The gift that keeps on giving

Here’s my premise. Obama wants the Republican Party to nominate anyone but Romney and if he can’t stop Romney from being the nominee, he wants to ensure there is as much damage to him as possible between now and the convention.

You may have noticed the other day that Obama called on a fight over abortion that really came from out of the blue. He put forward a proposal that even religious organisations will have to provide health care with contraception and abortion included which led to a dust up and then partial retreat. The religious wing of the Republican Party rose up en mass whose net effect amongst other things has been to encourage support for Rick Santorum and to diminish support for Romney for whom such issues are peripheral both to his campaign and in his appeal for votes.

For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be. It’s not that I have no view; it is that when I think of what I want from an American President, no position taken by any likely Republican candidate is ever going to influence my decision. Would that were true for everyone else.

Abortion for the Democrats is the gift that keeps on giving. There is an Alinskyite Marxist in the White House who has undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term. He is possibly the worst economic manager in American history and is overseeing a series of foreign policy disasters that have left the US in an incomparably weakened position in relation to every major issue in the world today.

Yet for all that Obama is still the favourite to win in November. I have been astonished at the ability of the Obama administration to manipulate the electorate almost at will. I have quoted the following passage from Peggy Noonan before and will have reason to do so no doubt from now till November. Put everything Obama does and has done into the context of this kind of analytical ability:

The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The ‘Analytics Department’ is looking for ‘predictive Modeling/Data Mining’ specialists to join the campaign’s ‘multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,’ which will use ‘predictive modeling’ to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. ‘We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.’

It is this kind of data mining that in my view almost certainly guides every action taken by this administration. Add to that a media totally sewn up, and you must wonder how Romney manages even to stay in the race.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

755 Responses to The gift that keeps on giving

  1. As I understand it, Jason, this is all arising out of the emphasis of the Affordable Care Act on preventative measures, which are seen as reducing health costs overall.

    The Institute of Medicine recommended that contraception be included on a national basis, completing what half the States had already done.

    The situation is not ideal – no one here thinks tying it to employment is a great idea due to the complexities involved, but if you are interested in reducing health care costs without upending the whole system, this sounds quite reasonable.

  2. And besides, although the ideologically driven refuse to look at it, better access to contraception is more likely to reduce abortion than Rick Santorum telling the electorate that they really should stop sleeping around.

  3. JamesK

    And besides, although the ideologically driven refuse to look at it, better access to contraception is more likely to reduce abortion

    And what does history say steve – you ideologically driven clown?

  4. The fact that pregnancy is not an illness is irrelevant.

    It is a health condition that involves medical costs, sometimes extremely expensive ones. People also want to plan it. That is enough to consider its impact on health insurance and medical expenses generally.

  5. JamesK

    As I understand it, Jason, this is all arising out of the emphasis of the Affordable Care Act on preventative measures, which are seen as reducing health costs overall.

    LOL

  6. Ellen of Tasmania

    Do we know how many pregnancies are occuring in the U.S. because people can’t AFFORD contraception?

  7. No James, it’s more likely that Obama, a secret gay Hitlerite, fears fecundity and wants heterosexuals, especially Catholic ones, to not reproduce.

  8. JamesK

    No James, it’s more likely that Obama, a secret gay Hitlerite, fears fecundity and wants heterosexuals, especially Catholic ones, to not reproduce.

    Lol.

    So it’s true.

    Obama really does hate Bobby Kennedy.

  9. Well, now it seems my calm logic and rational responses have convinced everyone, what next issue do you want me to clear up?

  10. Infidel Tiger

    You have convinced me of many thing, Steve.

  11. JamesK

    I don’t mind obummer hating Bobby Kennedy steve.

    Really – none of us do.

    It seenms a strange thesis tho

  12. JamesK

    How d’ya think Bobby might feel ’bout obummer’s hatred of the Catholic church, steve?

  13. Adrien

    CL – LOL.

    When you’re insane enough not to actually see the real world anymore it always the cause for much mirth. Say hello to Batman next time he drags you off to Arkham.

    Adrien is claiming that Absolute Ideologist Obama is protecting the right of people to ‘make up their own minds.’

    No Adrien is claiming that you will lie about what I said whilst stealing my riffs.

    Um no. That’s exactly what he’s banning.

    Yep. The long standing bipartisan project of whatever you might call the vermin problem in the District of Columbia. But yes. The motherfucker wants to put drones all over the place in ‘Merica. Fan-fuckin’-tastic! I’m sure Dick Cheney’s grinding his teeth ’cause he didn’t get to do it.

    Obummer makes committed enemies of people who used to support him whilst us nutter right wing extremists are falling into his trap………

    How many enemies has he made? Are we going to have to endure some more polemic from old Chuck KrautHammer, pileous with its brief-points from up on high viz who he hates this morning?

  14. Adrien

    Ellen – I tend toward the Libertarian frame of mind, and wonder why someone shouldn’t have the right to hire or fire whomever they want.

    Anti-discrimination laws have a tendency to actually cause discrimination. Besides you can’t change bigotry with a law. You can only repress it.

  15. From a Guttmacher paper:

    Brand-name versions of the pill, patch or ring can cost a woman upwards of $60 per month if paid entirely out-of-pocket, not including the cost of a visit to a health care provider. Long-acting or permanent methods, such as the IUD, implant or sterilization, are most effective and cost-effective, but can entail hundreds of dollars in up-front costs.

    These costs affect individual women’s behavior. A national survey from 2004 found that one-third of women using reversible contraception would switch methods if they did not have to worry about cost; these women were twice as likely as others to rely on lower-cost, less effective methods. According to another recent study of 10,000 women in the St. Louis area, when offered the choice of any contraceptive method at no cost, two-thirds chose long-acting methods—a level far higher than in the general population. Findings like this help explain why rates of unintended pregnancies are far higher among poor and low-income women than among their higher-income counterparts.

    ….

    …cost-sharing poses a significant problem even for women who are insured. A 2010 study found that women with private insurance that covers prescription drugs paid 53% of the cost of their oral contraceptives, amounting to $14 per pack on average. What they would pay for a full year’s worth of pills amounts to 29% of their annual out-of-pocket expenditures for all health services.

    Numerous studies have demonstrated that even seemingly small cost-sharing requirements can dramatically reduce preventive health care use, particularly among lower-income Americans. And removing these barriers can have a real impact: A recent study found that when a California health insurer eliminated cost-sharing for IUDs, implants and injectables, enrollees’ use of these highly effective methods increased substantially, and their risk of contraceptive failure decreased as a result.

  16. .

    A national survey

    Steve you dum dum stated preference data is inferior to revealed preference data.

    Get some actual consumption data you goose

    Findings like this help explain why rates of unintended pregnancies are far higher among poor and low-income women than among their higher-income counterparts.

    No. This happens globally.

    Numerous studies have demonstrated

    Which ones Dr Guttmacher?

  17. Quentin George

    The biggest barrier to the use of condoms worldwide is most likely male laziness. Seriously steve, condoms are neither out of the price range of even the poorest American, nor scarce.

  18. Infidel Tiger

    Nothing arouses our Steve more than government intervention. He’ll be requiring some contraception for his hand later.

  19. Yes, Quentin: women should always rely on their partners being willing to use a condom; they are a famously popular form of contraception for men, especially if they are living with their woman and have no concerns about STDs. They also never break or fall off, and are well known to have a much bigger failure rate than other forms of contraception.

    We don’t want the woman having control over her own fertility now, do we. They might get all uppity and want to leave the house now and then.

  20. Woops, I slipped out of sarcasm mode there for a second when I mentioned failure rate..

  21. IT: availability is not the same as compulsion to use.

  22. Question: why is the blog full of non or ex Catholics who nonetheless want to side with Catholic thinking on contraception?

    The Stephen Colbert quote: “A woman’s health decisions are a private matter between her priest and her husband!!!” seems to just sage nods of agreement from here.

  23. Infidel Tiger

    Question: why is the blog full of non or ex Catholics who nonetheless want to side with Catholic thinking on contraception?

    It’s not a question about Catholicism or contraception you insufferable twerp.

  24. C.L.

    I see Steve the devout ‘Catholic’ is still pretending that Obama’s failed wacko jihad against the Catholic Church is about the morality of contraception.

    We of course destroyed this argument days ago.

    He believes, with Colbert, that a woman’s health decisions are a private matter between Obama and her husband.

    But thanks, Barry. If Mormon Romeny is to be the nominee, he now has full evangelical and Catholic backing.

    Oops.
    LOL.

  25. JC

    So far today Steve Stepford has linked to or brought

    USA Today

    Slate

    Stephen Colbert

    Showing he’s a well read TAFE’er.

  26. It’s not a question about Catholicism or contraception

    Oh, that’s right: it’s about Newt Gingrich’s plan to mine cheese from the moon.

    Thanks for the reminder.

  27. JC

    Well, now it seems my calm logic and rational responses have convinced everyone, what next issue do you want me to clear up?

    Did you complete all the assigned chores the little bride assigned for you last night, or did you lie and tell her you had a headache when in fact you’re annoying people on a blog and making yourself even more unpopular than before?

  28. CL: availability is not the same as compulsion to use.

    You and the American Catholic Bishop’s famous powers of persuasion to the Catholic women of the country will, ensure that few of them take the opportunity to use the contraception that will be more freely available.

  29. Infidel Tiger

    take the opportunity to use the contraception that will be more freely available.

    How in hell could contraception be more freely available? If you are currently having trouble accessing contraception you defrinitely shouldn’t be getting your freak on.

    Let me tell you this for nothing retard, anyone who can’t afford contraception isn’t going to be working a job with health insurance.

  30. Quentin George

    steve, I don’t care what the catholic position is. I do not call myself one and hence feel no obligation to follow their edicts. I fail to see in an open market why the government should mandate what should and shouldn’t be in a health insurance policy. Seriously, if you have a dud policy, you switch providers, if that means switching jobs then do so.

    It’s no better than people in Queensland who bought “no flood” home insurance and then complained that they weren’t covered for floods.

  31. C.L.

    You and the American Catholic Bishop’s famous powers of persuasion…

    Well, we crushed Obama like a bug.

    How’s that for persuasion?

  32. Gab

    take the opportunity to use the contraception that will be more freely available.

    LOL.More freely available than free? What do you want Obama to do, Steve? Put the free condoms on for you? Ensure women who take the pill do so by getting them to report each night to the Bong Police?

    F.I.

  33. How in hell could contraception be more freely available?

    By being available at no cost as part of your health insurer’s benefits?

    Look, you mob: you can make your completely gut reaction claims as much as you like, but they don’t actually count for much without having something to back them up in terms of studies and such about how people use contraception and how cost affects its use.

  34. Infidel Tiger

    What do you want Obama to do, Steve? Put the free condoms on for you?

    Outside of been a middle ranking Nazi bureaucrat, that’s probably his biggest fantasy.

  35. Gab

    By being available at no cost

    You can get them for free, you S.F.W.

    You;re just trolling to get attention.

  36. JC

    Look, you mob: you can make your completely gut reaction claims as much as you like, but they don’t actually count for much without having something to back them up in terms of studies

    like
    USA Today

    Slate

    Stephen Colbert

  37. JC

    LOL.More freely available than free? What do you want Obama to do, Steve? Put the free condoms on for you?

    I get the nagging feeling he’d enjoy that.

  38. Seriously, if you have a dud policy, you switch providers, if that means switching jobs then do so.

    Come on: the people who will most benefit from this (women in lower paid jobs with limited saleable) are probably the least likely to be able to find alternative employment.

    The arguments being put forward today are as weak as water.

  39. ..limited skills to shop around…that should have been.

  40. JC

    Come on: the people who will most benefit from this (women in lower paid jobs with limited saleable) are probably the least likely to be able to find alternative employment.

    The arguments being put forward today are as weak as water.

    Fuck you’re bogan dickhead.

    Take a look at an income pyramid, you fucking fool. Which jobs are scarcer do you reckon. The CEO like positions at Rio for instance or the dude driving the truck in an open cut mine?

    You really are appallingly dense.

  41. “how people use contraception and how cost affects its use.”

    For the $ I suggested or free over then internet as Gab suggested I would suggest that US citizens would use a condom based on that price no need to study it. Many men both here and in the US will pay $100 + for half an hour root and it does include a condom. So I think paying a $ for a root is not too bad.

  42. The Catallaxy collective: the only bunch of people in the world who think:

    * condoms are popular as a long term contraceptive for couples
    * women never have an argument with their partner about them having to use a condom
    * working class women in poor areas can just ditch a job and go hunting for one with better health benefits
    * a working class woman would never skimp on contraception if paying $50 is the difference between paying the power company for the overdue bill this month.

  43. Steve are you a real person or is it your job to make stupid comments because the suggestion about condoms etc. being too expensive is just beyond belief assuming the churches in the US do not have slaves and pay some minimum wage?

  44. “a working class woman would never skimp on contraception if paying $50 is the difference between paying the power company for the overdue bill this month”

    Ok Steve will run with that is $1.30 per day ok which is even cheaper than condoms (if sex more than one time per day) or are you assuming that both the sexual partners can’t come up with $800 every 2 years. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-implant-implanon-4243.htm

  45. Gab

    Steve believes women are stupid:

    * condoms are popular as a long term contraceptive for couples
    * women never have an argument with their partner about them having to use a condom
    * working class women in poor areas can just ditch a job and go hunting for one with better health benefits
    * a working class woman would never skimp on contraception if paying $50 is the difference between paying the power company for the overdue bill this month.

    The only person here sprouting that is you, you patronising jerk.

  46. JC you have fallen into the hole of stupidity so deep that I can’t see you waving any more.

    Here are some figures:

    In Birmingham, Ala., the unemployment rate among African Americans was 5.3 percent in 2006, the year before the recession began. Last year it was 14.5 percent, according to the EPI analysis. In Miami, the rate went from 6.7 percent in 2006 to 17.2 percent last year. In the Los Angeles area, the black unemployment rate climbed from 8.6 percent in 2006 to 19.3 percent last year.

    Sure, a black woman in a city with 20% black unemployment is going to ditch her job for a better health plan.

    Yes, you’ve convinced that job mobility is the answer to this – easy peasy.

  47. There is fierce competition going on here for which of you lot – Gab, JC, kelly, CL, IT, etc are willing to make the stupidest comments.

    It’s dizzying.

  48. Shouldn’t the unemployed man be able to obtain a condom?

  49. Adrien

    Well, we crushed Obama like a bug

    You and the archbishop ‘ey CL. Ooohh yer such a hero. 🙂 Ol’ ‘Bama’s still curled around Michelle as of right now weeping like the smelliest kid after their first day at school.

  50. Gab you are unbelievably dumb at times and care-less of the position of women.

    What is “patronising” is a rich woman from Australia arguing that a cheap or free supply of condoms is all a poor American woman needs to ensure the best and most reasonably reliable control of her fertility in her relationship.

  51. C.L.

    Gab you are unbelievably dumb at times and care-less of the position of women.

    Steve, aggressive voice of the fairer sex.

    Ol’ ‘Bama’s still curled around Michelle as of right now weeping like the smelliest kid after their first day at school.

    Well, his “body man” is no longer in situ so I guess that’s possible.

  52. Gab

    I’d be worried if you thought me smart, Steve. From you it’s the death knell of credibility.

    I’m not just rich, I’m a millionaire according to Tanya Pleberserk.

    arguing that a cheap or free supply of condoms is all a poor American woman needs

    I never said that you patronising milksop.

  53. C.L.

    There is fierce competition going on here for which of you lot – Gab, JC, kelly, CL, IT, etc are willing to make the stupidest comments.

    It’s dizzying.

    The year’s prize for that has already been given, Steve.

    You should know.

    Your claim that semen has a “philosophical” purpose was the trophy winner.

  54. Gab

    PS Steve. “careless” is one word, no hyphen.

  55. JC

    Sure, a black woman in a city with 20% black unemployment is going to ditch her job for a better health plan.

    Yes, you’ve convinced that job mobility is the answer to this – easy peasy.

    No dickhead, that’s not what i was saying at all. On the whole it’s relatively easier to get a lower paying job than it is a higher paying one.

    If you think that isn’t true you are then being absurd.

  56. JC: do you or do you not accept that it is fanciful to think black women in lower paid jobs are going to find it easy to find another job in a city with 20% black unemployment; let alone another job with better health insurance?

  57. JC

    JC: do you or do you not accept that it is fanciful to think black women in lower paid jobs are going to find it easy to find another job in a city with 20% black unemployment; let alone another job with better health insurance?

    Actually Stepford, it is relatively easier for an employed person to find another job. It’s the long term unemployed (Odumbo has created) that are having serious problems finding work.

    Dickhead, do you understand what the term flow of jobs means?

    Something like 2.5 million jobs are even now being destroyed and created in the US each month. The flows are enormous.

    Furthermore if the woman holding the job in this environment is employed it means she’s eminently employable.

    Lastly, how do you square an economic decision with your ostensible catholic morality, Step.

    So, let me understand your train of illogic here. The Catholic Church should be made to include condoms because the unemployment rate is high and people may not be able to move around so easily. Fuck you’re a moron.

  58. Infidel Tiger

    JC: do you or do you not accept that it is fanciful to think black women in lower paid jobs are going to find it easy to find another job in a city with 20% black unemployment; let alone another job with better health insurance?

    Irrelevant. If they want a job that provides health insurance with contraception cover then they shouldn’t apply for jobs at organisations that don’t provide it.

  59. Ah, ic, JC. So the long term unemployed, when they do get a job offer, are going to look at the health insurance and say “nah, it’s not quite comprehensive enough, I’ll keep looking.”

    The Obama deal is not that the Catholic Church includes contraception at all – it is an addition to the health insure offered direct from the insurance company to the employee, and without direct cost to the church institution.

    Even if there is a tiny short term increase in premiums until the full cost benefit of increased contraception use is felt, this will be spread across all companies using the insurance provider. (Because everyone will have contraception under their cover.)

    If the Church is going to whine that this makes them complicit in providing contraception – as I argued before, they already pay for insurance from companies that provide contraception to other employers. Oh! Catholic money has already helped a insurance company cover a non catholic getting the pill. Freaking crisis!

    In fact, Catholic institutions, including in New York where they lost a court challenge to the State mandate, have been directly paying for Catholics to get the pill via insurance for years. What a crisis that’s been.

    This is about Bishops seeking an unreasonable interference into a matter of Federal action, taken on medical advice, that preventative care available on a uniform basis across the country is a sensible thing to improve health and health costs. The preventative care in question is “women who don’t want to be pregnant”.

    It is likely to reduce abortions, but Catholic purists would rather tell women to just not have sex, rather than control their fertility via means 98% of Catholic women are willing to use in good conscience.

  60. “The Obama deal is not that the Catholic Church includes contraception at all – it is an addition to the health insure offered direct from the insurance company to the employee, and without direct cost to the church institution.”

    Steve if that is true why didn’t you just say so to start with?

    I do find it ironic though you arguing for the twisted capitalist system of the US when the Aus system is much better, much cheaper and much more socialist.

  61. If they want a job that provides health insurance with contraception cover then they shouldn’t apply for jobs at organisations that don’t provide it.

    Women may not realistically have a choice.

    If they do go to place that offers the insurance, the will have the choice whether or not to use the contraception.

    What’s so hard to understand about that?

  62. Infidel Tiger

    Women may not realistically have a choice.

    Too bad. Life’s not fair.

    Otherwise you’d be a crash test dummy.

  63. JC

    Ah, ic, JC. So the long term unemployed, when they do get a job offer, are going to look at the health insurance and say “nah, it’s not quite comprehensive enough, I’ll keep looking.”

    There are trade off is life. Ask your wife as she seems to be the breadwinner and you wouldn’t know much about this.

    The Obama deal is not that the Catholic Church includes contraception at all – it is an addition to the health insure offered direct from the insurance company to the employee, and without direct cost to the church institution.

    We know it’s a mandate.

    Even if there is a tiny short term increase in premiums until the full cost benefit of increased contraception use is felt, this will be spread across all companies using the insurance provider. (Because everyone will have contraception under their cover.)

    Bullshit. You’re talking about cross subsidies and it won’t apply.

    If the Church is going to whine that this makes them complicit in providing contraception – as I argued before, they already pay for insurance from companies that provide contraception to other employers. Oh! Catholic money has already helped a insurance company cover a non catholic getting the pill. Freaking crisis!

    You’re an idiot. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    In fact, Catholic institutions, including in New York where they lost a court challenge to the State mandate, have been directly paying for Catholics to get the pill via insurance for years. What a crisis that’s been.

    That’s not the full story as they hid behind federal protection laws as a last measure.

    This is about Bishops seeking an unreasonable interference into a matter of Federal action, taken on medical advice, that preventative care available on a uniform basis across the country is a sensible thing to improve health and health costs. The preventative care in question is “women who don’t want to be pregnant”.

    No it isn’t. It’s preventing former community organ grinder from controlling people’s lives and he’ll lose.

    It is likely to reduce abortions, but Catholic purists would rather tell women to just not have sex, rather than control their fertility via means 98% of Catholic women are willing to use in good conscience.

    Then don’t listen to them, but don’t expect Odumbo to force them.

  64. .

    Steve are you a real person or is it your job to make stupid comments because the suggestion about condoms etc. being too expensive is just beyond belief assuming the churches in the US do not have slaves and pay some minimum wage?

    For a long time I have suspected that Steve is an ALP plant, possibly from Kevin Rudd’s local office.

  65. kelly?

    I’m not arguing for the US system at all. I’m just saying that if they aren’t going to dismantle the whole unduly complicated employer/health insurance connection, then the reform makes sense as a means of improving the health system overall by ensuring a uniform level of basic cover with an emphasis on increasing preventative care.

  66. I have made no comment on the expense of condoms at all!

    I know they are as cheap as chips and available everywhere.

    They are also typically not popular in long term relationships, and the woman has to rely on the co-operation of the man.

  67. Tal

    Steve that’s a private matter

  68. Where have you been Tal? Was it the lure of me talking all day about matters sex-u-al that enticed you back?

  69. Infidel Tiger

    They are also typically not popular in long term relationships, and the woman has to rely on the co-operation of the man.

    Poor thing. She could always go out and do what hundreds of millions of other women worldwide have done and purchase her own contraception. Who knows she may even be able to find an employer that offers contraception under its health care plan. Best she doesn’t look for employment in organisations that don’t offer these plans.

  70. Gab

    Steve continues to be the patronising idiot.

  71. Tal

    Steve as a Mick I thought you would side with the bishops 🙂

  72. .

    They are also typically not popular in long term relationships, and the woman has to rely on the co-operation of the man.

    Maybe if she wants contraception and he says no and won’t spring for the pill and she cannot afford it, maybe she can tell him to leave off?

    Is the purpose of this legislation to keep together shaky relationships revolving around dumb people and contraception?

    Steve the ALP plant says this is a golden way to run society.

  73. Infidel Tiger

    Steve prefers to bash his bishop.

  74. “emphasis on increasing preventative care.”

    So Steve just stick to good arguements then you will not have to fight everyone so much. That is correct due to the intolerance and interferance from religious groups in the US, Aus way outperforms in this area and examples are free needles for drug users, condoms for prostitutes when HIV broke out unlike US and I am sure that religious and government interferance still exists in healthcare due to the arguements that surface in the US.

  75. IT
    Don’t be so judgemental when a priest got into my cab a few years ago he said to me words to the effect when I asked him about contraception “no we don’t all believe that” so there are many catholic priests I would suggest that do not stick 100% to the party line. You might be thinking about the Labor party lol.

  76. .

    Kelly – well duh. Why bloody enforce this though?

  77. JC

    Kelly

    You’re accosting priests when they get into your cab, you realize there is a complaints number displayed.

  78. Tal

    If it was an old school nun Kelly would have his head smacked

  79. “The Obama deal is not that the Catholic Church includes contraception at all – it is an addition to the health insure offered direct from the insurance company to the employee, and without direct cost to the church institution.”

    Dot
    If this statement by Steve is true then the problem is solved. I am guessing it is the compromise.

    JC
    I haven’t driven a cab for a year but intend to go back to that shortly if i can get a loan to actually buy a cab. Chatting to the customers will lead to more tips not some evil endeavour like you suggest and also is good for market tips especially if they come from the airport.

  80. JC

    I haven’t driven a cab for a year but intend to go back to that shortly if i can get a loan to actually buy a cab.

    Good luck with that Kelly. You’re an idiot, but I wish you the best.

    Chatting to the customers will lead to more tips not some evil endeavour like you suggest

    I always give a tip to those that don’t wanna talk.

    and also is good for market tips especially if they come from the airport.

    Stay away from tips unless you research them yourself.

    As an aside

    I have a huge guilt trip over a Cabbie and a cab ride once. It’s still fresh in my mind. I caught a cab to go from the Upper Eastside to Downtown to get to work. I got there and then realized I forgot my wallet. The dude suggested he write me his address and I send him the money. It was $12.80 and I still recall the amount. I lost his freaking address so there’s a dude who thinks I cheated him out of his money. It’s one of my biggest guilt trips.

  81. JC
    I Always research market information but when I say tips is more along the lines of research it is surprising how much people talk to cab drivers and you would too I think, as it is like we are completely anonomous.

    So you do have a heart. LOL

  82. James: I don’t despise people who believe in fairy stories – I just think they are a bit simple and feel sorry for them. If that makes me a bigot then so be it.

  83. C.L.

    Hey, re black women – let’s bear in mind what Obama and his Planned Parenthood friends’ have wrought:

    BlackGenocide: Abortion and the Black Community.

    Heckuva job.

  84. Gab

    Amazing innit. Planned Parenthood also provides free contraceptives, and not just condoms.

  85. C.L.

    It is likely to reduce abortions, but Catholic purists would rather tell women to just not have sex, rather than control their fertility via means 98% of Catholic women are willing to use in good conscience.

    In fact, the whole thing has nothing to do with whether or not women use contraception. Even Chris “Tingles” Matthews has described this line as a spin-doctor’s lie.

    And LOL. Steve is now claiming that child murder advocate Barack Obama cares about reducing abortion.

    He’s as indifferent to it as you are, Steve.

    You really are morally sick person.

  86. CL
    Your link said 17000 babies in the dumpster. This number seems highly unlikely. Assuming the babies weighed no more than 100gm on average so the dumpster was only 1.7 tonnes it is likely it was cleared weekly just like any other bin meaning more than 2000 abortions a day in secret.

  87. Oh dear.

    CL appears not to have read Chris Matthews’ comment on the Obama compromise position:

    President Obama gets the gold star tonight. He’s found a way to reconcile the goal of good health care, including reproductive health care, for women and what he acknowledges as the legitimate rights of religion organizations.

    He did it by mandating that insurance companies swallow the costs of birth control in their policies when church organizations decide they cannot in good conscience do so.

    Today’s announcement by the president was evidence that he was both alert to the public debate and strong enough to make an adjustment in policy when needed. He decided early on in this debate that action was necessary and took it as soon as a solid policy option was before him. He wanted to bridge the goals of women’s advocates with what he recognized as the legitimate position of the Catholic Church.

    How embarrassing for the CL.

    By the way, what is this all about again? Something about Obama being a Hitlerian monster who fears fecundity and sexuality, pompous crap, pompous crap, pompous crap etc.

  88. Gab

    You’re such a whore for Obama, really you are Steve.

  89. wreckage

    I’m still waiting for a decent argument for criminalising health insurance that fails to cover abortions or contraception.

    Of course, all this goes away if people’s own individually purchased health insurance were tax deductible in the USA.

  90. C.L.

    LOL.

    Chris Matthews said Obama’s policy was “frightening” and slapped down his own reporter on air for defending it (using Steve’s “28 states” dodge).

    So old Tingles slapped down a week’s worth of Steve’s lies. Now Steve the abortion advocate (and devout ‘Catholic’) has decided to return to Tingles’ side. And Steve previously dismissed compromise as something to placate “extremist” bishops. Now Steve embraces the ‘compromise.’ (Which is not a compromise).

    Oh dear. Have we ever seen an episode in which Steve’s moral sickness has been more sadly on display?

    But the man having the loudest laugh is Mormon Mitt – his religious problem now completely solved by Obama.

    Epic fail.

  91. JC

    He did it by mandating that insurance companies swallow the costs of birth control in their policies when church organizations decide they cannot in good conscience do so.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha

    Fuck the weakest link in the chain. And premiums won’t rise of course. No siree. Odumbo understand the commercial world deeply.

  92. JamesK

    I just think they are a bit simple and feel sorry for them.

    First of all Yobbo, I wish it were merely you being benignly indifferent to christianity and christians.

    But it isn’t the case.

    And you repetitively demonstrate that fact.

    As merely an addendum to this comment – an aside if you will – your view that people of faith are “simple” and deserving of your pity is on its face an assinine position from a purely rational perspective.

    I say that not to engage you in debate on that subject.

    It would bore me.

    But if you can’t acknowledge that is in an assinine position purely from a rational perspective then any discussion with you is a waste of time.

    Allbert Eistein, William Buckley or C. S. Lewis for example all had remarkable Faith although Einstein without necessarily caring to practice Judaism whilst loving his people and proudly identifying as a Jew.

    Intelligence has naught to do with any of it.

    I suspect a similar range of IQ in the atheist camp and the Faith camp.

    Perhaps not a similar distribution in higher education because modern universities are hotbeds of anti-religious dogmatism.

    Please be clear I have no ill feeling to atheists per se or agnostics – in fact agnosticism is an especially noble position to my mind if arrived at honestly rather than as a device.

    My take on what you facilely call ‘pity’ is that it would be more accurately characterised as disdain and oppropbrium in you case.

    In short you are superciliously nasty about christians and gratuitously so.

    No point in playing civil now and pretending that’s how you normally comment about christians and catholics.

    It isn’t.

  93. C.L.

    By the way, what is this all about again?

    Not enough attention is paid to the ‘why’ of Obama’s Hitlerian attack on Christianity, specificially in relation to contraception. And people who aren’t mental midgets and morons also wonder why the hell any employer should pay for workers’ contraception.

    The explanation is quite simple. The Democrat Party is wedded – nay, welded – to an extreme anti-natalist ideology whose signature dogma is passionate hatred and fear of human sexuality and fecundity. Institutionally allied to Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International – both organisations founded by ‘feminist icons’ who also happened to be white supremacists and Nazi sympathisers – the anti-natalists bitterly resent that pregnancy continues to prevent women from the ‘freedom’ of being as much like men as possible. Indeed, they almost literally regard pregnancy as an illness. This is why Obama opposed legislation designed to prevent accidentally un-aborted babies from being murdered, and why he insists that health insurance schemes cover the cost of combatting the natural disease of fecundity. Force is important for the anti-natalists because by imposing their dogma they satisfy themselves that they have successfully ‘won’ the debate about what, and who, women are – and should be. The Catholic Church was targeted because of its role in health care and its powerful indifference to secular ideology. It had to be humiliated for the ‘win’ to be real to them.

    Obama did this because he is filled with fear and hatred, as are the feminist extremists advising him (like his hate-mongering wife).

    We should also remember that leftist anti-natalism works hand in hand with gay lobby extremism. Homosexualists also hate fecundity, though with the idiosyncratic feature of hating it because it points to the axiomatic familial supremacy of heterosexuality. As a result of their success, policy-wise, the Church has already had to close some of the oldest and most successful adoption agencies in the United States. So the party of Bobby Kennedy (11 children) now officially believes that children can and should be murdered, that the extremist organisations that do the murdering should be subsidised by the state, that pregnancy is an illness and that the only families worth waxing sentimental about are the gay ‘families’ whose very existence destroys (they hope) the idea of women as designedly fecund, unchangeably different to – for the anti-natalists, inferior to – men.

    Finally, an explanation of timing seems important. Well, the fact is support for abortion – for women’s right to ‘choose’ – has been plummeting for years. Almost every pollster has found that majorities now oppose abortion outright or oppose it in most situations. Added to this – and, to some extent, driving it – is science. The science of ultra-sound, the science of premmy medicine, the science of genetics (and all it tells us about who we are as persons, in utero and ab initio) . The old ‘abortion on demand’ slogan of feminists has been abandoned. The old ‘just a clump of cells’ line has been discreetly binned. On science, the pro-abortion lobby has lost. On morality – in the public’s eyes – they have lost. It goes without saying that the holdout extremists have an especially livid hatred for the one institution that, above all, fought their despicable ideology. That was the Catholic Church. Corrupting the law – taking this and associated anti-natalist dogma – out of the public agora and enforcing them by fiat is the measure of both their loathing and also their epic failure.

  94. C.L.

    Oh dear.

    Cardinal Dolan: nothing’s changed, Obama just lying.

    Announces legal and legislative war.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200596.htm

  95. JamesK

    Good.

    Benedict is a great Pontiff.

    I really hope the Catholic Church in the USA doesn’t falter and revert to its inane liberalism.

    She needs to take this thug anti-catholic leftist President on.

  96. wreckage

    the science of genetics

    I’m not sure how much some people (a particular brand of materialist) realised the scope of their own-goal every time they revelled in the discovery that yet another component of the personality was genetic.

  97. …whose signature dogma is passionate hatred and fear of human sexuality and fecundity.

    Nutty.

    Homosexualists also hate fecundity

    Contrary to the number of “Two Mums/Two Dads have a baby” stories we see in New Idea.

    axiomatic familial supremacy of heterosexuality

    Pomposity.

    Force is important for the anti-natalists because by imposing their dogma they satisfy themselves that they have successfully ‘won’ the debate about what, and who, women are – and should be.

    Paranoid.

    Obama did this because he is filled with fear and hatred

    Projection.

    the gay ‘families’ whose very existence destroys (they hope) the idea of women as designedly fecund, unchangeably different to – for the anti-natalists, inferior to – men.

    Paranoid, and stupid.

    Almost every pollster has found that majorities now oppose abortion outright or oppose it in most situations.

    Exaggeration and deceptive cherry picking.

    On science, the pro-abortion lobby has lost.

    That would explain RU486, I suppose (?)

    On morality – in the public’s eyes – they have lost.

    Inconsistent with great majority believing abortion is acceptable in some situations (many of which Catholic Church would not approve.)

    It goes without saying that the holdout extremists have an especially livid hatred for the one institution that, above all, fought their despicable ideology. That was the Catholic Church.

    Paranoia mixed with unjustified triumphalism.

    enforcing them by fiat is the measure of both their loathing and also their epic failure.

    Wrong factually; paranoid; stupidly triumphalist.

  98. wreckage

    Shorter SfB: me saying “nuh-uh!” point by point is a rebuttal!

  99. Some brief points in there have been expanded upon by me in previous comments over the last week…

  100. JamesK

    Conrad Black in National Review – who always writes wonderfully well demonstrating a great comprehension of whatever topic he opines on.

    “In 1790, the new president of the new country addressed the country’s Roman Catholics: “May the members of your society in America . . . enjoy every spiritual and temporal felicity.” George Washington cannot have meant anything like this. It is such an insane enterprise, so brutal, gratuitous, and premeditated, after a debate between the Catholic men and militant feminists around the president, that the administration will, unless it has taken complete leave of its senses, backpedal as far as it has to to get clear of this fiasco, and the immediate, rather specious climb-down may not achieve that.
    Vice President Biden, who is pretty accident-prone himself but at least saw this one coming and takes his Catholicism seriously, told a Cincinnati radio station that he was confident of a compromise. Such a dirigiste regime, so hostile to any alternative source of moral authority in America to itself, may have trouble withdrawing gracefully. The administration is trying to retreat in the proclaimed interests of social peace, but some taste, though not a lethal one, will linger. If it does not compromise seriously and eliminate the requirement for church-related organizations to pay for something of which they morally disapprove — especially the post-conception drugs and treatments — an epochal turning point impends.”

    Well worth rtwt

  101. Les Majesty

    Well, we crushed Obama like a bug.

    Last time I checked, CL, Barry was President of the United States and you were working in an RTA in suburban Brisbane.

    You have a strange concept of “winning”, my friend.

  102. Les Majesty

    Conrad Black in National Review – who always writes wonderfully well demonstrating a great comprehension of whatever topic he opines on.

    I’ve heard he is a real expert on not dropping the soap.

  103. Les Majesty

    To paraphrase a legal aphorism Les, a man who relies on himself for moral guidance a fool for a guru/ spiritual counselor/ moral philosopher

    Now you are just being an idiot.

  104. Les Majesty

    Not enough attention is paid to the ‘why’ of Obama’s Hitlerian attack on Christianity, specificially in relation to contraception. And people who aren’t mental midgets and morons also wonder why the hell any employer should pay for workers’ contraception.

    The explanation is quite simple. The Democrat Party is wedded – nay, welded – to an extreme anti-natalist ideology whose signature dogma is passionate hatred and fear of human sexuality and fecundity. Institutionally allied to Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International – both organisations founded by ‘feminist icons’ who also happened to be white supremacists and Nazi sympathisers – the anti-natalists bitterly resent that pregnancy continues to prevent women from the ‘freedom’ of being as much like men as possible. Indeed, they almost literally regard pregnancy as an illness. This is why Obama opposed legislation designed to prevent accidentally un-aborted babies from being murdered, and why he insists that health insurance schemes cover the cost of combatting the natural disease of fecundity. Force is important for the anti-natalists because by imposing their dogma they satisfy themselves that they have successfully ‘won’ the debate about what, and who, women are – and should be. The Catholic Church was targeted because of its role in health care and its powerful indifference to secular ideology. It had to be humiliated for the ‘win’ to be real to them.

    Obama did this because he is filled with fear and hatred, as are the feminist extremists advising him (like his hate-mongering wife).

    We should also remember that leftist anti-natalism works hand in hand with gay lobby extremism. Homosexualists also hate fecundity, though with the idiosyncratic feature of hating it because it points to the axiomatic familial supremacy of heterosexuality. As a result of their success, policy-wise, the Church has already had to close some of the oldest and most successful adoption agencies in the United States. So the party of Bobby Kennedy (11 children) now officially believes that children can and should be murdered, that the extremist organisations that do the murdering should be subsidised by the state, that pregnancy is an illness and that the only families worth waxing sentimental about are the gay ‘families’ whose very existence destroys (they hope) the idea of women as designedly fecund, unchangeably different to – for the anti-natalists, inferior to – men.

    Finally, an explanation of timing seems important. Well, the fact is support for abortion – for women’s right to ‘choose’ – has been plummeting for years. Almost every pollster has found that majorities now oppose abortion outright or oppose it in most situations. Added to this – and, to some extent, driving it – is science. The science of ultra-sound, the science of premmy medicine, the science of genetics (and all it tells us about who we are as persons, in utero and ab initio) . The old ‘abortion on demand’ slogan of feminists has been abandoned. The old ‘just a clump of cells’ line has been discreetly binned. On science, the pro-abortion lobby has lost. On morality – in the public’s eyes – they have lost. It goes without saying that the holdout extremists have an especially livid hatred for the one institution that, above all, fought their despicable ideology. That was the Catholic Church. Corrupting the law – taking this and associated anti-natalist dogma – out of the public agora and enforcing them by fiat is the measure of both their loathing and also their epic failure.

    You are a drivelling nutbag.

  105. Allbert Eistein, William Buckley or C. S. Lewis for example all had remarkable Faith although Einstein without necessarily caring to practice Judaism whilst loving his people and proudly identifying as a Jew.

    I can excuse people who lived a century ago James. They didn’t have access to the wealth of information we do living today. To continue to believe in a deity that controls the universe in the information age when the world around us has been thoroughly explained by science – and the explanations and proof are readily available on the internet – is a sign of ignorance and stupidity.

    Now there’s nothing wrong with being stupid. There are plenty of stupid people in the world and they live perfectly happy lives without hurting anyone. On the other hand, we shouldn’t be letting stupid people make laws or negatively impact the lives of others with their stupid beliefs.

    This extends to both letting people make laws based on religious superstition, and letting people make decisions on behalf of others based on religious superstition. (e.g. refusing blood transfusions for your children). Because that’s all your faith is, James. A superstition, no different to a fear of walking under a ladder or the belief that wearing garlic around your neck will ward off vampires.

  106. I should add though James that I think you are missing the point if you think I’m opposed to Christianity especially. All religions are equally stupid, and I’ve previously been moderated here and elsewhere for expressing similar views regarding Islam and other religions.

    Religion is a great big hoax, invented by primitive people to help allay fear of death.

  107. wreckage

    To continue to believe in a deity that controls the universe in the information age when the world around us has been thoroughly explained by science – and the explanations and proof are readily available on the internet – is a sign of ignorance and stupidity.

    No, sorry. Christians (and Jews) have held for centuries now that the material universe is explicable. Not all of them certainly, but a consistent and unbroken lineage of thought. You can have your view, but to say that a sect that believed in an explicable material universe a century ago was fine, but today is stupid, because today, as a century ago, scientific knowledge is considered close to complete? That doesn’t make any sense.

    This extends to both letting people make laws based on religious superstition, and letting people make decisions on behalf of others based on religious superstition.

    Of course people who disagree with you do need to be controlled. They are dangerous and frightening, and for a variety of very good reasons must not be permitted to follow their conscience.

  108. JC

    But as a libertarian why do you care, Yobs? Why is this so important to you to tell others so frequently.

  109. JamesK

    On the other hand, we shouldn’t be letting stupid people make laws or negatively impact the lives of others with their stupid beliefs.

    I must say the elitist stupidity proudly paraded is jaw-dropping.

    You are an unmitigated fool Yobbo with an unpleasant and overt bigotry.

    If you happened to be religious, you’d be an unmitigated religious fool and doubtless with an unpleasant and overt bigotry.

    I wonder what your bigotry of choice would be in that circumstance?

  110. C.L.

    We can and should go deeper too.

    Remember Obama’s background.

    And, of course, his well-known support for child murder.

    Throw in his belief that the CIA created AIDS and that he doesn’t know when life begins (!) and the upshot is that we’re dealing with the most extreme and obscurantist president ever.

  111. But as a libertarian why do you care, Yobs?

    It should be obvious JC. I don’t care what people personally believe if it doesn’t affect others. I might think them stupid and they might think me a prick but that’s as far as goes.

    When I care is when governments make laws based on religion, and where people make decisions on others behalf based on religion. For instance, I think a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children on religious grounds is a child abusing cretin and should be in prison.

    Of course people who disagree with you do need to be controlled.

    They need to be prevented from inflicting harm on others, yes.

  112. Getting back to the issue of Romney, and how genuinely awesome he is, and how it’s only the stupid knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing right wing religious extremists who are sidelining him…

    “Hey, y’know, maybe it’s Romney who’s doing the Romney cause the most harm.”

    Hmmm…

  113. JC

    It should be obvious JC. I don’t care what people personally believe if it doesn’t affect others.

    But what if it’s the other way around, where in fact the state is impacting on what people believe, as in the case being discussed?

    You brought up the example that you believe a woman who takes off a number of months to drop a kid shouldn’t be paid for the privilege of being away from work.

    I agree with that.

    But you also said that we have those laws and we live with them, or words to that effect.

    You recognize that is a bad law, so why would you double down with another mandate or bad law? I don’t quite get the point. Two bad laws doubles up. It’s worse than one.

    That’s the problem with allowing creeping statism. We give up caring.

  114. wreckage

    They need to be prevented from inflicting harm on others, yes.

    How is harm inflicted by the religious quantitatively different from any other harm? Stopping people from acting just because their motivation is religious is no different to stopping people from acting for any other moral reason. Stopping people from inflicting unquestionable harm on others needs no reference to motives.

    For instance, I think a parent who refuses medical treatment for their children on religious grounds is a child abusing cretin and should be in prison.

    I’d tend to agree, but I’d be willing to bet there’ll be corner-cases. Again the issue is harm, not religion. But what about someone who refuses vaccines on what they are thoroughly convinced are scientific grounds? We don’t say “Idiots! If only stupid people stopped following science!”

    Even harm can be contentious. Some insist male circumcision is harmful, and on a short-term analysis it is. But is massively reduces your risk of contracting AIDS, too. So then, would someone who had their boy circumcised for Jewish reasons be committing a violent religious act, but a non-Jew be taking rational (and therefore acceptable) actions?

  115. JamesK

    You – in particular -might like this, spot:

    Mitt is Mean!

  116. wreckage

    To bring it back to the present, does disbarring harmful action also mean making it illegal to not take action, in particular if the harm is contentious, minimal, or easily avoided by other means?

    If the Catholics are not permitted to take no action to supply contraceptives, why is it permissible to not ban cigarettes? After all, that inaction causes harm (that could otherwise be avoided by the agent in question, the smoker, just as pregnancy can otherwise be avoided by the individual.)

    If it is not permissible to not act to prevent harm the individual can avoid anyway, what are the boundaries of Government coercion?

  117. Hahaha. I don’t think @Grrr_Romney fully expected this “campaign” to take off as it has xD

  118. “You recognize that is a bad law, so why would you double down with another mandate or bad law? I don’t quite get the point. Two bad laws doubles up. It’s worse than one.”

    I’ve never said that I support this law. I was just pointing out that there’s nothing remarkably horrible about it, just another example of government interfering in the running of business, which is something they have always done.

    Many of the same people in this thread who are bitterly opposed to this law from Obama are in favour of Abbott’s maternity leave proposal.

    “If the Catholics are not permitted to take no action to supply contraceptives, why is it permissible to not ban cigarettes?”

    If parents were forcing their children to smoke then you would have a point. A person should be free to refuse medical treatment for themself if that is their choice. They shouldn’t be able to refuse it on behalf of someone else.

  119. “How is harm inflicted by the religious quantitatively different from any other harm?”

    Because a lot of religious harm is protected under the guise of “freedom of religion” laws.

    If you refused a blood transfusion for your kid on the basis that you were sick of looking after him and wanted him to die, you’d be sent to prison for murder.

    If you refuse it on the basis that you are Jehovah’s Witness and god said so, then that’s perfectly fine and your child will die.

  120. JamesK

    @wreckage

    Ur in contortions.

    The Church axiomatically cannot pay health insurance for Her employees that includes sterilisation, abortifacient drugs and contraception despite Yobo’s silliness.

    The church’s employees are not prevented from going out and purchasing these or purchasing additional private insurance that does cover these items

    Many if not most employer health insurance doesn’t presently pay for contraceptives.

    From now on all employer health funds are mandated to cover these – the only exception is the actual church/place of worship itself or if an institution eg a hospital then only ones where every single one of the patients are committed catholics.

    It’s Leviathan gone nuts.

    That’s all.

  121. C.L.

    It’s interesting that the protestant Rev Costello wants to force people to accept – and businesses to provide – pre-commitment cards, a form of contraception.

    Indeed, almost all of the statist Stalinism in Australia is idiosyncratically protestant.

  122. But what about someone who refuses vaccines on what they are thoroughly convinced are scientific grounds? We don’t say “Idiots! If only stupid people stopped following science!”

    Same thing, they shouldn’t be allowed to. Those anti-vaccination kooks are some of the stupidest people on the planet.

    Vaccines are of even greater importance because refusal to vaccinate not only directly impacts the health of your own child, but any other kid they come into contact with.

  123. JC

    Indeed, almost all of the statist Stalinism in Australia is idiosyncratically protestant.

    I always had the sneaking suspicion about the Australian left. There’s more than a hint of Calvinism here.

  124. JamesK

    they shouldn’t be allowed to

    That’s the statists’ rallying cry.

  125. Yes James, not allowing people to kill their own kids makes one a statist.

  126. JC

    Vaccines are of even greater importance because refusal to vaccinate not only directly impacts the health of your own child, but any other kid they come into contact with

    Actually I agree with you. But how does lack of vaccination imperil those that have been. I don’t quite get this one. Isn’t vaccination supposed to prevent that very risk on coming in contact with a carrier?

  127. Vaccinations aren’t 100% effective, more like 98%.

  128. JamesK

    Look at the packed lunches some kids are given!

    They’re heading for an early death.

    Fools like that and fools like you are a recipe for statism, Yobbo

  129. James, even if you weren’t a god botherer, you’d still be a simpleton.

  130. JC

    James

    Yobs isn’t a statist by a country mile.

    He has a hang up about religion and lets fly at times. To his credit he hates all religions equally.

    He’s a good side. Always on the side of the angels. Lol

  131. JamesK

    I know he’s not a statist JC but he regularly uses their rhetoric.

    I didn’t call him one.

    He also displays statists’ rabid anti-catholic bigotry and rhetoric.

    Additionally, he is unforgiveably stupid.

    Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
    State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead

    “The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

    The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

    When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.”

    That’s just further along the same course championed by and with the same attitude as Yobbo.

  132. dover_beach

    To continue to believe in a deity that controls the universe

    As if this exhausts religious belief. This would be like me saying that science is bunk because there are people who still believe the “universe…has been thoroughly explained by science” in age as thoroughly skeptical of ultimate or empirical explanations or proofs as ours.

    On the other hand, we shouldn’t be letting stupid people make laws or negatively impact the lives of others with their stupid beliefs.

    Yobbo, you’ve persistently failed to demonstrate that Catholic opposition to this amendment (or even to contraception per se) is based on ‘stupid beliefs’; I’m counting this as a sign of stupidity and ignorance on your part.

  133. It’s really not James. Diet may have an effect on health but it’s hardly irreversible and won’t do much damage before the kid is old enough to decide for themselves what to eat.

    What I’m talking about are cases where the parents decisions will lead to kid dying before they are old enough to make up their own minds. Like dropping them off a cliff, or refusing to allow a blood transfusion.

    Again, do you really think it’s statist to prevent people from killing a child in their care?

  134. JC

    He also displays statists’ rabid anti-catholic bigotry and rhetoric.

    He’s rabidly anti-religion, that’s all. He may sound as though he hates Catholicism but unfortunately that’s a hot topic in these parts for some reason. So he gets stuck into that.

    Yobbo is a good guy.

    Additionally, he is unforgiveably stupid.

    No he’s not. He’s quite bright and amusing especially when he gets into altercations with cops near a bar.

    He does have a good point about vaccination though, that really is child abuse.

    Americans had a good way of dealing with that. A kid couldn’t enter school unless there were vac papers.

  135. JC

    ….or refusing to allow a blood transfusion.

    Isn’t that lunacy illegal now?

  136. Yobbo, you’ve persistently failed to demonstrate that Catholic opposition to this amendment (or even to contraception per se) is based on ‘stupid beliefs’; I’m counting this as a sign of stupidity and ignorance on your part.

    Dover, you have persistently failed to even register through your skull that nothing I have discussed in this thread is at all related to the amendment, I have just been debunking stupid religious shit.

    I agree with others here that it’s a stupid amendment. I don’t agree that the world is 6000 years old and god created dinosaur fossils to give archaeologists a job like Rick Santorum does.

  137. JC

    More on Yobbo..

    Never ever take his word about a movie though. He has horrifying taste in movies and his reviews can’t be relied on.

  138. JamesK

    No he’s not. He’s quite bright and amusing especially when he gets into altercations with cops near a bar.

    I beg to differ Jc.

    Read his post at 11:59 pm in response to mine and tell me if that could remotely be called intelligent.

    He says everybody who has/had a religious faith is unintelligent or if intelligent must have died more than 7 years ago when there wasn’t so much information avilable.

    Geddit?

    Now, tell me again how Yobbo isn’t a stupid.

    One last point of difference, Yobbo’s vulgar radical secularism is rather typical.

    The hatred is focused primarily on christianity and most especially on catholicism.

  139. dover_beach

    Dover, you have persistently failed to even register through your skull that nothing I have discussed in this thread is at all related to the amendment, I have just been debunking stupid religious shit.

    Rubbish. Apart from the initial comment I took issue with you said, “I just fail to understand why people think it’s a good idea to make government policies based on a fairy story written 2000 years ago”; to now say this had “nothing” at all to do with Catholic opposition to this amendment or even to any Catholic position taken in the political realm is intellectually cowardly and morally dishonest. If you can’t provide evidence where the Church has argued for government policies on the basis of “a fairy story written 2000 years ago” then you ought to simply admit that this was a ridiculous statement without any foundation.

    I don’t agree that the world is 6000 years old and god created dinosaur fossils to give archaeologists a job like Rick Santorum does.

    Yes, these are stupid beliefs (neither of which is held by Santorum), but stupid beliefs are also held by atheists, and themselves arise within the field of science too.

  140. If you can’t provide evidence where the Church has argued for government policies on the basis of “a fairy story written 2000 years ago” then you ought to simply admit that this was a ridiculous statement without any foundation.

    Is this a serious challenge Dover?

    Here’s an example: George Pell’s opposition to stem cell research, where he not only voiced his opinion against it here, but later threatened any Catholic politicians who voted in favour of therapeutic cloning with excommunication.

  141. C.L.

    You object to Cardinal Pell voicing his opinion, Yobbo?

    And which 2000 year-old fairy stories mentioned embryonic stem cell research?

    I must have missed that one.

    And how exactly is excommunication any different to compulsory line-item voting (under threat of disendorsement), as practiced in the atheist Labor Party? Indeed, in all parties?

  142. Sorry CL, i wasn’t asked to explain how it’s different, just to provide examples – which I did.

  143. dover_beach

    Is this a serious challenge Dover?

    Well, it seems serious enough for you to fail to meet it. Where in Cardinal Pell’s argument is his opposition to embryonic stem cell research based on “a fairy story written 2000 years ago”. Hint, natural law argument exists independently of the story of Christ.

  144. dover_beach

    You didn’t provide an example, Yobbo; quite the opposite.

  145. C.L.

    But I don’t see how embryonic stem cell research is part of the corpus of Sacred Scripture you were referring to, in the way you intended. Catholics would argue the Church’s teaching on that is, of course, posited pursuant to Scripture, via the Magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church). However, there are good scientific reasons for concluding that a) life begins at conception (because it does, scientifically) and that b) therefore, the harvesting of embryos – that is, human individuals – for research experiments and/or efficacious drugs (of which there have so far been none) is immoral, is wrong. Many non-Christian ethicists grappled with the whole question too, which is why it was so controversial for so long.

    The attack on Pell in relation to excommunication (that is, banning the politicians from receiving the Sacrament) was laughable given that the ACTU hierarchy routinely threatens to destroy the livelihoods and careers of any Labor MP who doesn’t obey their dictates.

    So I don’t see it as being a very good example.

    Throughout the Western world, the most pious and prominent ban-hammers are non-religious – usually atheistic – liberals in the wowser anti-booze, anti-smoking, anti-gambling, anti-fun, anti-freedom movements.

    As a professional gambler, I presume you know that Catholics are the religious group which, above all, has no problem whatsoever with your lifestyle.

    I can’t think of one thing Catholics are demanding be banned anywhere in the Western world.

  146. The attack on Pell in relation to excommunication (that is, banning the politicians from receiving the Sacrament) was laughable given that the ACTU hierarchy routinely threatens to destroy the livelihoods and careers of any Labor MP who doesn’t obey their dictates.

    I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the Labor party. Do you mistake me for an ALP voter?

  147. I can’t think of one thing Catholics are demanding be banned anywhere in the Western world.

    Abortion?

  148. C.L.

    Not at all.

    But you went out of your way to imply there was a shocking religious interference in governance dimension to Pell’s statement.

    In contrast to what?

    Politicians are routinely threatened with repercussions for not supporting particular policies.

    The only difference is that Pell’s ‘threat’ involved certain politicians not being able to receive communion.

  149. Politicians are routinely threatened with repercussions for not supporting particular policies.

    Yes, CL. I agree that churches are not the only organisations that try to influence government policy. I was asked to supply an example of them doing it, which I did. Saying “everyone else does it too!” doesn’t negate my example.

  150. dover_beach

    Abortion?

    Is their opposition based upon “a fairy story written 2000 years ago”? Is it any different to their opposition to murder or theft? No, so your failure continues.

  151. C.L.

    Abortion?

    Nope. Not really.

    The Catholic Church has long since accepted that it will not be banned by current legislatures and prefers to campaign against it by educative and cultural means. This has yielded a good deal of success. Via public pressure, it seems likely that most abortions will eventually be banned on scientific and human rights grounds.

    No, it’s the non-religious or atheist groups in the West who are ban-drunk: whether it’s the Aboriginal industry and its lawyers in Australia, the Bloomberg salt and sugar police in America, the UK’s ever-expanding health and safety sharia squads or Canada’s ‘human rights’ Gestapo banning Dire Straits (plucked this one from Google News).

    If you’re sick of the pious banning things and policing people, have a word to your brothers in what I call the Atheist Taliban.

  152. dover_beach

    I was asked to supply an example of them doing it, which I did. Saying “everyone else does it too!” doesn’t negate my example.

    No, you were asked to provide an example of them attempting to influence government policy employing arguments based “on a fairy story written 2000 years ago”. You’ve now repeatedly failed to do this.

  153. Gab

    No, you were asked to provide an example of them attempting to influence government policy employing arguments based “on a fairy story written 2000 years ago”.

    Easy. Public holidays for Easter and Christmas. The bastards!

  154. The Catholic Church has long since accepted that it will not be banned by current legislatures and prefers to campaign against it by educative and cultural means.

    You mean in Australia, right? Because last I checked, Ireland is in “the western world”, and abortion is banned there, along with travelling outside Ireland to procure an abortion.

    If you’re sick of the pious banning things and policing people, have a word to your brothers in what I call the Atheist Taliban.

    I did do that for 8 years, CL. Reminder. Just because left-wingers do it too doesn’t make it right.

  155. dover_beach

    Very amusing, Gab, but the justification for public holidays is secular. BTW, love your new avatar.

  156. dover_beach

    You mean in Australia, right? Because last I checked, Ireland is in “the western world”, and abortion is banned there, along with travelling outside Ireland to procure an abortion.

    I’m sure “abortionmurder and theft are banned there as well, along with travelling outside Ireland to procure an abortionmurder or theft; those damn Irish Catholics!

  157. Gab

    Via public pressure, it seems likely that most abortions will eventually be banned on scientific and human rights grounds.

    You mean science is catching up to religion?! That’ll never do.

  158. Oh come on

    I’m coming to this after an unfortunate absence, so sorry about the delay.

    Yobbo: no, the example of the condition that results in sickle cell anaemia cannot be described as a mutation. In fact, that would very definitely fall under the category of natural selection, which I don’t deny happens and is in fact axiomatic – although it doesn’t credibly explain how a protozoan’s offspring developed a human brain, by accident, over time.

    But let’s cut to the chase. Yes, we all know about the bounty of selective breeding. We made those udders bigger. Those apples larger. We bred a pig whose meat didn’t taste so good but yielded a lot of offspring with a pig whose meat tasted good and yielded not so many offspring. And as a result, after much trial and error and there inbetween – we got a pig whose meat tasted good and yielded a lot of offspring.

    That’s great. I can see that. I can’t see, however, how the human eye could be developed incrementally from an organism with no vision. Over a billion years. Over 6 billion years. Sorry, but I find it difficult to accept this happened accidentally. We bred those pigs quite deliberately to make them what we want them to be. So how did we come to be? Accidental genetic combinations, as you claim? Seems far-fetched. Omnipotent, omniscient sky man who moulded us? Seems far-fetched.

    Basically, I don’t know. Count me as an agnostic. I’m waiting for more information.

  159. So how did we come to be? Accidental genetic combinations, as you claim? Seems far-fetched

    It only seems far fetched because it is difficult to imagine the time span involved. The selective breedings you are talking about have brought about significant changes in just a few thousand years. Natural selection has had 6 billion years. That’s a pretty long time for a lot of happy accidents to happen.

  160. Oh come on

    No, I don’t accept that argument. There are a lot of laboratories studying such things right now, Yobbo. And now there is more life on earth than ever before. If there were accidental beneficial mutations, we should be able to see them in our lifetimes, considering the volume of life we study and the length of our lifetimes.

  161. dover_beach

    It only seems far fetched because it is difficult to imagine the time span involved.

    No, the timespan is easy to imagine. What is difficult to imagine is that an unintelligent process could actually produce such a complex and intricate organ like an eye given all the possibilities for failure that might ensue and over such a long period of time. None of which suggests that such a process is impossible.

    It would be nice for you to show briefly why the cosmological argument, for instance, is both stupid and ignorant. This should be easy given the ‘stupidity and ignorance’ of figures like Aristotle, Aquinas, and Leibniz, among others.

  162. Oh come on

    PS. Yobbo, I’ve had this argument many times and it always revolves around the time span with the evolutionists. Who are you, mere human – confined to this earth for 70 or 80 or so years, as I am – qualified to determine that 6 billion years or one billion years or 500 trillion years is enough time to evolve a human eye?

    As I’ve said before, I just don’t know. You seem rather more dogmatic about the issue.

  163. Oh come on

    damned drink. I should have said “Who are you, mere human – confined to this earth for 35 or 40 or so years, as I am – to deem yourself qualified to determine…:

  164. .

    Yobbo,

    Lamarckian theory has made a comeback recently.

    I don’t know why it was junked so harshly. It is complimentary to, not in opposition to Darwinian theory.

    A six day creation dealy isn’t even properly a literal translation of the bible from the Hebrew (the early church fathers recognised this).

    Everyone ought to shut up and just accept evolution no matter their faith.

  165. .

    Oh come on

    Such things have been observed in natural history and slight mutations have been observed to occur in 20 years or so in lab experiments.

    Wiki says 400 000 years for the human eye.

  166. Oh come on

    Oh, really? Links? Not dismissive. Sceptical. Curious. Hell, I’m agnostic.

  167. Oh come on

    As an aside, “Wiki says 400 000 years for the human eye” ain’t really floating my boat, so to speak. How could you, or me, or the brains trust of “Wiki” (and I’m not even absolutely sure what that can be defined as at this point) can decide that’s how long it takes to form a human eye…

    Hey greenies! We only have 3 years to save the polar bears from Global Warming!

    A low blow, I know. But it sounds like one of those numbers. Sorry, but it does.

  168. .

    No the wiki article is properly referenced etc. No jokers editing articles in the dead of night etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    They have bit of a hard on for Dawkins but so what.

  169. Oh come on

    And every evolutionist who’s engaged me on this issue has provided me with evidence of Natural Selection, which I don’t deny and have claimed is in fact axiomatic. It’s the beneficial accidental mutations that interest me.

  170. Oh come on

    400,000 years. Quite a number, that.

  171. Oh come on

    Sorry, Dot. I’ve read it but I’m skeptical. I don’t know.

  172. If there were accidental beneficial mutations, we should be able to see them in our lifetimes, considering the volume of life we study and the length of our lifetimes.

    I’ve already given you an example of one, that being the sickle cell anemia mutation. Lactose tolerance is another.

    Yet another here from Wikipedia:

    For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-?32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[36] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-?32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[37] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[38]

    More on sickle cell and blue eyes.

    Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[39] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[40] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.
    Another research from Denmark concludes that blue-eyes are the mutated character of human eyes which were originally brown for around 6,000 to 1,000 years ago. The benign mutation actually effected the OAC2 gene which colorizes our hair and has other functions related to liver e.t.c. So all blue-eyed people share a common ancestor[41]

    There are plenty of examples of beneficial mutations, I’m not going to copy/paste any more until you accept these ones first. Call it a test to see if you are arguing in good faith.

  173. By the way OCO i’m not sure why you are so obsessed about the human eye. Humans, like all land animals, evolved from the first terrestial animals – amphibians, who themselves have perfectly functioning eyes – as did their immediate ancestors the lungfish. By the time upright walking apes emerged a few million years ago, there had been 300 million years for their eyes to evolve from fishy ones to mammalian ones.

  174. dover_beach

    Yobbo, raising evolution was an effective diversion but since almost all intelligent Catholics and the like have no problem with evolution shouldn’t you be dealing with arguments that are more likely to illustrate their “stupidity and ignorance” like the cosmological argument? At the moment, your style of argument is like that of a creationist arguing that evolution is wrong because it claims that sometime in the distant past a chimpanzee gave birth to a human being.

  175. JamesK

    Superb piece linked by insatpundit by John Leo, The Fiscal Times on how religious organisations are being coerced into be3having like secular ones:

    How Obamacare Reignited the Culture Wars

    “But this story isn’t just about birth control. It’s also about the “morning after” pill and sterilization, and down the road it will be about suicide pills, genetic engineering, abortion and mandatory abortion training, transgender operations, and a whole new series of morally problematic procedures about to come over the horizon. One very large principle is at stake: the right of religious believers to apply their own moral principles at their own institutions.

    The elites in this country, once largely Episcopalian, now almost entirely secular, are determined to limit if not banish the influence of religion in the public square. This line of thinking, much of it derived from political philosopher John Rawls, means making sure that religious organizations behave precisely like secular ones.

    Anti-discrimination law is the principal battering ram used against religious believers and their institutions”

    RTWT

  176. Rabz

    “Anti-discrimination law is the principal battering ram used against religious believers and their institutions”

    As it will be here, once we are ‘blessed’ with state sanctioned same sex ‘marriage’.

  177. Yobbo, raising evolution was an effective diversion but since almost all intelligent Catholics and the like have no problem with evolution

    I’m taking this as an admission of defeat. I don’t see what Catholics have to do with anything. It’s Rick Santorum that doesn’t believe in evolution, and the reason I brought it up was to show what a joke the US republicans have become when being a creationist is seen as something desirable to have in the person you are hoping will be running the world’s most powerful country.

  178. dover_beach

    I’m taking this as an admission of defeat.

    How is it an admission of defeat? You’ve failed to provide an example of Catholics “attempting to influence government policy employing arguments based “on a fairy story written 2000 years ago”. You’ve failed to show how anyone that finds the cosmological argument, for instance, at all convincing as an argument is both “stupid and ignorant”, and you’ve now lied again by claiming for the second time that Santorum doesn’t believe in evolution. You’ve been retreating all morning, Yobbo.

  179. JamesK

    I see Yobbo is using the utterly irrelevant but profitable wedge that the leftists use almost invariably dishonestly.

    Whoda thunk it?

    And I thought Yobbo just lurved ‘controversy’.

    He like the leftists thinks he can profitably demagogue in lieu of an argument.

    The similarities ‘twixt Yobbo and elite statists is uncanny

  180. JFK’s religion banned eating meat on Fridays. There were actually Southern Democrats who pushed the line that if elected, JFK would ban restaurants from serving anything but fish on Fridays.

    I thought we all got over our fear that Presidential candidates would (a) want to, and (b) be able to, impose their personal religious beliefs on the citizenry at large… back in the 60’s.

  181. As noted at Reuters, the bishops are supporting legislation to let anyone have conscientious objection to things in health cover:

    And now, they are aiming higher still, lobbying Congress to enact a law that would let any employer opt out of covering any medical treatment he disagreed with as a matter of his personal faith.

    So, for instance, a pizzeria owner who objected to childhood vaccinations on religious grounds would be able to request an insurance plan that did not cover them, in effect overriding a federal requirement that vaccinations be provided free with any health-insurance plan.

    Leaving coverage decisions up to each employers’ conscience might create chaos in the marketplace, “but chaos is sometimes the price you pay for freedom,” said Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, who is backing the bishops whole-heartedly.

    If that is correct (the Bishops would be happier to see stupid inconsistencies across employment insurance) it shows what appalling judgement they are displaying.

  182. Steve
    Just give up on the Americans they make Australia’s worst politicians look really good.

  183. dover_beach

    Look, conscientious objection is a silly idea; the problem here is that employers are asked to provide health cover for employees. Remove that nexus and this imbroglio dissolves.

  184. Gab

    I am not descendant from fish. Other people might be though.

  185. I have read, d-b, that the problem is that employers and employees both feel that they get better tax treatment by having insurance as part of the employment package (as opposed to just getting higher pay and buying their own.) It seems so entrenched that no one is talking about compulsorily ending it. Which means reform has to be done via setting standards for insurance that is provided.

    The wikipedia article on the mess is pretty informative.

  186. Gab
    You like me have our most ancient ancestors as what we could call slime. Gives a whole new idea to ancestor worship that the Chinese do.

  187. .

    I have read, d-b, that the problem is that employers and employees both feel that they get better tax treatment by having insurance as part of the employment package

    Are you fucking serious? The Detroit bailout was largely due to this. The Detroit bailout also cost 5% of GDP that year.

  188. Gab

    Slime might be in your family tree, Kelly, but not mine.

  189. .

    Sorry.

    5% of GDP spread over three years.

    The Auto industry reckons if it disappeared that income would fall by 0.2% of GDP, whereas the least efficient industries (which the auto industry fits in) have ratios of over 25:1 for the cost of jobs saved to wages. This occurred over 2008-2010.

    They could have been largely spared from recession if they let these industries fail. A large cost of these industries is health insurance.

  190. I have stuck with USAA for my American health insurance needs. I’m happy with that, because I can choose exactly what I want to be insured for (ie I have opted out of “preventative” care). I can also have an HSA, Health Savings Account, so that I get preferential tax treatment on savings that I can then spend on things I prefer to “self-insure” (pay out of pocket) for.

    American citizens are (at the moment) free to buy their own policies covering whatever they want, you know.

    What do so many of you Leftoids have against “choice”?

  191. .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSqxVMbml_k

    More laughable stimulus economics.

    As for the cost of auto workers, CNS had an article on this, the cost per worker was $1.54 million per job.

    This is easily 25 times the average salary, and 25 times 0.2% = 5%.

    The auto bailout cost 1.3% of US GDP for three years. A large proportion of auto worker compensation is health insurance. Steve thinks employers “like” this.

  192. spot, the point being that people who have to rely on their employer benefit have no choice, as many would not be able to afford additional cover.

    Everyone knows it is a messy and unduly complicated system, and that for the well paid who can insure for as much as they like, you can get great health care in the States.

    But your much beloved “choice” has left them with an expensive system that does not serve many people well.

    By most people’s reckoning, they would, as a society, have been better off going off with universal health insurance scheme when it was first mooted decades and decades ago.

    We still have lots of “choice” in our system.

  193. Gab

    Spot, despite your experience and knowledge of both US and Aust healthcare systems, Steve da Expert sez shut up.

  194. Ellen of Tasmania

    “So when I say that the fashion of using Sickle Cells in Biology and Medical Textbooks to claim that Darwinian Evolution took place by natural selection is a defect in clear thinking, I know what I am talking about. The fact that the Sickle Cell Trait [Norm/Ache as I have called it in Genetic Counselling (AS)] like my mother, does not die from Falciparum Cerebral Malaria in childhood, as the Norm/Norm (AA) and Ache/Ache (SS) do, to balance the polymorphism, should never be cited as proof that Natural Selection has propelled one-celled organisms in proto-antiquity to progress to the multi-organ multi-cellular reader of this message on the BBC website. Not surprising that Professor Hoyle described such thought processes as nothing short of superstition. ”

    “Sickle-cell disease

    Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.

    However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.

    This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.”

    (Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu)

    “Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu is Dr Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics University of Cape Coast Ghana. He trained at London University’s Westminster Hospital School of Medicine qualifying MB BS in 1959, and proceeded with the Doctorate in Medicine while working at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital and University of Ghana Medical School. He distinguished himself in Sickle Cell and other Clinical Haemoglobinopathy. He investigated AIDS at the grass roots in African countries when the pandemic began, and wrote extensively about his findings. He has made some discoveries in Tonal Liguistics. He made several discoveries in Clinical Medicine and has received many Awards.”

    (You can read more about the man here.

    It’s a long way from Romney and Obama, but a valid contribution to the discussion, I hope.

  195. So I read, Gab.

    More than Delingpole, Andrew Bolt and Catallaxy.

  196. JamesK

    So I read, Gab.

    Lol.

    Steve scans leftist blogs to cutn’paste or plagiarise thier ‘critiques’ to troll on Delingpole, Andrew Bolt and Catallaxy.

    He subaequently has the original idea ( his only one) that he’s well read……

    Lol

  197. Spot, despite your experience and knowledge of both US and Aust healthcare systems, Steve da Expert sez shut up.

    Yep. Having been schooled by an Expert on Everything from a Brisbane pub, reckon I’d best get back into my box.

  198. Well at least Steve and me recognise that the US health system is a failed one based on cost outcome. So could all these experts please inform us of the reasons for the failure.

  199. .

    Well at least Steve and me recognise that the US health system is a failed one based on cost outcome.

    Bullshit.

  200. Pingback: An Aussie take on our election « Don Surber

  201. I have discusse this before with you dot and how can you say that double the cost and using the holistic view life expectancy being lower is a good outcome. If that is not a failure when would you call it a failure triple the cost?

  202. JamesK

    using the holistic view life expectancy being lower is a good outcome

    If kelly is happy to be so wilfully naive, she’ d obviously agree with WHO rankings where the USA is near level pegging with Cuba and behind 36 countries – all leftist or dictatorships of one form or another – in the healthcare stakes

    The World Health Organization’s ranking
    of the world’s health systems.

    Today is utr lucky day, kelly.

    You’re extremely fortunate.

    I have this wonderfully fruitful investment opportunity in a bridge that i’d like to exclusively ofer to you for being such an inspiring thinker

  203. Infidel Tiger

    It’s Rick Santorum that doesn’t believe in evolution, and the reason I brought it up was to show what a joke the US republicans have become when being a creationist is seen as something desirable to have in the person you are hoping will be running the world’s most powerful country.

    Santorum certainly holds some of the scariest and whackiest views of any Presidential candidate in memory. Unfortunately these views are his economic policy and love of big government.

  204. James I am a fellow. Seems people here except me and Steve are in denial that the US has a crappy health system.

  205. .

    I have discusse this before with you dot and how can you say that double the cost and using the holistic view life expectancy being lower is a good outcome.

    It’s bullshit and it has been explained to you why. Furthermore you are conflating health services with health insurance.

  206. .

    Seems people here except me and Steve are in denial that the US has a crappy health system.

    That is patently untrue.

  207. C.L.

    You mean in Australia, right? Because last I checked, Ireland is in “the western world”, and abortion is banned there, along with travelling outside Ireland to procure an abortion.

    Well, when was the last time you checked?

    1). Abortion is not outright banned in Ireland.
    2). No party or group supported US-style legalisisation when it was debated in the 80s.
    3). Most protestant groups joined the Catholic Church to back the Pro-Life Amendment.
    4). Travelling for an abortion is not banned.

    Is that it, Yobbo?

    This is your example of how de Christians are banning everywhere?

    No – the ban addicts in today’s Western world are the Bloombergian/Canadian/Roxonian/EU lefties and atheists.

    As for the merits of banning abortion, given the science, that is increasingly inevitable. The US Born Alive Infants protection Act and the late term abortion ban were overwhelmingly passed by Congress with virtually zero input from the Catholic Church.

    Abortion is on the way out, culturally. If Ireland is leading the world on that, good for them.

  208. .

    Now you are conflating the cost of healthcare with the quality of healthcare!

    Fuck me dead a “debate” with you Kelly is frustrating. You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about. Do you know how hard it is to have a discussion when the other discussant keeps on forgetting the frigging subject matter!?

  209. C.L.

    Meant “banning everything

  210. Infidel Tiger

    You guiys will have to excuse Kelly. He’s been on the piss since 10a.m… 1997.

  211. Les Majesty

    Last time I checked, BAIPA was an illegal statute.

    I thought we settled that a long time ago.

  212. USA

    Maternal mortality rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    24 deaths/100,000 live births (2008)
    country comparison to the world: 121

    Infant mortality rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    total: 6.06 deaths/1,000 live births
    country comparison to the world: 175

    Life expectancy at birth:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    total population: 78.37 years
    country comparison to the world: 50

    Health expenditures:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    16.2% of GDP (2009)
    country comparison to the world: 2

    Hospital bed density:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    3.1 beds/1,000 population (2008)
    country comparison to the world: 73

    HIV/AIDS – adult prevalence rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    0.6% (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 64

    Aus

    Maternal mortality rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    8 deaths/100,000 live births (2008)
    country comparison to the world: 156

    Infant mortality rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    total: 4.61 deaths/1,000 live births
    country comparison to the world: 190
    male: 4.93 deaths/1,000 live births
    female: 4.27 deaths/1,000 live births (2011 est.)

    Life expectancy at birth:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    total population: 81.81 years
    country comparison to the world: 9

    Health expenditures:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    8.5% of GDP (2009)
    country comparison to the world: 47

    Hospital bed density:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    3.82 beds/1,000 population (2009)
    country comparison to the world: 53

    HIV/AIDS – adult prevalence rate:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    0.1% (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 111

    OK so tell me where the good news is for the US? These figures seem to be pretty conclusive that the US system is crap.

  213. Les Majesty

    Santorum has made it pretty clear he wants to overturn Griswold.

    So the currency lad is lying about the institution of the catholic church not wanting to ban shit.

  214. JC

    Kellford, you idiot, stop confusing the healthcare as a service with healthcare insurance.

    Here’s a little tidbit that will rock your boat.

    We have a niece who is in the last throws of becoming a doc and went to do some studies in the US at one of their teaching hospitals on the East Coast. Smart kid and all that. She came back and suggested that it seemed their docs were offered superior training over there and came out more knowledgeable. She felt a little humiliated. She graduated in the top .6% in the state and was scoring excellent marks through medical school.

    STFU about this shit and focus on buying that cab this year.

  215. C.L.

    …I brought it up was to show what a joke the US republicans have become when being a creationist is seen as something desirable to have in the person you are hoping will be running the world’s most powerful country.

    Anyone who doesn’t support abortion on demand is banned from becoming President by the Democrat Party.

    Barack Obama said he didn’t know when life begins in 2008. This is the funniest and most bizarre scientific clanger in recent US history. All medical texts point out that life begins at conception.

    Anyone who denies this (like Obama) is a nutball.

    Santorum:

    I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes … in the theory of evolution.

    This is perfectly legitimate. There many practical problems with evolutionary theory and it is very badly understood. In most discourse, it amounts to: “x creature was a slug and then it evolved into an elephant ‘n stuff.” It needs a lot more work.

  216. Infidel Tiger

    So the currency lad is lying about the institution of the catholic church not wanting to ban shit.

    Santorum isn’t the Catholic Church, dummy. He’s just a big government statist sweater wearing pillock. Nice guy though.

  217. Is health insurance a part of the health system or not? So it is very likely it is part of the problem if it is.

  218. JamesK

    Seems people here except me and Steve are in denial that the US has a crappy health system.

    ROFLMAO

  219. C.L.

    The Catholic Church has no position on Griswold.

    We should also recollect that Obama believes the CIA created AIDS – so it’s possible he wants to ban something to give effect to this belief.

  220. James
    I am bit slow with this language, what does ROFLMAO mean?

  221. JC

    This is perfectly legitimate. There many practical problems with evolutionary theory and it is very badly understood. In most discourse, it amounts to: “x creature was a slug and then it evolved into an elephant ‘n stuff.” It needs a lot more work.

    Absolutely it does, which is what I was saying yesterday. Evolution science has basically given the opportunity for the worst to rise to the top in glimate science, as it became an political advocacy thing rather than science itself.

    Certainly tiptoe (horizontal) evolution has been proved. Vertical hasn’t. I’m not suggesting it can’t be, or that it won’t but it hasn’t at this stage whereas the troopers for evolution go around implying it’s a closed book. Bullshit it is. This is exactly what’s happened in glimate science with seriously faulty models being used to force economic policy.

  222. JamesK

    She came back and suggested that it seemed their docs were offered superior training over there and came out more knowledgeable. She felt a little humiliated. She graduated in the top .6%

    I can tell you from personal experience that their specialist training is significantly better than here.

    Their healthcare is – far and away – the best in the world and ours is excellent.

    In our defense our excellent stadards are more uniform.

    We are multiples of standards better than the UK.

  223. C.L.

    Do the atheists here support their brothers’ ban on Dire Straits in Canada?

  224. JC

    Kellford,

    Yes, Medical insurance is part of the health system, but it is not healthcare service, you nimrod.

    Stop talking about stuff you know little about.

  225. .

    Is health insurance a part of the health system or not? So it is very likely it is part of the problem if it is.

    FFS Kelly you’re admitting you don’t know what you are talking about!

    Reasons why the US has high mortality and infant mortality rates

    1. High legal and illegal immigration from lower income countries. Think of pre-existant conditions, poor education of the sub population, epigenetics and the likelihood not to seek medical attention.

    2. The world’s policeman: the US loses a lot of young men in combat.

    3. The war on drugs: Many die directly, with half a million in prison on drugs related charges, every day in prison reduces their survival rate and life expectancy.

    As for costs, absurdly rigid professional licensing is a major cause for the US blowout in health costs.

    US Health insurance is cheap, check out some plans for yourself.

  226. JamesK

    kelly.

    There’s new search engine service called google…..

  227. Gab

    It’s internet jargon, Kelly.

    Here: ROFLMAO

  228. JC

    US Health insurance is cheap, check out some plans for yourself.

    I pay around 2,500 bucks a year for my kid, which is a system that basically resembles ours. Unlike the premium plans we were on, she can’t first go to a specialist, but has to first see an internist for a referral. It covers drugs but not dental.

    It also covers hospitalization. If she’s in the city she has several choices of 24 hour clinics she can attend.

    That’s not a very expensive plan.

  229. Dot
    It insurance is not cheap as I have explained before because you have to pay more for the public system in taxes in the US than here. It is just not reasonable to say that there are a few reasons why someone would die younger so what? Could it be those less beds for higher costs is a problem. So effectively we must have more people in hospital because surely Australia’s hospitals don’t let you stay there unless you have a problem. You have just claimed that there should be larger health problems in the US due to various reasons so shouldn’t they have more people in hospital?

  230. .

    It insurance is not cheap as I have explained before because you have to pay more for the public system in taxes in the US than here.

    Not quite.

    The US tax system/Medicare is regressive.

    FICA is a payroll tax. It is applied regressively.

    Could it be those less beds for higher costs is a problem.

    Well 1/7 of that cost is from occupational licensing.

    So effectively we must have more people in hospital because surely Australia’s hospitals don’t let you stay there unless you have a problem.

    Visit triage. Go through the regulations on medical clearance to see if that is actually true. It isn’t.

    You have just claimed that there should be larger health problems in the US due to various reasons so shouldn’t they have more people in hospital?

    No, I explained why they have mortality rates – most of which had nothing to do with going to hospital.

  231. JC

    It insurance is not cheap as I have explained before because you have to pay more for the public system in taxes in the US than here.

    We know certain parts are not cheap, Kellford. It’s very difficult to understand the US system because there are so many permutations to it and there is no one US healtcare system.

    My kid’s plan for instance is provided through the university she attends who in turn have negotiated deals with clinics as well as for drugs.

    That’s one small example of the system that seems to work well and it appears cheap and effective.

    Other parts of it aren’t so. Medicare is a fucking mess with estimates of around 60 to 90 billion of fraud each year. The fool, Krugman once compared the administrative costs of medicare and the private plans declaring medicare to be superior because he thought it was more efficiently run, as the admin expenses were lower. The idiot forget to include the estimates of annual fraud against it.

    Why are you so fucking worried about healthcare all the time? Go and enjoy life instead of worrying sick about it.

  232. I am worried about the mental health of those here on this website not being able to recognise a completely crap system. That private healthcare system in the US costs as much as our entire system and it doesn’t take care of everyone so it is crap also. Great free enterprise bringing the price down hey?

  233. JamesK

    I am worried about the mental health of those here on this website not being able to recognise a completely crap system.

    Lol…please stop kelly — ur killin’ me…lmao…. oh my ribs hurt

  234. JC

    Kellford;

    We had this discussion before. Many times Go start a blog on US healthcare.

    You’re starting to bore.

  235. .

    That private healthcare system in the US costs as much as our entire system and it doesn’t take care of everyone so it is crap also.

    Jesus Christ.

    Here you go

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation

  236. Every single crony capitalist pig has their snouts in the trough in the US healthcare system. Insurance companies, healthcare providers, Pharmaceautical companies, Lawyers and probably left and right wing NGOs. There is nothing defensible about the US healthcare system except it could be argued that all the cash sloshing around does lead to increased drug research.

  237. JC I might do that at some stage sounds like a good idea.

  238. .

    Insurance companies probably have the cleanest noses.

    Have you looked at any US PHI plans yet?

    Get rid of the FDA and renewal of patents. Let the money flow to good use and make sure the drugs get to market quickly.

  239. JamesK

    @ kellly

    In the, I suspect, forlorn hope that you educate urself to think:

    U.S. Health Care and U.S. Productivity

    “According to Ohsfeldt and Schneider, this model explains 93 percent of variation in health spending internationally — much greater explanatory power than the linear (dollar-for-dollar) model (pp. 7-8). Most importantly, the United States is not at all an outlier.

    This finding challenges our intuition, however, because it is hard to grasp how much more the U.S. earns than other countries, and how much buying power this gives us. According to a recent research article of mine, U.S. GDP per capita is far greater than almost any other nations’ and this is largely due to American productivity. U.S. GDP per person engaged (employed) in 2008 was $65,480, followed by Hong Kong at $58,605 and Ireland at $55,986. Some of this was due to Americans working longer hours, but mostly it was due to productivity: value produced per hour worked. Most developed countries produce between 60 percent and 90 percent of the value that the U.S. does, per hour worked.

    For the four countries compared in this analysis, France was the second most productive, with a productivity rate 91 percent of the United States rate. Germany lagged at 72 percent. The table below (drawn from a recent analysis) compares the U.S. with four countries whose health care systems are often held up as admirable options: Canada, Germany, France, and Great Britain. In all these countries, GDP per capita was significantly less than the United States. The U.S. spent significantly more on health care per person than comparable countries.

    Nevertheless, Americans still have much more money left over after paying for health care. Indeed, we have between $4,500 and $8,400 more income per capita than Germany or France — after paying for health care — a “bonus” of American productivity.”

Comments are closed.