The Cellar - The proper role and scope of government

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The proper role and scope of government (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26074)

I usually try to post only those parts of a link which give the most information,
assuming the Dwellars will follow the link and read more of the details.

On the following editorial, I am posting all of the first several paragraphs, and leaving
the opinions of the NY Times for further reading in the link for those who are interested.

NY Times
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
December 8, 2013

When Bishops Direct Medical Care

Quote:

Beyond new state efforts to restrict women’s access to proper reproductive health care,
another, if quieter, threat is posed by mergers between secular hospitals and Catholic hospitals
operating under religious directives from the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops.
These directives, which oppose abortions, inevitably collide with
a hospital’s duty to provide care to pregnant women in medical distress.
This tension lies at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The suit was brought on behalf of a Michigan woman, Tamesha Means,
who says she was subjected to substandard care at a Catholic hospital
— the only hospital in her county —
after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Doctors in such circumstances typically induce labor or surgically
remove the fetus to reduce the woman’s chances of infection.
But according to the complaint, doctors acting in accordance with the bishops’ directives
did not inform Ms. Means that her fetus had virtually no chance of surviving
or that terminating her pregnancy was the safest treatment option.

Despite acute pain and bleeding, Ms. Means was sent home twice,
and when she returned a third time with a fever from her untreated infection,
she miscarried even as the paperwork was being prepared to discharge her again.
The fetus died soon after.

The case has gained attention because Ms. Means is not suing the hospital
for medical negligence but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The A.C.L.U. is arguing, on her behalf, that having issued the
mandates and made them conditions of hospital affiliation, the conference
is responsible for “the unnecessary trauma and harm” that Ms. Means and
“other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals.”

How the suit will play out is unclear, but it showcases an important issue.
Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and,
in many communities, are the only hospital facilities available.
Allowing religious doctrine to prevail over the need for competent emergency care
and a woman’s right to complete and accurate information about her condition
and treatment choices violates medical ethics and existing law.
<snip>

I believe this is a crucial lawsuit for the future of health care insurance in the US.

.

LO Review
12/4/13

Attorney General releases list of 20 worst charities

Quote:

To help Oregonians participate in “Giving Tuesday” this year,
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum issued the Department of Justice’s
“20 Worst Charities” list, an annual review of organizations that spend
the vast majority of the donations they receive on professional fundraising
and administrative costs rather than charity.
<snip>
There are a number of resources available to assist donors in learning more
about particular organizations. For example, Charity Navigator and CharityWatch
compile information about charities and rate performance. <snip>

The list includes a fair amount of information about each of the 20 charities.

There's been a proliferation of bad charities that sound like they help cops, firemen, and veterans, often with names sounding very similar to good charities. It's a double whammy in they not only con you, they're diverting your money away from actual people in need.

Moral hazard - Is it indolent contrivance, gratuitous profit, or just POV

The following editorial is really worth reading in it's entirety.

Star Tribune
Editorial Board
12/25/13/
Unemployment benefits are not a luxury for unemployed

Quote:

Even if it weren’t the day after Christmas, one word would spring to mind
to describe the congressional Republicans who are unwilling to extend
unemployment insurance benefits beyond 26 weeks to 1.3 million unlucky Americans.
They’re Scrooges.<snip>

Today’s Republicans in Congress appear to believe that the U.S. economy
will reliably provide a self-sustaining livelihood for anyone willing to work.
Unemployment benefits will invite idleness, they claim.
It’s a version of the “moral hazard” argument used in Minnesota in the 1870s
to deny government aid to starving victims of grasshopper plagues.
<snip>

I love juxtapositions...

NY Times
STEVE EDER
12/27/13

For ESPN, Millions to Remain in Connecticut

Quote:

ESPN is hardly needy. With nearly 100 million households paying
about $5.54 a month for ESPN, regardless of whether they watch it,
the network takes in more than $6 billion a year in subscriber fees alone.

Still, ESPN has received about $260 million in state tax breaks and credits
over the past 12 years, according to a New York Times analysis of public records.

That includes $84.7 million in development tax credits because of a film and digital media program,
as well as savings of about $15 million a year since the network
successfully lobbied the state for a tax code change in 2000.

As a country, we have come to accept the idea that businesses are
entitled government subsidies, and we proudly label it it capitalism.
Locally, carrot/stick tactics obscure it with promises/threats of job creation/job loss.

But is it ? Isn't it actually just corporate moral hazard.

51305.

I despise name-calling, but...

The GOP basturds are causing pain to too many people.
Next they'll start complaining about crime rates going up.

Attachment 46322

From Google News today

But, but, they're just doing what their constituents tell them to, aren't they?

Christmas?
Woman stabbed man with ceramic squirrel early on Christmas morning for returning without beer.

Man choked and stabbed after allegedly turning off lady's Crock-Pot on Christmas morning.

Woman stabbed fiancé on Christmas Day after argument about wedding colour scheme.

Christmas night fight between sisters over apple fritters culminated in stabbing.

Merry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 887347)

Christmas night fight between sisters over apple fritters culminated in stabbing.

Apple fritters are worth stabbing for.

Depending on the cook, they're pretty good for stabbing with...

Our government gets a lot of press, usually about the fight between the Executive and Legislative branches. This time, the Judicial branch gets the headline.

Supreme Court of the United States to take up the issue of gay marriage.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court may rule once and for all this year whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law gives gay and lesbian Americans the right to marry.

Meeting behind closed doors on Friday, the nine justices decided to review a 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The decision by two judges on the Cincinnati-based court, both appointed by President George W. Bush, marked the first time a federal appeals court backed a same-sex marriage ban after other appellate courts had found similar bans unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments and likely rule by June.

The court said it would specifically address two questions: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? And does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The justices also announced that oral argument in the case (actually four consolidated cases) will be longer than usual: 90 minutes for the first question and another 60 minutes for the second.

The decision to take up the case returns the justices to a path that began in 2013, when the high court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling 5-4 that key provisions of the 1996 law that banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages were unconstitutional. The same day, the court avoided ruling on the merits of a separate case questioning the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans, finding instead that a private party did not have standing to defend the California law in court.

Big news:

Quote:

State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.
The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country’s war on drugs in the 1980s.

Cops can still use state laws, but this is an improvement.

It's insane that this was ever legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 919431)

It's insane that this was ever legal.

Just as insane are extremist lawmakers and law enforcement officers who associate marijuana and heroine as equally dangerous drugs. They cannot learn because rhetoric rather than knowledge is the source of all conclusions.

Same rhetoric justified using any laws rather then considering the purpose of that law and enforcement. Well over 50% of prisioners in the world's most imprisioned country are there only for drug violations - most only for marijuana.

They forgot to first learn the purpose of that law. Even forgot to learn that the gateway drug is coffee. If they learned that, would they use Federal laws to seize the property of coffee drinkers?

Heroin. It's spelled h-e-r-o-i-n. Heroine is something completely different, I do not think it means what you think it means.