Leadership and Libya

While the conflict in Libya isn’t over, it appears to be nearing an end.

The coalition of NATO nations prevented what appeared to be an imminent slaughter of rebel forces and their supporters early in the conflict.  The coalition provided air cover which leveled the playing field for the rebels.  They also provided tactical advice which proved crucial in organizing a rag tag group of untrained amateur soldiers into an effective fighting force that could take Qadhafi forces in Tripoli by surprise.

Early in the Libyan conflict, Obama was widely criticized for doing too little.  Once he decided to engage he was criticized by some of the same Republicans for doing too much.  In the end he appeared to have charted a goldilocks “just right” course.  No US troops were in harm’s way.  The Qadhafi government is in its last days and running out of money to pay its troops.  While there was loss of life, the conflict ultimately did not become the bloodbath or quagmire predicted by Obama’s opponents.   Total cost is currently at $896 million dollars and we have had no casualties.  By way of comparison, that is less than three days of the Iraq war during the surge, and the average daily loss in just American troops during that conflict is just a tad shy of 20.

There is still a long way to go before Libyan rebels can declare victory and begin rebuilding their country.  That rebuilding process is also fraught with peril, as we’ve seen in Egypt.  While the political transformations of the Arab Spring continue, there is still the disturbing violence in Syria that may also ultimately require some international action.  But the fall of Qadhafi can only be viewed as a victory for Obama’s foreign policy.

Here’s a quick summary of President Obama’s international accomplishments in his first term.

  • Killed bin Laden
  • Marginalized al Quaeda as a threat to the US
  • Implemented troop withdrawls in Iraq
  • Daring rescue in Somalia
  • Foiled dozens of plots to commit terrorist acts on US soil
  • Took a clear stand against torture
  • Won the Nobel Peace Price

Finally, if we use the measure first proposed by George Bush for to justify his re-election in 2004, Obama has kept the country safe from terrorist attacks for the past three years.

26 Responses to “Leadership and Libya”

  1. keith says:

    He’s done an excellent job with Libya!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A “clear stand against torture” is an accomplishment?
    Whats the clear stand?

    And what of guntanamo? (still going
    well) I’d call that an accomplishment, doing the right thing…

  2. Ria Rogers says:

    Got a good one for ya. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14713151?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    This is frightening progress for a whole continent basically that needed missionaries to introduce them to the Word not 50 years ago.

    The ministers of the Church of Prosperity have evidently taken a queque from our capitalistic yet religious right to the extreme. The results could be devastating for the unfortunate in the future if this continues. The idea of being blessed if you are prosperous is ludicrous, i.e., Rupert Murdoch comes to mind.

    The 700 Club has nothing on these guys. This is evil thinking that needs to stop. We’ve got this going on here with talk about welfare being just a handout to ner do wells grouping the truly unfortunate with the scammers the whole while the wealthy are ntorious for being the very best scammers for every loophole that exists.

  3. keith says:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-labor-day-wisconsin-idUSTRE77T64220110830

    Jeff,
    My biggest fear is that we will no longer be a civil nation. The race card that your side is throwing around regarding the tea party is troubling. I can absolutely see huge problems next fall if your side continues to yell “race” and mr obama losses. From the link I attached you can see the level of politics thats creeping into our every day life. I’m sure you can see the opposite….we both can agree this needs to be way more civil….I can certianly envision riots …. are you keeping up with the flash mob attacks that are now in vogue? imagine what this will be like if obama losses and “race” is said to be the reason. REMEMBER this my friend, it was whites who elected Obama……race has NOTHING to do with this….

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The issue of racism is pretty simple and should not be denied or ignored.

    There are people in this country (roughly 15%) who are racists. Those people have a dim view of African Americans BECAUSE of the color of their skin. Those people believe that Obama does not deserve to be President because of the color of his skin. They also believe that the ONLY reason he was elected was because of overwhelming support from the African American population in this country and that his policies favor the interests of African Americans over everyone else. These are the same people who deny that President Obama is a Christian or that he is an American citizen. They are in such denial that what they perceive is a white nation would elect a black man that they are willing to believe any lunatic rumor that suggests that Obama obtained his office through some deception or conspiracy. Surveys show that more racists self-identify with conservative groups like the Tea Party than liberal groups like Move on. Though there certainly are racists of every stripe and political persuasion.

    It is completely understandable that Obama would get wide support from the African American community, just as Kennedy got wide support from the Catholic community and Romney can depend on wide support from the Mormon community. If a woman eventually runs for President, there will be a large number of women who vote for her simply because of her gender. That’s democracy. It is not racism. It is not religious bigotry. It is not sexism.

    Here’s the difference.

    A racist voter will not vote an African American candidate regardless of their politics.

    A sexist will not vote for a woman regardless of her politics.

    A religious bigot isn’t going to vote for a Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim for that matter regardless of their politics.

    African Americans will vote for white candidates based on their politics.

    A Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim will vote for non-Catholics, non-Mormons, or non-Muslims based on their politics.

    A woman will vote for a man based on his politics.

    So, for example, if the Republicans ran a conservative African American Muslim woman for President in 2012, they would get fewer African American votes than Obama because of politics. They would also get fewer conservative Republican tea party votes than a white Protestant man because of racism, sexism, and religious bigotry. They would get stronger support from the African American community than a white Republican candidate. They would get stronger support from women than if they ran a man. They would get stronger support from the Muslim community than if they ran a Protestant.

    Not sure what your issue is regarding the labor day parade. This is a parade organized by a private group. There are federal laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed, but clearly you CAN discriminate on the basis of politics. Labor Day parades are traditionally Democratic union affairs anyway.

    Riots are driven by the perception of inequality or lack of opportunity on the part of those who are rioting. They have lost faith in the ability of the establishment to address their needs, become radicalized when confronted with force/opposition, and take to the streets in an effort to fight back.

    We DO risk riots but not because of race. Our riots are going to be because of unemployment and poverty. There is only so far that you are going to be able to grind the poor down and blame them for their own condition before they will rise up in frustration and demand that the situation change.

    That’s what drove the riots after MLK’s assassination, the riots in the Middle East over the past six months, and the riots in England last month.

    Flash mobs, on the other hand, are just a fad. It is basic mob hooliganism taking advantage of the theory that you can arrest one person, but you can’t arrest 100. Surveillance cameras, quick trials, and stiff sentences were the reaction to the riots in England. They will arrest hundreds after the fact based on the video and digital evidence they collect. Some combination of the same things here will likely discourage the current sense that this is something you can get away with.

  5. keith says:

    and the last member of the KKK in congress was senator Bryd….so all persons that identify with the dem party are KKK supporters because they support the party of Bryd….

    15% of the country is racist….prove that….Its just your over simplistic naritive that the tea party is racist with NO TRUTH to that.

    Maxine Waters said the “tea party can go straight to hell” no comment from you. Mr Hoffa said the following

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

    Where’s the response from you? Should he be held responsible for any republican death? In your overly nuanced mind Bill O was responsible for the abortion Doc’s death. This is very clear marching orders for the Dems. Tea party to “go to hell” and “take these, republicans, son of a B****** out.” Those are clear instructions Jeff.

    PLEASE comment or you will find yourslef to be the biggest hypocrit out there. I’m counting on you my friend to be reasonable….

    if there are roits it WILL be because of race. You are closing your eyes to what your side is doing with the race card. Its constant and its every night on tv….. always questioning the motive as …is it because of the color of his skin? Its not………….

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    I’ve provided you data based on academic studies of the Tea Party. If you have studies which show otherwise, please provide them – otherwise you can’t just discount the results because you don’t agree with them. You are going to have to accept the data until you can come up with equally credible research to dispute it. Here’s the summary quote from the study’s author.

    “The tea party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race,” says Christopher Parker, assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington.

    http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/racial-attitudes-influence-tea-party-movement/

    As far as the racism still alive and well in this country. Here’s another quote from that same study.

    “Are we in a post-racial society? Our survey indicates a resounding no,” Parker says.

    Very few people are willing to publicly admit that they are racists, so these studies have to compare their views of racial minorities with the rest of the country in order to tease out the bias.

    For example, this study asked people if they were concerned that white people were soon going to be a minority in this country.

    http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/colorlines_poll_a_people_of_color_majority_in_the_us_meh_so_what.html

    A consistent minority of white people (20%-25%) WERE concerned that they would no longer be in the majority. Are all of those people hard core racists? Maybe not, but a lot of them are clearly frightened by the prospect that they will be in the minority and would likely NOT vote for an African American as a result.

    Now let’s go onto riots.

    As I mentioned before, people do not riot because of race. They riot because they feel powerless and disrespected.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/the-psychology-of-a-riot_n_924839.html

    We may have riots if we don’t so something about unemployment and at the same time continue to shred the safety net that has at least supported those who haven’t been able to find work. If people have jobs that pay a living wage and feel that they have something to look forward to, they aren’t going to bust up their neighborhood. The only connection to race here is that unemployment is about double for African Americans and Latinos than it is for the rest of the country.

    Yes Jimmy Hoffa Jr. did go too far, but I don’t think that there were any recorded incidents of violence by Teamsters against conservative Republicans that I read about. Here is the whole context of his comment:

    “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march,” Hoffa said. “Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, keep your eye on the prize, lets take these sons-of-bitches out and give America back (inaudible) America where we belong.”

    In context he was talking about using your vote rather than using violence. So it wasn’t the clear marching orders you suggested. Also just as obviously, the only people who would view this as any sort of order would be the Teamsters and not rank and file Democrats. Still other union leaders including Bob King who I had the pleasure of meeting last Saturday, did distance themselves immediately from Hoffa’s remarks.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110906/NEWS15/110906054/Teamsters-Hoffa-won-t-back-down-from-his-Tea-Party-comments?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

    Isn’t that the sort of response you are looking for when someone does go over the line?

    Finally, I think that Eugene Robinson’s whole take on this “race card” issue is just about right.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/02/race_and_the_tea_partys_ire_107805.html

  7. keith says:

    Jeff,
    I think its bunk….disprove the unproveable?

    HEre’s the botton line. Eugene Robinson is your yard stick? For real? And you want us to use non partisan sources? This is laughable and EXACTLY what I’m toalking about. He is merely supposing to know the reasaon. He Wrote:

    “I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire. I wonder how he can be seen as “elitist,” when he grew up in modest circumstances — his mother was on food stamps for a time — and paid for his fancy-pants education with student loans. I wonder how people who genuinely cherish the American dream can look at a man who lived that dream and feel no connection, no empathy.

    I ask myself what’s so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He’s black. For whatever reason, I think this makes some people unsettled, anxious, even suspicious — witness the willingness of
    so many to believe absurd conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace, his religion, and even his absent father’s supposed Svengali-like influence from the grave.

    Obama has made mistakes that rightly cost him political support. But I can’t help believing that the tea party’s rise was partly due to circumstances beyond his control — that he’s different from other presidents, and that the difference is his race.”

    He’s “WONDERING whats different” and arrives at race. That exactly what I’ve said your side is doing. There is no basis in fact just , “Im wondering whats different about this president.” Your side is TEARING apart our country piece by piece and ASSUMING the worst in the other side. To his wondering about Obama can I “wonder” about G Bush? Whaty the hatred for him? Why did blacks vote 92 – 95% against him? If its ok for them to vote their interests as you’ve suggested and it has nothing to do with race, then is it ok for the tea party to vote theirs without being called racists. The tea party would be in place if it were Carter or Clinton or whoever. They oppose what they oppose and NOT beacuse of RACE…. I could give a rip about what some leftest “wonders.”

    Have you ever LISTEN to Mr Robinson? Really Jeff? He’s one of the gys on MSNBC EVERY night it seems. He’s to go to Black guy by the way…It’s almost raceist the way they use him….

    Your side is PATHETIC when it comes to race. Bush HAD WAY more minorities in his cabnet then Clinton and Bush was the raceist. He had the first black sec of defense, the first black women sec of state black sec of education, a mexican attoney general…and many more….but he’s raceist. I don’t know the answer to this but I’d be willing to bet he’s got as many as Obama!!!

    There can be no critisium of Obama regardless of position. If there is then “I can’t help but wonder is it isn’t raceist.” That in itselve is raceist Jeff. It presupposes the inferiority of the person and how dare you critisise the black guy. I guess it cant be about the issues can it?

    I wonder………

  8. keith says:

    If the tea party is nothing but a bunch of whites does Maxine Waters, “the tea party can go straight to hell,” count as racist?

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Let’s go through this one more time.

    Basic assumption – Racism is still alive and well in this country. Hopefully you don’t dispute that fact.

    1. What is a racist? – by definition a person who believes in racism
    2. What is racism? – by definition a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among various human races determine cultural or individual achievement
    3. What are some examples of racism?
    a. People who express fear of a particular race
    b. People who express hatred of a particular race
    c. People who feel that their race is superior to all other races
    d. People who oppose political candidates based on the color of their skin rather than their politics
    e. People who enact or support policies which directly disadvantage a particular race
    4. Is it possible through existing survey techniques to indentify people who have racist beliefs?
    a. Yes
    5. Is it also possible to determine the political affiliations of these same people?
    a. Yes
    6. Which mainstream political movement has the highest percentage of white people?
    a. The Tea Party
    7. Which political movement has the highest percentage of people who harbor racist beliefs?
    a. The Tea Party
    8. Does that mean that all Tea Party members are racists?
    a. No
    9. Does that mean that every racist in this country is a member of the Tea Party?
    a. No

    Ok on to the meat of the rest of this.

    The basic question is, “Are there conservative politicians in this country attempting to take advantage of the racism that DOES exist in this country to defeat Obama?”

    I say yes and have posted plenty of examples which you have not challenged.

    You can try to change the subject or point out examples of racism by other politicians, but that isn’t the basic question here. In fact it supports the premise that racism is still actively practiced in this country.

    The reason why this question is important is that this is going to be a very dirty campaign, so it is LIKELY to get down to the issue of race pretty quickly. So we need to get a couple of things straight.

    1. Democrats did not invent racism nor do they encourage racism. Obama’s nomination and election is the best proof that Democrat party doesn’t practice racism as defined above. Obama’s nomination does not mean that there aren’t racists in the Democratic Party.
    2. The Republican Party WAS the party that freed the slaves, but they are now the party that is attempting to make race an issue in the next election through their strong affiliation with the Tea Party in order to leverage the backlash from racist white people to an African American president.
    3. African American votes for an African American candidate are not in and of themselves racist. African Americans who will ONLY vote for African American candidates regardless of their politics are racist.
    4. Racism is a divisive issue in this country. Ignoring it does not eliminate it. Calling it out does not make it worse.

    Politicians first and foremost are committed to getting themselves and members of their party elected to office. They will do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. It’s up to us the voters to either encourage or discourage whatever practices the parties adopt based on our votes.

    The Democrats chose to nominate a young mixed race candidate because they thought he could be elected. If they thought that the experienced wife of a previous president would have had a better chance, they would have nominated her. Failing to nominate Hilary did not make them sexist. Nominating Obama did not make them racists. It just confirmed what everyone already knew, that political parties are opportunistic.

    The Republicans have spent the past three years opposing this President by taking advantage of every opportunity they could find. One of those opportunities is the fact that there is a percentage of people in this country who hate, fear, or at least distrust him because of the color of his skin. This is reprehensible, but understandable. The Republicans are also going to defend these actions, just as you have, by claiming that the nature of their opposition is political and not racial. But the reality is that some is political and some is racial.

    The Democrats will continue to characterize attacks on the President and his policies as racial because in some cases they are, but they are seeking an advantage too in drumming up political support for their candidates by characterizing all attacks on Obama as having a racial intent, which they don’t.

    When our generation dies off, this sort of politics will hopefully die with us. Until that time, race will continue to be an issue when either party feels that they can use it to their advantage.

  10. keith says:

    Jeff,

    YS)
    Basic assumption – Racism is still alive and well in this country. Hopefully you don’t dispute that fact

    MY)
    Yes on all sides and which is what you fail to acknowledge. For you its the Tea Party. You suppose race on them and that drivers their political actions yet you draw no such conclusion to any other group. That my find is …………..

    Also it is a personal belief of mine that racism is far less of an issue as CLASSISM. This I see at work every day.

    Simply put, and to use your example and response to me, 95% of blacks voting for Obama is not racsim its voting for their interst. Your perception of the tea party as white and older, boy I hope you watched to debate the other night, voting for a white guy is racist….

    Jeff, When I have down time in the evening I watch the librel networks, MSNBC if my favorite. Over time it is simply predictive to watch a seed get planted, the tought grow and then the neritive devolpe….I watch this happen ALL THE TIME!!!! Time does not permit my eplaining in detail each but the “tea party is racist” is a recent example that started over a year ago, now the full blown use of that line is more evident. Just two nights ago we had the “CNN Republican “TEA PARTY” debate. Why? Simple, tie the extreme, racist, postion of the tea party to whoever the nominee is. The lastest naritive is “they don’t believe in science” so the candidate will be tagged the same….Its so simple to see if you watch over time. Jeff, you jump on board somewhere about 3/4ths of the way into the “building of the naritive.” I’ll start pointing these out….the most recent is “Perry is dumb.”

    FYI, why do Repubs go on CNN and MSNBC to debate and get hacked and dems refuse FOX?

    I just don’t understand your lack of perception….

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    Hey I was the guy who said racism is alive and well and that racism exists across racial and political boundaries.

    The research that I’ve seen on the Tea Party states that there is a higher percentage people with racist beliefs in the tea party than in the general population, the democrats, or the republicans. If you have other research that has different results, please produce it. Otherwise you are bound to accept the data as a basis for our discussion.

    If you would like to change the topic from racism to classism, we can start another thread to talk about classism. Within the context of THIS discussion about racism and the Tea Party, however, bringing up things like classism, MSNBC, and the way narratives get developed are simple diversionary tactics because you’ve got nothing on the main topic.

    I didn’t see much of the CNN debate, so I can’t comment. What I CAN say regarding the audience, though, is that it was an invitation only event where CNN enlisted the assistance of the Tea Party. It is clearly a political event. So if you were running the Tea Party and knew that you were catching flack because of the old, male, white demographic what are you going to do at an event where you have control over who gets invited. Even if you can’t find many people of color, at least you are going to invite more young people and make sure there are a lot of women.

    What I did see was a crowd shouting yes to Ron Paul’s question of letting people without insurance die rather than receive the medical treatment that could save their lives. Ron Paul even though he is a libertarian is a also a physician and believes that it is our responsibility as a society to provide care for people regardless of their ability to pay. I also saw a crowd applauding Rick Perry continuing to execute people in Texas even though there is strong evidence to suggest that the process is killing innocent people. It isn’t clear whether the crowd’s beliefs are driven by racism or classism, but clearly they are not driven by any Christian belief.

    So getting back to the basic issue. The data shows that the Tea Party has more racists than the other two established parties or the the general population. So the question is WHY? Simple logic suggests that at least some of the political positions taken by the Tea Party that are further right than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party ARE in fact intended to recruit the support of people who object to having an African American in the White House.

    I just don’t understand your lack of perception. :)

  12. keith says:

    ……………because no one else SETS OUT TO PROVE another group RACIST!!!!!! Thats why “we find the tea party racist”

    Nice try on the reaction to ron paul….the question was not “should the person with out health care be left to die?” the question was framed this way; if health care is not mandatory and someone ECLECTS TO NOT be covered, not be part of the system, should they recieve care if is then required. TO that he said “no” and then the follow up was “even if he’s going to die?” to which the answer was “yes.”

    That is the correct answer. Now as a CHristian, I would have outreach to that person and PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS can and will step in to help. However is the guy refuses to be part of the program and he can afford it then the obligation of the state is over.

    I will continue this else where with you but you confuse the responsiblity of the GOVT with the obligations of Christians. My responsibilities to God and service to Him are not found in what I think Govt should be doing. I don’t support higher taxes to feed the poor when I do that with my giving and through my church, and far more effectively I’d bet. It also comes “in Jesus’ name” not with Condom education!!!!!!!!!!!!! (so to speak)

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    You are wrong about academic studies. There are studies to explore just about anything including the degree of racial bias in organizations like the Tea Party. I’ve given you a reference to the study and quotes on what the authors of the study say that their study proves. Just because you don’t like the results, doesn’t mean that you can claim that they are invalid.

    You are also wrong about Ron Paul. Here’s a link to the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw

    When he was asked directly if the guy should be left to die; he clearly says NO.

    Then he pivots on the question and he says that government should not be responsible to pay for his care. It should be charitable organizations. He does not however say at any time after he says no the person should not be allowed to die, that if all of those methods fail, he should be left to die. In fact he says again that in his personal experience the Hospital he worked at didn’t turn away anyone. That same question applies your explanation too. I believe it is our responsibility BOTH individually AND as a society to provide care for those who for WHATEVER reasons can’t provide care for themselves. I certainly think that those who use services should pay for them, but I think we have a responsibility, at least in life threatening conditions, to provide the service first and sort out payment later.

    If you think that Jesus gave you the right to ignore Jesus’ commands to care for the poor by supporting government policies which punish the poor, then feel free to explain that to Him when you see him. His words seem pretty clear to me and don’t provide ANY exceptions. So every time you come up with a “yes, but” I hope that you remember this conversation.

    For example, I would support government programs to feed the poor, but the also come with condom education which I object to.

    I would support government programs to feed the poor, but some of the money ends up going to people who really don’t need it.

    I would support government programs to feed the poor, but I think that everyone should take responsibility to feed themselves.

    I oppose government programs to feed the poor because I think that only churches and individuals should do that.

    I suspect Jesus response is going to be, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”

  14. keith says:

    I will explain each of my position on this items you list and they are not “Yes but’s.”

    I started with the top and quite frankly do not understand your response….

  15. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    let me get a little more specific on the whole “consent” issue of patient care. Patients have to provide consent for the care they are going to be given.

    As long as a patient is an adult and is sufficiently aware that they are able to make decisions for themselves, they can choose to refuse care. If a person refuses care because they don’t want to pay for it, that is their choice. That said, they better have some good medical directives and power of attorney documents in place because as soon as they lose consciousness their next of kin may authorize care for them.

    So Ron Paul did have an opportunity to respond to Wolf Blitzer differently than he did. He could have told Wolf that if the person declined to purchase insurance and found themselves in a position where they needed care, they were responsible to pay for it. If they refused that care because they didn’t want to pay for it, that was their right – just as it is the right for any rational adult to refuse care for whatever reason.

    If Wolf then came back and said they were comatose, then it is the responsibility of the Hospital to provide care first and sort out payment later.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    If there were no racists in this country, African Americans claiming that there were could be getting into racism. Unfortunately there are people in this country who oppose our current president simply because of the color of his skin. These people are racists.

    African American people hating racists is not racism.

    African Americans who hate ALL white people just because of the color of their skin ARE racist.

    African American politicians who continue to support an African American President even though he has disappointed them is not racist.

    African American politicians who temper their public criticism of an African American President because they don’t want to give any support to racists who oppose him is not racist. It is just political reality.

  17. keith says:

    So, logically, white voters and politicians who temper their public criticism of a white President or agenda because they don’t want to give any support to blacks or hispanics who oppose him are not racist. It is just political reality?

  18. keith says:

    To health care….being of sound mind and body an individual elects NOT to particiapate in health care buy buying insurence. He is fully aware that regardless of the circumstance he will not recieve it. It is explained since he is not sharing in the burden of the program will all others it will be denined to him. On the day he needs it IT SHOULD BE DENIED TO HIM. THIS WAS HIS CHOICE!!!! “THe public has met its obligation to that person because HE CHOOSE to not participate.” I believed thats was was being cheered the other night….(I was reading also) WHats so difficult about this? I as a private citizen may do something about this but the individual has choosen not to be covered.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    keith,

    If white voters are afraid of providing support to black racist groups, then the answer is yes. While I’m sure there are black racists, I don’t know of any black racist groups that have any political power. So don’t think that it is a political reality.

    As far as healthcare, you are missing the point.

    There is a difference between coverage and care.

    When someone presents at the emergency room and is comatose, they are unable to express their choice. The emergency room can’t use the absence of insurance as an expression of rejecting care. They may actually have coverage and the admitting nurse just can’t find it. Or, they may be willing to pay their expenses out of their own pocket.

    If there is universal coverage, there is a reasonable assumption that the person has some form of overage.

    The ONLY circumstance, in my mind, where care can and should be withheld is when the person has expressly requested that they don’t wish to receive medical care. In that case, they probably won’t be taken to the emergency room in the first place because even if they were comatose they would have something on their person expressing their desires.

    So as I said before, if someone chooses to opt out of either the government or employer provided insurance; they are NOT opting out of care. They are simply saying that they are willing to pay their hospital bills themselves.

  20. keith says:

    YS)The ONLY circumstance, in my mind, where care can and should be withheld is when the person has expressly requested that they don’t wish to receive medical care. In that case, they probably won’t be taken to the emergency room in the first place because even if they were comatose they would have something on their person expressing their desires.

    MR) in my example they have choosen not to receive care. They opted out with FULL KNOWLEDGE care would be denied them. If theats their choice then the GOV’T has not obligation to them. However, I as a Christian may choose to do something. This is two entirely different matters.

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    So in your scenario, how do you handle the person who does want healthcare, but would rather pay for it out of their own pocket rather than purchase insurance?

  22. keith says:

    Jeff,
    Contrare…..Its not my scenario. Its the person who willfully and wantingly refused to participate………

    #1 he may be wealthy and there is no issue at all. Rush Limbaugh does this. If I were not employed I would want a policey that covered only extreme care, “High deductable.” Something like $15k per year. I’ll cover the rest which until later in life will be ok. Then later in life I’ll do something else. Its also cheaper this way. Fact go tell the doc your paying for it and its one price, tell them insurence is and its another.

    #2 he can’t afford something to go wrong. he’s at the mercy of what happens next of his own valition. In this event I’m sure capitolistic Americans would creatare some sort of “loan sharking.”

    If I were president this would all be taken care of. I would provide for the “poorest Americans.” This would cost a few billion it would not be massive and it would not be wide spread. Truely only those who can not afford it. This does not include anyone who has a plasma tv, a nice car, a nice home, three cell phones in the household, etc. Healthcare, if it is so important, should be provided for first, not after these “necessities.”

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Hey look at that.

    We are on the same page with regard to healthcare for those who can’t afford it.

    Beyond that, the issue is how do we allow people who CAN afford it to opt out of the system and how do we determine when someone is unable to express their opinion what sort of care to provide them. I believe that people should have the opportunity to refuse medical care if they choose regardless of their reason. As you’ve said, they simply need to take all of the legal steps to make sure that everyone is aware of that decision.

    I also think that people should have the option to choose to be self-insured. The method that you’ve described REQUIRES people to buy some sort of insurance, even if it is a high deductible. I’m fine with that too, but this is where the Tea Party has problems because they don’t want people to be required to buy anything. Seems like there should be a common ground somewhere in here where the insurance industry could come up with something that would be a low enough deduction and could require some proof of net worth to be able to cover the difference. Then the onus is on the insurance companies to make sure that from year to year there are sufficient resources there to cover the risk that the insurance company is taking.

    We’ll see how all that works out.

  24. keith says:

    i don’t want the mandate either. so we’re on the same page up to that point. I still want the right to not be covered at all.

    Again, this isn’t that difficult. its the extremes and washington that make it difficult.

Leave a Reply