Not to sound crass and heartless, but who pays for that incredibly expensive health care for the remaining 20+ weeks of the normal gestational period that the baby will spend in an incubator then probably months of continued aftercare in the NIICU? And the most likely long-term debilitations the baby/child might have for the rest of his or her life? What if the mother-to-be is 19, unsupported by family or a husband and works at an hourly job that doesn't provide comprehensive health care?

ETA: SEC, I'd love your answer on this, too

Why would the 19 year old mother-to-be wait until 20+ weeks to abort? Either abort before 20 weeks or take it to term.

That's a whole 'nother level to the debate, I am just going off the reasoning you put out there. Regardless of the age or situation of the mother, you're saying that if gestation hits 20 weeks, a mother should be induced and the baby "given the chance to live". And I'm just asking how that will be a guaranteed option for every woman when (a) the immediate costs are astronomical and (b) there will likely be a lot of children with long-term disabilities that will need care and support their entire lives.

I always find this contradiction in the abortion argument. I personally get conflicted on the issue -- anyone who has ever TRIED to conceive and understands how wickedly, crazily complicated it actually is has to come out the other side with a much different view on the process -- but ultimately, cannot imagine forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she is not ready for, mentally, financially, whatever way. But when people argue against abortion and typically morality or religion or whatever come in, there's this expectation that every pregnancy should go to term, but in the next breath, they're arguing against social programs, sex education to prevent pregnancies in the first place, sufficient health care across the board, etc., etc., etc.

So I'm not going to argue "when" abortion is or is not ok, that is just TOO deep and involving a topic that I just can't deal with right now. But I am just curious that when you put out a statement like you did, that across the board, a pregnancy that hits 20 weeks should be delivered rather than aborted (for whatever range of reasons there may be), I am curious as to how you then propose those mothers and children are cared for and their health care paid for. Because until you can answer that, you can't impose it.

Yes, it's idealized. All of those positions rely on personal responsibility, which liberals fight tooth and nail against. Abortion shouldn't be used as a way to avoid responsibility, social programs shouldn't be used as a crutch, etc.

I'm not certain what the answer is. I think the first step is for our society to revolutionize how we think about abortion and irresponsible pregnancy. Unfortunately, I see us moving away from an emphasis on responsibility, and more and more toward a culture of reliance.

I think abortion should be used as birth control. There are too many people being born.

Having children so you can get gov't tax breaks for them is way more irresponsible than getting an abortion. And unless you're willing to adopt the child yourself, I don't see how it's anyone's business besides the mother's.

Most states have already solved that problem for you. I'm talking about a federal law.

There are few states that allow one to abort after a set number of weeks. I'd be willing to consider 24 weeks to be the cut-off (as a number of states do), but I think there should be an option for women who want to abort later in the pregnancy. I still think the child should have an opportunity to live at that point. I'd imagine that there would be fewer children surviving than there are currently in "the system." And, I'm not at all against social programs that are effective.

But this isn't really the legal standard that we use is it?
We don't let mothers of newborns elect to kill them because they decided at that time they didn't want to provide or couldn't provide for them. Why would it make such a big legal difference that her decision to terminate took place two weeks before birth? (Or however many weeks back we need to go for it to really be an issue.)

I agree that it's a really uncomfortable issue and I understand why it's easier to take a let-every-woman-make-the-best-decision-for-herself stand. But it might actually be wrong and be resulting in the murder every year of thousands of beings better regarded as people.

On a different note, I don't think taking the first breath as a legal standard for personhood is one most people are comfortable with. It certainly doesn't seem to be behind the laws that charge people with two counts of murder or manslaughter when they kill a pregnant woman. I think it would also creep the vast majority of people out to terminate pregnancy in the last month but just making sure not to allow the fetus/baby to breath air would make it okay.

I think we should kill the mentally impaired because of over-population. Many of them aren't self-sufficient. I don't see how it would be any of our business.

If I didn't think that there were actually people being killed, I wouldn't be bothered by it at all.

If it's just a little clump of cells or a person seed that can be frozen indefinitely in a lab somewhere or used in research, why would anyone feel like she needed a good reason to get rid of it?

I'm always a little baffled by folks who think the circumstances of conception or the mother's disposition about the kid somehow would change the essential morality of the act one way or the other.

Again, I think your views may clarify a great deal when you've been pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. Like it or not, there is a hypocrisy to it and you do feel different. Ask the any number of women who spent their 20s desperately trying not to get pregnant (and more likely than not had an episode or two of the "oh my god, what if I'm...??" panic attacks or even may have had an abortion) but then spent the better part of the their 30s trying to conceive. Your mindset is different, it is "your baby" in the latter scenario, it's an "oh my god, what will this do to my life/career/family/relationship/financial stability problem" in the first scenario. There, I said it. Bring it.

But for me this suggest that maybe we should approach the issue assuming that all pregnancies are "babies" rather than that the mom's feelings somehow actually changes the reality.

Although it's easier to go with a let each-judge-on-her-own stance, it doesn't actually work that way. Either the fetuses/babies are people who at some point in pregnancy should be invested with legal rights or they aren't. Other circumstances should no more play in than they would if we were talking about newborns or tumors, depending or how you view the products of conception.

For me, the idea thing would be to have a developmental line beyond which the life of the fetus/baby is protected and only when the same standard of self-defense is met as we'd use outside the womb, can the mom terminate the pregnancy past that point. Up until that point, the mother could do whatever she wanted.

because you kill them at the expense of my taxes

i don't think abortion should be state-supported either

Who said I'd do it at your expense? People who take care of them can kill them, so they can move on with their lives.

that's interesting, and it is not for me to judge

they answer only to their own consciences (and probably the police)

Ok, well I can't argue what it suggests to you, because that's your perception and opinion. To your second point, no, they shouldn't be invested with legal rights, I can just see the 1-800-lawyer ads for that now, and your statement about "other circumstances" is only your opinion based on your own experience. And to your last point, isn't that somewhat along the lines of what is in place in most circumstances now?

Well, with legal rights I really had only the right not to be killed in mind, but it seems that a lot of states are already working pretty hard to punish women who engage in behavior likely to harm a fetus during pregnancy already.

And with the third, nope, not a bit. I think in many states, especially in actual practice rather than just what the law says, a woman has wide latitude all the way through, particularly if she isn't using publicly subsidized clinics. Even partial birth bans are about method rather than termination.

I was afraid as soon as I mentioned the "a" word that this thread would become a debate on it. We do have other threads that debate that issue, just like the gay marriage thread.

The problem with legislating morality that doesn't impact anybody else is that there is too broad a spectrum of what is moral. Do we legislate according the most lenient or the most strict? We tried Prohibition once and you see how far that got.

As for healthcare, Obama is not proposing one health insurer for all. He is proposing financial penalties (basically) to employers who do not offer health insurance, and providing affordable (sliding scale) health insurance to everybody else. That was my understanding of his "universal health care" system. While he would essentially expand the current federal employees health plan to include anybody who wanted/needed it, people would also have an option of buying private health insurance instead. I would also be opposed to one insurer for all as it would thwart capitalism. I can see Obama's plan increasing competition among health care insurers. One of my biggest frustrations as an employee of a health care system that owns it's own HMO is how limited my own options are, so I know how bad that would be.

I think we ran out of Michelle Obama rumor to talk about.

And I'd say that the problem lies in determining what morality doesn't impact anyone else.

I just think it's a can of worms that once opened is just going to get worse and worse; more and more of an entitlement that no one wants to pay for and less and less about individual health and freedom.

Well, and if we're going to move to a system of health care where only those who can afford will get it, then hospitals can't be held responsible for treating people who can't pay either. Currently, they can't turn people away. How many store owners would remain open if the rule was "Let the people who can afford to buy your goods pay for it but you have to let the others take what they want"? It's not fair to put hospitals in that position.

Can't compare stores and hospitals.

Why?

They serve different purposes and provide different services. I would much rather a person without money be denied a burger at Chili's than a person with congestive heart failure be denied care because they are without insurance and money. The repurcussions for the latter are far greater and go beyond profit. How much profit they are losing is debatable.

Greg Focker: You can milk just about anything with nipples.
Jack Byrnes: I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?

I really do appreciate learning your thoughts about this, particularly with your experience.

I agree that saying hospitals must treat but have no recourse to compensation is an unrealistic solution.

But I feel like most proposals for reform go way beyond the scope of this issue and create incentives to shift the cost of some who could pay onto the taxpayers as well as the cost those who honestly can't. And I expect that the efforts to regulate costs for those who can't or won't pay will end up creating problems for the rest of us.

Health care is one of those things that it's really hard to get a handle on. It's also interesting to talk to people about what it was like before most people had insurance. Costs were certainly lower from what I've heard.

Costs were definitely lower, but so was technology. An MRI machine is insanely expensive. Newer medications are extremely expensive. Robotic and virtual surgeries are the best, but are very expensive. What we are able to treat and how many more lives are saved is truly an amazing thing. If we want things to progress, someone has to fund it. We're really feeling it in Detroit with the unemployment rate over 7% and, the majority of those now laid off were also the ones with the best insurance (UAW) and we have no publicly funded hospitals in Michigan, unlike some other states (which is a problem at our state level).

Some argue that health care is not a right, but I will argue the other way. I can't see saying "Sorry, you're poor or underinsured, you die".

It most definitely is a complex issue. The way contracts for payment from insurers are figured is very screwy too. In the adolescent psych day treatment program I worked at from '94-2000, our cost per patient per day was $254. Blue Cross would negotiate a contract with the hospital to say "Well, we really like your cardiology services so we'll pay full price for that but we're only going to pay $150/day for your adolescent program and we'll call it even". So, we actually lost money on kids who had Blue Cross. Medicaid was more like "We'll pay 50% of your fee" so we have to set our fee at double what we need them to pay to break even. Another HMO might pay full price. Trying to budget what is going to come in based on the mix of the insured is nuts. Yeah, that program closed, even though it had great outcome statistics, it lost money. The inpatient psych program closed too. There are now no adolescent psych units at all in Wayne County, the county that Detroit is in. Patients who end up hospitalized have to go as far as 60 miles away. Nobody wanted to pay for it. It's tragic. Adolescent suicide rates have increased in this area since and the juvenile justice system has become overwhelmed with a lot of kids who actually need psychiatric treatment.

Emergency Rooms are the most expensive form of treatment but they are being used by those without insurance in place of primary care physician office visits because they are not allowed to turn people away. This has created so many issues from cost, to overcrowding, to "real" emergency treatment being delayed because they are overwhelmed with people who just have the flu, etc.

Overall, if you look at the model that hospitals try to operate under, it's ridiculous. I know there are for-profit hospitals in some states but in Michigan, all of them are non-profit. Any income they make has to go right back into the health system, mainly for capital improvements, expensive medical equipment, computer infrastructure, etc. It's easier to draw this, but I'm sure you can picture this.

Non-profit hospital in the center. Then you have all kinds of for-profit corporations feeding off of the hospital system: pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment/supplies, malpractice insurance companies, housekeeping and IT contracts, housekeeping supplies, food and food services, technology supplies... These hospitals, which are giving away tons of free care are being sucked dry by all of these other companies. Then people will argue that the doctors are making a ton of money. Well yeah, doctors make a lot of money. Don't you want to pay someone who is doing your brain surgery a lot so that you attract the brightest and best to this field? The people doing every day care are NOT making a lot of money. Even the accountants, IT people, etc. are not making as much as they could in other industries. The lowest paid employees in health care are the people who doing the most direct care.. the nurses aides/assistants.

We're down to three health care systems willing to keep a hospital open in Detroit and one of those is constantly teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. The only reason the other two systems can stay afloat is because their surburban hospitals carry them. There are health care systems that will only operate in affluent suburbs and don't give away any indigent care too. One of the things they've tossed around in this state is that all hospitals would pay a tax to the state which would then be redistributed to the hospitals that are providing the indigent care as a means of spreading the burden. Doesn't that sound insane in and of itself? (even though it would greatly benefit the health care system I work for, it still sounds crazy to me)

We want to have the best technology, the best care possible. We want hospitals and doctors to do everything they can to "fix" us, but *someone* has to pay for it.

This particular issue is a little different, though. Outlawing murder is legislating morality, but would any sane person deny that murder should be illegal? Same with stealing.

If an unborn child/fetus/choose your term is a person, then is abortion murder? It does, if the child is a person, affect a person other than the mother. That's the legislating morality question that is presented, but it is complicated by so many factors, including when does life begin and how was the child conceived. (Like UGAalum, I'm always a little perplexed by those that would outlaw abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Not that I disagree with the outcome necessarily, but if the child is a person so that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, how does the manner of conception change that? It's much easier when the health of the mother is involved -- at least a justifiable homicide/self-defense type analogy fits. But for rape and incest, I'm still looking for a consistent philosophical framework.)

I don't know what the answer is. I usually find myself in the camp of those who want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. But sometimes, we can't avoid legislating morality.

UGAAlum: Here's an article our CEO sent us this morning.. talking about the state of healthcare in Los Angeles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us...c0T11j+3Ou59CA

MysticCat: My generalized statements about legislating morality refers to things that do not infringe on the civil rights of others (gay marriage, polygamy, prostitution, etc) not things like murder, which clearly destroys that person's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I should not have used abortion as one of the examples because it is so complex an issue on so many levels and I didn't want this to turn into an abortion thread. I'm sure I've spouted my opinion on that one plenty of times on GC already!

Getting back to OP-Believe it or not:
 

Getting back to the OP-The following was just posted on AOL News:
Obama: 'Whitey' Video Rumor is Crap
You may have seen the link floating around in our comment section. It leads you to one of many a breathless story, or perhaps a Fox News video clip, where the urgent topic is when we'll be seeing the YouTube file showing Michelle Obama on-stage with Louis Farrakhan lambasting Caucasian America with the term "whitey."

The story goes that tape has been kept under wraps, out of view, for use as the ultimate October surprise, sure to kill Barack's chances faster than Hillary Clinton can say "I told you so." The problem? As with so many slurs against Obama, there's no there there. There is no tape. From Politico:.................
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...875x1200410134

Obama denies a rumor and questions the question
Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

“Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,” Obama said. “It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.”..................
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._question.html

Everything's Gonna Be All White
On Monday I blogged about the rumors of a video that shows Michelle Obama making hateful comments about "whitey." I'm now convinced that Larry Johnson, the blogger who's done the most to make the rumors public, is spreading misinformation. At the least, he's been unable to stick to his story...............
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
More Debunking of the Obama "Tape" Hoax
Jim Lindgren, the Chicago-based lawblogger, has done what the Larry Johnsons of the blogosphere have not on this Michelle Obama smear. He looked for evidence. Lindgren drove over to Rainbow/PUSH headquarters to ask if the organization had a tape of the event Obama appeared at during their 2004 convention, the event that's become the focus of the story since the first few versions collapsed........
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126905.html


Interesting YouTube "show"
Obama rumors dispelled! Is it true about Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTgqQ2_KQkc

So, unless something some how does show up, I will end with this:
http://www.26nc.org/History/Rebel-Ye...ebelYell_l.wav
And NO, it is not Howard Dean;):p:D

Those links posted by Jon may be entirely accurate, but I got a kick out of the person who "debunked" the theory by going to Rainbow Push.

Blogger: "Do you have a tape of Michelle Obama railing against whites?"

Rainbow Push: "Sure, here's the tape you're talking about. The one that will destroy our ideological allies and hand the election to a party we openly hate, that's the one you're looking for, right?"

The cool thing about blogs is that anybody can post pretty much anything without any kind of support.

And rational people actually believe them.

I'd rather be a little more honest.

See signature below.

Shinerbock-Not sure if you read the entire posting of/for that link.
For it goes well beyond what you posted.
And I have yet to see anyone, including the original Blogger, debunk the debunkers.;)
And the people I spoke to a few weeks ago still say that it NEVER happened and thus NEVER existed.
And what say yours?:confused:

They're McCain and senior GOP people, and they're about half and half.

If this tape is real, I'm not sure how you would debunk the "debunkers." After all, the debunking bloggers are merely drawing inferences like everyone else (though they may be strong inferences).

My point was solely that Rainbow Push is not an organization which stays out of partisan politics, and thus they're biased just like everyone else.

"If this tape is real"-Shiinerbock, if it is real the best way to debunk the debunkers is to show it. And it has not shown up anywhere.
NO ONE, that I know, in three different "camps" believe it ever happened or existed.
But as I posted before, this is not the first time ever that people have said falsehoods about others just to have them out there to be "heard" and remembered. Very few will bother to follow-up to see what proof exists.
In some ways this is like what happened with USDS and the six Fraternities involved the the drug busts. Six were said to have been involved in the very first PR's.
SAE National had a press release within 48 hours showing that NO active Brothers or Pledges were involved. Yet it took school over two weeks to correct/update their information on SAE and two others. And I never saw correction in any of the mass media.

And, I fear and believe, that this is only the opening shot of what we all will see until November. And even Fox News said, just yesterday, that even with the two candidates saying that they will "play nice" that it still will be politics as what is now the norm.:(

A) I agree, it'll be a dirty election cycle. I'm actually looking forward to it.

B) You're right that the best way to prove the naysayers wrong would be to prove it, but consider the reality here. If it is real, and if some political entity has it, what benefit would they gain from showing it now? They could simply wait for the hype to blow over, allow people to conclude that it was fake, and spring it at an inopportune time (which is what my people have said: That if real, it is being held).

C) What I heard weeks ago when it broke was that about half the contacts I know believe, for whatever reason, it was real, and about half didn't. If real, I highly doubt that many have first hand knowledge, as I'm positive the McCain campaign doesn't have it (though they would certainly be able to exercise some persuasion over usage) and the GOP proper doesn't have it.

D) There will be more stuff like this. I think so because I strongly believe there is stuff "like" this out there (Obama has been pitched softballs, true vetting will continue in coming months) and because the GOP is far superior than the left when it comes to pure political strategy. Further, as we agree, it will be dirty and I expect these types of rumors to continue, on both sides, throughout the cycle.

Yes-it will be as dirty, if not even more so, than any other. However, unlike what you posted, I am not forward to it at all. For I do not believe it is needed in any way shape or form.
And I missed posting something I was told: While not happy that event never took place, thus no tape, they were rather happy that "story" was out and being talked about. And whether or not the people talking about it believed in it or not, just being out there just made them happy.

And this year, the GOP is going to have a major problem on their hand if mud is a major or significant component of their political strategy. Or their supporters-I.E. "Swift Boaters".

So lets full up the bath tubs, get the showers running. And stock up on soap and laundry detergent.:(:eek:;):):D

I don't know. Do you really think the video will make any difference? Anyone who was likely to be put off would be put off already and anyone who wants to vote for him will excuse it. I don't really see a bunch of people who will be surprised and swayed if it turns out that Mrs. Obama has made seemingly radical, racially motivated commentary in her day.

Go back to the senior thesis. Would it really shock you to know that her commentary about race in America didn't end there?

Plus, I think it will have a short media life span in the mainstream press and only be replayed on FOX and right-wing blogs, which aren't really aimed at folks like to be Obama voters anyway.

This video if it was going to do damage would have delivered the most damage when it could have helped Clinton get the nomination. I don't think it's like to drive anyone out of the Obama camp into the arms of McCain, Barr, McKinney or anyone else who might end up on the general election ballot.

For the most part, I agree.
And just another reason to wonder about it...;)

I am usually a fan of clean elections, but I think mudslinging is necessary this year. Obama will not stray far from his tested remarks, because his true colors are too extreme for general consumption. So we'll say it for him.

I think too much is at stake in this election to worry about playing clean. Maybe I'll feel bad about it later, but that's another discussion.

You say that while you are a fan of "clean" elections, but think that this year we (the people, the Nation) need "mudslinging"??
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mudslinging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Why???:confused:
And just what is wrong with positions, beliefs, policies and in general facts/truths?
And just how do "you" know, at this point in time, what either candidate will be saying over the next few mouths?

And as I posted before, EVERYONE has BOOKS; if anyone goes "south", they better be ready to be hit as hard if not harder.
And faster.

And at that point, WE all lose.

By any means necessary, huh. The ends justifies the means.

Nothing turns me off of a candidate faster than dirty campaigning -- whether he's doing it himself or whether it's being done on his behalf by his surrogates.

^^^Agree.
Unfortunately, what generally happens is one side will start it all rolling and then the other side has a rather hard chose to make:
1) Ignore it and stay on message.
2) Fight back
A) In defense
B) In attack
And I think most of us can agree that "1" generally does not work all too well.

IMVHO, what we have already seen is just the very start: A surrogate group will say or do something and the target will address the issue and "ask" their opponent to stop it.
The opponent wit either reply that he will try or he just has no control over the group.
And the matter stays in the news cycle for a few more days and the only true winner is the surrogate group.:(:mad: