crabbyman22 wrote:"Not that it should be free"-maybe we should force everyone to pay in.Oh we already have that."But I do believe that a wealthy..." Apple has more money than US. "Collectively ,government imposed solution,government provided"...you a socialist or just baiting me?

He's a Canadian, draw your own conclusions

kylemittskus wrote:I agree. Like I said before, maybe we need a way to incentivize health insurance like car insurance. No car insurance = no sue for you.

I'm not sure there's a fix for the problem like the one you cited. If the surgery were an emergency, it would happen anyway. However, I can't blame the doctor for wanting his cash monies and I can't blame the insurance company for covering their ass. The insurance fraud numbers are disgusting.

As for the huge overhead, they need it for my impending, insanely expensive cancer (see above) or for the huge pile-up on PCH when the world's largest woman (by choice -- see far above) looks down to pick up a dropped French fry.

You're all wrong anyway. We just need 3/4 of the population of the planet to die and we'll be just fine. I get to choose who dies though. I accept bribes.

kylemittskus wrote:You and me, we were so close. Here's the thing: health insurance isn't expensive. For $150/month (what most people pay for their cell phones), you can get it! Your max out of pocket may be high -- for argument, $4k -- but the point of insurance isn't to cover every single cent. This seems to be the thing that people don't understand. We have to pay for something, too. Personally, I would be elated if I got some horrible form of cancer and received world-class, $200k coverage for $4k plus my monthly $150 (thrilled for the treatment, not for the cancer, obviously ).

I can't speak for any and all situations, but health insurance is not so cheap for everyone. My parents are self-employed, and insurance is about $400/month just for my dad, with 5k deductible. He did get a horrible form of cancer and I think his thrill level is pretty low, although insurance has come through so far. When I heard that the Obamacare plan would make it harder for insurance companies to boot their sick people, I was glad for that at least.

klezman wrote:Nowhere did I say (nor do I believe) that health care should be free. No need to conflate the two. The problems you cite are endemic in Canada, due in large part to the (stupid) philosophy that any form of co-pay is somehow immoral. It's an extreme and ridiculous position.

Yeah, I've heard a little of that sort of position, like it's wrong for doctors and nurses (and pharma companies!) to want compensation for their efforts. Surely we can find something in between that position and letting people perish on the hospital steps. Or apparently not, because that means we're socialists and everybody knows that socialists are evil.

On a (sort of) related note, I read a Canadian blogger from time to time, and she's pretty out there, but there was this whole discussion on how it's okay to steal food if you're hungry and it can be determined (somehow) that you need that food more than the person you stole it from. From there it was determined that a particular person could also steal blue hair dye for himself, because it was so difficult for him to get a job...because he was trans (not, of course, because his hair was blue). I digress.

crabbyman22 wrote:"Not that it should be free"-maybe we should force everyone to pay in.Oh we already have that."But I do believe that a wealthy..." Apple has more money than US. "Collectively ,government imposed solution,government provided"...you a socialist or just baiting me?

Nope, not a socialist here, and not trying to bait you. Kyle's summation is accurate, though - either we let people die or every individual has insurance or we continue to have increased costs for ourselves so that we can pay for those who choose not to be responsible. I don't like the situation as it stands and strongly believe that access to life-saving medical care should not be based on wealth. Collectively this country has the resources to ensure that - we're already doing it. But not in a fair way.

kylemittskus wrote:I agree. Like I said before, maybe we need a way to incentivize health insurance like car insurance. No car insurance = no sue for you. I've got it! No health insurance = uh... you die!!!

I'm not sure there's a fix for the problem like the one you cited. If the surgery were an emergency, it would happen anyway. However, I can't blame the doctor for wanting his cash monies and I can't blame the insurance company for covering their ass. The insurance fraud numbers are disgusting.

As for the huge overhead, they need it for my impending, insanely expensive cancer (see above) or for the huge pile-up on PCH when the world's largest woman (by choice -- see far above) looks down to pick up a dropped French fry.

As for the quote above - if the biopsy reveals something massive and important, it may just need immediate surgery. A waiting period of 10 days could potentially increase the complication rate and the cost of addressing the problem.

The overhead isn't padding the fund. It's paying the CEO a multimillion dollar bonus for making sure that as little gets paid out as possible and for increasing shareholder value. It's paying for the levels of people to review routine claims and sorting out the minute variations that then require 17 more administrators in a doctor's office. I forget the exact numbers, but for Medicare the overhead is something like %8 and for private insurance it's in the 25% range.

chemvictim wrote:Yeah, I've heard a little of that sort of position, like it's wrong for doctors and nurses (and pharma companies!) to want compensation for their efforts. Surely we can find something in between that position and letting people perish on the hospital steps. Or apparently not, because that means we're socialists and everybody knows that socialists are evil.

On a (sort of) related note, I read a Canadian blogger from time to time, and she's pretty out there, but there was this whole discussion on how it's okay to steal food if you're hungry and it can be determined (somehow) that you need that food more than the person you stole it from. From there it was determined that a particular person could also steal blue hair dye for himself, because it was so difficult for him to get a job...because he was trans (not, of course, because his hair was blue). I digress.

Doctors and nurses who perform a vital function for society should be paid at least as well as teachers and garbage men, right? Or was it athletes? I'm just making trouble here.

Your second paragraph proves conclusively there are nut jobs on both sides of the border.

I typed a huge, long response to chem and my phone didn't post it. Fffffffuuuuuuuuu!!!!!

I quit for the night.

klezman wrote:Can't sue the insurance company if you don't have the funds to do so. I don't know why people in these parts are so quick to trust the insurance companies while disdaining government administered health care. Aside from the general philosophy of disliking any/all government, that is. I certainly don't trust an insurance company to make decisions with my best interest at heart - their concern is the bottom line only.

Kyle's point above about having only two logical options appears correct to me. Either we have universal coverage or we turn away all who don't have insurance so that my insurance and tax dollars aren't paying for other people's intransigence/gamble.

Personally, I think that in a wealthy country such as the US, health care should be a right, not a privilege for the wealthy or whoever is fortunate enough to have a job that provides coverage.

Actually, you can sue. You just find a lawyer who will do it on a contingency basis.


And most don't trust a gov't run health care due to the horror stories from Canada & England.

And most really don't trust the insurance companies, but you have legal rights with them.

On the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care:

By June 2011, enrollment is projected to grow to 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion. The original projections were for the program to ultimately cover approximately 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.

-- Dembner, Alice (2008-02-03). "Subsidized care plan's cost to double: Enrollment is outstripping state's estimate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2011-07-11.

A study published in The American Journal of Medicine, “Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?”, compared bankruptcy filers from 2007, before reforms were implemented, to those filing in the post-reform 2009 environment to see what role medical costs played. The study found that: 1) From 2007 to 2009, the total number of medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts increased by more than one third, from 7,504 to 10,093; and 2) Illness and medical costs contributed to 59.3% of bankruptcies in 2007 and 52.9% in 2009. The researchers note that the financial crisis beginning in 2008 likely contributed to the increased number of bankruptcies, and Massachusetts' increase in medical bankruptcies over the 2007-2009 period was nevertheless below the national average rate of increase. Still, the researchers explain that health costs continued to go up over the period in question, and their overall findings are “incompatible with claims that health reform has cut medical bankruptcy filings significantly.”

-- "Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?". Journalist's Resource.org. Retrieved 2011-07-11.

Finally,

"In June 2011 a Boston Globe review concluded that the healthcare overhaul "has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected." A study by the Beacon Hill Institute was of the view that the reform was "responsible for a dramatic increase in health care spending," however.

-- Brian C. Mooney ‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked Boston Globe June 26, 2011
-- BHI Study: Massachusetts Health Care Reform drives up insurance costs both public and private Beacon Hill Institute July 2011



So it worked, but costs went up.

kylemittskus wrote:I typed a huge, long response to chem and my phone didn't post it. Fffffffuuuuuuuuu!!!!!

I quit for the night.

Now I'm just disappointed. lol

MarkDaSpark wrote:On the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care:

So it worked, but costs went up.

That's not really surprising though, is it? You typically can't get more for less. If you ruled the world, would you just leave our system as is, or would you change it?

I pay about $250/month for health insurance for my family. I think my employer pays around $300, if the NT Health benefits box on my W-2 represents the amount they pay. I'm not sure. For the sake of argument, let's say health insurance for my family costs around $600/month. This is the same whether I have 0 kids or 15, whether I smoke, drink, eat pizza all day (I wish), have diseases, go to the doctor once a week for a new imagined illness, etc. I don't understand why other people couldn't come in to this same plan, and pay the full $600 themselves, if they wanted to. I suppose part of what makes this pool work is that we have a diverse group of people with varying demands on the system and we all balance each other out. Isn't that what the Obamacare or Romneycare is trying to achieve? Why doesn't it work on a large scale?

chemvictim wrote:That's not really surprising though, is it? You typically can't get more for less. If you ruled the world, would you just leave our system as is, or would you change it?

I pay about $250/month for health insurance for my family. I think my employer pays around $300, if the NT Health benefits box on my W-2 represents the amount they pay. I'm not sure. For the sake of argument, let's say health insurance for my family costs around $600/month. This is the same whether I have 0 kids or 15, whether I smoke, drink, eat pizza all day (I wish), have diseases, go to the doctor once a week for a new imagined illness, etc. I don't understand why other people couldn't come in to this same plan, and pay the full $600 themselves, if they wanted to. I suppose part of what makes this pool work is that we have a diverse group of people with varying demands on the system and we all balance each other out. Isn't that what the Obamacare or Romneycare is trying to achieve? Why doesn't it work on a large scale?

$600 a month is very cheap, even for a high deductible plan. Family healthcar in NY through a partnership of small business (less than 500 employees) is $1333/mo per family. $500/mo per single person coverage. These are high deductible plans.

klezman wrote:Doctors and nurses who perform a vital function for society should be paid at least as well as teachers and garbage men, right? Or was it athletes? I'm just making trouble here.

Your use of the passive voice (which I abhor in general, as it linguistically denies direct responsibilities for actions and conditions), and its OMGOMGOMGPONIESOMG PONIES! cousin, the truncated passive, obscures a vital truth that I and many others hold dear.

Absent intrusive and unwarranted government intervention (e.g., minimum wage, prevailing wage union contracts under Davis-Bacon, PLAs, price-setting for doctors under medisuck), nobody "should be paid" anything. The entire concept that there's a "correct" salary or wage that somebody is "entitled to" merely by having a particular job is abhorrent.

Rather, an individual is entitled only to receive whatever compensation (pecuniary, prestige, and fringe benefits) he is able to bargain for -- i.e., whatever he is willing to accept for his time/labor/service that matches whatever somebody else is freely willing to pay.

justinrsanderson wrote:$600 a month is very cheap, even for a high deductible plan. Family healthcar in NY through a partnership of small business (less than 500 employees) is $1333/mo per family. $500/mo per single person coverage. These are high deductible plans.

Yeah, the $600 might be wrong. I don't actually know for sure how much my employer puts in. I have Aetna though, and it's comparatively cheap.

PetiteSirah wrote:Your use of the passive voice (which I abhor in general, as it linguistically denies direct responsibilities for actions and conditions), and its OMGOMGOMGPONIESOMG PONIES! cousin, the truncated passive, obscures a vital truth that I and many others hold dear.

The entire concept that there's a "correct" salary or wage that somebody is "entitled to" merely by having a particular job is abhorrent.

Abhor and abhorrent are now my words of the day. I have a networking seminar tonight, and I am going to try to use it at least once during "networking".

chemvictim wrote:That's not really surprising though, is it? You typically can't get more for less. If you ruled the world, would you just leave our system as is, or would you change it?

I pay about $250/month for health insurance for my family. I think my employer pays around $300, if the NT Health benefits box on my W-2 represents the amount they pay. I'm not sure. For the sake of argument, let's say health insurance for my family costs around $600/month. This is the same whether I have 0 kids or 15, whether I smoke, drink, eat pizza all day (I wish), have diseases, go to the doctor once a week for a new imagined illness, etc. I don't understand why other people couldn't come in to this same plan, and pay the full $600 themselves, if they wanted to. I suppose part of what makes this pool work is that we have a diverse group of people with varying demands on the system and we all balance each other out. Isn't that what the Obamacare or Romneycare is trying to achieve? Why doesn't it work on a large scale?

Well, let's see. Say you're a single parent and make around $18 per hour. 40 hours a week is $720, so you make around $2,880 per month, not including any overtime. So you're making around $37,440 per year (2 week pay period, so $1,440 * 26). (Poverty for 2 is considered to be $14,710.)

Deductions before any Medical totals around $738 (includes Fed & State Tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, and CA Disability Insurance). You are also renting a 2 bedroom apt. (1 child remember) for around $1,225 a month.

So before you have any deductions for Medical, you only have $917 left ($2,880-1,225-738). So if you take out $600 for medical insurance, you are left with $317 to eat for the whole month.

Oh wait, you have car insurance to pay and/or other transportation costs (gas, bus passes, parking, etc.). And then there's clothes for the you & the kid too. Let alone utilities or childcare.


And you wonder why some people don't go for medical insurance?

Rick Perry, I LOOOOOOOVE PONIES?

Rick Perry supports criminalization of sodomy. In his book, he complains that anti-sodomy laws were outlawed (the law was outlawed...lol). In that context, he complains that Texans "often we have been told we can't do something." Is that ridiculous, or what? He's pissed that he's been told he can't do something - and that "something" is telling others they can't do something. This is the same law that was used to arrest 2 men for having sex in their own bedroom, and Rick Perry is all for it.

If you want to know exactly what counts as "deviant" sexual intercourse, there's a link from the article. It includes some fairly run-of-the-mill stuff IMO, and I'm pretty old-fashioned.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Well, let's see. Say you're a single parent and make around $18 per hour. 40 hours a week is $720, so you make around $2,880 per month, not including any overtime. So you're making around $37,440 per year (2 week pay period, so $1,440 * 26). (Poverty for 2 is considered to be $14,710.)

Deductions before any Medical totals around $738 (includes Fed & State Tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, and CA Disability Insurance). You are also renting a 2 bedroom apt. (1 child remember) for around $1,225 a month.

So before you have any deductions for Medical, you only have $917 left ($2,880-1,225-738). So if you take out $600 for medical insurance, you are left with $317 to eat for the whole month.

Oh wait, you have car insurance to pay and/or other transportation costs (gas, bus passes, parking, etc.). And then there's clothes for the you & the kid too. Let alone utilities or childcare.


And you wonder why some people don't go for medical insurance?

I understand why some people can't afford medical insurance. I was wondering why we can't form larger pools of insured, and could we drive costs down by doing so? I mean, apparently we can't or we would have done it by now, but I'm not sure why. Just out of curiosity, I wonder what it would cost per person, to put every single person in the country on the equivalent of Medicare. Not saying everybody would want to do that, just wondering what it would cost.

chemvictim wrote: Rick Perry, I LOOOOOOOVE PONIES?

Rick Perry supports criminalization of sodomy. In his book, he complains that anti-sodomy laws were outlawed (the law was outlawed...lol). In that context, he complains that Texans "often we have been told we can't do something." Is that ridiculous, or what? He's pissed that he's been told he can't do something - and that "something" is telling others they can't do something. This is the same law that was used to arrest 2 men for having sex in their own bedroom, and Rick Perry is all for it.

If you want to know exactly what counts as "deviant" sexual intercourse, there's a link from the article. It includes some fairly run-of-the-mill stuff IMO, and I'm pretty old-fashioned.

The article isn't really about Perry. Here are both sentences that mention him:

The state's Republican governor, Rick Perry, has previously offered his support for the ban on homosexual conduct, stating in 2002, "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." In his new book, Fed Up!, he decries the decision as an example of "nine oligarchs in robes" legislating from the bench.

The decision, while laudable if you restrict it to results, is a particularly egregious example of results-oriented judging, given the standard of scrutiny that is supposed to govern such cases.

It's part of the left's effort to riddle the legal edifice with special carveouts for politically favored classes (affirmative action, homosexual couples), because actually adopting any theory of substantive rights would require either (a) reading, without any basis in text or precedent, such favoritism into the constitution (which this case tries to do sub rosa); or (b) reinvigorate one of the many substantive clauses that PROPERLY protect this sort of right (like the 9th Amendment and the Privileges Or Immunities Clause).

The problem with (b) is that it would necessitate reinvigorating economic liberties as well, of the sort that Progressives and their forebears have tried to bury since the execrable Slaughterhouse Cases, and finally succeeded in doing during the Crippled Commie's tenure in office.

Perry's right not because of the result, but because of the incoherence of the Court's logic. Lawrence didn't even purport to apply the standard it claimed to. If you want to add "bite" to rational basis review, by all means, do so -- but do it all around, any time state or federal legislation is challenged. "Rational basis with bite" should not be restricted to homosexual activity, but requiring legislatures to have some REAL basis for their decisions is fundamental to due process of law.

Clarence Thomas, as usual, got it exactly right:

I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

MarkDaSpark wrote:On the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care:

By June 2011, enrollment is projected to grow to 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion. The original projections were for the program to ultimately cover approximately 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.

-- Dembner, Alice (2008-02-03). "Subsidized care plan's cost to double: Enrollment is outstripping state's estimate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2011-07-11.


-- "Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?". Journalist's Resource.org. Retrieved 2011-07-11.

Finally,

"In June 2011 a Boston Globe review concluded that the healthcare overhaul "has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected." A study by the Beacon Hill Institute was of the view that the reform was "responsible for a dramatic increase in health care spending," however.

-- Brian C. Mooney ‘RomneyCare’ — a revolution that basically worked Boston Globe June 26, 2011
-- BHI Study: Massachusetts Health Care Reform drives up insurance costs both public and private Beacon Hill Institute July 2011



So it worked, but costs went up.

We know the costs went up. We don't know how well it is working. Typical government bureaucracy mess.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, you can sue. You just find a lawyer who will do it on a contingency basis.


And most don't trust a gov't run health care due to the horror stories from Canada & England.

And most really don't trust the insurance companies, but you have legal rights with them.

As someone who analyzes public policy, I will repeat: once the government gets involved in any business venture, the costs go up, the benefits go down, the whole thing is messed up.

Also, if I don't like my insurance company, I can change to another company. I've done that. Once we're all dumped into Obamacare, we won't have that option.

chemvictim wrote:That's not really surprising though, is it? You typically can't get more for less. If you ruled the world, would you just leave our system as is, or would you change it?

I pay about $250/month for health insurance for my family. I think my employer pays around $300, if the NT Health benefits box on my W-2 represents the amount they pay. I'm not sure. For the sake of argument, let's say health insurance for my family costs around $600/month. This is the same whether I have 0 kids or 15, whether I smoke, drink, eat pizza all day (I wish), have diseases, go to the doctor once a week for a new imagined illness, etc. I don't understand why other people couldn't come in to this same plan, and pay the full $600 themselves, if they wanted to. I suppose part of what makes this pool work is that we have a diverse group of people with varying demands on the system and we all balance each other out. Isn't that what the Obamacare or Romneycare is trying to achieve? Why doesn't it work on a large scale?

Once upon a time, everyone paid for his/her/their own health coverage. It was considered part of being responsible.

Then, the federal government got involved and put caps on wages. In order to draw the best people, companies offered "benefits" as part of the total compensation package. Because it wasn't cash, the plan got around the ceiling. Now people complain about not getting "free" health care. Once again, government interference screws up the works.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Well, let's see. Say you're a single parent and make around $18 per hour. 40 hours a week is $720, so you make around $2,880 per month, not including any overtime. So you're making around $37,440 per year (2 week pay period, so $1,440 * 26). (Poverty for 2 is considered to be $14,710.)

Deductions before any Medical totals around $738 (includes Fed & State Tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, and CA Disability Insurance). You are also renting a 2 bedroom apt. (1 child remember) for around $1,225 a month.

So before you have any deductions for Medical, you only have $917 left ($2,880-1,225-738). So if you take out $600 for medical insurance, you are left with $317 to eat for the whole month.

Oh wait, you have car insurance to pay and/or other transportation costs (gas, bus passes, parking, etc.). And then there's clothes for the you & the kid too. Let alone utilities or childcare.


And you wonder why some people don't go for medical insurance?

Uh, these are things people need to think about before having babies. Additionally, before government interference, there were charities. Many doctors will work with you if you are really in need.

PetiteSirah wrote:

Perry said he thinks the law is appropriate. That being the law which can have one arrested for consensual sex in one's own home. All the eloquent Clarence Thomas-inspired legal reasoning in the world is not going to persuade me to agree with Perry. Besides that, I didn't see anything from Perry criticizing the process by which the decision was made. He thinks the law is appropriate, and he's pissed about the decision itself.

Oral sex was against the law in Texas, and Perry gave that a thumbs up. That is all.

PetiteSirah wrote:Snip

I understand that the way the law was changed was wrong. Agreed. However, even from the small, two-sentence quote you pulled, Perry -- while he may agree with what you said -- supported the laws that existed banning sodomy. That is, IMO, the problem. A HUGE problem. And I think that was Chem's point. He seems very good at mixing two points together so as to make more nebulous both stances. Supporting laws that ban any sexual act between two consensual adults is BS. Period.

chemvictim wrote:Perry said he thinks the law is appropriate. That being the law which can have one arrested for consensual sex in one's own home. All the eloquent Clarence Thomas-inspired legal reasoning in the world is not going to persuade me to agree with Perry. Besides that, I didn't see anything from Perry criticizing the process by which the decision was made. He thinks the law is appropriate, and he's pissed about the decision itself.

Oral sex was against the law in Texas, and Perry gave that a thumbs up. That is all.

Perry said that in 2002 -- so it's correct to say that he THOUGHT that, but he wasn't all that far out of step with the times in the deep south. I think it would be very different if he said it now. Times have changed quite a bit over the last decade.

Your conclusion that he THINKS that the law is still appropriate is incorrect and unsupported by the story you quoted.

kylemittskus wrote:I understand that the way the law was changed was wrong. Agreed. However, even from the small, two-sentence quote you pulled, Perry -- while he may agree with what you said -- supported the laws that existed banning sodomy. That is, IMO, the problem. A HUGE problem. And I think that was Chem's point. He seems very good at mixing two points together so as to make more nebulous both stances. Supporting laws that ban any sexual act between two consensual adults is BS. Period.

It's not Perry doing the mixing. It's the author of that hit piece who can't resist taking a gratituitous swipe by mixing 2 statements separated by nearly a decade.

PetiteSirah wrote:Perry said that in 2002 -- so it's correct to say that he THOUGHT that, but he wasn't all that far out of step with the times in the deep south. I think it would be very different if he said it now. Times have changed quite a bit over the last decade.

Your conclusion that he THINKS that the law is still appropriate is incorrect and unsupported by the story you quoted.

Then that is a question we must answer! We all need to know!

In seriousness, I still think that being in favor of such laws in 2002 is rather absurd. Indeed, we are 9 years later, but come on! The absurdity of controlling what two, agreeing adults do in their own home to each other is so stupid.

PetiteSirah wrote:It's not Perry doing the mixing. It's the author of that hit piece who can't resist taking a gratituitous swipe by mixing 2 statements separated by nearly a decade.

Fair. I retract that statement. I stand by the rest, however.

PetiteSirah wrote:It's not Perry doing the mixing. It's the author of that hit piece who can't resist taking a gratituitous swipe by mixing 2 statements separated by nearly a decade.

Fair. I retract that statement. I stand by the rest, however.

PetiteSirah wrote:It's not Perry doing the mixing. It's the author of that hit piece who can't resist taking a gratituitous swipe by mixing 2 statements separated by nearly a decade.

perchance what he really needs to do is mix it up in the bedroom. Sodomy laws in any form = not my idea of a good time.

PetiteSirah wrote:Perry said that in 2002 -- so it's correct to say that he THOUGHT that, but he wasn't all that far out of step with the times in the deep south. I think it would be very different if he said it now. Times have changed quite a bit over the last decade.

Your conclusion that he THINKS that the law is still appropriate is incorrect and unsupported by the story you quoted.

We're not talking about the 1800's here. He thought it in 2002 and I have absolutely no reason to believe he's changed his mind. Actually, if he said he'd changed his mind (has he said that?), I wouldn't believe him.

I'm from the south. Not all of us are bigots, and bigotry is not generally embraced like television would have you believe. From my experience, southern people are even more likely than midwesterners to get extremely pissed off about the law poking into citizens' private behaviors.

chemvictim wrote:We're not talking about the 1800's here. He thought it in 2002 and I have absolutely no reason to believe he's changed his mind. Actually, if he said he'd changed his mind (has he said that?), I wouldn't believe him.

I'm from the south. Not all of us are bigots, and bigotry is not generally embraced like television would have you believe. From my experience, southern people are even more likely than midwesterners to get extremely pissed off about the law poking into citizens' private behaviors.

Edit: According to this , when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy." I think that platform was linked in the original article, but I didn't read the whole thing.

Okay, this is long, it's silly, and it's only a reader comment on a website that most of you probably don't visit, but I laughed. The link is here if you care to look.

(AP) -- Overnight polls following the most recent GOP primary election debate show Khal Drogo taking a clear lead for the first time in the race.

The leading Gallup poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus three percent, gives Drogo a six point lead over his main challenger Tywin Lannister, Lord of Casterly Rock, Shield of Lannisport and Warden of the West.

"The current numbers demonstrate without a question of doubt that Drogo can ride," said MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow. "It is now, we can all agree, known."

Drogo has been attracting independent voters who appreciate the efforts of his wife, Daenerys, against racial discrimination and poor working conditions and in support of women's rights.

"The women of Wal-Mart will no longer be slaves under my administration," Drogo said during the debate. "They will no longer be raped by their corporate overlords and the Lamb Men."

Lannister dismissed the overnight poll numbers as an insignificant bump early on in what is expected to be a long fight before the nominating convention.

"My campaign is far more well financed than that of my opponents," Lannister said. "My bannermen have not wavered in their support for me and I am attracting new bannermen every day."

Despite his confident statements, there was a shakeup at Lannister campaign headquarters - with the candidate replacing his former campaign manager, his son Jaimie, with his disabled son, Tyrion.

"At this point in time Jamie has decided to take some time off to work on his autobiography "Kingslayer", the campaign said in a prepared statement.

Rick Perry, joining the debates for the first time this campaign season, said he expected his numbers to grow as the general public became more familiar with his political platform.

"The American people will eventually understand that Lannister's way will just create more long term debt for our children and grandchildren to deal with," Perry said. "Drogo has yet to produce his birth certificate and Daenerys is far too left of center for the average American voter. We don't need another Hillary Clinton sharing a bed with the leader of the free world."

Perry also invited journalists to meet with him at his Texas ranch so that he can demonstrate that he can ride.

chemvictim wrote:Edit: According to this , when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy." I think that platform was linked in the original article, but I didn't read the whole thing.

I'm enough of a classical liberal that I do not support laws banning sodomy, but I think you're in some sort of liberal dreamland if you think that favoring laws banning sodomy is substantially outside the mainstream of opinion. Sodomy laws have existed for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Even in the United States, they were universal until 30 or 40 years ago. While there were plenty of Founders who opposed slavery -- it was the matter of significant debate in the Constitutional convention and it had very few defenders (as opposed to those who were willing to tolerate it for the sake of maintaining the union) -- it is inconceivable that any of the Founders would have opposed the then normal sodomy laws.

OFF TOPIC, but I had to share, today marks one year since GregoryLane had his quadruple bypass. We are celebrating his Re-Birthday because he is feisty-er, funnier and better than ever! If you are friends with him on Facebook, please stop by and leave a remark, snarky is OK!

winetrancer wrote:OFF TOPIC, but I had to share, today marks one year since GregoryLane had his quadruple bypass. We are celebrating his Re-Birthday because he is feisty-er, funnier and better than ever! If you are friends with him on Facebook, please stop by and leave a remark, snarky is OK!

Wonderful anniversary. I hope it's cause to open something special. No use leaving anything behind!

rpm wrote:I'm enough of a classical liberal that I do not support laws banning sodomy, but I think you're in some sort of liberal dreamland if you think that favoring laws banning sodomy is substantially outside the mainstream of opinion. Sodomy laws have existed for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Even in the United States, they were universal until 30 or 40 years ago. While there were plenty of Founders who opposed slavery -- it was the matter of significant debate in the Constitutional convention and it had very few defenders (as opposed to those who were willing to tolerate it for the sake of maintaining the union) -- it is inconceivable that any of the Founders would have opposed the then normal sodomy laws.

Maybe I am in a liberal dreamland, but I believe that one's private sexual practices are one's own business. I tried to think of one person among my friends and family who would send the cops into someone's bedroom to put a stop to the unlawful oral sex going on in there, and I couldn't come up with anyone. I agree with you about the Founders, but Rick Perry isn't one of them. I suspect that I would not see eye-to-eye with the Founders on several issues, but I persist in keeping my elementary-school idea of the Founders as men who endeavored to escape tyranny. I like this quote:
"... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

chemvictim wrote:Maybe I am in a liberal dreamland, but I believe that one's private sexual practices are one's own business. I tried to think of one person among my friends and family who would send the cops into someone's bedroom to put a stop to the unlawful oral sex going on in there, and I couldn't come up with anyone. I agree with you about the Founders, but Rick Perry isn't one of them. I suspect that I would not see eye-to-eye with the Founders on several issues, but I persist in keeping my elementary-school idea of the Founders as men who endeavored to escape tyranny. I like this quote:
"... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)

I agree that private consensual sexual behavior ought to be one's own business and not the state's, with the significant exceptions of sexual relations with those below the age of knowing consent (which I'd take to be something around 16) and (probably) incest. My point was only that the alternate view is not outside the mainstream of American opinion, and that historically, such laws were well within what the Founders considered normal.

If one can pick the anti-slavery faction of the Founders, there's not much on which I would disagree with the Founders in terms of the role of government and the relationship among the individual, civil society, and the state. Of course, the Founders were not entirely of one mind themselves, so I suppose it would be more accurate to say I don't much disagree with the product of their labors (other than the compromise on slavery).