeks of life, when a fetus is considered not yet developed enough to survive on its own.

Instead of medical care, the child is provided "comfort care," wrapped in a blanket and held when possible. The procedure is chosen by parents and doctors instead of another method in which the fetus is "terminated" within the womb by, for example, injection with a chemical that stops the heart. Under Christ Hospital's procedure, which the spokeswoman said is used at some other area hospitals, the abortion is induced with prostaglandin, a drug that relaxes the cervix and allows for the fetus to be born."

"But the procedure itself raises deeper questions. First, there's the legality. It should be up to the attorney general and state's attorney to determine whether the procedure is infanticide. Read Roe v. Wade upside down and sideways, and I find nothing in it that legitimizes the killing of a born child. If the law is unclear, the Legislature should make it clear.

Looming larger is the moral question. Partial-birth abortions supposedly are acceptable because a small part of the child still remains in the birth canal, and thus is considered unborn when it is killed. The Christ Hospital case now makes it clear that legal rights and protections don't even begin with birth, as many pro-choice advocates have staunchly argued. That even a live, born human being has no right to life because someone else has decided its chances at life are slim. Or that its life won't be worth living.


My only question to them is: To what he!! is this leading us?" LINK

And THIS is why Obama says he supports infanticide:

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Medc, none of us agrees on everything all the time.

But God's directive to believers seems clear enough...


"Resist evil."

"Bring your child up in the NURTURE and ADMONITION of the Lord."

"Suffer the little children to come unto me and FORBID THEM NOT."


Abortion on demand is EVIL. In everything else in life that we might choose, WE "pay the consequences." But not with abortion. The BABY, a completely separate human being "pays the ultimate price" for our "wants and desires" to be able to do anything we want to do, responsibility for our actions FREE.


For an unbeliever, "forgive them for they know not what they do." For a believer....There is NO excuse.

Christians "in name only" are the PROBLEM. But you already know my position on that. So I won't go there now.

Thanks to you too. I know you have always been "pro-life" and against the "on demand" pro-death-of-children folks.

Exactly...and frankly, IMHO, these "Christians" are 1000x worse than adulterers.

$2,916 per year is likely only your share. I'll bet your employer is picking up %70-80 of the total premium for you. That, or you have the cheapest family plan ever.

My share of my coverage is $2760 per year, or 20% of the total premium. My company pays the other 80%.

If I had to go out and buy the same coverage on my own, it would cost me $13,800 per year, if my math is correct. A $5,000 tax credit wouldn't come close to being enough.

That's assuming that I could get that coverage for the rate my company pays...it would likely be more.

$13,800 (current group rate) - $5,000 tax credit - the $2,760 I already pay = $6,040

$6,040 / 12 = $503.33 per month more

Coming up with $500 per month more than I'm paying now, in exchange for "getting to select my own health insurance"? I'll pass.

This is the worst idea proposed by either campaign.

That's awfully judgemental...for a "good" Christian.

She knows...I have explained it to her...You may recall that I posted her letter to the President regarding her belief that abortion is WRONG...Btw, she received a very nice letter from him in response...

Our dd also works on her dad regarding his choice of candidate and that candidate's stance on abortion...and I continue to pray about it...

I'm very torn here, because some of the things being said about Mr. W regarding this issue are really painful to ME...I love him...It is instinctual for me to want to defend him when I feel he's being attacked...But I also don't know if something said may get through...I think the way some things are being said aren't the best way to get through to him...I do know him well...I would ask for prayers, rather than all out personal attacks...Bearing in mind that we don't know God's timetable for Mr. W's journey...And I do understand that God uses his footsoldiers here...Like I said, this stuff tears me up and I probably just need to stop reading it for now...

Currently our church is doing a Wednesday series on the election..."Jesus in '08"...One of the messages will be dealing with abortion...We will be there...So I continue to hope and pray...

Mrs. W

P.S. Medc, we were NOT "rude" at our friend's wedding...I was there, and I can assure you that no one would have found us to be rude...no way, no how...

YOU don't pay $12,000 a year ....

Yes, my company picks up the other portion of the premium, it's called a BENEFIT where I work......the key word being "WORK"

You are going under an "IF" scenario...."IF" you had to go out and buy your own health insurance.

I suggest that we all to stop looking at the government to regulate Health Care. Start looking at the lawmakers and congress to do something about Tort medical lawsuits and Medicaid, both of which drive up health care costs and premiums.

For those that think socialize medicine is the answer, take a hard look at european countries and their Socialized Medical programs. Here in the US everyone wants/needs what they want/need NOW. It's going to work really well when we have to wait 6 months for an MRI, X-ray or other tests.

Do you think that those that will make these laws to change us into socialized medicine will have to wait for any medical care. Do you think Barrack or Michelle, their kids, or anyone else in their family is ever going to have to wait??? I DON'T THINK SO.

We saw how well it worked in Hawaii.....7 months and the program was bankrupt. Had a lot to do with people that had Health Insurance dropping their coverage so that they could get the 'free' coverage. Why pay $3000 or more a year for Health Coverage when the government will give it to me for free?

Does anyone really believe that it will be any different if it was nationwide?

Where you think McCain's plan won't work......I don't think either of them will work. Neither of them have a clue as to how to fix it, or have the gonads to do what is needed because we wouldn't want to offend anyone....

They all need to stop being so darned Politically Correct and fix that problems this country has....

Well i am not here to get in the political debate but i did want to put in my 02 cents about the cost of health care.

JoJo you must work for a WONDERFUL company. My current premiums (through my employer also an HMO and a large company) are $4,500.00/year and my employer covers 70% of my premium. At my previous employer my premiums were double that at least and that was about 15 years ago i could not imagine what they are at that same company now.

If i were to get a comparable coverage on my own i am sure it would be at least Krazy's figure ($12,000) if not more.

As long as someone has brought up abortion, I have a question. Not baiting, I'm genuinely interested in people's responses.

There's a commercial on tv where I live, of a young couple with a son. She had been pregnant with twins, but there was something wrong with one of the twins, somehow or other he was getting his nourishment through the other twin although I don't think they were conjoined. He would not have survived even until birth I think, and he would have killed the other twin in the process. They had to make the difficult decision of aborting one twin to save the other (and this was NOT just selective reduction) or losing both twins.

What about cases like this, or severe conjoined cases where one twin cannot survive supporting the other twin?

The law usually lists exceptions as being to save the life of the mother. What about to save the life of another baby?

Another factor to consider in calculating the cost of health insurance: the cost (the total cost, your portion plus your employer's contribution) is likely lower than what an individual would pay, simply because large corporations can get reduced group rates.

I think the problem with both candidates' health care proposals is that they don't go nearly far enough.

Like banking, private companies have proven they can't be trusted to operate a decent system. I think socialized medicine is the way to go. It's worked in many other industrialized nations, and most of the knocks against it are without merit.

IMO the first step of any serious health care reform involves rendering health insurance companies extinct.

If it were truly the ONLY option, I would not have any issue with it.

Palin says kill 'em both.

Krazy, I'll tell you what I'll do for you. No names, but if you will post the ages of yourself, your wife, your children(and if they are male or female) and whether or not any of you smoke, I will run a quote based on that information for you for what it would cost for an individual family policy. Also, if you know it, what is the deductible and copay (i.e, $1000 deductive/80-20 to $10,000, etc.) of your company plan?

Something you are forgetting is HOW insurance companies arrive at the premium rates for a given group. But I won't go into that now as you are more interested in how the proposed healthcre initiatives of the candidates might affect YOUR family and YOUR health insurance costs.

I also note that you have not commented on the Government healthcare rates that I posted earlier. Why not?

Mrs W...I KNOW this must be painful for you. I am sorry that you feel your husband is being attacked. IMHO, he is spouting lies and rhetoric that he knows to be untrue...and that is terribly disappointing coming from a Christian.

I feel for your daughter because if you truly described the procedure...and not just that a baby is killed...I can imagine the horror she must feel towards her dad right now. My son questioned how any human being could think something like that is okay...and thinks anyone that feels that way is a terrible person. Being an advocate for choice means fighting for the right to have children dismembered, crushed and quartered. It can't be sterilized no matter how much the other side wants to do that.

I will pray for Mr. W. I ask him to look at the company he is keeping here. For the most part they are Godless people that do not believe that a human being is being killed.


I am sorry Mrs. W for the awkwardness this has caused you. I will not be responding to Mr. W's posts directly from now on. I have made my point and have nothing left to say to him regarding this.

In my opinion, the major problem with health care is about four fold. First, Medicare decides they will pay doctors a maximum amount about 60% of what is reasonable. Doctors, in turn, order a bunch of unnecessary tests and extra office visits to milk Medicare out of more money. Second, ignorant ace people go to the emergency room (no insurance) when they have a cold, stub their toe, etc. At $1000 a visit, each uninsured visit gets passed on to the rest of us who pay (i.e. a real emergency room visit only costs $500 but since only half ever pay for that visit they double the price). Third, we think everyone should live until they are 100. If we were all Christian scientists (do not believe in any health care), insurance would be very cheap b/c no one would use it. But most of us want to go to the doctor when we have a heart attack to try to live. We all gripe b/c the bill is $200,000, but god forbid we do not go and die. That to me is saying human life is worth $200K. I would say most people would value their life to be worth a lot more than that. Fourth, there is a point where doctors and nurses won't make enough to justify their working, and then you end up with no health care.

The problem with health care is that there is no "solution". Their are pros and cons to different plans, but you will never make everyone happy (doctors, nurses, medical professionals, insurance companies, and patients). If you go to a merit system, those who can pay will get healthcare and those who cannot pay will die (Darwin's natural selection). If you nationalize health care, those who have money will go wherever they can get health care as fast as possible (China possibly). Those of us who can't will die waiting. Not much differnce. JMO

**edit**

You are advocating turning a daughter against her father just because he doesn't share your belief on an issue that has no bearing on either of your lives.

**edit**

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.