Obama is a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.

And his followers are stupid.  

Outrage tends to bubble up when denials become human drama, triggering media interest. There's the 17-year-old girl who died before her liver transplant was approved. Or the people in California whose insurers canceled their policies retroactively after they got sick. What's often missed is that these cases are the tip of an opaque iceberg. An estimated 10 to 15 percent of claims are denied for various reasons, some of them technical, such as not meeting filing deadlines or failing to get pretreatment authorizations. Denials that produce the most disputes are those where insurers judge the care to be unnecessary or unproven, pitting a proverbial sick David against a multibillion-dollar Goliath. What few Davids know is that insurance contracts by law grant companies the legal right to manage a patient's care, including denying it, sight unseen, and give them the final say, if challenged. Unless the state steps in.

Many denials are iffy calls and can appear distinctly arbitrary, with one insurer saying no to a particular therapy or procedure while others reimburse for it. An FDA-approved drug might be denied because it's used off-label, even if it is shown to work in peer-reviewed reports. In cancer care, the generally expensive intravenous chemotherapy drugs given in a doctor's office are typically covered, while an equivalent, if not better, therapy taken at home orally is not. When insurance authorization is required for each new service or each hospital stay for the same serious illness, who's best to say what's medically necessary? Doctors and their staff will spend hours trying to get the approvals, but patients should be warned that if the company ultimately denies payment, for whatever reason, it's the patients who are responsible—with bill collectors ready at their door.

The problem is bound to grow as insurers make use of sophisticated data tools dubbed "denial engines," which are touted to reduce reimbursements by 3 to 10 percent. Bearing brand names like Ingenix Detection Software and Bloodhound Technologies' ClaimsGuard, they search patient records for any signs that claims have strayed outside company parameters. Weeding out fraud or speeding up processing is one thing; serving up excuses to deny legitimate coverage is another.

... In America now it's a computer that'll be saying no to your health needs... Might as well call them dEaTh dRiVeS

(V):  if you think this won't happen with obama care you're nuts.  It occurs in Canada and the UK as well under your current system.  In the UK, two patients died while waiting in an ambulance!  The hospital was over stretched to the limit and while waiting for critical care, they BOTH DIED.   

Fiona Gilson from Derbyshirewrites:

I am puzzled as to what Mr Murdoch does. So far he claims that he is told nothing, asks no questions, remembers nothing, did nothing, met no one of importance and did not need to know what was going on. Can I have his job, please, sounds a doddle?

Robert Petson, BBC business editor tweets:
Murdoch very grumpy at suggestion he trades support of his papers for Tories (or Lab) for help with takeover bid

1302: Discussing the BSkyB bid, Mr Murdoch angrily tells Robert Jay QC he would never link the political support of his papers to any commercial transaction. "I simply wouldn't do business that way," he says.

why not? His dad made his business by bribary!!

Robert Peston, BBC business editor tweets: In Sept 2010, Michel calls Hunt or his advisers about a blog I wrote saying ofcom would review bskyb bid, within minutes of me publishing

Simon Kelner, Former editor of The Independent tweets:
Have never once been to a Murdoch summer or Christmas party. Unlike most of the political or media

Ross Hawkins, BBC political correspondent tweets:
Internal News Corp notes from public affairs exec Michel said DCMS sec Jeremy Hunt would be supportive of BSkyB bid #Leveson

1246:Conservative Mr Hunt had taken over responsibility for the BSkyB bid from Business Secretary Vince Cable after the Lib Dem told undercover reporters he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch" in December 2010.

Robert Peston, BBC business editor tweets:
J Murdoch at #Leveson getting very interesting on circumstances behind Jeremy Hunt approving BSkyB bid in 2011

Simon Kelner, Former editor of The Independent tweets:
J Murdoch says I was 'availing myself of his family's hospitality for a number of years'? Evidence? Complete slur.

1240:Mr Murdoch held two meetings with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt in January 2011 after he had acquired responsibility for presiding over it, the inquiry hears.

Back to News Corp's bid for BSkyB now. Mr Murdoch says his company had "real issues" with the analysis of it by regulator Ofcom - which referred the bid to the Competition Commission.

If you're struggling to digest all the twists and turns of the phone-hacking scandal, our Q&A breaks things down in bite-sized chunks.

1234: You can read how the impact of the phone-hacking scandal directly impacted on James Murdoch and his father, Rupert, in our timeline of key events since the News of the World's closure.

Jonny Kiehlmann, Scottish PhD student at Imperial tweets:
So what Murdoch said at #Leveson is that he doesn't think it's right for those who ever accept his family's hospitality to criticise them?‏

Andy Davies, Home Affairs Correspondent Channel 4 News tweets:
Murdoch particularly upset as he claims Indy editor Kelner had been 'availing himself' of Murdoch hospitality 'for years'

1232: Mr Murdoch denies "storming in" to the Independent's offices but says he "wouldn't dispute using colourful language" when he called in to express his displeasure. The poster campaign "was not a decent way to go about [Mr Kelner's] business," he adds.

1229:Mr Murdoch says Independent editor Simon Kelner went "beyond the pale" by erecting posters ahead of the last General Election which read: "Rupert Murdoch won't decide the election - you will".

Less than 5 deaths v ...

"A report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies states: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [27] A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance."

Yet the American system costs twice as much per capita. Golly.. how efficient.

It seems very anti American considering...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness."

Life is now unequal in the USA.

(V): As was already pointed out, those "studies" were peer reviewed and didn't pass the test for a number of reasons. You need to keep current Jules.

No one in the USA is denied health care as it's against CURRENT law. Get educated.

(V): BTW, I love it when you respond to a post of mine but pretend you're not responding to me. Did you learn that in 3rd grade or something?

"No one in the USA is denied health care as it's against CURRENT law. Get educated."

So why do insurance firms deny people on technicalities!!

(V): That's a different question. I didn't say health "coverage." I said health CARE. You can't be denied health care in the US. And if you have no insurance, that's not a problem. There are plenty of places to go and get the care you need.

As for insurance: What Obama is asking (demanding) is that I pay for your health care because you don't have a job or the motivation or whatever the reason - and there are plenty of lazy people in the US expecting a handout. I work hard for my money and have enough trouble providing for my own family. Why should I have to pay for others?

It's not up to the government to play church.

And about 50% of people don't pay federal income tax. Why is that? I know someone who is exempt. He lives in a 350,000 home. He owns a motor home and travels all over the US. But he's tax exempt. Dumb.

Artful Dodger: "You can't be denied health care in the US."

Yes you can, the insurance companies do it all the time.

"Why should I have to pay for others?"

But you do already via taxes, state and federal. DUHHHH!!

"It's not up to the government to play church."

Then it's wrong for churches to play government!!

"Why is that? I know someone who is exempt. He lives in a 350,000 home. He owns a motor home and travels all over the US. But he's tax exempt."

I thought that was the American dream? Well the big companies in the USA seem to like to pay zilch!!

(V): If you don't have insurance, and you're sick, you can go into any clinic and you have to be treated.

There's no question that the US system needs fixin. What the fix looks like is a different story.

National health care requirement would require, by law, that everyone purchase health insurance. It's a 2000+ page bill and contains many dubious requirements. Bottom line is that the government in the US can't force me to buy something. I can choose NOT to buy insurance. If I need a heart transplant, good luck on that. People live, they die. Sometimes you get so sick that you can't get fixed. Transplants are costly and risky. Someone has to die inorder for anyone to get a transplant. Then the transplanted organ has to be a match and you have to be in healthy enough shape to recieve a transplant.

If I'm an insurance company, I want to make money, not lose it on open season "everything is covered."

Currently, hearing aids are NOT covered under most US plans. So what? If I want hearing aids I either pay the 5000 out of my own pocket or I ask people to speak up. It is what it is.

Stop looking for a free lunch and man up.

"If you don't have insurance, and you're sick, you can go into any clinic and you have to be treated. "

And end up bankrupt? But hang on.. why did people who helped out during the 9/11 terrorist attack have to travel to Cuba to get the help they needed?

.. was it the waiting list.. or that they were told no by the insurance firms?

"Bottom line is that the government in the US can't force me to buy something. I can choose NOT to buy insurance."

But we end up again here.. you do pay for it via taxes. Unless you want to say you are defrauding the government by not paying them.

"If I'm an insurance company, I want to make money, not lose it on open season "everything is covered." "

Cop out.. I said.. "So why do insurance firms deny people on technicalities!!"

If people up ahead know something is not covered.. fair play. But to be told no because an "i" was not doted.

You applaud that?

"man up."

.. Samaritan up.. isn't that what Jesus said!!

Rose Ann DeMoro
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 January 2012 19.14 GMT
Article history

Skier Sarah Burke
After Canada's freestyle skiing star Sarah Burke was gravely injured in an accident while training in Utah, her husband was forced to launch a website asking for donations to cover the medical bills incurred before she died.

Chances are you've probably never heard of Amelia Rivera, a three year-old from New Jersey. Chances are better you have heard of 29-year-old Canadian, Sarah Burke, one of the best freestyle skiers in the world.

Burke and Rivera don't have a lot in common, but tragically, their families do. Both have been borne the scars of a callous and broken US healthcare system – which, apparently, brings a gleam to the eyes of those seeking to promote privatization in their overhaul of the NHS in the UK

For those who missed the story, Burke, the six-time X Games gold medalist, was training in Park City Utah, 20 January, when she crashed and suffered major brain trauma. Flown to a prestigious hospital in Salt Lake City, Burke spent nine days in neuro-critical care before, sadly, she died.

As if the grief of her death was not enough, Burke's husband had to start a website to ask for donations to help pay the massive medical bill, estimates ranging as high as $550,000.

In a column in the Calgary Herald aptly titled "Sorry for your loss, here's your bill", columnist Robert Remington noted the dismay of Canadians at the healthcare mess to their south, where patients routinely receive hospitals bills "big enough to choke a horse". Insurance companies may negotiate it down, but for individuals without insurance, or have poor coverage, the outcome can be devastating. Nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the US are directly caused by medical bills.

Healthcare costs for US families have more than doubled in the past nine years. In 2010, health insurance premiums gobbled up 20% or more of median income for 62% of US residents under age 65, the age when the federally funded, guaranteed coverage of Medicare kicks in....

...Routine denial of needed medical treatment is a curse that pervades the profit-focused private insurance system in the US. In California, the only state that makes such data public, the seven largest private insurers rejected 26% of claims in 2010. Typically, the rejections came from payment disputes between the insurers and providers, such as doctors and hospitals, but often that resulted in patients and families getting stuck with massive bills in a system that does little to control costs.

While the US spends far more on healthcare than any other nation, it continues to slide in barometers of quality and access to care. A Commonwealth Fund study in November found that sick adult patients in the US are far more likely than their counterparts in ten other high income nations, including the UK, to skip needed medical care, such as visiting a doctor or filling a prescription, and struggle with medical debt.

A study published last June from the University of Washington in collaboration with researchers at Imperial College London found life expectancy rates in 80% of US counties were far behind the standard set in the top ten nations. And a Unicef study in December 2010 showed the US ranked a paltry 22nd in health inequality for children, behind even economically struggling Greece.

(V): "And end up bankrupt? But hang on.. why did people who helped out during the 9/11 terrorist attack have to travel to Cuba to get the help they needed?"

Free. I know many people that didn't have to pay a dime because they didn't have the money. But they still got the treatment.


"But we end up again here.. you do pay for it via taxes. Unless you want to say you are defrauding the government by not paying them."

You clearly don't know the law. YOu are REQUIRED to purchase your own insurance. If you can't afford it, you will go on the Govt plan. People will be required to buy insurance - that's the problem. If you don't, you pay a penalty (called a tax by Obama and then NOT a tax and then a tax again). lol


".. Samaritan up.. isn't that what Jesus said!!"

You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state.

(V): Yeah Jules, let's change the entire health care system based on ONE example. And a tear jerker at that!

Artful Dodger: I see on the news this morning where the UK is going through another recession...must be bad there, but if people got off their butts and worked it wouldnt be so bad....

Bernice: At least 50% of the US population gets some kind of government assistance. That is nuts! No wonder we're heading off a cliff!

Artful Dodger: And the libs want to keep it increasing! It's votes in their pocket. It's like a sickness. Get as many people needing government, then they have to keep voting you in to keep getting that hand out. So disgusting.

as I see it...many people over look the main problem. its the root of the whole issue.
who in their right mind,pays 32.00 for a .79 package of tissue?
15.00 for 2 aspirin?
265.99 for some guy to take an x-ray...
357.89 for another to read it..

these prices are extreme to the point of being unbelievable..but true.
HOSPITALS
they gouge the insurance companies
they gouge the patients
they gouge the government
they gouge the doctors
etc
then kick back,rake in trillions while everyone points fingers at each other.

rod03801: that's their game!

Bwild: they operate by "codes" in the ER. A visit receives a particular code and the patient is charged accordingly. If the code is incorrect, a patient could be charged at a higher rate than they would otherwise had the code been determined correctly. This happened to me. I was sent to the ER as a precaution but I knew the problems stemmed from the medication I was given. But the symptoms were similar to a stroke. I immediately informed the doc about my meds and he agreed that the meds were the problem. But the admitting person coded it for stroke. I was charged double. I got it fixed but had I not called, I would have had to pay the full bill.

Changes are needed system wide but NOT Obama care. That doesn't fix anything. And for those in favor of the 2000+ page bill it's wise to remember that NO ONE in congress and NOT EVEN OBAMA read the stupid thing. Even today most congressmen haven't read the stupid bill!

Artful Dodger:everything is charged by "code" over here as well.......for instance the "Item No. for my op was 47933" The Dr. charges on that number, as does the hospital for the bed/theatre etc and also the anaesethetist charges fees on that number. None of them miss you :(

Artful Dodger: it doesnt matter. the charges are still exorbitant.
yomama care, just forces everyone to be held up by the price gouging hospitals.
just like the government forcing the auto industry to build vehicles that get better gas mileage,then over-looking what people are paying at the pump.

Artful Dodger: One case..

"Nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the US are directly caused by medical bills."

More than one, unless you cannot count.

"I know many people that didn't have to pay a dime because they didn't have the money. But they still got the treatment."

Millions of people here in the UK get that.. Unless, they have a private insurance scheme. Then they have to declare that to the NHS GP so they can bill them.

"YOu are REQUIRED to purchase your own insurance. If you can't afford it, you will go on the Govt plan. People will be required to buy insurance - that's the problem."

So the drain on federal income goes down. Here in the UK anyone earning over £50k is being told they will get less child benefit, over £60K they will lose it totally. It'll save around £700 million a year.

"Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state."

OK..... Now, honestly.. Can you see an atheist Republican candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro choice getting nominated? Which publication is used as a justification for being against gay marriage and abortion.... even though people using said publication are often for the use of the likes of Cluster Bombs.

BE REAL... there is no real separation. It is a BIG lie.

Bwild: That's why in the UK there is a standard charge for prescriptions. One rate. If it's just aspirin/paracetamol... get them over the counter for pennies. In my experience, most pharmacists will tell you if a medicine can be bought over the counter for cheaper.

"HOSPITALS
they gouge the insurance companies
they gouge the patients
they gouge the government
they gouge the doctors"

And everyone takes their cut. Inflated prices mean inflated profit margins.

Shareholders and share prices rule!!

Artful Dodger:

"You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state."

If there is a separation of church and state, then why are some politicians selling their perceived Chistian values as potential government policy? To be fair, it happens on both Repuiblican and Democrat Candiadates. In the United States it is impossible for a candidate to win an election if he does not profess himself/herself to be a Christian.

From George W. Bush: "We are in a crusade against the axis of evil." George W. Bush used his return to Christianity as a big selling point in his political campaigns. Obama repeated so many times that he was a Christian until his religious associations got him into some minor trouble.

I think a more accurate description is that we have a separation of "Clergy and the State" rather than "Religion and the State"

Jesus never said that the State should be involved in .taking care of the people, but then in Jesus' time such a concept did not even exist. The idea that the state should take care of the people is a product of the early 20th century. As such it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Having said that, the question is: "Is there a contradiction between the state taking care of people and the values expounded by Jesus?" Jesus clearly believed in helping the poor, as his miracles attest. A person could easily interpret the role of the state as an extension of those values.

Ultimately it comes to selfishness and individualism. The state taking care of people is a form of collective action that requires those who pay taxes to put aside some selfishness and accept that the state has a role in helping the poor. It is part of the modern social contract. We surrender the power to the decide to the state. The reason why we can't agree on how is because each politician pretends to represent the values of his/her constituency. If the politician is selfish and individualistic, he/she will put forward his/her personal values as if they were those of everyone he/she represents.

Well, I think most people agree that everyone needs healthcare. The question then is "Should the state provide it or should the private sector provide it?"

If the state provides it, then the cost is deferred to tax payers. If the private sector provides it, then the cost is deferred to individual insurance buyers and the profit goes to all those companies involved in providing insurance and healthcare services. Either way, people have to pay for it no matter what. It is a matter of belief on whether tax dollars or personal wealth should determine the cost and quality of care.

Thinking a little about my previous post, it occurred to me that we could extend the health care model to other government branches. Here is the model:

If you have money, you buy insurance and pay for treatment with the insurance funds.

If you have more money, you buy better insurance or pay directly to your doctor out of pocket.

If you have no insurance, you fall back on the government programs (state paid meaning paid by tax payers.)

Now, let's imagine that we applied the same model to the Department of Defense:

Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance.
If there is a war or a conflict of some sort, you pay for the war from the insurance funds.
If there are more wars, then your isnurance premiums go up.
If you don't have money for insurance, you fall back on a government program of some sort, or you are not entitled to be defended, meaning that the state would have no obligation to save your life.
Since there are a lot of poor people without money, how would they be defended from war?

Obviously the model fails for other goverment branches. We could send those without money to fight in the war since they are not entitled to be defended.

It seems stupid, but if healthcare was like the defense sector, American (and others) defense would be in serious trouble. Poor people would end up dead in the battlefield, while those with money would stay home safe. Sounds familiar?

It is interesting that those that hate the idea of full state-provided healthcare have no problem at all with Defense being the largest branch of the goverment and sucking up the largest amount of tax payer dollars. Those who preach small government are often those that preach an inflated Defense budget. I suppose war planes are more important than hospitals.

Übergeek 바둑이: Many reasons.

Pandering

You can't completely divorce yourself from your convictions. Forcing your religion on others is one thing. Promoting certain principles (such as doing good) is not a bad thing.

Many "Christian" princples are followed by people like you. Obeying the government is a Christian principle. Being a good citizen is a Christian principle. So is honesty. And expecting others to be honest is a principle that we can agree is a good thing (certainly isn't a bad thing).

It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

"Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

Artful Dodger: I think you'll find that the idea of obeying your government is much, MUCH older than Christianity.

"Being a good citizen is a Christian principle. So is honesty."

Sorry, but so it is in most (except cults like Scientology) religions.

"Forcing your religion on others is one thing. "

Like with Gay Marriage rights and Abortion. How certain Christian bodies go about saying they can make gay people straight, and using their anti gay feelings to cloud laws such as Gays being in the US armed forces.

... Because the Bible says being Gay is wrong.. even though the context (rape, temple sex, etc) is different and therefore a false statement.

(V): didn't say it wasn't

Artful Dodger: there is talk that the "powers that be" are letting girls as young as 13 get the contraceptive pill from the chemist and not having to go to the Doc. for a script...that is in the UK....talk about encouraging promiscuousness (SP)

Bernice: And without parent permission. But if they need an asprin at school, they need a written permission slip and a not from the doc. AND the parents need to supply the meds.

Need a condom? Not a problem. Here, take two!

Liberals for ya.!

Artful Dodger: Then.. it is fair to say it isn't a Christian value.

But would it fair (as you seem to avoid talking about) that anti gayness is a Christian (or fairer to say right wing conservative Christian) value. And the right wing Christian element is seeking to force on everyone else in the USA?

Or as described by Islam.... people of the book, not true Christians!!

"....talk about encouraging promiscuousness"

When no contraception was around for 'teens' there was more child pregnancies, no sex education.. more child pregnancies.

Just as the Australian Government found out. Their program is similar and had reduced child pregnancies as well.

So Liberal policies of providing sex education and contraception have reduced such levels.

We could go back to the old conservative method of hiding the pregnant teens in special homes.

But that didn't work.

We could go back to the old conservative method of not talking about sex and leave young adults uneducated.

That still doesn't work.

(V):

(V):
You are so wrong...again.

4. Studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Increasing access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activity and more sexual partners, which counteracts any reduction in unintended pregnancies.
Researchers in Spain examined patterns of contraceptive use and abortions in Spain over a ten-year period from 1997-2007. Their findings, published in the journal Contraception in January
2
2011, were that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.10
In July 2009 results were published from an expensive three-year program at 54 sites, funded by England’s Department of Health, seeking to “reduce teenage pregnancy” through, among other things, sex education and advice on access to family planning beginning at ages 13-15. “No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies.” Young women who took part in the program were more likely than those in the control group to report that they had been pregnant (16% vs. 6%) and had early heterosexual experience (58% vs. 33%).
11
David Paton, author of four major studies in this area, has found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”
12 He sums up the U.K. experience: “It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase…. The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behavior. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.” 13
K. Edgardh found that despite free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-the-counter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose from 17 per thousand to 22.5 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.
14

Peter Arcidiacono found that among teens, “increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, may lower pregnancy rates in the long run.”
15
5. Emergency Contraception (EC) does not reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion.
Twenty-three studies published between 1998 and 2006, and analyzed by James Trussell’s team at Princeton University, measured the effect of increased EC access on EC use, unintended pregnancy, and abortion. Not a single study among the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions following increased access to emergency contraception.16www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/factsheetec21607.shtml For more information, including the conclusions of individual studies and researchers on this point, see “Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception Fails to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion,” at .

http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf



all studies, properly conducted, conclude basically the same thing. More access to contraception leads to more pregnancies in the long run.

Ya been schooled again Jules!

Artful Dodger:

> Obeying the government is a Christian principle.

Where in the Bible does it say that? "To Caesar what is of caesar. To God what is of God." It is about as close as I see Jesus make a statement between the big divide of the Roman State and the reformed Judaism Jesus was preaching. Barrack obama is asking you to accept healthcare reform. Are you obeying his wishes as the head of your government?

> Being a good citizen is a Christian principle.

How so? What does a "good citizen" mean? Good citizens go to war when called to do so and they will kill on behalf of the state when called to do so. They will also apply the death penalty when called to do so by a court of law. Good citizens have the right to own lethal weapons because the constitution protects that right. Good citizens can also get rich at other good citizen's expense even though "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

> It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

But here is the thing, the "Christian ethic" existed before Jesus was born. The Christian ethic is the stoicist ethic of the Greeks as assimilated by the early church. Buddha was preaching what is essentially the same ethic a good 500 years before Christ. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on good and evil. If anything, Christianity is a "late comer" when compared to Greek and indian philosophers.

>> "Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

> I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

You are missing the point. It is an analogy. If people who did not pay "Defense Insurance" were not protected, they would be forced to go to war to defend themselves; just as those without healthcare are forced to fend for themselves when they have no money.

Artful Dodger:

> Need a condom? Not a problem. Here, take two!

Here is a good question: Has the teaching of Christianity reduced the number of unintended pregnancies, transmission of STDs, or abortions?

The answer is that it has not. Neither have contraceptive devices.

The reason is that there is a lack of education in schools. Sex is seen as a "bad" thing to teach children. The general thinking is that if children learn about sex, they will become sexually active themselves.

In reality, becoming sexually active has nothing to do with sexual education, religious education, or contraceptive use. It has to do with human physiology.

If religious education and "abstinence" worked, Christianity would have suceeded in stamping out sex out of wedlock centuries ago. For 2000 years Chistianity has been preaching abstinence and sex only in the context of reproduction and marriage.

After 2000 years of thrying the results are: Good? So so? Bad?

If teaching Chirstianity worked automatically, there would be no Bristol Palins in this world.

If abstinence and religious education have failed for 2000 years, what should people do then? Keep repeating the same failed educational pattern for another 2000 years?

Well. I'll go by the figures Dan. Teenage pegnancy has decreased.

"The Labour party did have targets and to meet these a dedicated teenage pregnancy co-ordinator (TPC) was allocated to health regions. The figures for 2009 show teen pregnancy reducing in England and Wales as the dedicated support for teens throughout the country seemed to be taking effect.

In fact the teen pregnancy rate for 2009 (of 38,259 girls aged 18 or younger in England and Wales) was estimated to be the lowest since the early 1980s.

Unfortunately the effects of the change of government on teen pregnancy can't be seen as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) teen pregnancy rates are two years out of date. We do know that the number of TPCs is reducing as the rearrangements in the health service take place, as Rachel Williams discovers :

TPCs have been cut in just over a third of areas – including several where conception rates among under-18s are very high.

Further research from Rachel Williams shows that of the 150 councils surveyed for the piece, 71 still have a TPC or equivalent (3 councils had no TPC before). Of the 76 councils loosing their TPC, 61 councils will see the loss this year and in 15 councils the loss has already happened.

We can only wait to see what the ONS report in the future about teenage pregnancy rates.

Other interesting facts include:

• The number of conceptions to women aged under 18 was 38,259 in 2009 compared with 41,361 in 2008, a decline of 7.5%
• Nearly half (48.8%) of conceptions to women aged under 18 in 2009 led to a legal abortion
• The number of conceptions to girls aged under 16 was 7,158 in 2009, compared with 7,586 in 2008 (a decrease of 5.6%)
• Three-fifths (59.8%) of conceptions to girls aged under 16 in 2009 led to a legal abortion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a reliable source!!


But keep going, ya might find the truth for once. Then old lies made by men who the pill made feel less of a man will fade from your clouded eyes.

What gets me is this crazy Christian notion that denies the bilogical mechanics of humans. N' to turn the baby making system into a moral thing.

It also ignores some common known data about how our diets have change the date girls become young ladies.... weight matters!!

let me set things right.....the australian Govt. DOES NOT allow teenage girls access to contraception pills without a prescription obtainable from a Doctor....the UK govt does.

*****
In fact the teen pregnancy rate for 2009 (of 38,259 girls aged 18 or younger in England and Wales) was estimated to be the lowest since the early 1980s.*****

what hasn't been said is that ABORTION RATES HAVE RISEN.......

Übergeek 바둑이:<b>Übergeek 바둑이</b>: Artful Dodger:

> Obeying the government is a Christian principle.

Where in the Bible does it say that? "To Caesar what is of caesar. To God what is of God."

Romans 13:1 says, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
Acts 5:29 says, <span>"We must obey God rather than men." Whenever a government violates biblical teaching----

> Being a good citizen is a Christian principle.
How so? What does a "good citizen" mean?

Rom. 13:6-7, <span>"For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

> It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

But here is the thing, the "Christian ethic" existed before Jesus was born.

I never made the claim otherwise.  But there is no doubt that the Judeo/Christian ethic is foundational to laws in the US (just read all the early writings...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  I'm not going to split hairs over the chicken or egg.

>> "Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

> I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

You are missing the point. It is an analogy. If people who did not pay "Defense Insurance" were not protected, they would be forced to go to war to defend themselves; just as those without healthcare are forced to fend for themselves when they have no money.

Nonsense.   (meaning you make no sense here).   The government is required by LAW to protect its citizens and they are allowed by LAW to collect taxes.   It's NOT insurance.  That's just so far wrong there's no point in discussing it further.  Your analogy fails here.  Better for you to show why the individual mandate in the ObamaCare bill is Constitutional.  Paying for defense IS. 

Übergeek 바둑이:

>

"Here is a
good question: Has the teaching of Christianity reduced the number of
unintended pregnancies, transmission of STDs, or abortions?"

That's not the question being discussed.  The question is about the role of contraception availability in reducing pregnancies and abortions.  It's clear that availability doesn't curb unwanted pregnancies.  Just deal with that fact on the face of it.  In fact, explain why it's ok to make contraceptives available when in fact pregnancies and abortions have gone UP over the long haul. 

The
reason is that there is a lack of education in schools. Sex is seen as
a "bad" thing to teach children. The general thinking is that if
children learn about sex, they will become sexually active themselves.

No.  Lack of education isn't the problem.  And it's not seen as "bad."  It seen as the respoonsibility of the parents.  What's wrong with that?

"In
reality, becoming sexually active has nothing to do with sexual
education, religious education, or contraceptive use. It has to do with
human physiology."

Not entirely true.  But we'll move on.

If religious education and "abstinence"
worked,.....

Am I making the argument that it does????  If so, where?  (here's a clue, I'm not---you're inferring it)
I never said Christianity worked automatically.   If someone has told you that, tell them AD says they are full of crap. ;)


I don't know the answer to this problem.  I think we have a breakdown in society and a multitude of factors are at play when it comes to sexual activity.  As there is nothing new under the sun, promiscuity has been around since the beginning.   Can it be fixed?  NO.  Can the problem be lessened?  Yes but likely no one would agree on a solution.  Kids having kids isn't helping the situation.  And I know that many parents are simply incompetent.  Drugs and selfish ideas, poverty and desperation...on and on.  So many things contribute to the problem there is NO solution.  Best that can be hoped for is to bring the numbers down.  How that can be done will NEVER be agreed upon.  Oh well.