Tag Archives: Health-care

Podcasts

Assessing the current state of the debate on abortion

1 Comment

Here is a GREAT discussion between Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute. The discussion starts at time 55:50 of the podcast. Klusendorf and especially Koukl are on fire in this podcast! Do not miss this podcast.

Topics include:

  • How do left-leaning Christians justify their pro-abortion voting?
  • What kills more people: unintended civilian casualties in war or deliberate killing of unborn babies? Are these two kinds of death morally equivalent?
  • Have Obama’s policies on abortion reduced or increased abortions?
  • Did the rate of abortion decline under Clinton and increase under Bush?
  • What policies really do reduce the number of abortions, and who supports those policies?
  • Should Christian medical personnel be forced to perform abortions against their consciences?
  • What are the root causes of abortion, and should we be addressing them by government-enforced wealth redistribution (social programs), instead of by legislation?
  • What is the difference between embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and adult stem cell research (ASCR)?

As well, Klusendorf alludes to some research by Michael J. New at the Heritage Foundation about the policies that reduce abortions. You can read about it here in National Review. The supporting research is here.

I have blogged about some of these topics before, such as: stem cell research, a simple case for defending the unborn, right of conscience for health care workers, and about Representative Michele Bachmann’s opposition to FOCA and ESCR.

Scott Klusendorf makes the pro-life case on audio, here.

UPDATE: Doug Groothuis has a short, non-sectarian argument against abortion here.

News

The Republican alternative budget

Leave a comment

Tired of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? Worried that Obama is going to bankrupt the country? Angry about the planned reduction of charitable giving by 9 billion dollars? Or tax hikes on energy companies that will raise consumer energy prices? Are you doubtful that any amount of tax hikes on the productive sector can pay for all this spending?

Well, I spotted this post outlining the Republican alternative to Obama’s budget over at Investors Business Daily. (H/T Club for Growth)

This is definitely worth reading! The first part reiterates how tax cuts have stimulated the economy and job creation in the past under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The article then list all the details of the GOP budget proposal which would get us similar results.

Instead of socialized medicine, the GOP would lower prices by increasing consumer choice and competition among medical plan suppliers. And they would also introduce a simplified tax system that would reward hard work and productivity:

…[The GOP budget] would establish “a simple and fair tax code with a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10%, and 25% for any income thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption.”

Prefer the current system? The GOP plan lets you stay in it. The capital gains tax would be cut and the Alternative Minimum Tax would be fixed to prevent huge surprise tax hikes each year.

…businesses with fewer than 500 employees would get a deduction of 20% of their income, so “these engines of growth will continue to fuel our economic recovery and companies can compete with their foreign counterparts, while keeping jobs here at home.”

On energy policy, the plan would open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas drilling and use part of the federal share of revenues for alternative fuel programs. The Arctic Coastal Plain would be opened for exploration and development. Obstacles to new nuclear power plants would be removed.

Read the whole wonderful thing! And don’t forget: they have a podcast of this article read by the professionals at OutloudOpinion.com. Subscribe here!

News

Massachusetts state-run health care costs hit 820 million

Leave a comment

Spotted this article in the leftist New York Times, (H/T Independent Women’s Forum). Looks like the communists in MA are finding out too late that there is a problem with having the state make health insurance compulsory and having prescription drugs and mental health coverage included for every policy holder, regardless of risk.

The article states:

Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.

John R. Graham of the State Policy Network, (H/T Pacific Research Institute) explains how they got into this mess:

Surely, even the New York Times can figure out that spending $820 million on the Bay State’s Commonwealth Care “universal” health-care plan, in order to save $250 million in uncompensated hospital care, is not a good trade-off.

Not according to today’s article on the latest state to compel its residents to buy health insurance, which reports those savings as the only positive outcome of this out-of-control program.  Three years ago, Gov. Romney collaborated with the Democratic-majority legislature to achieve “universal” health care by government diktat: squeezing every resident into either compulsory private health insurance or expanded government programs, using both tax-hikes and subsidies.

Today, we learn that, alongside the absurd cost/benefit ratio, the state can no longer bear the costs, which are spiralling out of control faster than other states’ costs are.  This reminds us of a fundamental lesson of government power: When the government orders you to buy something, the government will have to step in to decide what that something looks like.

It’s the same old story of how fixing the price of a product or service below market value results in increased demand and decreased supply. And we all know what happens when the costs of government-run health care escalates – increased government control of the lives of patients and decreased quality of health care service.

For the life of me, I don’t know why anyone voted for that RINO Mitt Romney in the primaries. In my opinion, he was terrible on social issues across the board, and this RomneyCare mess doesn’t exactly inspire confidence on fiscal policy, either.