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
Fresh Political Pickins From The Peach State
Archives
Search PeachPundit
Recent Comments
Meta
Blogroll
- 2010 Georgia Race Tracker
- AJC’s Political Insider
- Atlanta Unfiltered
- Avenue PR
- Blog for Democracy
- Bludgeon & Skewer
- Buzz’s Site
- Chuck Shiflett
- Cracker Squire
- Drifting Through The Grift
- Dunwoody North
- Fresh Loaf
- Georgia Daily Digest
- Georgia Hwy 120 Politics
- Georgia Legislative Watch
- Georgia News Beat
- Georgia Politics Podcast
- Georgia Politics.net
- Gold Dome Live
- Good Will Hinton
- Jason Pye
- Jeff Emanuel
- Left on Lanier
- Live Apartment Fire
- Lucid Idiocy
- Ms. Underestimated
- New Republicans
- Obi’s Sister
- OmniVore
- Peanut Politics
- Political Vine
- Progressive Peach
- Project Logic Ga
- Ronald Daniels
- Rural Democrat
- Rusty Tanton
- Safe As Houses
- Screams from the Porch
- Shepherd’s Political Pie
- Southern Appeal
- SWGA Politics
- That's Just Peachy
- The Barr Code
- The Other Athens
- Thread of Dreams
- Thunderstruck
- Tondees Tavern
- WMCC News
Contributors
Follow Us
Legislators' Blogs
Copyright © 2010 Tanalach Media, LLC - All rights reserved. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Copyright
Powered by Web Design Company Plugins
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 115 comments }
← Previous Comments
Jason, I think John is a secret member of the Fabian Society. Shhhhhh!!!
Jason,
If you do not understand the facts it makes it hard to debate you.
Do you understand this part of the article?
“Smith rejects Rand
If it’s on Wikipedia, it must be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_%28insult%29
If you do not understand the facts it makes it hard to debate you.
Hahahaha…John, you are kidding yourself.
Jason
Nice spin but the article is clear! READ IT!
dorian
I understand it easier to say what you feel instead of educate yourself with facts.
At the end you and Jason cry socialism yet have used tax payers as an emergency insurance policy. BTW did you use the internet, go to a public school, and drive on roads
So, because you’re not satisfied with your health insurance, and won’t go out and do any real research to find health insurance that is better, then that means that I should be on the hook for anyone’s health insurance that 1. doesn’t like their health insurance, or 2. doesn’t want to pay for it. Yeah, that’s a real winning philosophy there, John. Next, you’ll be telling me that I need to pay for everyone’s groceries that aren’t satisfied with what they’re able to put on the table, or just don’t like paying for it in the first place.
Paul
My last company I had an HR department that did research. I also have many friends who complain about this issue in the business world.
You must be a government worker or you would not argue this obvious problem!
My point is if private out does public than business owners like me will stay with them. Why should I not be able the buy into the system lawmakers get? I know why because the lawmakers will pay more or experience the poor service we get in the real world!
I am against abortion, but for killing babies.
Quoting Bubba
“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
I did not think John Konop was a Centrist Republican like U.S Senator Norm Coleman or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. His campaign for Congress against Tom Price in the Georgia 6th Congressional District last year sounded like the Jim Gilchrist American Independent Party 48th District of California Special Election in 2005. John Konop, I do not understand that your now towing Party over Principle compared to last year’s primary. This why I do not have undivided loyalty to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
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
ondichliberty88
You can label me anyway you want but I have not changed on the issues.
Legal Status Doesn’t Deter Abortion
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1670839,00.html
Look at me.
Watch me eat dirt. Yum.
Stupid Cowboy secondary; wish it HAD been the Colts.
Erick should just start a new category called John Konop vs. Jason Pye.
“I
100 % of precincts reporting
PR=Precincts Reporting
TP=Total Precincts
KONOP PRICE
10,322 47,925
17.7% 82.3%
“Ouch”
John Konop:
> Steve,
> Birth is only 4% of childhood.
> So are you 4% PRO-LIFE?
> Why do you think the health of the baby and parent has nothing to do with life?
John, do you even bother READING people’s posts before you assume they’re right-wingers and just start babbling leftist crap at them? I made it pretty clear that I was pro-choice (at least up until the third trimester or so).
As for your insistence on linking abortion to the health care debate… in law school we study a concept called “proximate cause”. That’s a polite term used to tell someone that their claim is frivolous and full of crap. If I have a car accident which slows up traffic, and you yourself get into an accident a half-hour later, you can’t sue me claiming that you wouldn’t have been there at that point in time if traffic had been moving at normal speed earlier. If you didn’t apply common sense to compartmentalize issues, they would ALL bleed together because everything has SOME degree of cause-and-effect relationship with everything else.
So yeah, health care IS related to “life”… as is preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms in defense, streamlining government regulations which hold back prosperity and lower living standards, and a million other issues. However, it’s just as retarded to try and squeeze any of those issues into the “abortion” compartment.
Steve,
I am not a brilliant lawyer like you who is skilled and trained at the art of spin for clients for fee.
Can you help the non-lawyers understand this question?
If a person is pro-life and forced a woman to have the baby via the preservation of life are you now saying after the birth that the preservation of life ends?
GeorgiaValues
Are you just pro-birth or pro-life?
I’m sorry, I’ll try to hold back my “brilliance” at spin.
Almost every political issue can be tied in with every other political issue. The war in Iraq can be tied into health care because the money we’re spending on it could damn near finance nationalized health care. At the same though, if we don’t win then the islamofascists will take over and they don’t seem to like nationalized health care. I’m being tongue in cheek here, but that’s my point… if you don’t use common sense to separate issues, they all blur together and you can use one issue to argue either for OR against some other issue. THAT’S where the real “spin” comes into play.
Argue about abortion if you like. Argue about nationalized health care if you like. Just don’t pretend that they’re the same issue, and that your opinion on one has to correspond with a particular opinion on the other. Is that dumbed-down enough for you?
Common sense in politics???
A-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Whoo-hoo! That’s a funny one, Steve! Dang, I busted my gut on that one!
Steve,
As a skilled lawyer you avoided the question and change the topic, please tray again!
If a person is pro-life and forced a woman to have the baby via the preservation of life are you now saying after the birth that the preservation of life ends?
Also as a skilled lawyer you are calling mandatory pay for private and public health insurance nationalized health care. Do you think mandatory car insurance is nationalized car insurance?
Dude, while I do enjoy the verbal handj*b, I’m not a “skilled lawyer”… I’m only in my third full semester of law school. I’m not much more qualified at “spin” than you are, I’m just better at critical thinking (and probably was even before starting school last August).
To answer your question, it depends on how you use the term “pro-life”. If you use that term broadly, to mean someone who seeks to preserve all life, then it has all sorts of crazy ramifications. There are Buddhist sects out there that walk around with little bells on their shoes, to frighten away insects and avoid stepping on them. That’s pretty damn “pro-life”, and THAT kind of pro-life philosophy is impossible to promote without running into all sorts of contradictions.
However, in the United States today the term “pro-life” is commonly used only to describe those people in the abortion debate who oppose the “pro-choice” people. We could use the label “anti-abortion” and “anti-life”, but groups generally like to be named for what they favor rather than what they oppose.
So if “pro-life” is a label used to describe one’s opinion on abortion, it doesn’t have anything to do with how they feel about health care, ethanol subsidies, vegetarian eating, or whatever.
Oh boy! Konop used the required auto insurance line (similar logic from the junior Senator from New York: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/ )
This argument breaks down very quickly. I am not required by state law to have to insure damage to my own car, but I am required to have liability insurance – BIG difference there.
Steve,
Is not the argument for pro-life is all about the preservation of life. In fact Pro-Life refer to this as the killing of
Sorry Steve
That is why I find it strange that people like Sadie Field and Senator Erick Johnson profess believe in God yet they back an atheist
Ray:
In an early-term abortion, there is no baby. In very early-term, such as emergency contraception that some anti-abortion people for some reason oppose, you have one cell. Mouthwash kills a lot more cells than that. Even later, the fetus still does not have brain function, which many people think makes it alive or more human. I think a good argument on behalf of the fetus can be made after the brain is functioning, where it would need to be considered before performing an abortion.
You can have your own spiritual beliefs about the single-celled zygote being a “person,” if you don’t want to use emergency contraception, and you can also have your own beliefs about a 3-month fetus. In fact, I would oppose any efforts to make you abort a 3-month fetus you were carrying.
But making laws to make your mystical ideas force women to harm their own health, and possibly die, and then bring an unwanted or unable-to-be-supported child into the world, well, that’s just sick. Feel free to think that something without a brain is a human being. It might even qualify as a Republican politician.
Perhaps, if you really would like to decrease the number of abortions and the number of undesired births, you might spend some money on sex education. Over half of the women who have abortions every year report using some method of birth control, but many had errors or inconsistencies in their use. Are you in favor of better sex education to increase and improve birth control use? It would, after all, result in fewer abortions, which you seem to think is murder. The Senator has not yet responded to this question, so maybe you could be the first.
A republican candidate in favor of better sex and birth control education! You would certainly stand out from the crowd, which seems to be against improving education.
I would agree that a great many pro-life people are really just anti-women. That’s why many of them turn me off. However, if you have a good-faith belief that too much government intervention makes the health care system worse rather than better… that’s a completely separate issue from whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. I reject the premise that if someone opposes abortion, they logically MUST favor increased government intervention in health care. That’s like arguing that pro-choice person MUST oppose gun control.
Steve
Do you think mandatory car insurance is nationalized car insurance?
Steve,
BTW just because you are pro-life that does mean you hate woman.
I repeat my earlier post for John Konop’s pleasure:
Oh boy! Konop used the required auto insurance line (similar logic from the junior Senator from New York).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/
This argument breaks down very quickly. I am not required by state law to have to insure damage to my own car, but I am required to have liability insurance – BIG difference there.
ConservativeCaucus
If you do not have health insurance and you get sick and go to a County hospital tax payers are stuck with the bill. Also if God for bid you have a major illness and you do not have the money, insured or not you will file bankruptcy passing the cost onto others. Over 5o% of bankruptcy are health related and two thirds had insurance.
This is why exclusion and not covering major medical only pushes the expense on everyone else who pays. This must stop!
This is why everyone must pay who can afford it and we must make people contribute what they can. Also we must push preventive medicine that will save tax payers $1 on $10.
I do not understand why a fiscal conservative who is for pro-life would not agree with this concept?
Unless you think the pro-life movement ends at birth?
BTW the idea of mandatory healthcare coverage came from REPUBLICAN Romney!
Healthcare is a bipartisan issue.
Not a big fan of Romney… and I am not a blind supporter of the GOP: we have spent too many years compromising our principles to be more like the other party. I am a conservative (low taxes, limited government, personal responsibility) first. I happen to vote GOP most of the time because they come closer to my views than do Democrats.
Although it is clear that changes need to be made in the healthcare arena, I am not convinced that the Government should force me to have health insurance because they think I can afford it.
Your straw man argument that the pro-life movement ends at birth is a little off. First, it is true that the pro-life movement has, at times, not communicated as demonstrably as it should that we value life at all levels, not just the unborn child in the womb. As someone who considers himself pro-life, I believe that we should protect life from conception until natural death.
Where you and I disagree is the role of the government. Big government believers think that the government should determine how I spend my money – that usually looks like higher taxes and the government deciding how to spend it.
I assume from your logic that I should be required to not only have liability insurance on my car, but total coverage? Also, if my house is paid for, should the government require that I maintain insurance on it? Should the government forbid me from gambling? Should the government tell me what stocks I should buy?
Where does Government’s reach end in your argument?
Conservativecaucus
The reality is we do not let people die if they do get health insurance and not enough money. So at the end if you do not buy it you are using us who pay as your emergency healthcare coverage.
And now the people you pay get worse coverage or pay more because we are dong the right thing.
This issue does cross over from personal responsibility and to much government. At the end unless we let people die we all must pay. And life is grey sometimes.
I do think abortion cheapens life. I also think it would be hypocritical for anyone who believes like I do not to consider the health and life of a child and parent.
Call me what you want, but I do think God would agree with me. And at the end that is more important than any label or insult thrown at me.
Just to be clear, did I label or insult you?
I appreciate your candid response. Although we may not agree, at least we are clear on our lines of disagreement.
I would like you to respond to the ending of my previous post:
“I assume from your logic that I should be required to not only have liability insurance on my car, but total coverage? Also, if my house is paid for, should the government require that I maintain insurance on it? Should the government forbid me from gambling? Should the government tell me what stocks I should buy?
Where does Government
BTW the idea of mandatory healthcare coverage came from REPUBLICAN Romney!
Yeah, and it is creating problems in Massachusetts.
Forgive me while I pull a Konop:
Romney’s healthcare plan is a joke, as is the one Clinton is proposing.
I’ll say it again, Giuliani has the best healthcare plan of any candidate that I’ve seen to date.
Why is the government trying to stop women from having abortions? That is not the responsibility of the government…nor is it the position a true conservative should take. If modern economics has taught us anything it is that fewer abortions leads to higher crime rates.
Jason,
Do you understand if the insurance company does not cover it the rest of us pay? Rudy
The difference between Hillary plan and Romney is it put the mandatory coverage on the individual instead of business.
Oh my God, have you even read the damned proposal?!
Business have to offer coverage to their employees or pay a hefty fine.
Do you understand if the insurance company does not cover it the rest of us pay?
Which is why the idea of allowing a group of individuals join together and share the cost voluntarily is a decent idea.
Rudy
John, again I ask you to respond to my latest post.
John Konop on God and Universal Health Care. State Mandated Religion and State Ran Health Care. Watch Out NEW GOP in Town. The NEW GOP Bi -Partisanship. this is not my cup of Tea. Ron Paul Revolution Forever.
I am loyal to Ron Paul, not the LP or The Constitution Party
ConservativeCaucus
You make all valid points. The problem is you have people like Jason that use tax payers as an emergency healthcare plan. And the crazy part is they do not get that have taking away rights from people who pay. And because Jason beat the system and did not get an expensive illness he really thinks he took the risk.
As I said the issue is grey because my general felling is less government is better. Yet when you have people like Jason that abuse the system we must have rules.
Also if tax payers are left with the bill from people who cannot afford the full cost or people like Jason who are just irresponsible we must make them pay what they can afford.
As far as insurance companies they would not have a problem with no exclusions and plans that do not stick the tax payers if someone cannot afford the bill if it was a level playing field.
At the end someone has to pay! And right now the incentive is to punish people who play by the rules.
ondichliberty88
Please show me when I have ever advocated State Mandated Religion and State Ran Health Care? Mandatory pay coverage is not State run anything. Do you get the person can buy private?
Jason Pye ,
Rudy
Rudy
Jason,
Face it you did not have the money if you had a major illness when you did not have health insurance. . So at the end you became a socialist ready to stick tax payers like me with your bill. If people like you could understood that you are a free loader, we would not need the rules. YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT!
Konop, the only point you are proving is that the voters of the Sixth District made a wise decision last November.
You avoid every question posed to you and go after pointless details and hypotheticals. End the end, I paid my bill.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.