I wrote about Tribune letter to the editor writer Nancy J. Thorner a bit earlier… but wanted to come back and point out a bit of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives on this health issue.
At the end of Ms. Thorner’s Bizarro-world diatribe against Sen. Clinton’s market-driven universal care plan, she writes:
Health care should always be more of a personal issue. Liberty and freedom of choice depend on it.
Liberty and freedom of choice… Funny, I wonder if those are the concepts running through the heads of the virulently anti-choice (and anti-privacy) conservatives going on those marches through Aurora neighborhoods to protest a women’s health clinic.
Those conservatives don’t seem to interested in liberty or freedom of choice. And they specifically seem to be ardently against women’s health care seeing as how the clinic provides a variety of medical and educational services for women (not just the one medical procedure they loathe).
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 26, 2007 at 11:45 am
OneMan
An if they were not going to provide that one service about 99% of the protesters would go away….
That being said
So then you say that her plan was wrong because since you should be able to chose what medical service you want without negative implication you should be able to chose not to get health insurance without the government getting on your case nor preventing you from doing anything.
If the government shouldn’t and can’t prevent you from getting a medical procedure that same government shouldn’t use a bunch of sticks to require health insurance then either, right?
September 26, 2007 at 12:19 pm
robnesvacil
Really One? You don’t think Planned Parenthood in general is the focus of their ire…?
Given the special place in their hearts those like Jill Stanek reserve for Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute, etc. methinks you’re exaggerating on the “99%” figure. Just the name “Planned Parenthood” seems to raise the hairs on the back of their necks as a reactionary reflex. (Kind of like how Stanek reflexively deletes comments to her postings.)
–
Your thoughts on opting out of insurance are interesting. I’ve read a few others with a libertarian bent who’ve mentioned the same notion.
Do you have facts and figures on how many people currently are offered insurance but choose to opt out? (I’d imagine if universal healthcare ever were implemented, the rates of opt-outs might be close to those wishing to opt out of Social Security….)
September 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm
OneMan
Yeah I would argue that most would go away, heck the opening of the PP facility in Naperville (ironically also near a Dominics) might attract protesters once or twice a year but that is about it. So yeah I think it would be much less of an issue. The majority of the protesters are not Jill and are not anti-birth control (at least not enough to give up time and protest about it).
As for opting out I don’t think Hilary’s plan is going to be free. So just like today people don’t get health insurance because they won’t spend the money (even if it is a little bit) and would rather use that money to buy a bass boat (I know someone who had an employee who used that reason). Heck Edwards want to require preventative care if I understand correctly.
September 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm
robnesvacil
Were there protesters in Naperville before the clinic opened? That’s what is happening here — the anti-privacy forces are attempting to prevent the women’s clinic from even opening (and are currently succeeding).
And while Stanek may not be anti-birth control (I don’t deny that, but it is news to me that she’s not) a great many of those protesters in fact are against birth control — claiming it’s against “natural law”. (Which is odd, since judges in this country typically refer to local codes, state and Federal laws and the Constitution when making decisions. I don’t recall any mention of a Continental Congress deciding anything about some folks’ version of “natural law” being the law of the land.)
Finally, I said “those like Stanek” … she’s been a huge cheerleader for the protesting over at her various blogs.
–
….No health plan is free, even our current market-based plans.
As for preventive care, companies are also beginning to strongly incentivize (and some even require) such measures. My company’s health coverage has “credits” for participating in healthy activities and those credits can then be spent like a rewards program for goods or airline miles, etc.
Employees are also getting fired because they smoke or don’t improve their general health, for goodness sake.
A stronger focus on preventive care is coming sooner rather than later — whether healthcare continues to be market-oriented or evolves to something else.
September 26, 2007 at 2:59 pm
OneMan
I don’t think anyone really knew about the Naperville facility before it opened. Since it was/is a strip mall it was just a lease not a build. But I have no idea, I don’t really recall.
Also I would argue that most people who are protesting again are not ‘natural law’ they just feel life begins at conception and all life deserves to be defended and respected even with the force of law. You may disagree with either or both points I get that and see where you are coming from.
Yes the right would have more credability with this argument if they for example pushed for health care for children and pregnant women.
Also part of it has to do with the clinic ended up being a surprise, reguardless of small notices in the Sun Times. That ticked a lot of people off here, folks who normally would not put up signs and protest. The whys of how the permitting went down and the who is responsible is something we are going to be dealing with in Aurora long after we are no longer ground zero in this debate.
But just like the right likes to paint everyone who is aginst the war as being anti-American and not supporting the folks in uniform. The left likes to protray everyone who is pro-life as anti-birth control and it being about control of a womans right to chose not about the role of government to protect what someone defines as life worth defending (even at the infrigment of the rights of others).
–
As for insurance, again if the state shouldn’t dictate what you can and can’t do in terms of care they shouldn’t dictate that you have insurance. Reguardless of the fact it may be good for you, the role of government is not to be your mom.
September 26, 2007 at 3:42 pm
robnesvacil
But the role of government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (per the Constitution)… so yes, the role of government is to take care of our society as the voting majority of us see fit. Thus, laws banning smoking in public spaces (including public gathering places on private property) and enforcing use of seat belts in private vehicles.
…One, where did I say that I think all anti-choice and anti-privacy protesters are also anti-birth control? A good-sized portion are, but still, where are you getting that I somehow said they all are?
Finally, you wrote, “Yes the right would have more credability with this argument if they for example pushed for health care for children and pregnant women.”
Understatement of the century considering what our conservative president is threatening to do with the SCHIP renewal, even though it was already scaled back.
September 26, 2007 at 5:17 pm
OneMan
No you haven’t said it, but if you read a host of liberal blogs that generalization is made over and over again.
But the role of government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (per the Constitution)… so yes, the role of government is to take care of our society as the voting majority of us see fit.
So using this logic the very issue we are discusing should go back to the states where a ‘majority of the voting public’ can make the call. Before Roe V Wade the procedure was legal in some states and not in others.
So if the majority of Americans wanted to make abortion illegal or eliminate the first admendment you would be cool with that? I thought the purpose of the consitution in part was to protect the rights of the minority not just impose the will of the majority?
As for SCHIP renewal with the changes they have proposed, I am with you on that. Being a conservative and for that matter a Republican doesn’t mean you have to agree with the president all the time, no more so that being a liberal means you have to agree with the Clintons.
September 26, 2007 at 6:45 pm
robnesvacil
You stated: “So using this logic the very issue we are discusing should go back to the states where a ‘majority of the voting public’ can make the call. Before Roe V Wade the procedure was legal in some states and not in others.”
The Constitution covers the entire nation — these United States. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that medical procedures are a matter of privacy and are Constitutionally protected. Therefore, SCOTUS precedent indicates the right to privacy is no longer a state matter but a national matter because it is protected by the Constitution. (Thus, the social cons’ litmus test for SCOTUS nominees — would they respect precedent, overturn past decisions [today's minority dissent is tomorrow's majority ruling], or decide some in-between hackneyed narrowing of precedent.)
You also wrote, “So if the majority of Americans wanted to make abortion illegal or eliminate the first admendment you would be cool with that? I thought the purpose of the consitution in part was to protect the rights of the minority not just impose the will of the majority?”
The (vast) majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal; just as that same majority believes reasonable restrictions on abortion are also acceptable. Moot point til the Bush Supreme Court overturns RvW and does indeed send the matter back to the states (which would send shockwaves through Illinois seeing as how there is abortion legislation “lying in wait” should the matter become state-based again).
Also, in order to eliminate the first amendment a Constitutional amendment would have to be passed to repeal it. If that is the majority’s decision to do so we would all have to accept the consequences — but I’d fight like hell to stop it.
The Constitution does protect the minority’s right to dissent from the will of the majority (indeed, it protects the minority’s right to exist) — but it does not give the minority position the right to supercede the will of the majority. That was the only point on which I agreed with conservatives in their “nuclear option” arm-waving from a few years back.
Not sure where you’re going with this line of debate.
–
For the record, there were several times in which I disagreed with Pres. Clinton … just as I have also disagreed with other Democratic elected officials. In the main though, I tend to agree with them more often (lately, much more often) than Republican elected officials and candidates.
September 26, 2007 at 11:45 pm
dwlawson
“Do you have facts and figures on how many people currently are offered insurance but choose to opt out? (I’d imagine if universal healthcare ever were implemented, the rates of opt-outs might be close to those wishing to opt out of Social Security….)”
I suspect alot if opting out meant they didn’t have to contribute. Interesting to watch the Dem debate tonight. They were asked about the idea of getting rid of the cap. I think some people need to brush up on why exactly there is a cap. If you eliminate the cap, you can’t pretend it’s not really a tax but instead a contribution.
The way it was sold (and I’m on shaky ground as I was born several President’s after the fact) was as a savings plan rather than a tax. One got out only what one put in. I get a periodic statement telling me based on what I have contributed so far and what they expect I’ll contribute by my retirement age (not 65, but 67 for me I think) how much I can expect to get per month.
Now these financial geniuses want to collect the tax on people making 100’s of millions of dollars (hey, it ain’t me, sad to say). So I wonder what their periodic SS statement will show they can expect to get monthly after “contributing” at that level…
September 26, 2007 at 11:54 pm
dwlawson
Not that I’m against abortion (at least not in 1st tri) but, I find it ironic that we can imply rights such as privacy that aren’t actually written but deny rights such as RKBA that are written.
I wonder if the founders envisioned abortion when they put in that right to privacy. In case you read this without your humor filter on, its largely a poke at those that claim the founders never envisioned such “every other terrible implement of the soldier” such as “assault weapons.”
Don’t get me wrong, I love my privacy…what I have left anyway. But don’t fool yourself into believing that Ms. Clinton will be any easier on our rights than Mr. Bush was.
September 27, 2007 at 8:21 am
c-rockforfreedom
Abortion is Murder. That is all you have to say in the matter.
Choice? Who is speaking up on the choice of the child? Does that Child have a choice not to be born?
September 27, 2007 at 9:07 am
robnesvacil
DW, Social Security is more of an insurance plan, rather than a savings plan. Folks tend to get more back than they put in (especially wealthier folks and people who end up not being able to work at a younger age due to injury, illness, etc.).
Essentially, it was intended as insurance against the poorhouse, or that cardboard box in the alley. And that’s the way it worked for the first several decades — now the Baby Boomers are beginning to retire and there isn’t enough of a base to support their SS benefits at the current rates. Something needs to give.
–
DW, You have a point in your second post, though it does come down to preferences and tolerances … as I’ve basically said all along. Again, you still have the right to bear arms — even in “restrictive” Chicago.
September 27, 2007 at 9:53 am
robnesvacil
C-Rock,
A lot of folks view war as murder also. Note the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of “collateral damages” … ie, innocent men, women and children who have died in the Iraq War.
Yet, conservatives are all for that war with which you and I disagree.
To the point, where is the line drawn on abortion?
Is a woman supposed to die while attempting risky, life-endangering childbirth … in conservatives’ hopes that the baby might survive? Does that woman not have a choice of what to do with her own body?
Why would conservatives suggest arresting doctors who perform abortions but not the women seeking them (as many claim)? Seems inconsistent.
If conservatives do ever manage to outlaw abortion again (they’ve succeeded in making the medical procedure incredibly difficult to obtain as it is), where will they stop? Technically, “morning after” and even birth control pills prevent implantation — which results in “abortions” before implantation? Are condoms and IUDs next, since they prevent potential “child” by way of blocking sperm?
Think I’m being extreme in asking about birth control? I’m not the one suggesting these things — conservatives are (here, here, here, and more).
For someone who complains his rights are so infringed in other areas (when it’s really simply the notion of oversight you’re railing against), it’s odd that you’d be in bed with folks supporting real, live, complete bans on other things….
September 27, 2007 at 10:24 am
c-rockforfreedom
War is Murder. ITs the state forcing its will onto another government.
That same woman can go to a hospital today, and get emergency room treatment during the birthing process.
What about the rights of the child? Does that child have a right to life? The womans body “choose” to allow the egg to be fertilized.
September 27, 2007 at 10:44 am
robnesvacil
Either you’ve deliberately avoided my questions or didn’t understand them….
By the time some women get to the ER it’s months too late. Try learning a little more about the topic before you pipe up and “impose” your will on others.
The whole point to conservatives’ wanting to ban contraception is that those prescriptions and devices prevent fertilization or implantation — and thus the “body” isn’t choosing to do anything, the man and/or woman are and apparently cons are not comfortable with adults deciding things for themselves.
It comes down to many conservatives’ obsession with sex. Many cons believe people shouldn’t have sex (thus, no pregnancies) making the need for contraception, abortions, etc. moot. Oddly, they think if they ban these things people will have less sex, be less “promiscuous”… Studies of the results of their abstinence-only indoctrination programs indicate the exact opposite (teens have more sex by “other means” and don’t use condoms while doing so because conservatives constantly harp on their teeny-tiny failure rates).
September 27, 2007 at 4:07 pm
dwlawson
One of the dems made a good point at the debate last night, the retirement age (65) was not too far off the life expectancy when SS was put in place.
By the way, to digress a bit, how does the latest thing of Hillary laughing manaically sit with you? At first I got it as a way for her to human-up, but frankly its starting to get creepy. At least she could learn to laugh more convincingly and choose better how much laughter is appropriate and when.
Also, how does the fact that the dem front runners wouldn’t commit to having all troops removed even by 2013 sit with you? I thought they had a mandate or something…
September 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm
robnesvacil
Are you as worried about Giuliani’s large eyeballs or Hillary’s cleavage as you are about her laugh…? Maybe next you’ll be concerned about sweaters and haircuts.
…Obama offered up a plan to remove 1 to 2 brigades per month, which would remove the bulk of troops by the end of 2008. Republicans scoffed — what would their donors at Blackwater and Halliburton do? Republicans have since led charges in Congress to attack clearly dangerous newspaper ads and cut our troops’ rest time despite the Pentagon’s recommendations to not do so. So much for staying focused or supporting our troops.
The fact of the matter is yes, we will have some troops in Iraq for quite some time. The question is what are those troops doing and how many are there? Currently, they’re targeted by multiple sides in the middle of a civil war. Redeploying the bulk of them out of that cesspool is a dramatic difference from the Republicans’ plan to keep combat forces in combat action until 20__.
And Russert is a clown. It’d be interesting to see if he’d bother getting so uppity with the GOP candidates — if they’d even agree to a debate anyway (they have a knack for not wanting to actually answer questions, silly or not).
September 27, 2007 at 5:20 pm
dwlawson
I’ve always been a fan of cleavage. Rudy can keep his eyeballs and all other parts to himself.
I’m not offended or worried about her laugh. I’m kinda happy to see it as it’s a little Crypt Keeper-ish and might turn off a few of her less fanatical followers. I just hope it’s not a sign of some medical issue. Personality change could be a symptom of some very scary disorders. I would not wish that on anyone. http://symptoms.wrongdiagnosis.com/cosymptoms/personality-change.htm
September 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm
robnesvacil
Personality change? Like the dramatic changes we’ve been seeing in the Republican front-runners’ stands on issues in order to “appeal” to the hard-right of the Republican base?
I think the condition is known as Panderitis. Symptoms include a fondness for pander bears. Former Gov. Mitt “Multiple Choice” Romney seems quite taken by the illness. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani also appears to be suffering symptoms.
September 28, 2007 at 1:18 pm
dwlawson
Mitt and Rudy haven’t fooled anyone. All Rudy has are the folks that think he did a great job on 9/11.
September 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm
robnesvacil
Those folks seem to be finding out the truth — all he did was run around in circles on 9/11 and turn that horrific tragedy into a huge money-making machine for himself.
ArchPundit recently posted polling data and a Charles Franklin analysis which indicates Rudy may be on the back-end of his peak… much like McCain has been sliding down all year since his inept Baghdad market “stroll” claiming it was a normal marketplace.
That, and hosting stupendously insensitive and opportunistic $9.11 fundraisers are getting him nowhere fast — with good reason.
…I agree that Mitt and Rudy aren’t fooling everyone (hence Mr. “None of the Above/Haven’t Decided” being in the lead on the GOP side). But, they clearly have fooled some — Romney did win the Iowa straw poll after all.
As for being straightforward among the Republicans and having at least a modicum of common sense, I like Huckabee and Paul. I disagree with them more than I agree, but at least they’re for the most part rather forthcoming.
September 28, 2007 at 5:07 pm
dwlawson
Actually I was initially turned off of Huckabee due to him raising his hand when the Republican panel was asked who did not believe in evolution, but the speech he gave on CSPAN at the NRA meeting was very good. I think he’ll make someone a good running mate.
September 28, 2007 at 5:59 pm
robnesvacil
At least you know his positions won’t evolve.