Rarely do we look back and analyze the effects of the laws we pass. Recently, I was given some incredible information that I wanted to pass along. After a long and controversial legislative battle, the Georgia General assembly finally passed the Woman
{ 115 comments }
Next Comments →
Eric,
Are You Just Pro-Birth or Pro-Life?
Sadie Fields from the Georgia Christian Alliance has been consistently out spoken about the rights of unborn children. Sadie has made it clear that pro-choice Americans are supporting a parent
John Konop,
Why, exactly, should I be responsible for paying for someone else’s child’s healthcare? Especially when they make more than $50,000 a year (which would have made them eligible for coverage under the Democrats’ expansion of the SCHIP program)? Were you in favor of that expansion?
I’m sure a lot of people talked about getting an abortion before this law went into affect and decided against it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/interviews/joyce.html
According to that study, in-state abortions in Mississippi went down after a 1 day waiting period by about 10%. In South Carolina there was no effect of a 1 hour waiting period (more similar to what Georgia has).
I’m shocked that Republicans are against socialized medicine but they are for the state keeping tabs on the private medical decisions of Georgia’s women. Put it another way, I’d be shocked if the Republicans in this state would endorse keeping malpractice stats on every doctor that operates in the state (to deny licensing to those that repeatedly commit malpractice as some other states have done) but apparently when it comes to women’s private lives the state should keep detailed stats.
I wonder if Eric and his gang will expand this to keeping tabs on people who are treated in other medical capacities as I know it’s hard to close the door to big government once it gets its foot in it.
A waiting period on handgun purchases is an ATTACK upon my 2nd Amendment rights. However, a mandatory waiting period on a legal medical procedure is IN THE NAME “women’s rights”? Err, okaaaay…
* Disclaimer: I’m fervently against gun control. I just hate how legislators always choose names for their bills that are the exact opposite of what the bill does.
John,
There is a fundamental difference between the “right to life” and health care. There is no right to good health. There is no requirement that somebody pays you for your health care. It is a privilege and the subsidies are due to a compassionate country and employers who see it as good business. If you want to see what I believe is wrong with health care, see my op-ed “Taxpayers Pay Twice For Health Care” at http://www.VoteJohnson.com.
Senator,
Individuals don’t make health care choices the same way that they purchase an automobile or tv set. Even with more individually purchased policies, the insurance company still pays the bills not you. Once you have the policy, your involvement with moneymaking decisions more or less ends (besides do I want to pay the co-pay).
When a doctor tells a rational Georgian what they think they should do (whether it is get a test, get a prescription, get a surgery or whatever) I certainly hope the rational Georgian’s first thought is not “Is this test the reason healthcare premiums are going up?”
I think there is a role for the market in improving health insurance and access to it, but I don’t see how the market alone can accomplish more health insurance at a cheaper cost without some sort of government/business intervention. Of course, your goal is to eliminate mandates in order to afford businesses cheaper policies for their employees but I doubt you’d admit that.
As an aside also, employers “choose” to compensate their employees with health insurance in part because it is advantageous for the employee and the employer to divert some of their monetary compensation into health insurance. Under the current tax system, you would have to make employer provided plans extremely unwanted before people would start asking for monetary compensation to purchase health insurance on their own. Hence, eliminating mandates (as you propose) helps employers bottom lines but leaves their employees with less coverage than they had before.
What a bargain! They really will pay twice when they have to supplement their healthcare coverage out of their own pocket if your plan becomes law.
Save lives first, then argue about health care later!
So the legislature cuts education spending and cuts healthcare spending but then encourages more babies to be born. I’m all for bringing the abortion rate down to zero, but lets do it by bringing about supporting the types of social reforms and economic prosperity that created America’s middle class after WWII. Let the babies that we save have a chance to enjoy all those wonderful things life has to offer, since, as babies, they never had a choice in their lot in life.
The problem of course is that the GOP would have been willing to go along with SCHIP with some modifications to it, but the Democrats wanted to expand the program dramatically.
And let’s be honest
Plus, you need money to pay for the war in Iraq. Here’s an idea to come up with more money — crack down on fraudulent 1031 exchanges.
this legislation is total BS as is Eric Johnsons misguided and misleading post – the NUMBERs he refers to would probably be the same without repubs enforcing their way into our lives (although impossible to prove, but I have to think most women weigh the decision pro and con) – there is NO WAY to keep those numbers about who changes their minds about their choice – and it should be the CHOICE of the individual – not Eric Johnsons choice – get a CLUE — what we have here is a typical republican senator without an idea of individual liberty – and he DOES NOT represent me -
Ron Paul is pro-life, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who speaks about individual liberty with more passion.
I am personally pro-life, but I have a problem with government getting involved with these issues.
Konop, you are crazy. You have completely bought into this populist BS. You have done a 180 since last year, or maybe you were just lying.
Healthcare is not a right and the Massachusetts plan was heavily subsidized and Clinton’s plan will cost upwards of $150 billion, maybe more.
One thing is clear to me, John. You are a fascist, I can’t put it any other words.
Senator Eric Johnson,
In all due respect I am confused by your response not caring about kids that are born. How can a two month year old kid control his parents being responsible enough to buy health insurance if they can afford it?
Are you against mandatory car insurance? Is it not true if someone hits my car and hurts my family or property did they not take away my rights?
If someone can afford health insurance and does not pay for the healthcare did they not just take away my rights since i am paying the bill? That is the fastest growing group of uninsured.
As far as people who cannot afford healthcare is it not cheaper to practice preventive medicine (10 to 1)? Why not do what is best for the kids and the parents and save money?
Does a healthy kid need a healthy parent?
At the end it seems you are using the pro-life movement to gain votes but bottom line you do not care about kids once they are born!
Jason,
You want it both ways!
The truth is guys like you are not taking the risk when you do not buy healthcare, guys like me who pay are taking the risk. Bottom line you are advocating using tax payers as an emergency healthcare plan.
The truth is people like you advocate stealing from the community, so it makes harder for us to help the less fortunate.
If you had read the father of free market system Adam Smith you would understand he was for Public education and human rights for all unlike you!
Paul Shuford ,
I Think I told you before SCHIP program is a band aide on a gushing wound! My original post is what I am for. The reality is people most pay who can afford healthcare and those who do not must pay a portion they can afford it.
We also must have a system that promotes preventive medicine. No one denies we would save a ton of money! And that can only happen if insurance companies cannot exclude people and everyone is in the system.
As far as it being private or public why not let them compete. All I know I never heard a Congressman complain about his or healthcare!
John,
You are so full of it. You are confusing The Wealth of Nations with Mein Kampf.
The best health plan offered by any candidate has come from Rudy Giuliani. You want socialized medicine.
The truth is guys like you are not taking the risk when you do not buy healthcare, guys like me who pay are taking the risk.
I have health insurance.
What does public education have to do with this discussion, John?
Adam Smith believed in what John Stuart Mill later called the “harm principle.” You are a collectivist, John. The scum of political philosophy.
Jason
If a kid or adult gets sick and cannot afford the healthcare are you for letting them die?
Jason,
Have you in your short adult life ever gone without heath insurance?
And if you or you friends ever did you are a socialist or a freeloader?
At the end us who did pay would of paid the bill if you did not have the money.
Erick, the Republicans did not reauthorize SCHIP at current levels when they had the chance. Just saying!
Have you in your short adult life ever gone without heath insurance?
Yes, John…and I paid my doctor bill when I had to go.
And if you or you friends ever did you are a socialist or a freeloader?
Is that a statement or a question? If it is a question, then the answer is “no.” If it’s a statement then it one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
If a kid or adult gets sick and cannot afford the healthcare are you for letting them die?
This is more of that populist crap that you have been spouting off lately.
Government has made insurance too expensive. Programs like Medicare and SCHIP actually drive up the cost of health insurance. Government is giving tax breaks to businesses, when they should be giving them to both businesses and individuals. An overwhelming majority of kids who were originally eligible (60%) for SCHIP and who would be eligible for coverage under the the expansion (77%) already had private health insurance.
I don’t mind lending a hand to a kid that truly cannot afford healthcare, but damn…when does it stop? When government has completely taken over the system? Is that what you want, John?
You can keep spouting this populist bullshit all you want, but in the end you are passing the dollar along to the taxpayers and increasing our already staggering entitlements ($49 trillion in unfunded liabilities).
I hate it when, instead of arguing a point that makes sense, people say “You want socialized medicine” as if that was a valid argument. Guess what, I’d rather spend several billion dollars on healthcare and make sure every hard working American, and every American child, and every American veteran, and every American disabled worker had access to the medicines and treatments they needed, than to spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to turn a bunch of dust into a democracy.
I just wish our country would start returning to our founding principles of Personal Freedoms, Limited Government, a Non-Interventionist foreign policy instead of mandating State-Ran Healthcare and Trying to turn a every isolated authoritorian to some fantasy democracy. We a Constititonal Republic, not a Empire.
correction every isolated authorian state
I’m not really pro life or pro choice. I’m pro “not getting knocked up” in the first place. Either way it is a problem. You folks do understand that socialism with no resptraints on reproduction is a system that is doomed to failure? The responsible working class grows at a much smaller rate that the irresponsible breeding class. How about teaching if you can’t afford to have kids, don’t? Am I wrong? I thought the point of socialism was to help those who COULD NOT help themselves, not people who WOULD NOT? How about we shift our paradigm away from this whole pro-choice/life thing which seems to ailenate people one way or another and teach them to be responsible instead?
Jason
You admit that you played the odds on tax payer
Wow… health care seems to have become a more contraversial and contentious issue than even abortion! Sign of the times…
Like all other necessities, health care should be the responsibility of the individual – not the government. Only when the individual, the family, the church, and the community can’t preserve and protect life, should the state and federal come to be involved.
To paraphrase what someone said with better words, every benefit gained is a freedom lost.
Remember, there’s nothing more expensive than when it is free. Health care is perfect example. Want to see what “free” health care looks like, John? Look at Grady. Look at Veterans care.
Good discussion. I’m outta here , heading to ATL and pulling for the Cowboys!
So, John, you’re for eliminating the 60% of children off the current SCHIP rolls who were insured previously to SCHIP? As you’ve said, people must pay when they can afford healthcare, and these people obviously can afford healthcare (they had it before SCHIP).
You admit that you played the odds on tax payer
Paul,
I am for reforming the healthcare system not arguing over the size of the band aide. Statically I make more money than 99% of the people on this blog. If I cannot get good healthcare how can a family making 59k a year get it?
My wife and I joke we pay and the insurance company fights!
Senator Eric Johnson ,
You are making my point why we need mandatory pay system. I never said it had to be private or public.
Why not let me buy the same policy you get?
Why should we not have more competition not less?
The program you advocate is a slow bleed for County hospital like Grady.
Why not fix the root of the problem?
Many conservatives like former Treasury Sectary Paul O Neal agree we must move toward mandatory pay system to stay competitive.
It’s a free market, John. Get a different insurance company, there are plenty out there. Do some online research to see which ones don’t fight claims. It’s not that hard, and the service you’ll get will be a damn sight better than what you’d get under socialized medicine, aka “Let’s let the DMV run our healthcare system.”
Jason, who would have paid the bill if you had ended up in the ER, and a hospital stay, and a year or so of rehab, and long term health problems? Say your bill had been $500K instead of $1K – why the rest of us, of course, or the doctors and hospitals that would have had to forgive your bills.
Can I be honest? I think the worst argument in the world is when Dems / libs try to equate paying for health care with the war in Iraq for two reasons:
1. U.S. military is authorized by the Constitution; health care is not.
2. It seems to me that you have no valid argument to support your claim if you must result to changing issues.
Now, do I agree that the Iraq debate and funding for the war is a serious topic? Yes. But I think it severely undercuts arguments pro-SCHIP when you try to divert the issue to war spending.
Yes, government spending is out of control. There are many things that could be cut to help us with the budget. But let’s really look at this legislation.
My biggest problem with it is that kids well over the age of 18 could be covered. Why? If a kid is in college, they can get health insurance through the schools.
I was uninsured of eight months right out of high school. I’ve been insured ever since. My doctor bill was…maybe $350, not including medication. I had mono and missed almost three weeks of work.
Had I’d been offered a tax credit to buy health insurance, like Mr. Giuliani is currently proposing, I could have afforded a reasonable health insurance policy.
I’d like to see BOTH sides of the abortion debate not change the subject and try to divert attention elsewhere. Being pro-choice isn’t about “health care”, any more than being pro-life is about “a woman’s right to know”. Both sides just want to make other people’s decisions for them, which is why I have a hard time taking either side.
Abortion comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception or not. If you believe that it does, abortion is murder. If you don’t believe that, then it’s not. I personally believe that life begins when a fetus could survive apart from the mother’s body, so the status quo seems about right to me. However, I’d love to see both sides trying to win people over to their view on that point, rather than muddying the water with a lot of other junk.
Senator Johnson,
Your post is confusing. Are you off to ATL for the Falcons game on Monday? If so, I
Here is philosophy around here with you guys “Do as I say, not what I do”. Well we have a Republican State Senator and a Former Democratic State Chairmen telling everybody off. Just for once I wish this post quit sounding like Fox News and CNN. I can watch mainstream media to hear the 2 party system babel at each other and ridicule and peg 3 rd party supporters and independents as outsiders. In nationwide approval ratings both parties are in the toilet. Bush and GOP 30% and Pelosi’s Congressional Dems 11%. This is the first time in recent times that the American public are showing dissatisfaction with both established political parties. I predict it will remain a trend until third parties and Independents really get elected in Washington, DC.
Steve,
Birth is only 4% of childhood.
So are you 4% PRO-LIFE?
Let me get your logic straight, you are for forcing an irresponsible person to have a baby, yet after the kid is born so be it if the kid dies or the parent?
Why do you the health of the baby and parent has nothing to do with life?
Sorry
Why do you think the health of the baby and parent has nothing to do with life?
Paul Shuford
I have shifted companies many times and all of them have been bad!
Ask people in the real world if they like their insurance if they are not a government worker.
Right now there is no third party that is realistic enough to get elected. One third party wants almost no government at all , other third party wants militant social conservative policies . Forget Mike Bloomberg and Unity 08 that is a media handpicked unrealistic moderate group. They have flaws also, but we need a realistic third party that has moderation that is more in line with American People, not based around Billionaires or a ardent variation of a ideology.
There is so much Jesus & Co ™ propaganda in that post that I..
Think.
I.
Will.
Vomit.
Senator Johnson, with the decrease in abortions, shouldn’t this increase cheap labor and descrease the need for illegal immigrants? At least that’s what Nancy Shaefer told me.
Also, why are you not a Saints fan you traitor!?
OK..now that I have read everyones ‘words of wisdom:
1.Pro-Life should mean that you oppose murder on all levels of life, including the Death Penalty. Period. No exception. Either you are PRO LIFE or you are not.
Sen Johnson: I didn’t like you very much because, well, you are a right-wing Christian Kissing NASCAR shagging Republican.
But…
if you are a Cowboy fan, then you are OK by me. (except for your abuse of power and talents to dictate unwanted ‘family values agendas’ upon us Georgians).
I sit in Sec 123 row 5 next to the team tunnel. Come on to a game and sit with the heathens in 123. Maybe ‘Me-Angelo’ or ‘throw me mo’ balls Crump’ will toss you a sweaty arm band on the way back to the locker room.
Cowboys 35 Colts 17
Senator,
I hope very much that your bill also forces doctors to lay out the medical risks of continued pregnancy and childbirth. Otherwise, it’s dragging doctors into a political war, and dishonestly.
The latest pregnancy mortality rates that I have found say that, in the United States, there are about 17 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births (the traditional way to report that statistic to evaluate a healthcare system). Also in the US, the CDC reports fewer than 10 deaths from abortions, out of over 800,000 abortions reported in those same states.
I hesitate to compare these statistics directly, but even this gross comparison shows that carrying and giving birth to a baby is MUCH more deadly for a woman than an induced abortion. And that’s only the deaths caused by pregnancy. There are many non-fatal risks of pregnancy, some of them permanent.
To be kind, I’ll assume that the Georgia law forces doctors to tell women about ALL of these risks. I’d hate to think that you want to kill that many more women just so that you can force them to carry a zygote and can force them to give birth to another child that they do not want or cannot afford.
As a possible alternative, have you considered funding better sex education? This is known to greatly decrease the number of abortions. You want to educate women, right?
I hesitate to distract this to medical coverage, but I and my child have both had good, inexpensive medical care in Finland, where the medical system is nearly entirely socialized. Oh, sex education is much better than here, and the abortion rate is much, much lower than in the United States.
Jason,
Adam Smith and I would forgive you unlike Rand who would have let you die had you not had the money for healthcare. This article may help you understand that greater good and capitalism can live in harmony.
The Adam Smith Solution
The founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, takes a different approach by trying to incorporate both concepts in his “system of natural liberty.” Smith and Rand are in agreement about the universal benefits of a free capitalistic society. But Smith rejects Rand’s vision of selfish independence. He teaches that there are two driving forces behind man’s actions–in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he identifies the first as “sympathy” or “benevolence” toward others in society, while in his Wealth of Nations, he focuses on the second, “self interest,” the right to pursue one’s own business. Smith believes that as the market economy develops and individuals move away from their community, “self interest” becomes a more dominant force than “sympathy.” But both are essential to achieve “universal opulence.” (Smith 1965:11)
Adam Smith is famous for making a statement that sounds Randian in tone: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” (Smith 1965:14) But this statement is often taken out of context. Smith’s self-interest never reaches the Randian selfishness that ignores the interest of others. On the contrary, in Smith’s mind, an individual’s goals cannot be fully achieved in business unless he appeals to the self-interest of others. Smith says so in the very next sentence: “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” (Ibid.) Moreover, he writes earlier on the same page, “He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour….Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the mean of every such offer.” (Ibid.) Smith’s theme echoes his Christian heritage, particularly the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (See Matthew 7:12)
Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the Christian commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39) Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises would undoubtedly agree with this creed, but apparently Howard Roark and John Galt — and their creator — would agree with only half. And that’s a great tragedy for the greatest novelist of the 20th century.
http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html
Here we go with the article. John Konop can’t make a point on his own, he has to post an article to do it for him.
You are twisting Smith’s words. Skousen has it right, but you are blinded with populist rhetoric.
Capitalism is the absence or near absence of government intervention in the market. You advocate a planned state and intervention in market. You are a statist, John. Not a capitalist.
Smith would not have supported government action to force individuals to into being charitable or government taking from individuals and redistributing income.
Adam Smith and I would forgive you unlike Rand who would have let you die had you not had the money for healthcare.
I had mono, not cancer.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 6 trackbacks }