Uechi-Ryu.com

Bill, your assertions were:

1) It's an oxymoron to be a prochoice catholic
2) Catholics aren't on, can't be on my side because they won't support gay marriage.

The first is wrong, the second is misreasoned.

There are TONS of prochoice catholics. Tons. I've written several Catholics for birth control and we all know a great many more take it. And there was this little gaggle of gay catholics I knew in Boston who figured it was their culture and their family, and they would go back and listen selectively or find a welcoming church. There are also LGB religious groups who hail from the most conservative religious orders. That includes gay islam, gay orthodox jew, and gay catholic. Try out the very interesting and eye opening "Trembling before G-d." It is not YOUR place (so I believe) to tell these millions of people they are not catholic (or orthodox jew, etc) just because they do not fit your definition: obeying every edict from the Vatican. This church used to tell us there were 5 planets because there were five holes in the head. All doubters--what, weren't catholic? Islam, as well, can't disown their islamofascists. They made by bad students of islam, but they're students of islam none the less. (Not comparing the use of OCP to bombing kids, just another example).

This is nothing more than the way that the dialects from Boston to Atlanta to Fargo to Jamaica are all English. No one gets to tell them they're not speaking it...

Further, you mistake my point on a Catholic alliance. I wasn't saying that I expect all American catholics to vote in my interest. I was simply stating the fact that Catholics turned out in good numbers and voted heavily AGAINST BM9. That's historical record. They recalled religious discrimination in the law--it had been pushed by the KKK, when it was against them. They called a spade a spade and told the local evangelicals (now, among the Bushites) to back off. And there is a grande difference in thinking someone might vote AGAINST discriminatory, divisive law, and equating that inclination with an invitation to get married in their church.

That'd be like thinking if I vote AGAINST a ban on THC, I'm expected to throw a ganja party for my block.

Here's two experiences from today alone that opened my eyes to the healthcare $ crisis a tad. At our operational meeting I learned we billed about 3 million in charges last year--we collected 1.1 million. The difference comes from partially insured or uninsured parties, which YOU, the taxpayer, pick up the tab for. The other was overhearing about a transfer to our ER from the border. Someone was sick of the care in Mexico, took their intubated relative (noncitizen) over the border (by ambulance i guess) and called 911. Their care will be free. To them.

Somehow this doesn't all jive, Ian. You say...

Ian wrote:Bush, on the other hand, is an evangelical. I've met some real nice ones (and I'm not lumping the all together!!), but I've also gotten death threats from them.

Hmm...

And yet you say

Ian wrote:Kerry is indeed Catholic. But he's a prochoice Catholic.

Stop right there, Ian. Kerry says...

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith.

He's clever with his language, isn't he? But let's be clear here. This is a proLIFE Catholic.

Kerry has taken the waffle stance that more than a few politicians have taken in the past. Whatever... It works. ProLife folks can't really nail him, and neither can ProChoice folks.

Ian wrote:As it turns out, the Catholics in Oregon turned out and voted DOWN the antigay Ballot Measure 9. They remembered when the dominant religion had tried to legislate them into the background.

OK...

And then you speak negatively of Bush's faith (as an evangelical) because you've gotten death threats from "them."

Would it be fair of me to judge Muslims and the Muslim faith because a few Muslims choose to kill in the name of Allah - against the doctrine of their own faith?

As a person who claims to be discriminated against, is this fair?

I am not familiar with the Oregon situation. However I'm curious how you know the number of Catholics who voted for/against BR9 vs. evangelicals vs. those of other faiths or non-faiths.

Interesting commentary on the healthcare $ crisis. As you know, hospitals always have been the safety net for the uninsured. It isn't the best care, but it is care. And yes, we the taxpayers pick up the tab. Same for Medicaid and Medicare.

However...

I learned we billed about 3 million in charges last year--we collected 1.1 million.

Let me tell you something about hospital charges and insurance, Ian. Charges are fantasy. Insurance companies pay a negotiated amount, which is either a per diem (by the day) or a case rate (by the discharge diagnosis). This payment amount combined with the patient pay (often called the allowable amount) is far, far less than the charges. Hospital charges are fantasy. The good thing about insurance companies is their size, which gives them bargaining power against the hospital chains. That probably is the biggest reason to have insurance - just so the consumer can get that negotiated amount.

The same is true, for example, with drugs. The pharmacies charge on the basis of AWP - Average Wholesale Price. Insurance companies jokingly call that Ain't What's Paid.

The uninsured are a BIG, BIG problem in this country. They are due to the following causes:

* A highly competitive global economy where workers overseas will do the same work and produce the same products for lesser pay and fewer benefits. This means many companies either outsource a good number of jobs, or the companies here consider not insuring to be competitive.

Do anything to mandate against that and you may reduce our competitiveness. Ideally the best way to compete is to improve productivity here w.r.t. overseas, and focus on doing what we do best - highly skilled jobs.

* Runaway litigation. This by itself increases the cost of care. It also causes rampant defensive medicine, which both increases cost and reduces quality. It also means more invasive testing procedures.

* An aging population.

* A population that wants the best, and is mostly shielded from the direct cost of care.

* Government mandates.

* Direct-to-consumer advertising.

* Supply-induced demand in many areas (see Wennberg et al).

* A lack of evidence-based care in some specialties, and with some types of patients.

It's frankly a wonder good physicians still want to stay in the game. You have my respect.

- Bill

He's clever with his language, isn't he? But let's be clear here. This is a proLIFE Catholic.

Kerry has taken the waffle stance that more than a few politicians have taken in the past. Whatever... It works. ProLife folks can't really nail him, and neither can ProChoice folks.

I don't see it that way, I accept and fully understand Kerry's statements on abortion.

I respect life. I think abortion is wrong. If my child were aborted I'd be devastated. But as wrong as I feel it to be, I realise people will do it anyway. It is also wrong for a child to be born where he/she isn't wanted! So as much as I despise the act of infantacide, I think it's best to leave that issue alone and let the protesters stand outside the clinics with their graphic pictures.. and let the adoption agencies try and reach these girls. Don't get me wrong, I don't like those religious nutbags who protest the abortions very much, because I think that an abortion has many levels to it that I'll never fully know, and I can only imagine how it must haunt one after they've had an abortions. Also if the mother felt no remorse for the abortion, do we really want that mother's spawn roaming the earth?(how many have I offended with that one )

Kerry takes it further. He knows that morality cannot be legislated and beleives it to be a church state issue.

PS. Anyone who is prochoice enough to let it effect their vote will vote Bush anyways.. we all know that. Kerry is like a lot of Americans like me who think that abortion is an ugly reality best left up to each individual and not 'the state'.

I personally don't think government has any business in a women's health issue. Period. End of story. I wouldn't even bother to mention my personal view, because it isn't germaine. But then I don't have to run for political office, and do the double-talking soft shoe.

Kerry isn't alone on this double talking. I spot him this one, even though once he starts waving the "Catholic" flag, it's fair game to challenge him on that front. That's why sometimes it's best just to shut up and keep it simple. The more you talk, the more you open Pandora's box. And I have no pity on the individual for the results.

I respect the Catholic Church's position on abortion. I just don't happen to share it.

I do NOT respect the Catholic Church's position on birth control. (By the way, Ian, you are confusing these two issues.) We've got problem enough with overpopulation in third world countries contributing to poverty w/o The Church coming in and reinforcing the issue. But...that's MY stance. At least the Pope is unequivocal. I do respect THAT.

I do NOT support the government paying for abortions. This is a subtle point. I can understand where a taxpaying Christian would be very, very offended to see Medicaid dollars paying to do something they consider immoral. Frankly it creates another separate issue of poor people having more unwanted pregancies than people of significant means. It's a mess, but there is no simple solution IMO.

I DO support stem cell research. This is a very interesting issue that the Democrats claim is their own. Absolutely, positively NOT. President Bush allowed for federal funding of research on existing stem cell lines, and will allow private funding of additional stem cell research. Let Michael J. Foxx tour the country asking for donations to pay for the stuff, rather than expecting government to do it. If Democrats feel that strongly about it, ask them to put up or $hut up.

In fact this is the first administration to come up with a working policy. Frankly IMO any other option isn't just. Once again, a taxpaying Christian should not have to pay for something they consider immoral.

At the end of the day, less government is good.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote:
In fact this is the first administration to come up with a working policy. Frankly IMO any other option isn't just. Once again, a taxpaying Christian should not have to pay for something they consider immoral.

I assume you mean any taxpaying citizen and just said Christian to give an example of who might consider something immoral.

Ultimately it's impossible for the government to please everyone. I think it was immoral to invade Iraq, some others might think it would be immoral not to. Everything you look at, there are going to be people who have opposing views on what the right thing to do is. On welfare, the environment, trade, and many many other issues the government has to deal with, there is a moral dimension that people do not agree on.

As for stem cell research, I'll lump this in with the banning from schools of scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang. If we're going to continue trying to live in the dark ages, we may as well just burn all the scientists at the stake and be done with it.

Your point is well taken about morality vs. Christianity. I stand corrected. I should have been more inclusive.

As for stem cell research, I'll lump this in with the banning from schools of scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang. If we're going to continue trying to live in the dark ages, we may as well just burn all the scientists at the stake and be done with it.

This is hardly fair, Justin, and now your first assertion supports my feelings on this. (I won't use the line... ).

* Scientific creationism is an oxymoron. Forcing schools to teach something that cannot be supported by evidence is wrong just by face value.

* The sanctity of life is an ethical and not a factual issue. Taxation is evil enough without adding in the issue of forcing people to do something that remains a CONSTANT ethical issue.

Engaging in the production of stem cell lines is very different from engaging in an act of war. Yes, some people always will be against war. But some wars can be justified (even by the Church, BTW) and some cannot. That is a conflict by conflict issue. Completely removing the right of a nation to defend itself is by definition self defeating.

Why on God's earth do we need to have tax dollars pay for this? I do not understand the logic, and I place the burden of proof on Democrats to convince me why it is necessary when they can put just as much energy into charitable causes that can pay for this. And don't tell me it can't be done. In my biomedical engineering department at U.Va., the neuromuscular junction research lab was funded by the Jerry Lewis Fund.

Tell Michael J. Foxx and company to work for it the way Jerry Lewis did. And tell the supporters of stem cell research to open up their own checkbooks.

And don't let me see one more video of John "sue the OB" Edwards telling us that his government stem cell research fund is going to make people "stand up and walk out of their wheelchairs." This is Mr. Junk Science himself - the man who falsely accused OBs of causing mothers to have CP babies.

- Bill

This group funded my very first independent research proposal. I did not need any stinkin' government money to save lives.

American Heart Association

Anyone want to know how hard these people work? I know... I got to meet them in person the year they awarded me my research grant. I literally left in tears.

Shameless plug - PLEASE GIVE!

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote: Why on God's earth do we need to have tax dollars pay for this? I do not understand the logic, and I place the burden of proof on Democrats to convince me why it is necessary...

Well if you want to argue that the government shouldn't fund research (except possibly for military?) then that's one thing, though I happen to disagree. But if the government is going to fund stem-cell research at all, then it should do it right and not limit it in a substantially arbitrary fashion.

Your point about the nature of war in contrast to embryo-use issues is well-taken. I would note however that there are variable circumstances, such as danger to the mother's life, or rape, just as there are in war.

Regardless, it does not make sense to prohibit the use of embryos derived from abortion, since those embryos will otherwise simply be thrown out. If someone is morally opposed to abortion they should tackle that issue. But it's no more rational to forsake scientific benefit from abortions that will occur anyway than it is to espouse scientific creationism.

My admitted bias, of course, is that I am firmly pro-choice.

Regardless, it does not make sense to prohibit the use of embryos derived from abortion, since those embryos will otherwise simply be thrown out. If someone is morally opposed to abortion they should tackle that issue. But it's no more rational to forsake scientific benefit from abortions that will occur anyway than it is to espouse scientific creationism.

Don't even go there on scientific creationism, Justin. I don't follow your logic at all. That whole area has no factual basis, and I don't see a need to force schools to teach something that isn't evidence-based. It matters not who is advancing the issue IMO.

Once again, let's separate religion from ethics. You suggested it earlier, and I agree.

Reasonable people can disagree on the ethics of this, Justin. I happen to agree with you about the use of stem cells. But because some people feel so strongly about the ETHICAL nature of stem cell research and because there are very good examples of private funding of excellent scientific research, I don't see a need to bring the government in it. That's the only proper way to proceed.

I feel badly about Christopher Reeves, Muhammed Ali, Michael J. Foxx, and other victims of disease. However let's be clear about this. There is a long, long path to any kind of practical use for this. It will take time. And the cost/benefit doesn't match more pressing needs such as the treatment of heart/stroke diseases, cancer, diabetes, and asthma.

Making stem cell research a political football is inappropriate. It smacks of the kind of emotional hijacking that Edwards engaged in when parading CP kids in front of juries.

- Bill

George Bush 's expressions during debate one.

I'm still out of town, but got this opportunity to use a friend's account to "check on things"... (BTW, I'm currently in VA, not too far from Bill & Rich... Yesterday when passing through Richmond, I really wished I'd had some phone numbers with me to pull folks away for a quick get-together...)

Bill Glasheen wrote:Divorced (and remarried) Catholic also is an oxymoron. But if you pay the right people in the Catholic Church, you can get your marriage "annulled."

True so far...

That by the way creates a situation where Kerry's kids are considered illegitimate in the eyes of the church.

Used to be... not anymore. I'm not Catholic, but (for personal reasons) I've been looking into just this subject and talked with a Priest and a Deacon about it in-depth. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, children from an annulled marriage are legitimate and are recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the Church. Catholic doctrine states that the acts of the parents are not to reflect on the children and that an annulment, which can only be granted for certain just causes, does not remove "legitimacy" which has previously been recognized.

Thanks for the clarification, Panther.

It is as it should be.

- Bill

Once again, a taxpaying Christian should not have to pay for something they consider immoral.

Why not? Part of the reason why we have a representative Republic is so that we entrust our elected officials to make the decisions on what's "general welfare". And imagine what would happen if any taxpayer could opt out of paying a certain portion of their taxes, or could prohibit the state or Federal governments from spending their tax dollars on anyting they considered immoral? Tyranny of the masses indeed.

But because some people feel so strongly about the ETHICAL nature of stem cell research and because there are very good examples of private funding of excellent scientific research, I don't see a need to bring the government in it. That's the only proper way to proceed.

The bolded part is the where the argument needs to be. What are the merits of the spending in question? What are the expected benefits? What shortfalls need to be overcome? How much"bang for buck" can we get out of it now and down the road? Is governemnt spending really needed for this or that. Debate spending on the merits, and not use some sort of highly variable "moral test" as the first and last word on the issue.

And don't let me see Pres. George "Ban the Science Advisors" Bush tell us that "this policy will actually result in cleaner air". This is Mr. Junk Science himself - the man who refuses to respect any kind of scinctific advice at all. Give me a man who used science to help people wronged any day.

Gene

Let me know when you find one, Gene.

All those I know are in research and medicine, and not in politics or law. Take away the greed. Give me a starving grad student or overworked intern any day of the week. Those are the people in this world that do real work.

No apologies for my bias showing. I've walked that path.

- Bill