As someone who grew up afar but with a parent who adored all things 
(well most) American, I have to say you present to us foreigners a 
fascinating bag of contradictions. This is the land that taught the 
world about separation of church and state (whatever amendment that is!) 
and freedom of speech, that welcomes all to its shores including my own 
relatives, etc. And yet I sometimes feel today, any suggestion that a 
politician who veers from 'Judeo-Christian' (what is that?) values, 
speaks anything that could hint at being 'liberal' (where I come from 
liberal is either a liberal as in Canada or a conservative as in 
Australia party; take your pick); is not prepared to hammer illegal 
aliens (what was a 'legal' alien in the nineteenth century when my 
great-grandpa arrived in the US?),  etc etc, will be swept out of office.

This is also the country that may legalize marijuana use in California 
and single-handedly destroy the economies of small town/rural BC. But 
will not even consider raising enough taxes in that same state to run 
its basic services? It is, as I said, a fascinating bag of contradictions.

My main message other than to thank Robert and Ginny for their 
thoughtful emails, is to say, make sure you all vote next week and 
really for the person you want. We had our municipal election Monday and 
'my' guy literally got in by one vote (pending recount). I had been so 
confident of his winnability, I was almost tempted to vote for a very 
nice young kid, just so he got some support. Phew. Common sense prevailed.

Sally

On 10/27/2010 8:57 AM, Virginia Maurer wrote:
> I'd like to affirm Robert Thomas's substantive point: That conservative
> evangelical Christian churches deeply influence their adherents' political
> views and that they do so quite intentionally. I know this from experience
> both personal and vicarious. I have been both a very conservative Southern
> Baptist and a liberal Episcopalian (the latter more devoutly I admit) and I
> think it is impossible to take religion seriously without addressing issues
> of polity and politics.
>
> But why shouldn't religion do this? What is the value of religion if it does
> not touch one's relationship to fellow man and to the polity of society? How
> direct the teaching is is a matter of degree. The Baptists were "in your
> face", the Episcopalians more gracious, appealing to the intellect, but
> equally fervent.
>
> Does some religion address the polity by denying empirical reality? Religion
> is about not limiting the human experience to pure reason and empirical
> reality, but seeing beyond both to greater truths, both spiritual and
> experiential. The temptation, however, to deny empirical reality (as opposed
> to seeing beyond it) is great when empirical reality appears to contradict
> spiritual realities as they are understood in the religion. Think Galileo.
> Think the broad attacks by contemporary evangelicals on the sciences of
> biology and ecology. This is where religion does a great disservice to the
> intellect and dignity of its adherents.
>
> So what? The only answer to this is more thought, which requires more
> speech. Religion must be a proper object of criticism if it is to be taken
> seriously. It cannot be, for wont of better metaphors, a sacred cow. While a
> civil society will tolerate all forms of religion and religious expression,
> it should "establish" none by removing any from the lens of public political
> discourse.
>
> We, of course, are neither magistrates nor Congress, and not in a position
> to officially tolerate or establish any religion in the constitutional
> sense. So our question is: Should criticism of the role of religion in
> shaping law and polity be beyond the appropriate scope of discourse for a
> listserv of law professors? I do not think so and I doubt John Locke would
> either.
>
> Should we be respectful of others' sensibilities? Of course! But that does
> not require denying empirical reality. Respecting others' sensibilities is,
> rather, a rhetorical art in which lawyers usually excel. And generally we
> do. But I suggest we should err on the side of tolerating others' excesses
> rather than demanding conformity to our own sensibilities. The answer to
> criticism of religion is to engage the substance of the criticism. And it
> doesn't hurt to tamp down the emotional heat now and again.
>
> In short, to paraphrase the famous western philosopher Jim Highsmith:
> Lighten up!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas,Robert E
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Am I Beating a Dead Horse? (Was Congressional Budget Office on
> Health Care Costs thank you and comment on different student populations)
>
> I apologize for my previous email in that I admit neglect of a very
> serious discussion.  My normal practice is to lurk without joining in. I
> do this for a number of reasons one of which is that I believe there is an
> obligation to explain or elaborate on thoughts that may not be fully
> formed. In this case I got distracted and didn't come back!   It was only
> after my colleague, Ginny, informed me that my comments were not well
> taken that I thought I'd see what damage or harm I had wrought.
>
> Anyway I do apologize for not following the full thread.  If I went off on
> an unrelated tangent, I again apologize.
>
> Do let me attempt an explanation.
>
> First, I mentioned the regions that I did because that is what I know. I
> have lived most of my life in the South and the Midwest.  I have lived in
> the South for over 17 years (and, yes, Gainesville Florida is the South -
> think Dove World Outreach), and the Midwest (Illinois and Michigan) for
> most of the rest of my life.  I did live on the West Coast for 9 years and
> went to school in New Jersey for three.  I found the East Coast a bit too
> intense for my liking (although I thoroughly enjoy visiting there) and
> never resided there again.
>
> I (somewhat sporadically) and my wife (consistently) attend
> non-denominational evangelical churches, which are primarily populated by
> avowedly conservative members. Consistently, these individuals are
> "shocked" and "surprised" and frequently do not accept that a true
> Christian can be either liberal or Democratic. Our pastor, a man I respect
> and admire for his intellect, his mastery of the bible, and his resistance
> to the incessant pressure by many members of the congregation to
> politicize his ministry, dismissed my wife as a "socialist" because she
> supported health care reform (this encounter occurred summer 2008). I
> tried to help him understand that proposed health-care reform was hardly
> socialistic.  He was open to persuasion, unfortunately, few other members
> of the congregation are.
>
> My wife and I as members of this congregation often get email messages
> trumpeting the latest outrage of the godless left (e.g., removing
> references to god from our currency, Christians getting arrested in
> Dearborn, MI solely for trying to share the gospel [not true, the
> evangelists were being confrontational and trying to get arrested]). These
> claims are almost always wildly absurd and easily refuted with rarely more
> than a few minutes of research on the Internet.  I recently answered an
> (innocent?) inquiry whether I agreed that black Christians voted for Obama
> simply because he is black and whether they would continue to support him
> once they fully understood the ramifications of his muslim beliefs!
>
> I know that I am talking about small samples and anecdotes. However, there
> are political leaders on the right who have long bragged about their
> ability to mobilize hundreds of churches and their members on a moments
> notice. I have received instructions directing me how to vote according to
> "god's will." I won't say that these instructions never include Democratic
> candidates, I just don't recall ever seeing a Democrat included. Are these
> grass-roots organizations?  I have my doubts.  When I see oil and gas
> interests like Koch Industries providing millions of dollars in support of
> "grass roots" movements that advocate positions that provide more benefit
> for corporate backers than for the people in the trenches, I can't help
> but be skeptical.
>
>
>
> So, given this long-winded description of my background, I'll try to
> explain my letter.  I deny criticizing all Christians and their beliefs as
> unenlightened. If you read my message as saying such, I apologize for the
> confusion. I definitely did not intend to overgeneralize.
>
> Some of my concerns include:
>
> Climate change deniers (the scientific evidence is unequivocal)
>
> Those who scoff at education in general and science in particular (we
> attended a church in Gainesville whose pastor scoffed at education and
> then decided to create a  high school and college!)
>
> Those who oppose "Obama care" because it is socialized medicine but will
> fight to the death for their social security and medicare benefits,
>
> Middle and working class individuals who find fault with the government
> for failing to create jobs and for running up the deficit but who also
> protest just as ardently in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the
> wealthy and abolishing the estate ("death") tax.
>
> Okay, the last point may take some explanation, but the economist in me
> finds these positions unequivocally inconsistent with enhancing the
> welfare of the non-wealthy (I'll explain why I hold this positions if
> asked, but this note is already too long).
>
> Whether the beliefs I have observed are fostered by church-political
> alliances are beyond my willingness to try to prove.  What I do know is
> that members (many, but definitely not all) of my church -- and most of
> the churches Michele and I have attended in the last 21 years -- will not
> consider any contrary evidence to certain views they shared with
> conservative political operatives.  While there is much that Democrats and
> liberals advocate that is questionable and problematic (including many
> elements of health-care reform), I despair when so many people who I like
> and consider to be friends take positions that make no sense. Are they
> unable to understand?  I don't know. I do know that they are unwilling to
> try.
>
> In conclusion, I have no problem with honest debate. And there is much
> that liberals and conservatives have honest disagreements about. However,
> I fear that there is a lot of debate over topics for which there are no
> legitimate opposing positions. It doesn't matter how passionate someone is
> about it, I will not entertain allegations that President Obama is a
> muslim, was born outside the United States, hates white culture, is a
> socialist, is a fascist... Or that climate change is a fictitious
> conspiracy.
>
> I really don't think that this makes me a coastal elitist, but I am open
> to persuasion.  Furthermore, if there is dogma that people on the left
> hold that you believe is unequivocally false, I am definitely open to
> hearing it. If I stand on ground that is shaky or without foundation, I
> will happily move when informed thereof.
>
> Robert
>
> On 10/25/10 3:08 PM, "Daren Bakst"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> Carolyn,
>>
>> I was talking about the general discussion falling apart, but I did find
>> Robert's email a bit surprising--and this comes as someone who can't be
>> described as one of the people within the populations he discusses.
>>
>> The email he wrote has nothing to do with IRS rules and the political
>> activity of churches (which is an interesting topic).  Instead it draws a
>> conclusion about the impact religion and grassroots groups have on
>> specific
>> populations.  Further, it then implicitly criticizes those beliefs because
>> these people are unable to understand the "right" policy solutions (as
>> defined by those not within the populations).
>>
>> If we want to discuss how religion and for that matter other strong belief
>> systems have an effect on students and their ability to analyze issues
>> objectively without regard to the "correct" answer, then that is a
>> discussion worth having.  That is not what was discussed below.
>>
>> If I read Robert's email incorrectly (I did qualify my original email),
>> then
>> I welcome clarifications.
>>
>> There's a lot of interesting issues in the health care debate and most of
>> the emails have been substantive--that's the way it should be on such a
>> list.
>>
>> Daren Bakst
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/10 11:28 AM, "Hotchkiss, Carolyn"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Darren,
>>>
>>> I think you're being just a bit too sensitive here.  Robert has a valid
>>> point about the political involvement of some churches, both in terms of
>>> discussing matters of public policy (I believe permitted under IRS
>>> rules), and in terms of endorsing candidates (the subject of an
>>> organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund to overturn IRS rules
>>> forbidding such endorsements-see
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR200809
>>> 0702460.html). As a teacher, it's always interesting to deal with a
>>> student or a room full of students who hold very tightly to a set of
>>> beliefs because those are the beliefs that they were raised with.
>>> Personally, I am very respectful of the personal beliefs of my students.
>>> That does not, however, mean that I reward ignorance.  I see the job of
>>> any college teacher as including the task of getting students to examine
>>> their beliefs-hold them up for factual analysis, considering as many
>>> angles as possible.  It's part of the "examined life" that's at the core
>>> of all education.  This doesn't mean a student has to discard deeply
>>> held religious beliefs; on the contrary, faith that rests on reason with
>>> examined principles probably will serve a person much better than mere
>>> blind faith.  It also doesn't require students to abandon political
>>> beliefs, but it does require students to think through the meaning and
>>> application of those beliefs.  As a college teacher, I have to commit to
>>> the lifelong examining of life that Socrates spoke of, keeping my mind
>>> open to new ideas and holding those ideas up to the light of fact and
>>> reason.  I try to look my own ignorance in the eye on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> What the debate over health care reform comes down to, ultimately, is
>>> what kind of society we wish to live in. Is it one where each of us
>>> exists on an island with no obligation to anyone else, where the firemen
>>> let the house burn down because Olbian County TN decided that fire
>>> protection should be fee-based, rather than tax based? Are we OK with
>>> ranking 33rd in death rates for children under 5, and 38th in life
>>> expectancy from birth?  Or is our society one where each of us
>>> contributes for the good of all of us, where we're willing to commit to
>>> a range of steps to change those numbers for the better. When the
>>> ambulance arrives at the scene of a gory accident, do the paramedics
>>> walk away because the victim has no health insurance?  Personally, I
>>> think there's some sweet spot between my scenarios of individual
>>> responsibility on the one side, and the total nanny state on the other.
>>> But where that is should be our point of argument, and the argument
>>> should be based on examined facts and beliefs, rather than tweets from
>>> politicians and sound bites from political and religious demagogues
>>> (Yes, Glenn Beck, I'm looking at you).
>>>
>>> Pam has her work cut out for her, but so do the rest of us.  She claims
>>> to be learning from us, but I think it may be the other way around.
>>>
>>> Carolyn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carolyn Hotchkiss
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Babson College
>>> 781-239-5528
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daren Bakst
>>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:21 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Congressional Budget Office on Health Care Costs thank you
>>> and comment on different student populations
>>>
>>> This whole conversation has certainly devolved into unnecessary
>>> attacks.  If I read the email below correctly,  the suggestion is that
>>> many individuals in the sticks (not the enlightened coasts) are too
>>> ignorant to make informed decisions because they are fooled by a
>>> coalition of religious and grassroots leaders.  If only they were able
>>> to be free of these pressures, they would support the "unequivocal"
>>> policy positions that would benefit them.
>>>
>>> Apparently, those on the coast and the non-church going crowd are the
>>> ones that know what is best for everyone.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this list benefits from thoughtful discussions on policy
>>> issues, such as health care reform, regardless of ideology.  Staying on
>>> point without disparaging others and their views often seems elusive as
>>> evidenced by this current thread.  I hope that we can get back on track.
>>>
>>> Daren Bakst
>>> Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies
>>> John Locke Foundation
>>> http://www.johnlocke.org
>>>
>>> Adjunct Professor
>>> Barton College
>>> http://www.barton.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas,Robert E wrote:
>>>> Wonderfully stated Pam.
>>>>
>>>> It is often difficult from those of us from different regions of the
>>>> country to understand the mindset of distinct segments of the
>>> population
>>>> in the Heartland (and the South) that rely fully and wholeheartedly on
>>>> what they learn, are taught or told in church.  When these churches
>>>> partner with political activists, it becomes even more difficult for
>>>> members of these populations to listen or accept policy proscriptions
>>> that
>>>> are often unequivocally in their best interests.
>>>>
>>>> Pam, thanks for providing the insight.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> On 10/25/10 8:10 AM, "Gershuny, Pam"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Bill for posting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am just back home from Bloomington, IN's fantastic Tri-State
>>>>> Conference.  Many thanks to Eve Brown, the new president, for doing
>>> an
>>>>> excellent job and congratulations to Nancy White who won the Master
>>>>> Teacher Competition and to Adam Epstein and Bridget Niland who won
>>> the
>>>>> Outstanding Paper Competition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of my students have framed pictures of George Bush hanging on
>>> the
>>>>> wall of their dining rooms.  They bring bibles with them into the
>>>>> classroom, tell me they don't trust science in the least, and believe
>>> in
>>>>> creationism.  Many are very, very poor and the first generation in
>>> their
>>>>> family to go to college.  Coming from a very poor family myself, (my
>>>>> family thought I was crazy to go to school so much), and knowing
>>>>> first-hand the feeling of not having food in the house, I understand
>>> and
>>>>> care about their success.  Luckily, I had a fantastic, unbelievable,
>>>>> great public school system.  My students are not so fortunate.  They
>>> do
>>>>> have church families which can provide food and support in economic
>>>>> downturns.  I can see that asking a student here to accept my views
>>> on
>>>>> gay marriage or evolution is the equivalent of asking a young person
>>>>> without financial means of their own to turn their back on a
>>> community
>>>>> that provides food and shelter.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a writer and teacher I  do not support a system that tosses my
>>>>> children and I into intractable poverty if one of us becomes ill.
>>>>> Individuals who are financially successful can comfortably argue for
>>> the
>>>>> status quo and less government involvement.  They are not in
>>> jeopardy.
>>>>> Why not argue for less regulation or government involvement in health
>>>>> care?  Social safety nets are not necessary in your case, they are an
>>>>> expense you must bear.  If we were a more prosperous nation, with
>>> greater
>>>>> taxes on the wealthiest 10% of our citizens, perhaps we would not
>>> argue
>>>>> about health care, a.k.a., relief from pain when we are suffering.
>>>>> Austan Goolsbee, youtube link,
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma5np8PcaY8
>>>>> I am certainly on this listserve to hear from everyone.  I am
>>> isolated
>>>>> geographically and politically in a very small community. My job
>>>>> description included gender law.  The broader the topical discusions
>>> the
>>>>> better, from my perspective.  I am the first business law professor
>>> at my
>>>>> school with a research requirement.  I am not surrounded by
>>> colleagues or
>>>>> co-authors with research experience.  Nor did I learn anything about
>>>>> academic careers in my family.  I am here to learn from all of you.
>>> I
>>>>> always come to applaud your successes on Saturday night at the annual
>>>>> conference and hope you continue to share those on this listserve
>>> because
>>>>> I am learning from you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best to you all,
>>>>> Pam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of
>>> Bill
>>>>> Shaw
>>>>> Sent: Mon 10/25/2010 4:52 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Congressional Budget Office on Health Care Costs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You might be interested in Googling "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boehner: GOP Health Care Alternative "Aims at Driving Down Costs,"
>>> for a
>>>>> look at the Republican alternative.  Both of these positions were
>>>>> published at the time of the congressional debate.  *  It would be
>>>>> interesting to know if both positions covered the same number of
>>> people.
>>>>>
>>> ========================================================================
>>> ==
>>>>> ===
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CBO Score On Health Care Bill Released
>>>>>
>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/cbo-score-on-health-care_n_502
>>> 54
>>>>> 3.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government
>>> $940
>>>>> billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut
>>> other
>>>>> costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in
>>> the
>>>>> federal deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the
>>>>> Congressional Budget Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It
>>> will
>>>>> cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.
>>>>>
>>>>> The source said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least nine
>>>>> years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while
>>> closing
>>>>> the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no longer be a gap
>>> in
>>>>> coverage of medication. The CBO also estimated it would extend
>>> coverage
>>>>> to 32 million additional people.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CBO score is the last piece House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
>>> was
>>>>> waiting on before putting the puzzle together on the House floor. A
>>>>> contingent of Blue Dogs has been holding out support, insisting that
>>> the
>>>>> bill be fully paid for and not increase the deficit. The numbers give
>>> a
>>>>> major boost to Pelosi and her leadership team, which can now begin
>>> the
>>>>> whip count in earnest and can specifically point to the cost savings.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the CBO score released, the Democratic whip team has a specific,
>>>>> thoroughly-analyzed bill to show to undeclared members who can no
>>> longer
>>>>> claim they are "waiting to see the language." Pelosi has very little
>>> room
>>>>> for error and needs to move nearly every undecided voter to a solid
>>> "yes."
>>>>> Since the House last passed legislation in November, three Democrats
>>> who
>>>>> opposed it -- John Tanner and Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Brian
>>> Baird of
>>>>> Washington -- have announced their retirements, relieving them of
>>> some
>>>>> political pressure to oppose the bill. Pelosi may end up drawing on
>>> those
>>>>> exiting members for a cushion of support.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reconciliation package that the CBO analyzed makes slight changes
>>> to
>>>>> the underlying bill. Subsidies for the uninsured to purchase
>>> insurance
>>>>> are increased and more funding is dedicated to community health
>>> centers.
>>>>> The excise tax on insurance premiums is scaled back so that it hits
>>> few
>>>>> families. The bill also demands a higher commitment from drugmakers,
>>>>> aiming to close the so-called "doughnut hole" -- the time that
>>> seniors
>>>>> must pay full price for medication. The pharmaceutical lobby has
>>> signed
>>>>> off on the increased commitment and will be running ads in Democratic
>>>>> districts in support of reform.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reconciliation package, because of budget rules that limit its
>>> policy
>>>>> scope, does not deal with two contentious social issues: abortion or
>>>>> immigration. Anti-choice Democrats are threatening to kill the entire
>>>>> project over the abortion language in the Senate bill and
>>> Congressional
>>>>> Hispanic Caucus members are rebelling because of its draconian
>>>>> immigration provisions. The Senate language bars federal funds from
>>>>> paying for abortion, but doesn't go far enough, according to some
>>>>> Democrats. Undocumented workers would be barred from purchasing
>>> insurance
>>>>> -- even with their own money -- from private companies which operate
>>>>> within exchanges set up by reform.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reconciliation package is headed for a Rules Committee vote on
>>>>> Thursday with a vote in the full House to follow. But before the
>>> House
>>>>> votes, it will require the commitment of 50-plus members of the
>>> Senate to
>>>>> agree to pass the identical bill. A Democratic Senator told HuffPost
>>>>> Tuesday night that Senate leadership had yet to begin whipping
>>> support
>>>>> for the bill because the language hadn't been finalized. Now it's
>>> been
>>>>> finalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reform effort was jolted forward Wednesday morning, when Rep.
>>> Dennis
>>>>> Kucinich (D-Ohio), who was a firm no as of last week, announced that
>>> he
>>>>> would back the bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This is a defining moment for whether or not we'll have any
>>> opportunity
>>>>> to move off square one on the issue of health care. And so even
>>> though I
>>>>> don't like the bill, I've made a decision to support it in the hopes
>>> that
>>>>> we can move towards a more comprehensive approach once this
>>> legislation
>>>>> is done," he said. "If I can vote for this bill, there's not many
>>> people
>>>>> who shouldn't be able to support it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Anti-choice Democrats have begun to back away from their certain
>>>>> opposition over the last several days. Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.)
>>> has
>>>>> pledged to back the bill and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who opposes
>>>>> abortion rights, said on Tuesday evening that she is still
>>> considering
>>>>> voting for it. "That is one of the factors," she said of the Senate's
>>>>> abortion restrictions. "It is not the only factor."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not clear, though, what Kaptur's concern is. At one point
>>> Tuesday,
>>>>> she said that she didn't like the Senate language
>>>>>
>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR20091
>>> 22
>>>>> 103224.html>  because it went too far beyond existing restrictions on
>>>>> federal funding of abortion. "The abortion issue is an issue for me
>>> in
>>>>> that I don't want to go beyond existing law," she said. "I view what
>>> was
>>>>> done in the Senate as going beyond existing law."
>>>>>
>>>>> But at other times, she said that the Senate bill did not adequately
>>>>> ensure that federal money would not be spent on abortion and also
>>> cited
>>>>> federally-funded community health centers as a potential way
>>>>>
>>> <http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortio
>>> n-
>>>>> typo>  such money could pay for abortions. HuffPost pointed out to her
>>>>> that such centers do not perform abortions. "Read the language," she
>>>>> insisted.
>>>>>
>>>>> HuffPost asked Kaptur what the difference is between a federal
>>> subsidy of
>>>>> a private COBRA health care plan that covers abortion and a federal
>>>>> subsidy of a private plan under the proposed health care reform. In
>>> both
>>>>> cases, a consumer uses a mix of personal and federal money to
>>> purchase a
>>>>> private plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those are private choices [made by COBRA consumers] and the private
>>>>> plans that are out there, for instance federal health plans that we
>>> have:
>>>>> We've handled that separately. They can purchase it separately. They
>>> can
>>>>> purchase it separately. Keep the line as firm in the sand as you can
>>> and
>>>>> that makes me more comfortable," she said.
>>>>>
>>>>> HuffPost noted that Kaptur had essentially just described the
>>> provisions
>>>>> of the Senate bill, which requires consumers to write separate,
>>> personal
>>>>> checks for abortion coverage. "I don't think what I've read in the
>>> Senate
>>>>> language is that," she said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kaptur, a social liberal, has a number of other concerns she said,
>>>>> including the absence of a public option. "When you take out the
>>> public
>>>>> option, when you take out the ability to negotiate prescription
>>> drugs,
>>>>> when you take out McCarran-Ferguson,
>>>>>
>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/reid-punts-on-insurance-i_n_33
>>> 94
>>>>> 10.html>  when you take out the provision that I authored in the House
>>> in
>>>>> Title I to create regional, not-for-profit purchasing pools, where
>>> you
>>>>> can have hundreds of thousands of people aggregate and negotiate
>>> together
>>>>> on behalf of whatever their insurance plans are, you take the guts of
>>>>> that out."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 09:55 PM 10/24/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Republicans only care about people right before they're born
>>> and
>>>>> right before they die.  In between-----you're on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>>         EVERY major piece of legislation that has helped non-wealthy
>>>>> people in the past 100 years have come from Democrats, whether it be
>>>>> social security, minimum wage, worker's compensation, unemployment
>>>>> compensation, fair housing, voting rights, civil rights, family
>>> leave,
>>>>> the NLRA that allows workers to unionize, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>         For the life of me I will never understand why there are so
>>> many
>>>>> idiotic chickens who will go and vote for Colonel Sanders.
>>>>>         ________________________________________
>>>>>         From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>>>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw
>>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>         Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 8:19 PM
>>>>>         To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>         Subject: Distortions and lies about health care reform
>>>>>
>>>>>         Health Care and the Campaign<
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?th&emc=th
>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?th&emc=th>   >
>>>>>         Republicans and special interests are spreading so many
>>>>> distortions and lies about health care reform that it is little
>>> wonder if
>>>>> voters are anxious and confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>         This is the kind of thing that may result in a Republican
>>>>> Congress . . . how soon they forget.
>>>>>
>>>>