Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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

Originally Posted by AGDee

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 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.

[AGDee]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

[AGDee]

Why?

[DSTCHAOS]

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?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[AGDee]

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!

[jon1856]

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

[shinerbock]

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?"

[DeltAlum]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?"

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?