Monthly Archives: October 2010

News

Obamacare causes companies to drop health insurance coverage

1 Comment

Story here in the radically left-wing anti-american New York Times. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect.

The company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.

Principal’s decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market, like the business of selling child-only policies. State regulators say some insurance companies are already threatening to leave particular markets because of the new law. And some regulators in states like Maine and Iowa have asked the Obama administration to give insurers more time to comply with some of the new rules.

[…]More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers. Many of the big insurers have been lobbying federal officials to forestall or drastically alter those rules.

“It’s just going to drive the little guys out,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant in Alexandria, Va. Smaller players like Principal in states like Iowa, Missouri and elsewhere will not be able to compete because they do not have the resources and economies of scale of players like UnitedHealth, which is among the nation’s largest health insurers.

Mr. Laszewski is worried that the ensuing concentration is likely to lead to higher prices because large players will no longer face the competition from the smaller plans. “It’s just the UnitedHealthcare full employment act,” he said.

So basically Obama passed a plan to destroy competition, leaving consumers with fewer choices and paving the way for increased health insurance premiums. And now he wants to go on another vacation because he is doing such a good job. (H/T ECM)

Videos

Alan Shlemon explains a classification system for pro-abortion arguments

9 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about pro-life arguments
Unborn baby scheming about pro-life arguments

Here’s the main post, which contains: (H/T Life Training Institute)

  • a chart showing how pro-abortion arguments can be classified using disjunctions
  • a 5-minute video of Alan explaining the chart
  • links to ALL of the responses to each type of pro-abortion argument

Alan is a veteran of university campus debates on abortion, so he’s speaking from experience. The guy who introduces him is Scott Klusendorf. Scott is the best pro-life debater in the business. Bar none. Scott is the William Lane Craig of the abortion issue.

Ok. Let’s get started.

Here’s the chart. Open that up and take a look at it.

Then watch this video and refer to the chart:

Then find a pro-abortion person, classify their argument, and use these links to find the appropriate response:

You may already be familiar with these three kinds of responses, but if not, learning them is quite feasible (Trot Out the Toddler, the scientific case that the unborn is human, the S.L.E.D. test, Taking the Roof Off, and responding to the violinist and bodily rights arguments have been explained by Stand to Reason (through Making Abortion Unthinkable) and many others). It’s just a matter of thinking through the flowchart when you’re in a conversation with an abortion-choice advocate, recognizing the position they’re taking, and then responding accordingly. Knowing this, you can respond to every defense they offer for abortion.

Anyone can do this – and you get better at it the more you practice. It’s fun to be a little more confrontational about controversial things – being a good person means taking bold stands on moral issues, and backing up your talk with good arguments and evidence. The more time you put into it, the better you get at it.

Commentary

Andrea Mrozek responds to the Ontario prostitution ruling

5 Comments

This article from the Toronto Sun was written by Andrea Mrozek of the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada.

Excerpt:

Following the path of Sweden by criminalizing Johns is one possible solution, with considerable support among women’s groups and anti-human trafficking activists across the globe.

The Swedish model prosecutes the buyer.

“A person who obtains casual sexual relations in exchange for payment shall be sentenced,” reads the law, “…to a fine or imprisonment for at most six months.”

The government there simultaneously helps women out of the industry, with shelter, counselling and job training — and a hand out is what prostitutes need. After all, 90% of prostitutes say that’s what they want.

A Swedish independent inquiry published in July 2010 says the results have been a success. Prostitution, organized crime and human trafficking have decreased.

This is in stark contrast to other countries, like neighbouring Finland, where purchasing sex is allowed. In Sweden, about 400 to 600 women are trafficked into the country annually. In Finland, 10,000 to 15,000 are.

I think this is a good, evidence-based, case against legalizing prostitution. Notice how she cites actual outcomes in other countries to show the impact of changes in law on society.The IMFC is basically a family and marriage policy think tank. They have conferences, they publish research papers, and they engage the culture. They are affiliated with Focus on the Family Canada. What I find exciting about the IMFC is that get their positions on social issues published in mainstream news publications. Can you imagine? And the reason why they can do that is because they are good at research. And good research influences policy makers and public opinion.

But sometimes people make statements that just express their feelings and opinions – not what is really true. And they don’t supply evidence for their views from neutral sources, either. I was arguing with a guy on Facebook recently about gun control. I offered two pieces of evidence to him: 1) the 1997 gun ban in the UK that doubled violent crime rates in four years, and 2) legalizing concealed-carry in certain US states drastically reduced violent crime rates. For the life of me, I could not get him to talk about whether firearm laws (liberal or conservative) affect crime rates. I think we need to take a lesson fro Andrea Mrozek and talk about policy issues using evidence. No one cares about feelings, opinions, sob-stories, whining, blaming, complaining and name-calling. Just. Use. Evidence.