Secret Service Scandal Tarnishes Reputation of Agency
Hotel Caribe Image courtesy of Hotel Caribe http://www.hotelcaribe.com/
What is puzzling about this is how a secret service agency walks around town
with Taxi drivers and prostitutes, checking their moves. It begs the question,
has anyone in the 150 year old Secret Service ever heard of the words "Honey
Trap"? There is a wonderful writeup on the ancient use of women to distract
agents in Foreign Policy - how it has been used for millenia. Obviously the 150
year old agency is in need of some remedial amateur basics about protocol.
Namely? Engaging in a tactic (Honey Trap) classically used in espionage /
sabotage should be grounds for immediate expulsion from the agency. I dont know
what the Taxi driver is describing. Frat Boys gone wild or protectors of the
most powerful man on earth. Many very clearly state that it appears that this
behavior has happened in the past and it is well tolerated. Wow!
Are you folks
aware that the drug cartels in Colombia are full of trigger men that use
prostitutes as Honey Trap weapons? It is beyond belief how a 150 year old agency
has no means and measures in place to prevent such behavior by calling for
immediate dismissal of any who jeopardize the prime objective of this agency.
The hookers that "stayed overnight" ? You sure? The men were awake during the
entire time? While they were photographing all their paperwork? Genius. Absolute
Genius. Everyone from the Director to senior supervisors needs to be removed and
retrained, starting with remedial basics like "Honey Traps" and how all your
agents were engaging in that trap. Who runs the Secret Service? The Three
Stooges? W/ Hugh Hefffner as advisor?
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/More firings seen at secret service
<>
So the men were being lads during a slow week before the Pres showed up. They
weren't on a Mormon mission. This kind of stuff is what a lot of real men do
during their off hours. Drink and chase women. The brass at the SS are covering
their backsides so they don't end up being fired. Personally I could care less.
I can't believe they kept classified information in an unattended hotel room and
hopefully, they didn't keep their sniper rifles and automatic weapons there
either. That's what the embassy is for. Would it make any difference if they had
just picked up a few local women who were cop groupies? Would they have been
fired if they were simply seducers, rather than procurers? iIt's the 21st
century and it's time to stop moralizing about something that was not a breach
of security, but something the media wants to use to sell some airtime to
advertisers and the feminists and bible thumpers want to use to get some votes
in their next election.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/More firings seen at secret service
<>
Born 60 years ago in the Elite NYC suburb of Short Hills, and raised there,
and living a career as executive in the computer industry leading elite teams to
turn around failing organizations for 30 years, I know excellence. I know
talent. I've led, worked with, our best from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford....
For the last 10 years I've had the privilege of logging 1000's of hours
watching, and being watched by the Secret Service in DC. By orders of magnitude
this is the most stunning group of human beings I've ever seen, read of, heard
of.... Unimaginable, impossible, if I'd not seen it with my own eyes.
Courageous, disciplined, mature, professional, kind, decent, unbreakable, proud,
honorable, immensely intelligent. I would take a bullet for any of these folks.
You should too, starting now, the bullets launched at them by the ignorant rock
throwers throughout our sick society.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/Secret Service sex scandal proves some men cannot resist a party
<>
As a person who has made a living in the NYC area for over a decade as an escort, I'd like to give my perspective.
1) $800 for an overnight is not out of line, especially if she is a type who is in high demand. In NYC I get $1,300. Regardless, if the amount was discussed and agreed to, then it's fair.
2) In the US, taking the money in advance is what can get an escort into trouble. A sting operation can only take place once money has exchanged hands. Escorts familiar with the law may ask that the money be placed out in the open but won't touch it until they leave.
3) Escorts are people. You may disagree with our decisions and choices, but we have feelings and responsibilities. When I read that this Secret Service agent tossed this woman out like so much garbage, I thought, "This guy deserves EVERYthing he's getting." No one forced this man to hire this woman. If he made an error in judgment due to alcohol consumption, that is his problem, not hers. If I had to choose one to be my friend, I'd take the honest escort over the insensitive, dishonest Secret Service agent any day.
4) I have no doubt this agent thought he could get away with his boorish behavior because he assumed she would be too ashamed to do anything. Good for her that she had enough self-esteem to contact the police and demand what was rightfully hers - and good for the police for backing her up. I wish we had an honest system like that here in the States.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Woman Recounts Quarrel Leading to Agent Scandal
<>
So our agents being responsible for international security of the president don't have a clue about the cost of an escort lady, how to communicate in Spanish, how to keep things under control when emotions get out of hand, etc. This should have been a test executed by the CIA to check Staff FMC (Federal Manpower Capabilities) before such characters are sent to a foreign country. We should pay that lady the full amount and thank her profoundly for doing our work.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Woman Recounts Quarrel Leading to Agent Scandal
<>
These guys are obviously so accustomed to living first class off the public dime that they are offended by having to go out of pocket. A close examination of past expense vouchers is in order.
It is not, however, the irony of their undoing that gets to me, its the multiple bottles of vodka. A week of hard partying and hangovers doesn't seem to go with a the clear head and steady hands needed to defuse a bomb or handle a sniper rifle.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Woman Recounts Quarrel Leading to Agent Scandal
George Zimmerman Charged with Second-Degree Murder
George Zimmerman Photo: Seminole County Sheriff's Office via Wikipedia
I too hope the truth comes out in a trial, but one of the important aspects here is that there will be a trial. It was ludicrious that any person of any race shot and killed an unarmed child, of any race, and there was no investigation aside from hearing the shooters version of the story.
A lot of people are invested with this incident for race related reasons and it is upsetting that the media has bolstered those views but I am at least thankful that it has also influenced a proper investigation to be performed.
Read the article CNN/George Zimmerman's attorney to ask for bail
<>
I had said all along that Zimmerman would be charged with murder. Having been in law enforcement for the better part of 18 years it was obvious to us that this was a murder case and you can be assured he will be found guilty. What most of you fan to realize or understand that is when someone is killed and is unarmed you must prove the impossible and that is that your life was in jeopardy. You can't say you thought it was in jeopardy you must show that it was with injuries that are consistent with that statement. We all know he was never treated on the day of the murder at a hospital so the injuries were not severe. This prosecutor is as tough as they get and she would never have filed a murder case if she didn't have the evidence. She now has the autopsy results which will most likely prove that Zimmerman's accounts are untrue. She also now has the results from the FBI's Forensic Audio Lab which probably backs up more of her evidence against the murderer. She is known for not taking pleas and fighting endlessly for the victim.
Read the article CNN/George Zimmerman's attorney to ask for bail
<>
He should have been charged with manslaugter - not murder. I doubt whether he set out to kill Trevon. He would more likely be found guilty of manslaughter because he was specifically told not to continue his pursuet, by competent authority, but he did anyway thereby wrongfully and unlawfully putting himself in potential harmsway intentionally with a lethal weapon that was ultimately used as excessive force since Zimmerman's alleged assailant did not exhibit or present himself to be armed in any way. There's no way Zimmerman can justify the alleged assault as fear of a life threatening situation.
Read the article MIAMI HERALD/ George Zimmerman in court today; Trayvon Martin'smother says shooting"an accident"
<>
As to the comments that the evidence is "clear" that the shooting was in self-defense and that Martin allegedly and without provocation attacked Zimmerman, firstly, the evidence here is not clear at all, which is why there should be a trial, and secondly and most importantly, is that, even accepting Zimmerman's version of events (which based upon current witness statements and evidence, I, for one, find to be self-serving and not very credible), any alleged such attack by Martin clearly would not have been unprovoked. Zimmerman admittedly was following Martin, who was entirely within his rights to be where he was and, as we all now know, was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Thus, Zimmerman created this entire situation. What about Trayvon Martin's right to "stand his ground" and confront someone who he perceived as a threat to him, albeit with non-lethal force? Is the argument that it is only OK to stand your ground with a gun?? Zimmerman created this situation and should not be allowed to use that ridiculous law as a shield. (For the record, I am a former prosecutor who currently works for a judge, so I fully understand the legal issues involved).
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin
<>
Regardless of whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, this is a horrific tragedy that has claimed one life and ruined others.
Instead of the same event dividing our country along racial lines, why aren't the politicians and pundits pointing out, and perhaps even trying to unite our country, around the idea that tragedies such as these would not happen nearly as much if average citizens were not allowed to buy and conceal hand-guns? Policing should be left to the police and the 2nd amendment needs to be interpreted narrowly! The thought-of-as-omniscient founding fathers could not have possibly envisioned this.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin
<>
I like the 1st comment in this thread by Henry:
The local authorities botched this incredibly the night of the killing:
- No crime scene investigation
- Let Zimmerman walk with no strings attached
I feel worry for Zimmerman. If the police had been professional in their handling of the scene and if he'd been placed in the system so that his case went through a rational legal process, the crazies wouldn't have descended upon him, forced him from his job and home and threatened him with bodily harm.
The anger was all about a guy killing an unarmed person with no consequences at all. And that flowed directly from the unprofessionalism of the local authorities.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin
<>
The law is going to have to truly be blind on this one. No matter how deplorable the shooting was, if Zimmerman acted within th bounds of the law - then he cannot be convicted. if people have a problem with 'stand your ground' laws(as I do) then let this be something to overturn those laws and better define them.
It is a cold thing to say for sure - that a young man is shot for no apparent reason. But the racial politics and the impartiality of the public will only make it harder to accept the final verdict. Zimmerman may be charged for disobeying an officer of the law, but murder 1 will most likely not stick.
If you don't like that, blame the law. As much as it hurts to say that, the impartiality of the law outweighs my personal opinion about the law. And that is why I vote against these kinds of laws and don't support politicians who do.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/12/2744193/george-zimmerman-charged-with.html#storylink=cpy
Trayvon Martin via Wikipedia
"All we ever asked for was a arrest, nothing more nothing lessI just want to speak from my heart to your heart because a
heart has no color its not black its not white there all red."
-Sybrina Fulton (Wenesday's press conference)
Then she began to cry. Sybrina Fulton has moved and inspired so many,with her true grace and dignity. Despite having her 'heart' broken, she has been forced to struggle mightily for even minimal justice from an discriminatory and irresponsible Sanford law enforcement.
Trayvon Benjamin Martin would be so proud of his lovely Mother. Take some time now, to mourn Miss Fulton. You've earned it Ma'am.
Read the article ON POINT/NPR/Zimmerman Charged With Murder
<>
How on earth can any right thinking nation have gun laws and a legal system which even allows people to contemplate using a gun in this sort of situation? It is not just the racist element that appalls (black boy in hoody =threat) but the fact that someone can think that a lethal weapon is proportionate or appropriate.
America had taken one step forward in electing Obama, the danger is that it lets its prejudices make it take three steps back, with this case as the centre of the storm.
Read the article GUARDIAN/George Zimmerman's trial could be as divisive as OJ Simpson's
<>
The only issue is not racially prejudiced speculation, which merely condemns the speculators, but the fact that a man who shot an unarmed boy was allowed to walk out of a police station without any further consequence or investigation solely on the basis of his own explanation. No further investigation was deemed necessary. That is so obviously wrong that I can only conclude that anyone arguing that it is acceptable has a racial agenda. As the Reverend Sharpton quite rightly said:
This is not about gloating, it's about pursuing justice. We have not won anything. All we've done is establish we must have the right to justice and redress in this country.
Read the article GUARDIAN/George Zimmerman's trial could be as divisive as OJ Simpson's
Three WinningTickets in $640-Million-Dollar Lottery
You have much higher odds of being hit by lightning... I don't see an article on what to do in that case...
Read the article NPR/Mega Millions Mania: What If You Win? Then What Do You Do?
<>
I'm not 100% sure what I would do if I ever won but I know that step one would be to show up at my office every day in pajamas and slippers untill they just fired me...
Read the article NPR/Mega Millions Mania: What If You Win? Then What Do You Do?
<>
On the other hand, if I DID happen to win...
I'd build a cabin at the beach, a cabin in the mountains, a house in town, and a car that could drive between them on a single tank of fuel.
Then I'd buy New Zealand.
Read the article NPR/Mega Millions Mania: What If You Win? Then What Do You Do?
<>
Hmm, I can't be bothered with this right now. I'm still trying to figure out what I'd do if a Russian satellite crashed in my front yard, smashing a bee's nest, the occupants of which proceeded to sting me nearly to death after I was hit by lightning but fortunately Bill Clinton was driving by with Gisele Bündchen who when she saw the accident dropped Tom Brady like a bad accent so she could nurse me back to health thereby allowing me to become President of the US after I nailed a hole-in-one on the 13th at Augusta during the Masters.
Once I get that more probable scenario sorted out, I'll get back to you.
But I'm still buying a ticket ;<}
Read the article NPR/Mega Millions Mania: What If You Win? Then What Do You Do?
<>
The best dream you can buy for a buck.
'What would you do if...?' is probably a good question for everyone for perspective once in a while.
Read the article MSNBC/Why even skeptics are buying a Mega Millions ticket
<>
When the unclaimed jackpot gets big enough, like in this case, the expected return is greater than the ticket price:
540M$ prize/175M:1 odds = $3.08 expected return. After deducting for taxes and the chance that there will be multiple winners, the expected return is still larger than the ticket price, so it makes sense to try.
Also, any time the prize is large enough to live off the interest, when you measure it in hours, the return is infinite. You need to work some fraction of an hour to earn the ticket price, but you and your descendents will not have to work forever, assuming you invest the money prudently.
This isn't really complex math, but unfortunately very few people understand it even that much.
Read the article MSNBC/Why even skeptics are buying a Mega Millions ticket
<>
My workgroup has bought 350 tickets. I also bought my own $10 worth. You can't win if you don't buy and this chance is well worth a few bucks. I live in the state that STARTED Mega Millions and since all these other states have joined in, I believe we've only had one winner here since then. This would be a VERY GOOD time to have it come home for this particular win. Of course EVERYONE dreams for a day or two what they would do with this enormous amount of money. If I won alone, my whole family would be very well off. This time tomorrow, everyone will come back to earth EXCEPT for the lucky winner(s). Good Luck people!
Read the article ABC/Mega Millions Fever Sweeps Nation as Jackpot Hits $540 Million
<>
The administration of this lottery is crazy. It would be so much better if the
chances of winning were increased so that anyone who had all 5+1 numbers would
receive One million dollars.($1,000,000.00) So many more people would win and
benefit from this "wind fall," pay off their home mortgage, pay off their credit
cards and even have a little left over to help their children through college. I
am not suggesting that every winner would do this; probably many would fritter
it away. However with odds of 176,000,000:1 to win, this lottery is ridiculous
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/One Chance in Mega Millions
<>
It's been tried by some of the lottery commissions. People don't respond to a
$1,000,000 top prize. Many people complain about the long odds and talk about
how they'd play more if there were better odds and lower payouts, but then they
don't when the option is presented to them. They still play for the higher prize
on long odds.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/One Chance in Mega Millions
A tax on stupidity? A tax on the math impaired? Nope, I am
neither.
However, I do get a dollar's worth of fun thinking of my jet
doing a low-altitude fly over one particular fellow's house, rattling his
windows at 3AM, as I call him on the phone "Sorry to have disturbed you, we're
on our way to the islands again and I wanted to let you know.
Toodles."
And then I'd have the pilot make a second pass even lower and
faster.
The thought alone is worth a buck.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/One Chance in Mega Millions
<>
Just once, I wanna see some zillion-dollar lotery winner come before the microphones and say "I intend to devote my winnings to subverting the dominant paradigm."
Read the article NPR/Mega Millions Mania: What If You Win? Then What Do You Do?
Lightning over Pentagon City in Arlington, Virginia. Postdlfvia Wikipedia
Health Care Act: Supreme Court Hears the Arguments
The Contemplation of Justice, which sits on the west side of the United States Supreme Court building
Photo: Matt H. Wade at Wikipedia
The cell phone question is really inane. If someone does not buy a cell phone and they later have to make a call, too bad. They do not die or suffer. If someone does not buy health insurance, however, and then they get sick or injured, we do not let them die or suffer. We allow them to get health care and sometimes for free. The rest of us who have health insurance pay for them. It is too bad that nine people who have health insurance paid for by the Federal Government will be deciding whether the rest of us will continue to struggle with supporting everyone else who freeloaders.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
In Court, Sharp Questions on Health Care Law’s Mandate
<>
By submitting to the commercial model of health care production and financing rather than the social utility model, the President's healthcare reform legislation has brought this problem upon itself. Any wise and compassionate democracy knows the moral and utilitarian value of a public policy supporting the health of its citizens with universal health care under government supervision. In our country Medicare for All would easily accomplish this, bend the cost curve, and satisfy all constitutional questions.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
In Court, Sharp Questions on Health Care Law’s Mandate
<>
It's really amazing the amount of misconceptions involved in how people perceive the ACA (affordable care act). It does not "put government between us and our doctor," at least any more than the current system puts insurance companies between us and our doctors--and as a doctor myself, it's a daily battle trying to get insurance coverage for various medications, procedures etc. that are needed, be it for people insured under govt programs already or by private insurance. The "putting government in between" has been an overt issue in several Republican controlled states, where bills requiring medically unnecessary procedures for women seeking abortions have been passed.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Health Care Law Challenge Weighed By Supreme Court -- What's At Stake
<>
Anyone with health insurance pays for people without and at a very high cost. People without health insurance end up in our emergency rooms, the highest form of care. The costs of that care is tacked onto the reimbursement costs the insurance carriers who in turn pass it on to the subscribers.
Barnette said, "The Affordable Healthcare Act essentially puts the Government between you and your doctor." Don't we already have the insurance carriers between us and our doctor? Thy are out to make a profit and they are a bigger bureaucratic burden on all of us.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Health Care Law Challenge Weighed By Supreme Court -- What's At Stake
<>
People, the hospital where I work only has approximately 18% of its patients who have insurance. We have some Medicaid patients (pays about 60 cents reimbursement on the dollar), Medicare patients (pays about 70-80 cents reimbursement on the dollar), and the rest are self-pay (meaning a large portion of the bill is written off or never collected) and 0 pay.
This is not a unique situation. This is what it's like for hospitals throughout the country.
How long can this be sustained? We need that mandate to ensure that the insurance pool is large enough to support people who need the insurance. Do you think hospitals aren't going to eventually collapse under this weight without fundamental change?
I have seen nothing from the regressives that will help this situation. Repealing Obamacare won't fix it. As a matter of fact, this mandate that you regressives cry about is exactly what the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation called for. It was fine for all you regressives then, but now that it has been adopted by a Democratic president, and Pres. O no less, it is anathema to you. Hypocrites.
What is the right's solution to this problem? How much longer do you think hospitals can keep their doors open under this burden?
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Health Care Law Challenge Weighed By Supreme Court -- What's At Stake
<>
The health care reform bill was never about health care, it was and is about health insurance. While researching the state of the private health insurers I discovered that every single major private health insurer was fined or paid a settlement for fraud. United Healthgroup, Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross, and all the rest either defrauded the government, doctors or consumers and none of them were sentenced to prison terms. Instead they were allowed to pay a fine or a settlement that didn't come close to impacting the profits they made from the fraud. So for these greedy corporate criminals these fines and settlements were just a cost of doing business. They had no effect on their actions, so they just continue doing what they do best, ignoring the health of the consumers and doing whatever they had to, legal or illegal, to increase their profits. Obama and the Democrats should have passed legislation to create Medicare For All. This would have created millions of jobs, saved Medicare and ended the criminal organizations aka private health insurers. With millions of young, healthy premium paying members Medicare For All would save Medicare and save Americans millions of dollars by reducing the cost of health care
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Health Care Law Challenge Weighed By Supreme Court -- What's At Stake
<>
The more that meaningful people review the benefits of health care reform, the more they will be in favor of it. We are the only country in the world, for example, where the inability to pay hospital bills is the leading cause of bankruptcy. The Affordable Care Act will end that. And then there are the areas of affordability and access. The Act will end denials of applications for folks with "pre-conditions." And it will stop insurance companies from dropping enrollees when they get sick. As for affordability, the Act will use the money that now goes to pay for fees and services of people without medical insurance -- who now get services at county hospitals, for example - and use that money to subsidize the insurance premiums of those who cannot afford to pay for the full premiums. The Act will also cut down on the costs of medical care in the U.S. over time, by encouraging and forcing hospitals and doctors to work colaboratively and more efficiently. The Affordable Care Act is movement in the right direction for a country that now has 17% of its citizens without health care insurance. We can afford it, as country. And it is the right thing to do.
Read the article POLITICO/Health Care Reform Still Standing
<>
Having family who have worked in the medical profession for more than 30 years, I know that there are issues requiring attention. But the boat was not sinking. A RED HERRING called the "uninsured American" was just the catalyst for those professing goodwill to further inject the finger of the CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT into American Healthcare! The concept of correcting waste, fraud and abuse in any system is inherent in all current and former forms of governmental programs. Exerting corrective control did not allow the Secretary of HHS to dictate FREE BIRTH CONTROL! FREE means someone else is paying for it and Sebelius and Obama surely are not the payors!
A couple of dozens pages defined a nation and now it takes 2000 and more to STIMULATE an economy and take over private auto manufacturers and shun 200 years of law and take over private banks--airlines have been reorganizing for decades. It takes over 2000 pages to 'take over' a free enterprise healthcare system.
It takes one vote to make it right again.
Read the article POLITICO/Health Care Reform Still Standing
<>
OK, what is the real problem? Insurance companies are there for one reason only. Insurance companies are there to make money. Period.
If your grandmother is sick an insurance company is "praying" she will die. The sooner she dies the less money they have to pay out. Insurance companies do not want to spend money on health care. Period.
Romney/Obama Care is about paying for medical care. Insurance companies are about making money. Blunt. True
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman - Hurray for Health Reform
<>
It is in the interest of us all as individuals, family members, citizens and human beings to provide common sense health care for all. Freedom from the anxiety of an illness or affliction that could lead to financial ruin should be one of the primary functions of a representative democratic government. That the public has been vicitmized by disinformation to fear this law, speaks to the rabid intensity of the anti- government movement. Without much resistance, republicans have been able to define government as the enemy to freedom- and in so doing have closed off the necessary dialogue to solve a national crisis. Rather than use our resources to make this work in the best way, we have millions being wasted in lobbying and advertising with the goal of destroying what was an honest effort to protect the general welfare.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman - Hurray for Health Reform
<>
I have excellent, cheap student health insurance that covers nearly 100% of my health care costs. Because it is a student insurance plan, it is designed for young, healthy people with few serious medical conditions.
Next year, however, the cost of my insurance will increase, and the year after that, it will increase even more. Why? Because Obama's health care reform prescribes a one-size-fits-all model that requires medication coverage to increase from a cap of $2,000 per year to $100,000 per year next year, and then to unlimited coverage the year after.
For the population in question -- young, generally healthy students -- such coverage is mostly unnecessary. Now, the cost of coverage will be significantly increased for all of us, while only a very few will benefit. My school is currently looking into other options for health insurance, but my guess is that the options will be very limited.
Healthcare reform needs to focus on the root of the problem -- the fee-for-service model that we currently use. Any reform that does not address this fundamental structural failure is doomed to fail. Obama's plan may have some benefits, but it also has many unintended consequences -- consequences that are quite detrimental to many people, such as myself and my fellow students.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman - Hurray for Health Reform
<>
Let's keep in mind just how wide those cracks that health care reform will a long ways towards filling are. Approximately 50 million Americans lack health insurance, a number that has been growing as more employers stopped providing coverage. In addition, under the old system, most folks who have insurance live in fear of recission, denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and lifetime and annual benefit caps that meant that even folks with insurance could be bankrupted by a health crisis. The ACA has or is ending all of those abusive industry practices.
Another major change made by the ACA is that health insurance companies now have to spend 80-85 percent of your premiums on providing health care, rather than on profits, advertising, and administrative costs. Some in the industry have said these requirements are going to sink the private insurance industry and lead to a Medicare for all system. If so, it is simply proof that the private insurance industry is unable to provide their product in a way that is beneficial to society. And, as any good progressive knows, Medicare for all would provide better and more comprehensive coverage at a lower cost, even if it wasn't politically feasible to enact in 2009.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman - Hurray for Health Reform
United States Supreme Court 2010 - Photo: Wikipedia
Seeking Justice in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, the parents of Trayvon Martin
Today show with Matt Lauer - Watch
An armed gunman chases down and kills a child who is walking on a public street.
The cops say, "Well, he claims it was self defense--who are we to contradict?"
I was once robbed and had a gun held to my head. I'll never forget the feeling--a sense of "Wow, this person is about to steal my life from me. Just like that." It wasn't just terror--it was rage too.
I feel so enraged on behalf of Trayvon Martin, whose life was taken from him by this disgusting, pathetic, sick human being, and who was then grotesquely insulted by the police who failed to even pretend to care.
Someone really needs to be held accountable, and not just George Zimmerman. The abject moral failure of law enforcement here is unbelievable.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Grand Jury in Florida Will Examine Death of Teenager
<>
As a carry permit holder in Tennessee, I can only say that this story makes me very sad. This man's actions do not represent the notions of self defense felt by the vast majority of persons licensed to carry firearms. It's hard to imagine feeling threatened by a youth carrying a bag of skittles and some iced tea, and defending oneself does not include pursuing someone and then gunning them down. I feel for the young man's family and like every parent I hear my own childrens' cries for help when I listen to the tapes; it could have happened to anyone. I hope that the family will receive justice.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Grand Jury in Florida Will Examine Death of Teenager
<>
If someone sitting in a vehicle feels that an approaching man presents a threat, the person should drive away. If, for whatever reason, you cannot drive away and the person attempts to break into your car while you're in it, then that's another matter. But to stay put and then to step out of the vehicle invites a confrontation. At that moment, the self-defense plea goes out the door with you, regardless of whether the other person is armed with a gun or a bag of skittles (as in this case).
Zimmerman wanted to be a hero but he is nothing more than a threat to society, and he needs to answer for his actions and be judged by a jury. I've read the FL "stand your ground" statutes, and I would say they're a threat to society, as well.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Grand Jury in Florida Will Examine Death of Teenager
<>
OK, so I am being followed by someone in a SUV, who seems to have following me from a convenience store. Later this person exits his car and then approaches me. The person does not identify himself as cop. Since I am not breaking any laws nor am I harming anyone or any property, I don't see why I need to have a conversation with him and let him know as much: I am merely returning to a friend's house. I decide to run because I am afraid of the person who approached me. The person follows me and then physically tries to impede my progress. I, in self defense, push the person. It is raining so he slips on the grass. He gets up and pulls a gun because now he feels threatened and vulnerable. At this point I am scared and start to plead for my life because there is a firearm pointed at me. The person pointing the gun is already hyped up and is now more so because he just fell and is scared too. At this moment he pulls the trigger. I am now dead.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Grand Jury in Florida Will Examine Death of Teenager
<>
I have been following this case for awhile. As a Mid-Atlantic/Northerner who has been transplanted to Florida, I might even say I am borderline obsessed.
I have nothing substantial to add, really, but I wanted to note one thing. Between the recent news from a Penn State shower back to Kitty Genovese we have been wringing our hands in this country about what uncaring brutes Americans are and we just don't ever want to get involved. I always thought that was a load and thought the press and professional cultural worry-warts were taking difficult cases and generalizing far to wildly. I know a lot of people who get involved, call 911, etc.
Look at this case. Plenty of people seemed to have gotten off their uncaring duffs and called the police when it was still just a scuffle. People are on tape weeping as they stay on the line to describe the unfolding of events. Then, well after the fact, some of these callers and other witnesses went on TV challenging the police's narrative as well as their competence.
Should some of them have gotten involved physically? I have no idea. That is a tough call. As a diminutive man with no confidence in myself at violence I am hesitant to point that finger. Maybe a simple shout out the window? I don't know.
Of course all of this could unravel as events unfold and the investigations conclude, but am I wrong to be heartened by at least THAT part of this sorry tale? Am I just grasping at straws for SOME level of social redemption?
Read the article THE ATLANTIC/The Sham Investigation Into Trayvon Martin's Killing
<>
Yes. So they had a cell phone showing that a call took place, but didn't investigate further.
They had 911 tapes with someone crying/begging on them, but didn't investigate further.
They had 911 tapes with the shooter saying he was following the kid, but didn't investigate further.
Then, as Charles Blow from the NYT was tweeting last night, the cops apparently had Trayvon's cell phone with all of his contacts listed (and presumably, with someone named "dad" calling all night to see where he was). But they took him in as a John Doe anyway, and didn't investigate further into who this kid might be.
The entire Sanford police department needs to lose their jobs over this, and possibly face some kind of charges. Can cops be charged with "impeding an investigation" or something?
Read the article THE ATLANTIC/The Sham Investigation Into Trayvon Martin's Killing
<>
Because this investigation has now garnered national attention, it is possible that justice will be served in this case - it seems clear that the initial "investigation" was a sham, but because a bit of light is being shined on this dark corner, a more thorough job is being done.
The more disturbing thing to think about is this - how many other cases like this do not ever garner national attention, and so do not end up with justice being done? Far too many, I suspect.
Read the article THE ATLANTIC/The Sham Investigation Into Trayvon Martin's Killing
<>
To begin, I'm a member of the NRA and a strong advocate of the 2nd
amendment. My wife and I both hold concealed carry permits for most of the
states that allow non-residents to train and register. Here are my thoughts,
for what they are worth....
1) Given the stand-your-ground law in Florida and the evidence that the news
articles claim the police had at the time, arrest was not warranted.
2) The police have referred the incident to the state's attorney office.
This is very reasonable given the circumstances.
3) The case will be heard by a grand jury next month.
4) The public perception that gun rights advocates are trying to justify
Zimmerman's actions is wrong.
I can't think of a single class where an instructor has not taught us to
remove ourselves from a situation and to shoot only when absolutely necessary.
Yes, this includes the stand-your-ground states. Unless evidence proves
otherwise, Zimmerman's actions are unconscionable and certainly illegal. I feel
safe in speaking for the majority of permit holders when saying that Zimmerman
should be prosecuted severely should evidence indicate that he had other
reasonable choices. Hiding behind stand-your-ground has never, and should never
be tolerated.
Read the article CHICAGO TRIBUNE/Parents: 'George Zimmerman needs to be arrested'
<>
Zimmerman was out looking for trouble that night and now a 17 year old kid is dead. It's amazing how many people have commented about what Zimmerman had a "right" to do, as if the kid didn't have a right to walk down the street unmolested by a cop wanna-be with a gun. Having a CCW gives to the "right" to carry a gun, but it does not give you the right to use it irresponsibly. There were so many places that Zimmerman could have broken this sequence of events and, in every case, he make the wrong choice. He could have not been carrying a gun while on a neighborhood watch patrol, which, by the way, is rule number 1 of neighborhood watches. He could have stayed in his vehicle, as he was told to do, instead of getting out. If he was really concerned that the kid was a criminal and would get away, he could have followed at a safe distance and stayed in touch with 911. And, he could have used even the slightest bit of common sense in making sure the kid was actually armed before shooting him. No, Zimmerman was at fault for this, every step of the way, and he needs to pay dearly for what he did.
Read the article CNN/Outrage, protests grow over shooting of unarmed Florida teen
<>
What struck me about this story was not the racial aspect per se, although clearly that's relevant, but the fact that one private individual shot another, to death, admitted to doing so, and was not arrested.
The idea that people of any race are more likely to shoot people of color than caucasians seems to me to be very alarming, but a distraction from the core issue, which is that we seem to have lost our way with respect to rule of law.
Why are we even asking which race we would be more likely to shoot? Why are we shooting each other at all? What possible reason could there be for shooting someone who is walking down the street? How does the person "acting suspicious" justify cold-blooded murder?
It's easy to accept the claim that this is more likely to happen to a person of color than a caucasian. It would be nice if we could do something to change that. But even if we can't change it, there's something we can change. If we weren't so trigger-happy, this wouldn't be a problem, because it wouldn't be happening to anybody.
Read the article NPR/Trayvon Martin Shooting: What If Shooter Was Black?
Election 2012: Santorum Wins Two Primaries in the South
Rick Santorum - Photo: Gage Skidmore Flickr Photostream
I agree with Santorum. Conservatives should pull together and vote for a fiscal conservative, of which, Santorum is not. Santorum is not the man that will solve our biggest problem which is too much government spending. The guy has voted for big government spending again and again. He has voted to increase the debt ceiling again and again. He is socially conservative, but he is fiscally a big spending liberal.Too much government spending is our problem, not who is in charge of the spending.
Read the article POLITICO/Rick Santorum: Conservatives should ‘pull together’
<>
I'm no fan of Newt Gingrich, but can we please stop with these foolish, increasingly irritating calls for Gingrich to drop out of the race (aided and abetted by overpaid pundits who've basically gotten everything wrong about it so far)? The GOP nomination comes down to the delegates, not who "wins" each state, and Gingrich came in a close second in both Alabama and Mississippi- in other words he leaves with about the same number of delegates as Rick Santorum, and more than Mitt Romney (who came in third place in both states). Since Romney was trounced in both places, despite spending way more than Santorum, Gingrich and Paul combined, maybe Romney should drop out of the race based on this logic? Also keep in mind:
- In contrast to the narrow wins (for any candidate) in the primaries of the last few few weeks, Gingrich's wins have been strong and decisive. He got nearly half the total vote in Georgia- which is far, far better than Romney did in his own home state of Michigan- and he clobbered both Romney and Santorum in South Carolina, where Romney outspent him and the other candidates by many millions of dollars.
- South Carolina is also the only early primary where the GOP saw an increase in turnout compared to 2008, and Gingrich won it decisively. (The GOP winner in South Carolina has also been the nominee in all of the previous primaries, so that was no small feat on Gingrich's part.) This suggests that Gingrich has an ability to motivate GOP voter enthusiasm in a way that his rivals don't, especially Mitt Romney.
- Gingrich has a large number of second-place finishes in many other states, for example he did better than Santorum in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada, he tied Romney in Oklahoma, and he beat Romney in both Alabama and Mississippi. IOW Gingrich is very much in the thick of it.
- The race is still fluid enough that it can change on a dime. This is partly because of the debates, in which Gingrich performs well. It's also because Romney will now be focusing on attacking Rick Santorum, which can allow Gingrich to sneak in and gain broader support- just as Romney's attacks on Gingrich allowed Santorum to sneak in and take Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.
- We're barely through half the primaries, and Romney in particular will be struggling with the upcoming states. Romney got a misleading boost in his delegate count thanks to the early primaries being ridiculously skewed in his favor- packed with Mormon states (among the GOP voters in the primaries and caucuses), Romney home states (Michigan- which he still almost lost- Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine) and states that he'd won in 2008 (Minnesota for example), and yet Romney still flopped. By contrast, the upcoming states are probably friendlier territory for Newt. He's long had popularity in Louisiana (even more so than Alabama and Mississippi), which shares many cultural and political ties with Georgia, as well as in Arkansas.
- The most favorable scenario for Newt is probably a brokered convention, and considering his revivals before (going into Dec 2011 and in South Carolina), he could still very much be important then esp if he does well in the debates. Brokered conventions wouldn't necessarily be damaging to either party- there's a long history of them, and if anything it can sometimes allow them a chance to hash out their coalitional issues and improve their platform, so it could be favorable to either party using it. It may also be to the benefit of the GOP's conservative wing, and to Gingrich in particular. Going into the winner-take-all states- like Texas and California- may pose a re-think to avoid a split in the conservative vote, but up until then, it may be advantageous for Gingrich to rack up delegates and essentially tag-team with Santorum against Romney. He would then have far more sway in the convention, and considering the unpredictability of the process thus far, could very well come back again.
Many factors at work here, but the bottom line is that it's still relatively early in the nominating process, and Newt still has good reasons to stay in.
Read the article POLITICO/Rick Santorum: Conservatives should ‘pull together’
<>
I live in so-called Dixie and believe me, this section of the country never carries the presidential election. When the primaries get out of the south, Romney will regain momentum, Newt will drop out and who knows about Santorum. What I DON'T see in him is a winner - not nationally. If by some quirk he is the Repub. nominee, the Obamas need not call the moving company. Neither Santorum nor Newt will attract women (53% of the vote in 2008 and expected to be higher); minorities, youth or gays. The voting gay population is probably larger than that of the military. The GOP appeals to aging, white men, military types and blue collars.
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Daily Beast Contributors Weigh In on Rick Santorum’s Mississippi and Alabama Wins
<>
Let's see a show of hands of those who believe that Santorum can win 80% of the remaining delegates. hmmmmmmm, 1, 2, 3 Ok put your hands down. Not too many. He doesn't even have a full slate of delegates in enough states. he has no chance unless Mitt decides to drop out and throw his support to Santorum. Right.
I think he is planting seeds for a run in the future. He has to be, or he is really nuts. I don't think Romney will ask any of the others to be his running mate.
There is one thing that really amazes me about Romney. He is so steadfast. He figured out what he had to do to win and he is doing it. He is ignoring and resisting the temptation to combat the press.
I am very proud of him. I know a bit more about Mormons than most people. I'm not one and never was. I've just been around them and my son used to live in Utah so I've been there many times. The dedicated ones are very steadfast in their lives and practice. We need that in this country.
If he is elected, I hope he is as good at being president as he has in everything else in his life so far. There are a lot of lies out there about him and Mormons. As there are about many good people in this country.
Read the article POLITICO/Rick Santorum: Conservatives should ‘pull together’
<>
Since I have personally endorsed Mitt Romney in his candidacy for President, I believe we need him now more than ever. I may not always be in agreement with differing views of my religious positions from any source, but that is not the issue. Yet the summary of my present position is simple and easy to understand. Mitt Romney is running for President not Pastor, his theological views should not be scrutinized unfairly in his quest for office. He can defeat the current President while the other candidates will have great difficulty with that task.
John Kennedy faced this challenge as a Catholic seeking the same office in 1960. His speech was honestly presented and dealt with this religious question comprehensively for all present and future voters. His response in as relevant today as it was in the past. “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote-where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference-and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…
That is the kind of America in which I believe-And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe-a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrary withholding its occupancy from members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affairs, neither imposed upon him by the nation or as a condition to holding that office…
If my church attempted to influence me in any way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant, sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part, that it was one to which I could not subscribe, that I was opposed to it, and that it would be an unfortunate breech-an interference with the American political system. I am confident there will be no such interference.” Kennedy further stated if he found any conflict between his conscience and the responsibility of the Presidency, he would resign the office. John F. Kennedy was running for President.
Santorum’s modest win in Alabama and Mississippi does not change one fact. Regardless of Mitt Romney’s personal faith he is the one who can defeat Obama period. As a businessman with successful Olympic experience under his belt, having a wife and sons who generate renewed pride in the greatness of America, he is the future for the nation. I am committed to his cause more than ever. Mitt will continue this battle for all who still believe in the American dream and he WILL WIN. /Alan Phillips, Sr.
Bloomington, IL
Read the article POLITICO/Rick Santorum: Conservatives should ‘pull together’
<>
The best concept put forth in this article is that of this being a "campaign of attrition." The long grind goes forward, Santorum's only hope being to keep Romney from attaining a clear victory before the GOP convention. But what Santorum views as hope for him looks like doom to a whole lot more people. Once Hawaii and American Samoa caucus results come in, there is every chance that Romney will still have won enough delegates on March 13 to stay ahead of Santorum not only by more than twice the count but by the same percentage of the total delegate count to date. If Romney is at or above 54% of delegates won to date tomorrow, he is still on track to be the nominee well before the last states even vote.
Santorum will not be the nominee. He will not be the Veep nominee. He will be the guy not even wanted in attendance at the convention. Romney is the nominee as the delegate math continues to bear out. By keeping Santorum to a modest win in the south, Romney still wins in the end.
Read the article REALCLEAR POLITICS/Southern Wins Propel Rick Santorum Forward
<>
To those who are demanding ideological purity from our nominee, the late William F. Buckley father of the modern Conservative movement said: "We Conservatives must always vote to nominate the MOST CONSERVATIVE candidate who can WIN."
In 1964 when I was a college student and still very idealistic...I did all I could to see Barry Goldwater nominated (went to the convention as a Young Republican representative/alternate delegate). He did win the nomination but went on to lose the General Election in one of the largest landslides in history (37% of the vote). What we got was Lyndon Baines Johnson who gave us the "Great Society" programs we are still suffering from today. That event in my early life made me realize that Obama was absolutely right..."elections do have consequences." The consequences of 4 years of an unbridled Obama are simply too much to accept.
We had to wait 16 years before we could nominate and elect another Conservative in 1980...... Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure we can wait 4 years (2016) much less 16 years to get the perfect candidate. Just as the "Tea Party likes to say..."if our nominee doesn't do the job of President, then in 4 years we can fire him."
First, we have to stop the hemorrhaging before we can cure the country. AnybodyButChicagoDemocrats
Read the article REALCLEAR POLITICS/Southern Wins Propel Rick Santorum Forward
Election 2012: Romney's Wagon Rolls Along with Delegate Lead
Former Governor Mitt Romney giving an interview at a supporters rally in Paradise Valley, Arizona, December 2011
Photo: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia
Romney wins in the cities and the suburbs. Santorum in the more rural areas.
Romney has an advantage with the female vote, and Santorum with the male vote.
Santorum has an advantage with the more conservative religious groups, Romney
with the others. In other words, Santorum runs strongest with the groups that
are the traditional Republican strengths. Romney runs strongest with the groups
that are the more traditional swing votes. Fairly straightforward pattern.
Lastly, elections typically go to those who can win the swing vote. So here's a
Republican asking other Republicans: who would have a better chance to beat
Obama? Just look at the data. Romney. That's the real result from Super Tuesday.
I rest my case.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Romney Extends His Lead
<>
So Obama is out there in his first news conference this year, "coincidentally"
on Super Tuesday, trying to make himself look like the foreign policy expert by
exploiting the handiest issue--Iran vs. Israel, undoubtedly to kill as many
birds with one rhetorical stone as possible--think about the campaign chest,
thumping his chest, and taking more and more out of the community chest to
distribute to his supporters.
Not very presidential, but will provide
more publicity from the MSM while they snidely put out either negative
adjectives toward moderate and conservative ideas and candidates or da*n them
with faint praise.
I can't remember any president who so artfully and
frequently used the MSM as a campaign tool for practically the whole time he was
in office. The bully pulpit never stops, but I suppose they need to keep up the
propaganda so people don't start looking behind the curtain.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Romney Extends His Lead
<>
Not "presidential"? What a fact-deprived series of non-statements. What's wrong
with a president who's running for election making his case? What's wrong with a
president making foreign policy statements? What are you complaining about here?
What could President Obama possibly do to look "presidential" in your eyes?
Since when is Israel a handy, convenient issue for any president, let alone
Obama? Israel is a political minefield, where Obama is caught between hawkish
republicans, pro-Israel democrats, and non-interventionist republicans and
democrats, some of whom have no concern about Americas stake in the middle east
and others have no concern about the potential risks to our troops. He is being
actively criticized for war mongering and for not war mongering enough, so why
shouldn't he stand up and respond to his critics with his thoughts and plans on
the issues?
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Romney Extends His Lead
<>
Let's face it: None of these jokers has a good chance of beating President Obama. Not only do the polls indicated that, but two of the four ONLY appeal to radical conservatives, one has broad but shallow appeal, and one is so disliked by everyone that he's being nominated just because he can "beat Obama," not because he's actually people's first choice.
You know you're in trouble when you don't have any really good reasons for nominating a candidate other than he's "more electable."
What does "more electable" mean? Romney isn't going to draw any liberal voters like Ron Paul would, but he's alienating to many of the Santorum/Gingrich wing of extreme conservatives. Perhaps enough so that a significant (if small) percentage won't even vote. Undecided centrists MAY split evenly between a hypothetical Romney/Obama conflict, but recent opinion seems to favor Obama considerably.
Perhaps people are supporting Romney because they believe he's the lesser of five evils. That's no way to get elected.
Read the article NPR/Fight For GOP Nomination Is Over But Will Still Go On
<>
I hate how the press makes it out like everyone is RELUCTANTLY voting for Romney. Like the only reason why someone would vote for him is because he's a better chance to beat Obama and is a better alternative. Not everyone in the GOP is some ultra-right reactionary. Many of us whole-heatedly support Romney. The guy definitely has a better clue on the economy than Obama and all the other candidates put together. And what most people see as waffling I see as being more flexible and able to get things done. This country has some serious issues to face, including not going bankrupt from debt.
Read the article NPR/Fight For GOP Nomination Is Over But Will Still Go On
<>
It's very difficult; if you move in international circles professionally, socially or personally, to try to explain the Republican 'devolution' of US politics. I'm a forward leaning progressive and I want a level-headed, well read and well rounded Republican opponent to my Democratic choice. Those kind of opponents are rare and are driven out of the Republican party head first and replaced by Joe ' has no clue' the Plumbers. There are a lot of countries adopting this Democratic experiment and they are seeing our present as their future and it's not looking bright.
Read the article ON POINT-TOM ASHBROOK/The GOP Race After Super Tuesday
<>
Part of Romney's problem is that he can't hide the fact that he is an "elite", which is anathema to the republican narrative (despite the fact that all presidential candidates from both parties are extremely well educated, well to do citizens, i.e. "elites").
And so, he does not excite the so-called republican base.
For an independent voter, his ability to turn and pander on a dime is a turn off. Having the privilege of being a Massachusetts citizen, I have had the luxury of knowing how Romney campaigned and governed here, versus his claim of being a "severe conservative" at the time. I know it is politically incorrect to do so, but let's call a lie what it is, shall we?
As for democrats (who will vote for him, as his governorship shows), his repudiation of his own rational approach to healthcare access for all is simply unacceptable.
Despite all that, he is the only candidate who makes any sense at all for the republicans to nominate. Santorum and Gingrich are really caricatures of viable candidates, the fantasies of republican extremists more wedded to ideological purity than to honest governance.
Or so it seems to me. Whether Romney can beat Obama remains to be seen. But Romney better hew a lot closer to the truth in his comments about Obama if he doesn't want to turn non-ideologues totally against him.
Read the article ON POINT-TOM ASHBROOK/The GOP Race After Super Tuesday
<>
While it is clear Romney needs to strengthen his connect to blue collar workers, part of his problem is that Santorum has a natural connection with them. As long as Santorum stays in the race that challenge will exist. On the other hand, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what Romney needs to do to increase his appeal to blue collar workers. This not exactly like the challenge of splitting the atom or curing cancer. Romney needs to bring on board some top public relations and advertising experts to help him reshape both his message and his style to bring it closer and more sympatico with blue collar sensibilities. He needs also to eliminate the "death tax elimination" from his vocabularly and stay focused like a laser on jobs, jobs, jobs and better incomes for all. He needs to go beyond the generalized trickle down concepts such as lower taxes will encourage business growth which will increase hiring to providing more concrete examples and anecdotes to graphically show the blue collar and factory workers how his policies will improve their lot.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Super Tuesday Victories for Romney, but Questions, Too
Confrontation: The Student, The Senator, The Talk Show Host
Dang. My plan was to start a business with employee health insurance that only covered the laying on of hands and the application of leeches as consistent with my religion.
And if my employees didn't like it, they could leave and choose between the multiple six-figure job offers we all receive every day.
Or be homeless and starving. It's their call.
Seriously, I am baffled by the concept that defines freedom as the ability of my employer to impose their religious beliefs on me. This is not the middle ages and the Catholic church does not control the state.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Contraception
<>
Please don't legislate my body, it's that simple. The First Amendment may guarantee religious freedom, but it does not mean YOUR religious beliefs should be imposed on others. These decisions must be made between a woman and her doctor.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Contraception
<>
Religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to enforce one's religious views on others... which is what the Blunt amendment would have enabled. The difficulty here is in crafting a law that embodies the principle of mutual respect: the employer respecting the right of employees to manage their own health without having their choices limited by their employer's views, and the employee respecting the right of employers not to engage in activities that violate their conscience. Admittedly, the Obama solution (leaving it to the insurance companies to handle claims that violate the employer's conscience) is by no means perfect, but it does come very close to achieving this desired balance. In as diverse society as ours, we cannot always insist in perfection -- give and take is what is required.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Contraception
<>
I can't believe that every single comment I have read here is against Blount's amendment. Obama's directive means that if I have a company with employees I have to provide an insurance policy that provides not just contraceptives but morning after pills. If this is against my conscience what are my choices - close shop, pay fines, go to prison?? The fact that commentators don't notice this, don't care, or most likely see this 'right to force others to participate in morning after pills' as just something normal, means that we have been de-sensitized to the issues at hand, namely human life and religious freedom.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Contraception
<>
Having symptoms of diabetes and need insulin through your medical coverage? Sorry...your Mormon employer thinks you sinned too much and doesn't believe in using medication. Discovered your child has hemophilia? Hope you can afford blood transfusions on your own because your Jehovah's witness employer doesn't believe in taking blood. Your wife is having a pregnancy complication? So sorry...the only pediatrician on your plan is a male Muslim doctor and his religion forbids him to see a female patient. Having your fourth child and need medical support? Sorry but your atheist employer thinks there are enough people on the planet...hope you can cover that hospital stay on your own. Sawed off your thumb during that weekend home improvement inspiration? Sorry, your Jewish employer is concerned that you were working during the Sabbath and thinks you should cover those bills out of your own pocket.
Religious freedom is great...means you can believe whatever you want. Separation of church and state means that state functions are independent from your beliefs and are supposed to be guided by *reality*, in this case, what we learn from doing actual research on human health.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Senate Rejects Step Targeting Coverage of Contraception
<>
Does Rush Limbaugh represent the best of conservative intellect? I miss William F Buckley Jr. You did not have to agree with Bill to respect him. Where is the honor in this?
Read the article NPR/Student Is Outraged By Rush Limbaugh Calling Her A 'Slut' And 'Prostitute'
<>
To those defending Limpbaugh: It's not about you put-upon taxpayers subsidizing loose women. Ninety-eight percent of American women have used birth control. Your wife? Sister? Mother? Daughter? Are they what Limpbaugh called this woman? It involves other health issues, not just subbing for 'an aspirin bertween the knees.' And if we men had the babies, would this be an issue? Rush's E-D pills are covered of course.
Read the article NPR/Student Is Outraged By Rush Limbaugh Calling Her A 'Slut' And 'Prostitute'
<>
I am truly perplexed by the idea held by certain members of our society that women should not have rights other than those granted by their men. Men have the right to sex with their wives or significant others, to the extent of having the erectile dysfunction medication paid for by their insurance AND by medicaid, because they have the right to have sex. and yet, women do not have to corresponding right to prevent the occurrence of a pregnancy resulting from this unbridled lust for sex. Am I a rampant feminist, no, I'm not. I am old enough that pregnancy is no longer an issue for me, but I recall when it was. And if it had been impossible for me to acquire information about birth control, and to USE it in a manner consistent with my conscience, my husband an I would have had at least 10 children if not more. We both would have been worn out by providing for all these children - he by providing a home, education, food, and all the other 'man' things - and I, well I would have been worn to the bone taking care of all these children and giving them the love and nurturing they deserve.
Read the article NPR/Student Is Outraged By Rush Limbaugh Calling Her A 'Slut' And 'Prostitute'
<>
You are my hero, Sandra Fluke. So are most all women and men who crave civil discourse and open-minded and creative discussions about difficult issues. Limbaugh laughs all the way to the bank every time this happens, but he is not our model. People like Sandra and so many everyday people who value thoughtfulness and independent thinking are. There is nothing we cannot do if we are willing to reach out and work together. We do not have time to waste on the waste of Limbaugh.
Read the article NPR/Student Is Outraged By Rush Limbaugh Calling Her A 'Slut' And 'Prostitute'
<>
Without even getting into the social and moral issues at stake here, I take
great issue with the federal government dictating what a business must or must
not sell as part of their offering. Telling an insurance company they must
include in their coverage birth control, sterilization, abortion, etc. is like
telling a car company what cars they can and cannot sell. Oh yeah, they did that
too.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Senate Turns Away Birth-Control Measure
<>
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Senate Turns Away Birth-Control Measure
<>
Three points -
One -I believe the Senate decision was correct. If they had
voted otherwise, that would have opened the door for any employer to decide what
healthcare would and would not be available to their employees based on their
"religious or moral objections". Does anyone out there want their employer
making their healthcare decisions for them based on the employer's beliefs?
Two - this issue is not a religious freedom issue. If a religious
organization or religious affiliated organization wants to be part of the
secular world (such as getting tax-exempt status or tax incentives to offer
obamacare), then they must abide by the secular laws. In this case, religious
organizations that do not like "obamacare" can opt out by self-insuring (I
believe this is what I heard, I do not know the specifics of Obamacare. does
anyone know them?). Which means go and purchase your own insurance plan for your
employees from a health insurance company. When there is a law passed that
prohibits certain religions or requires one to practice a certain religion, then
I will start worrying about freedom of religion or freedom FROM
religion.
THREE - The birth control / religious freedom argument is smoke and
mirrors brought to us by repubs and democrats - they are two sides of the same
coin. It is meant to separate and divide us as a people and to draw attention
away from the real problems facing our country. And it's doing a great job men
against women, religious people against non religious people, republicans
against democrats. Why aren't these idiots in washington focusing on job
creation, infrastructure, real health care reform - such as making federal
standards and laws for health insurance companies to abide by (right now it is
done on a state level), going after medicare fraud and also massive markups done
by doctors.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Senate Turns Away Birth-Control Measure
<>
If Republican leaders get their way and Blunt's bill becomes law, a boss who
regarded overweight people and smokers with moral disgust could exclude coverage
of obesity and tobacco screening from his employees' health plans. A
Scientologist employer could deny its employees depression screening because
Scientologists believe psychiatry is morally objectionable. A management team
that thought HIV victims brought the disease upon themselves could excise HIV
screening from its employees' insurance coverage. Your boss' personal
prejudices, not science or medical expertise, would determine which procedures
your insurance would cover for you and your kids.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-plan-give-bosses-moral-control-health-insurance
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Senate Turns Away Birth-Control Measure
READ MORE TOP COMMENTS -- FEBRUARY 2012
I'm kind of split on this one.
Of course contraception should be covered. And the moral argument is way overblown. Religious organizations have to pay their workers in dollars, some of which may be spent on contraception. The Catholic Church is splitting hairs to get to this giant controversy. They really should stop hiring non-Catholics if they want to be allowed to treat them like religious wards.
On the other hand, this decision is certainly bad politics for Obamacare. And of course Obamacare is terrible, though better than any of the other possible options.
We really should go straight to national health insurance. These fights would go away and we could get to cheaper and less politicized health care.