U.S. Politics 20

[TrackerNeil]

As far as I'm concerned, no doctor should be forced to do any procedure as long as that is disclosed to the patient in advance. Hospitals, etc., should be free to refuse to hire such doctors if they choose.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Before choosing to use a hospital, patients would have to conduct a search regarding which healthcare services each hospital morally opts out of providing. "Well, I was going to get my surgery done at Jefferson, but they don't do blood transfusions. Hahnemann does transfusions but not antibiotics, and Pennsylvania Hospital will do both under certain circumstances..."

It's ridiculous. Doctors and other healthcare professionals/institutions should be expected as a condition of licensing to provide certain kinds of care regardless of moral objections. Otherwise, why are healthcare professionals so privileged? Perhaps construction workers shouldn't be required to build Unitarian churches, or taxi drivers to stop within two blocks of a Planned Parenthood. Take this far enough and we could wind up with half the economy refusing to service the other half.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This already happens with abortion clinics. States can't ban them, but, iirc, all they need to do is only allow one abortion-providing clinic to open in the state. Which, when you add in mandatory waiting periods, kind of means that abortion is practically banned. Mississippi only has one, to my knowledge.

I'm not aware of this. Does Mississippi actually legally prevent other abortion clinics from opening?

[Merentha]

I'm not aware of this. Does Mississippi actually legally prevent other abortion clinics from opening?

I am not sure, actually. I do know that anyone wanting to perform an abortion has to receive a license to do so from the state, and access to such licenses are incredibly rare. So, legally? I am not sure. Practically? Absolutely.

[TerraPrime]

Okay, then I don't think the "local community" is restricting access. Again, that's a active voice when the subject is not doing anything. Access to anything is restricted by the willingness of free people to provide that service.

Except for services like abortion that requires certified infrastructure (sterile operating room, anesthetics, etc.), there's a capital barrier at work here. You're making it sound like it's a free market, but it's not. Hospitals capable of allowing abortion procedures to take place, especially the more challenging D&E procedures, have the option to stack their staff, if you had your way. If a hospital run by a religious group, which is not uncommon in the U.S., can legally hire only doctors that refuse to perform abortion, which is an employer's right that you'd support, then they can effectively dictate the health care access to a large number of women.

My wife's hometown is about 30,000 people, but doesn't have a Starbucks, Caribou coffee, or any other type of coffee house because none of those companies have chosen to open up shop there, although they are free to do so. Would it be accurate to say that city is "restricting her access" to Starbucks?

If all the coffee shops in town agree to not serve french pressed coffee because they hate France, then yes, her access to french pressed coffee is denied. But then, coffee is neither life-threatening/saving, nor part of what most people would consider fundamental to happiness (okay, all you coffee addicts, pipe down and go get a double-expresso).

They are legally entitled to choose that option if there is someone willing to perform it. There is no legally requirement for anyone to make that option available.

That is true.

Similarly, I have the legal right to purchase and own guns. Or to purchase and own a car. That doesn't mean I have a legal right to force someone to sell me one.

That is also true. But I believe that, in the car example for instance, if the car dealers in the area all agree to sell only Ford cards, it'd be call a monopoly and be subject to anti-trust laws, no? Are you against anti-trust laws? Does your believe that people should be free to sell whatever, or not sell whatever, lead you to oppose anti-trust laws?

Suppose someone lives 40 miles away from even your small town, with no doctors at all. Is she also being deprived of her legal rights?

What? You see no difference between unable to provide, versus able to provide but refuse to do so? I don't have a right to NMR, and if my local hospital does not have the money to offer one, then I'll just have to suck it up and drive the distance to get one. But if the local hospital has one, but it refuses to offer NMR because their god prohibits the use of magnetism, then that's a different story.

[Shryke]

And let's not forget a pervasive terrorism campaign against abortion providers by the religious right is also making access to abortion more difficult.

An essential service that can't be accessed in a reasonable manner is one that basically doesn't exist.

[The Progressive]

Lugar voted against the stimulus and healthcare bills .......... it's amazing that he's being targeted by the teabaggers like that.

[TerraPrime]

Lugar voted against the stimulus and healthcare bills .......... it's amazing that he's being targeted by the teabaggers like that.

Really? So what was Lugar's sin?

[awesome possum]

Really? So what was Lugar's sin?

He was willing to compromise with Democrats on a few issues. I read something earlier (different computer, don't have the immediate link) about how three of his biggest transgressions have been voting for the START treaty as well as voting to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan to the SCOTUS.

You read that right. The tea party nutters want to get rid of one of the most respected leaders of the GOP for the kind of petty reasoning you'd find at a junior high school cafeteria.

[The Progressive]

Really? So what was Lugar's sin?

He told the teabaggers to "get real", lol:

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/politics/lugar-to-tea-party:-%22get-real.%22

It's not just Lugar though, Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch are also on the teabaggers' target list:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBQXyMpryy2burvByanQ4yFTqJGg?docId=5d6e50f1231d467bb7d85ba78db629a9

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Really? So what was Lugar's sin?

He has a working relationship with Obama and some dem senators.

[The Progressive]

:rofl:

Who the fuck are these people???

The same raging idiots that Flow is hoping to propel Daniel into winning the GOP primary. :laugh:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If a hospital run by a religious group, which is not uncommon in the U.S., can legally hire only doctors that refuse to perform abortion, which is an employer's right that you'd support, then they can effectively dictate the health care access to a large number of women.

They can't dictate anything except what they themselves are willing to do. If an OB/GYN thinks there's a market, he/she is free to establish his/her own practice there.

For some reason, you apparently believe that a prohibition against outlawing abortion is equivalent to a guarantee that abortions be made available by third parties. Again, there an almost uncountable number of things we each have the "right" to choose in the sense that the government may not forbid us from choosing them. But that is miles away from a right to have such things. One person's right cannot be based upon compulsion of another person. Again, suppose the local general store chooses not to stock firearms, and there are no other stores in the area. Is that store not depriving people of their second amendment rights, under your logic? Because you ducked that question in favor of addressing cars.

If all the coffee shops in town agree to not serve french pressed coffee because they hate France, then yes, her access to french pressed coffee is denied. But then, coffee is neither life-threatening/saving, nor part of what most people would consider fundamental to happiness (okay, all you coffee addicts, pipe down and go get a double-expresso).

So one person's view of what is fundamental to their happiness justified compelling another person to engage in an action that is anathema to theirs? You're all about freedom of choice unless someone chooses something you don't like.

That is also true. But I believe that, in the car example for instance, if the car dealers in the area all agree to sell only Ford cards, it'd be call a monopoly and be subject to anti-trust laws, no?

No, not remotely. There are plenty of rural areas that are served by only one dealership, selling only one make of car.

Are you against anti-trust laws? Does your believe that people should be free to sell whatever, or not sell whatever...

That's not my belief.

And I would point out that when you're talking about abortions, you're not talking about simply selling a product. You are talking about compelling someone to perform a surgical procedure.

What? You see no difference between unable to provide, versus able to provide but refuse to do so? I don't have a right to NMR, and if my local hospital does not have the money to offer one, then I'll just have to suck it up and drive the distance to get one. But if the local hospital has one, but it refuses to offer NMR because their god prohibits the use of magnetism, then that's a different story.

Why would they have it if using it is against their religion? If you don't have the right to compel them to get one in the first place, and they choose not to get it, then drive somewhere else.

[Fez]

Looks like I was a few days ahead of the curve on this one.

Lugar moving over would potentially be a great opportunity for the Dems to have a seat in Indiana especially having lost Bayhe (sp).

The one I see as mostly likely to switch is Snowe, but she's not needed. I think she's dead in the water in her primary, and a Democrat will easily beat whoever it was that beat her. I mean its Maine, you have to be a Rockefeller Republican to win (or have two Democrats in the race at the same time, that's how the governor there did it).

[TerraPrime]

He told the teabaggers to "get real", lol:

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/politics/lugar-to-tea-party:-%22get-real.%22

It's not just Lugar though, Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch are also on the teabaggers' target list:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBQXyMpryy2burvByanQ4yFTqJGg?docId=5d6e50f1231d467bb7d85ba78db629a9

Snowe I could have predicted. She has a record of being moderate on some issues. Even before Tea Party, she's been on the list as RINOs.

But Hatch? One of the most conservative Senators? That's even less rational than Lugar.

At any rate, from the second article:

Top Indiana tea party leaders recently met to coalesce behind one Lugar challenger. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is expected to announce his candidacy later this month.

Shit. I thought Tea Parties are loosely organized grassroot groups that don't have central agendas or political infrastructure?

[The Progressive]

Sorry, in my response to your post I meant to bold Hatch's name which was what I found so funny. I don't find the challenge to Snowe to be funny.

Well Hatch has been licking their teabags for sometimes now to shore up his conservative creds and it might pay dividends by 2012.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

More on the challenge to Lugar

Sayeth Chait:

Sorry, in my response to your post I meant to bold Hatch's name which was what I found so funny. I don't find the challenge to Snowe to be funny.

Democrats here and elsewhere have chided Republicans for not sticking to their small-government principles and in supporting and expanding spending. To a large extent, that's a fair criticism. But now that some Republicans themselves are trying to stop that by going after those GOP officeholders most likely to compromise on those principles, they get labelled extremists.

[Shryke]

You act like the 2 accusations are mutually exclusive.

They aren't.

One can easily be both extremist and still not follow through on your rhetoric.

[TerraPrime]

Democrats here and elsewhere have chided Republicans for not sticking to their small-government principles and in supporting and expanding spending. To a large extent, that's a fair criticism. But now that some Republicans themselves are trying to stop that by going after those GOP officeholders most likely to compromise on those principles, they get labelled extremists.

That's because the impetus for us to point out the ideological inconsistency is not to help the GOP to be more consistent. Rather, we just want to point out that the party says one thing and does another, thus illustrating a sort of rational disconnect that we find amusing. We'd rather work with a logically inconsistent GOP that can come to the table to compromise, from time to time, when the planets align correctly, than to work with the tea party people who see governance as a game of winners-take-all.

Or, maybe more accurately, we would like to see a GOP where the words and actions align with each other, but where they move to the left just a tad so that they do not put small government as an absolute end goal.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's because the impetus for us to point out the ideological inconsistency is not to help the GOP to be more consistent. Rather, we just want to point out that the party says one thing and does another, thus illustrating a sort of rational disconnect that we find amusing. We'd rather work with a logically inconsistent GOP that can come to the table to compromise, from time to time, when the planets align correctly, than to work with the tea party people who see governance as a game of winners-take-all.

Ah, okay then. Well, I hope that we can disappoint you in that regard. :D

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, it's worked wonders for Walker up in Wisconsin.

You don't think it's raised his profile? Anyway, here's an interesting story about that:

MADISON, WIS. - On a Tuesday afternoon in September 2003, during Scott Walker's first term as Milwaukee County executive, scores of union workers gathered at the local courthouse to protest layoffs he had ordered as part of an aggressive effort to balance the budget and avoid what he said would otherwise be necessary tax increases. They shouted anti-Walker chants, and union officials and Democratic officeholders took turns denouncing his slash-and-burn approach.

The layoffs Walker had announced that summer decimated the county's public parks staff and also reduced the number of county social workers, corrections officers and janitors. As a result, park bathrooms were shuttered and pools were closed. Trash was piled up so high in the Milwaukee County Courthouse that visitors had to sidestep apple cores and coffee cups, and some judges resorted to cleaning toilets, a local newspaper reported.

Despite the deep cuts and the union uproar, Walker cruised to reelection the following spring and remained in his post six more years, until his successful gubernatorial run in the fall....

"Anybody who said they didn't see this coming wasn't paying attention to the election," said Joe Sanfelippo, a member of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors and a Walker supporter. "He's true to his word . . . he's not going to back down."

Indeed, Walker showed little concern for the sea of protesters singing Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" outside his window Friday evening. Dressed in a navy suit and red tie, he shrugged off the chants for his resignation and the signs portraying him as a dictator.

"My last couple budget addresses [in Milwaukee County], I literally had protesters from the unions in the chambers standing up during my speech holding signs. . . . I had people catcalling and the whole bit; I'm used to it," he said in an interview in his spacious Capitol office, with its dark wood furniture and tightly drawn burgundy blinds....

It's a pretty interesting article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021904205_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011021705923