Obama rolls back Bush “conscience rule”
posted at 8:55 am on March 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama began the process of rolling back one of the more notable rules imposed in the final weeks of the Bush administration, the “conscience rule” regarding abortion counseling and contraception access. The rule generated a lot of heat from pro-choice groups, including Planned Parenthood, and its repeal has provoked cries of outrage from their opponents. The rule, though, was never as onerous as described, nor will its repeal mean forcing doctors to perform abortions:
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.
The new administration’s action seems certain to stoke ideological battles between supporters and opponents of abortion rights over the responsibilities of doctors, nurses and other medical workers to their patients.
Some have taken this to mean that the government will force doctors to provide abortions. The rule didn’t actually protect doctors from government-imposed abortions. They already had that protection of conscience in federal law, as the Los Angeles Times reports, and the rule didn’t change that. Instead, it extended the protection of conscience to a much wider range of activities, such as dispensing contraceptive pills and devices and discussion of contraception and abortion as therapeutic options. Because the Bush administration could not have passed such a wide-ranging protection into law through a Democratic Congress, it had to use the rules process, which is easily reversed in succeeding administrations.
In fact, one has to wonder how committed the Bush administration was to this rule in the first place. It didn’t bother to propose the conscience rule as law when Republicans controlled Congress, nor did it create the rule until the final weeks of their tenure in the White House. Obama’s rollback just puts the medical industry back to the same status it held in September of last year. It looks more like a poison pill for the Obama administration, giving them a political hotfoot and the pro-life movement an easy rallying point early in Obama’s first term.
Still, this rollback says something about the Obama administration’s priorities. While the freedom of religion is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, the Roe right to an abortion is implied through emanations and penumbras — but the Obama administration appears more concerned with the latter than the former. Patients who don’t like doctors who won’t discuss abortion or prescribe contraception can see another doctor; they can also find another pharmacist if the neighborhood pharmacy won’t fill a prescription for the Pill. The free market works out those issues on its own without government sticking its nose into it and forcing providers to violate their religious tenets to stay in business.
Isn’t the government busy with more pressing matters at the moment?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It’s not too late – the American people must remove Bambi from office on the citizenship issue – force him to disclose his former Indonesian citizenship —
searcher484 on March 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Freedom for thee and not for me.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM
AP and Ed, is there any way to deal with this spammer? He did this four times on one thread, and we all have to scroll past his crap to get to the meat of the conversation.
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Sociopaths don’t need no stinkin’conscience it gets in the way.
thomasaur on March 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM
What was that again about abortion and when life starts being “above his paygrade”?
It was no secret where he stood on abortion but that didn’t stop his followers from making excuses for him regarding that comment. They knew where he stood and eagerly looked forward to his pro-abortion (yes, I say pro-abortion, not pro-choice when it comes to The One) record being made into a national policy.
Yakko77 on March 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Liberty!
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
And unfortunately for women, many gyns specialize in prescribing contraceptives to treat everything under the sun.
CDeb on March 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Note to Christians – or any person who is pro-life and wants to go to medical or pharmacy school:
Don’t bother. Your career is over before it starts. Obama says so.
newton on March 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Cheaper one? Remember trial lawyers?
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Hey Obama Catholics, how’s that radical abortion thing working out for ya?
marklmail on March 2, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Just fine, thank you. We are only drive-by cafeteria catholics anyways.
/sarc
OmahaConservative on March 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
*
While driving-by the pearly gates, I think they’re gonna give you directions to go South. Way South.
marklmail on March 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I don’t think that this reversal should be evaluated on its immediate effect, but on its marginal effect. As usual, this marks the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope.
My doctor is an internist, working less than full time as she approaches retirement age. She has discussed her concerns with government interference in her practice during my office visits. I have no doubt that the tipping point is being reached at which she, and others like her, will leave practice. This at a time when we need more supply of doctors, not less, as the baby boomers age and develop chronic and progressive disease.
DrStock on March 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM
This illustrates my idea that knowing how to actively respond is becoming easier, not harder.
In this situation, the best thing to do is to become that doctor, and then simply refuse!
So many people are frustrated at home not knowing if there’s something to do that can stop all this madness. The way becomes clearer each day.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
However we abort the unwanted Obama presidency, it makes no difference to me.
Just get his ass out of there before he finishes his partial birth abortion on our economy.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I must admit that I enjoy seeing those posts everywhere, honestly. He does us a service imo.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Beyond the, er, immorality of that position, if you let the lawyers/judge know that you oppose the death penalty during Voir Dire you won’t be selected to serve on a death penalty trial.
Given that reality, to choose to lie and purposely subvert the system and law would be unconscionable. It is up to the victim’s family to express their disapproval of the death penalty, if that is their belief. It is not up to you to interfere with justice.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM
The doctor’s individual rights are constrained by the medical board. He can lose his license for a variety of reasons while still retaining his civil rights.
If a doctor believes blood transfusions are immoral, at what point is he obligated to tell a patient that some other doctors perform them?
Markets don’t work well when professionals withhold information from customers. What if you later find out that for personal reasons your accountant withheld deductions or your lawyer left out contractual protections.
No, I don’t agree with your office mate.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM
With the push toward socialized medicine, I beieve that many folks will chose another profession.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I have accumulated some gold and silver coins to use to bribe doctors to give my wife and kids the care they need, should it come to that.
There will be a black market in everything. Have something to offer.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Surgeons like to cut–it is fast and expensive. Sometimes the result is worse than therapeutic treatments.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
With my insurance, I’m incredibly limited in my choice of doctors. I’m not sure if MTFs and their medical staff are exempt from this or not, I haven’t been able to find any information. I rely on the Pill to regulate my system (to prevent more serious medical issues), and if I was assigned a doctor that was morally opposed to BC, I’d not be able to see another doctor. I should not have to risk being hospitalized every few months for severe anemia (or other wonderful complications) just because my doctor thinks the Pill is bad.
I understand the argument against abortion counseling, and I’m not opposed to doctors being able to refuse to do that – but when it comes to hormonal birth control, until it is no longer used to treat other conditions (besides preventing pregnancy), doctors & pharmacists shouldn’t be allowed to deny their use.
Anna on March 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Yes, and they should. I understand that. But for those who choose medicine because it’s who they are, and not only for what it pays, I wouldn’t dissuade them because of any pronouncement coming from the US presidium.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM
How do you feel about Planned Parenthood not adequately informing patients (many of whom who are far too young to understand the implications of major surgery and who conveniently enough, have no parent present who could look after their safety/interests), of the risks, side effects and possible complications of abortion?
B. Hussein Obama-Mugabe ain’t really concerned about that, is he?
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I think the governors that drafted the cease and desist letter to Obama are on the right path. He’s a wrecking ball out to destroy America by making it in his own image, and his radical infanticide-based thought processes are case in point. All states need to sign on to protect their own soverengty from this dictator. My state [Michigan] is being run into the ground by one of his socialist cronies (Granholm), already, who would love to make infanticide law.
Virus-X on March 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
So, are you for abortion?
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
For sure. Finding quality medical advice is a minefield.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Fear not. He will.
Archie Noble on March 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Second opinions.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Not to mention , to protect the (mental) health of the mother.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I think a human being exists before birth, and that terminating a life after that point is wrong.
However, that issue isn’t related to any of my comments on this thread.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Glenn Beck was talking to an author named Sherwood. He wrote a book called The Survivor’s Club. I ordered it,but didn’t get it yet.
Sherwood says 3 types have a chance of survival:
1. Alpha males, soldiers, warrior types.
2. Deep thinkers who can puzzle things out in detail, and in advance.
3. Those with faith in God.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM
And for now, you are free to choose.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Perspective.
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Yep. People vary in their ability to get access to those opinions and to comprehend the science.
The Internet addresses some of the problems–at least for those who own a computer.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM
It is the governments job?
Johan Klaus on March 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Probably not. They represent a voting block for him.
As I said in several posts above it is very difficult for adults to make informed medical decisions. A teenager, in Planned Parenthood, deciding on abortion? Even more difficult. Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be allowed to withhold information about available options.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It is the government’s job to structure markets that can operate transparently. In finance the SEC failed and half the market wealth has disappeared.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM
It is a complete travesty and a sham that young girls who can barely read, can give informed consent for a major surgical procedure that has life-long implications.
How Planned Parenthood hasn’t been sued out of existence, is a legal marvel.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I always hear the argument from the proabortion crowd that the government should just stay out of their womb. But I make my point– You asked the government to get into your womb by demanding the “right of abortion”.– Prior to this it was possible to get an abortion whether through backwoods channels or through various “trades”-old potions given by drs since the birth of this nation. Roe v Wade regulated abortion,not entirely making it legal in all states therefore not entirely making it available to everyone everywhere in the United States. The states reserve powers to mandate over abortion laws. Its notable that the battle cry for the right to abortion is aimed at the government agents that are fighting for the lives of the unborn and has been sold to the American public as an infringement on their right to permiscuity,sexual lacivity, and denial of responsibilities. Another part of the argument is giving abortions in the case of rape and incest. But in looking at the recent videos offered here at hotair one notices that the right to abortion has afforded the criminals commiting these acts to walk away without paying for their crimes and free to commit them on others. Just one persons humble opinion.
On the other hand-Obama loses his moderate label by doing this and that works out well for us. I know hes buzy trying to keep the opposition’s message off kilter,but all hes really succeeding at is showing people where his priorites lay-and that is obviously unlimited unrestricted killing of preborn babies.
canditaylor68 on March 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM
One more thing – to give a false statement during Voir Dire is perjury.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I think in unclesmorgol’s original post on this he said “myself NOT included” (emphasis mine). I took it as sharing inside information, not condoning illegal and unethical behavior.
Laura in Maryland on March 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM
This is the preamble to closing down the Catholic hospitals, which comprise a third of the nation’s hospitals. He eliminates even a whiff of “conscientious objector” status, and then when FOCA is passed and signed, the Catholic hospitals will have no choice but to close. This is a crisis Rahm Emmanuel will not waste; look to the government to re-open some or all of those hospitals because it will be an Emergency! and we can’t wait to see if Tenet or any other private companies want to buy them. But either way, they’ll re-open as abortion providers. So for Obama, it’ll be a win-win – more government run medicine, and more abortion on demand.
Laura on March 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Can you not conceive of any occasion when you would feel ethical lying to the authorities? Should Obama succeed entirely, I think we will have to get used to doing just that.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Sorry, you’re right, he did say he wouldn’t do that. I regret the error. However, he still argued that it was alright for someone else to do that, so just replace “you” with “one” and my statements stand.
That’s quite a leap you’re making there. To lie to a judge for the express purpose of preventing a defendant in a death penalty trial from being sentenced to death robs the the victim of their right to justice under the law.
Certainly if Obama, say, forces us into nationalized health care I would seek out a private physician and pay for his services under the table if necessary, even if that were to subvert the law. That would be a victimless crime.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
When we are forced to take our loyalty oath to Great Leader, is it ethical to cross my fingers behind my back, or will Rohm Emmanuel be watching?
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 11:38 AM
By revoking the Conscience Rule, Democrats have instead enacted a Sacrifice Rule. Health care workers will be forced to sacrifice their values, to do something that is evil in their eyes and that will degrade them as individuals. No free society would require such sacrifice. If Democrats cared for freedom, they would leave the Conscience Rule in place.
therationalactor on March 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM
They deeply care about freedom, the freedom to live your life exactly the way Democrats tell you to.
Democrats – because they’re more equal than you are.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM
You mean like this?
Loyalty oaths were common during World War II. In support of Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration, 100,000 school children marched to Boston Common and swore a loyalty oath administered by the mayor, “I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies.”
If that day comes, I will be right there with you. Let’s not conflate pre-meditated jury nullification with that sort of odious act.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I know. You’re right. But events these days have me thinking the formerly unimaginable. I’m a casualty of the times in that way.
JiangxiDad on March 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM
National Recovery Administration?
A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama/Biden lose THEIR jobs.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Do you think it’s a coincidence that the “Stimulus Bill” was called the National Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM
War is Peace. Hate is Love.
We all know what “investment” means to Democrats.
It means, your wallet is their wallet and if they allow you to keep the emergency condom, it’s only because they’re generous.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Can we start being honest about the word “choice” and how it has nothing to do with the pro-abortion movement?
Selkirk on March 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM (& other times)
You seem concerned that people are not well informed – or do not have the ability to be well informed about their medical issues prior to treatment.
Patients with insurance see at least one physician & other medical professionals prior to their visit with a specialist. In some cases they have an Internist/General Practitioner. Once it is determined what specialty the patient needs they are referred to usually 2-3 specialists. The patient chooses from there. During their visit with the specialist there will usually be a Fellow or two who examine & participate in the patient’s care. A good deal of specialists often have a PA or ARNP. It behooves a primary care doctor to give multiple referrals.
In other patients,those with no primary care physician or no insurance, go to a clinic/ER, usually run by the county in conjunction with the regional med school. In overview-First they will see the nurse and their nursing students, then they will likely see a Resident in GP/IM; Then in addition to that Resident they will see other GP/IM Residents, and their Fellows and the Attending if things get complicated. And Med students/ nursing students/ etc. Once their needs are identified they will see Fellows/Attending in areas of specialization. Along with, if needed, social services, nutritionists, infectious disease specialists, Patient advocates, OT/PT etc.
In either case there is informed consent all along the way. Informed consent. The situation in medicine is incomperable with the situation in finance. The financial debacle, frankly, appears to be a manufactured crisis in part due to legislation that forces bad practices, their own bad practices, and in the recent changes in how banks can value their assets.
batterup on March 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
The inevitable Obama-Mugabe one child policy will make all of this very simple.
Forced abortions performed by forced abortion providers.
Very simple to explain and to understand.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Obama keeps moving to satisfy the far left regardless of consequences.
Animosity and bitterness between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans will be greater than ever before.
It’s going to make the days of the Bush and Clinton Administrations look like lovefests.
bw222 on March 2, 2009 at 12:33 PM
John Holdren, Obama’s science pick says less is more.
Kini on March 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I agree, but my agreement is not “hard” — meaning it applies to me, but I would not levy that requirement on others. Subverting the system and law is, for many people, a requirement in the case that the law is viewed as immoral or unjust. An example that comes immediately to mind is 100 year-old Miep Gies, who hid the Frank family from the Germans for almost 22 months.
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 12:37 PM
As of now physicians/residents/nurses in a county facility can decline to participate in an abortion (or counseling), they simply switch assignments with another Dr./nurse. Private OBGYN’s who don’t perform abortions or abortive counseling will refer or tell their patients to go elsewhere. Although the conscience rule was not law the political climate was one of supporting the rights of the medical professional over the elective desires of the patient.
Given that it has been a priority in this administration to facilitate abortion (rather than discourage it) it is easy to see how pro-choice folks think tax-payer funded abortion on demand will be in the coming nationalization of healthcare. The pro-abortion argument is predicated on the position that it is “a clump of cells”, and thus simply a medical procedure. In most cases an abortion is an elective procedure. Why would we force any medical professional to participate in an elective procedure? If Obama believes abortion is simply just an elective medical procedure why would we force anyone to participate in elective medical procedures they find unnecessary/too risky/or in conflict with their values? If women wanted ddd breast implants do you force the plastic surgeon to do it? No, because it is unnecessary/too risky/ and unconscionable. How does abortion, aa an elective medical procedure, garner different rules? Seriously can someone explain that?
batterup on March 2, 2009 at 12:38 PM
One might see a GP or internist before seeing a specialist, depending on whether you have PPO, EPO or HMO. However, in many cases a patient will go directly to a specialist since a GP is unable to provide any insight into some conditions.
There are big differences between the finance and health care industry. Despite the current disaster in finance I’d argue that information moves more efficiently in finance than in health care.
The similarity between a doctor and financial advisor is that there is a knowledge differential between the consumer and provider. In neither case should a provider be forced to perform services they find immoral, but they should be required to inform the consumer of basic information.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Great point.
Medical opinion is just that, an opinion. It’s not exact science.
Say an overweight man is referred to an orthopedic surgeons, due to ha bad knee.
The surgeon tells him that he doesn’t need surgery and that diet and exercise will cure his pain.
If the man still wants the surgery, is the surgeon obligated to perform it, even though he believes it’s not needed?
Of course not.
Same with abortions and same with contraceptives.
Contraceptives are never medically indicated, they are a choice.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Above his pay grade?
liar
29Victor on March 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I second that emotion.
He’s only posted on one topic. He posts that topic on every thread.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Does “pay grade” include kickbacks, bribes, etc?
Because if so, Obama-Mugabe’s paygrade is pretty high and he may have more money than god.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I’m glad our current precedent is in support of eugenics. What would make this country stronger than encouraging the low class to commit infanticide to keep these new strains on the government tab lighter? /sarc
For every $150 procedure paid for by the government, they save $500K dollars per incident for the next 20 years or more. Now lets get to the meat of it. Single African American moms, who exist at or below the 10% tax bracket, commit 60% of abortions. 30% of abortions are committed by non African Americans that exist at or below the 10% tax bracket. The another 8-9% of abortions committed are convenience abortions by middle or upper class – those who exist above the 10% tax bracket, and the last 1-2% are hardship abortions, needed for medical, rape, or incest. From the government’s perspective, that’s the reason to pay for abortions.
Sorry I don’t have my links ready for exact quotes to where I found this info at this time. Look it up if you don’t believe it.
ammon_of_cs on March 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
If your only source of medical information is your doctor, then you fully deserve everything that happens to you.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I don’t believe there is a valid comparison between what happened in Nazi Germany and lying during Voir Dire because of moral/religious objections to the death penalty. As a juror you have a choice to recuse yourself. That choice did not exist for the Frank family.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM
As you rightly point out, this is not a job the govt is capable of carrying out.
It is the responisiblity of the consumer to get the information necessary.
It is the responsibility of the govt to punish providers who lie, or otherwise defraud their customers/patients.
That is the limit of the govts role, in any market.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Many people don’t deserve what happens to them. You can find their stories in newspapers, books and movies–”deserves got nothing to do with it”.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM
That is the classic populist/liberal line.
That people are helpless pawns manipulated by evil businessmen. Only the beneficient power of the great
OZerr, govt, can save them.MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The government forces companies to report financial information according to standards, they require banks to have certain capital ratios, they require corporations to not withhold material information, they require drug companies to conduct clinical trials before releasing products.
The government should let individual businesses fail and regulate a market that allows dumb CEO’s and their investors to lose without taking out innocent bystanders.
In health care, requiring licensed individuals to provide consumers with information is conducive to a well functioning market.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If you have the chance to get the information needed, but choose not to. Then through lack of proper information make a bad choice, then you do indeed deserve anything that happens as a result of your bad decision.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM
WHile it is good that companies release this information, it should not be a govt mandate that they do.
If you choose to do business with a company that hides such information, that’s your loss.
Who are these innocent bystanders? I contend that no such exist.
Requiring is conducive to a police state.
A doctor/company should have the right to decide on their own what they are going to reveal.
Likewise the consumer has the right to patronize or not patronize a given provider based on the information released.
Releasing information that you know to be faulty is fraud, and I covered that in my previos post.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Sheesh. I hope you never end up in an emergency room in critical condition.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Chances come down to percentages. Every has a different number.
It is inefficient in a market for every consumer to have to conduct exhaustive due diligence–even investment pros leave it to one lead investor. We could get rid of restaurant health inspectors and rely on patrons to look through the kitchen before eating, but they aren’t skilled at it and shouldn’t have to get up to speed on the inspection techniques.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:13 PM
If a professional tells you “I don’t do this procedure”, that should be sufficient. The point is, as a professional, if I say, for moral reasons, that I don’t do something, I’m under no obligation to find my client a person who does do that thing I find immoral.
My brother in law faced exactly that issue as an accountant for a meat distribution company. He was ordered to “cook the books” to make it look like the company was receiving higher quality meat at a more expensive price than they were, so that they could justify “passing through” the charges to a very large customer who wanted an audit. My brother in law refused, and was fired. He would never have considered telling the company “I don’t cook books, but I have a friend who does…”
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM
You would greatly reduce the ability of capital to fund new ideas. The public markets would almost cease to exist and you would be left with something resembling today’s private equity structure.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Your lack of imagination is exceeded only by your willingness to believe that the govt is the solution to every problem.
I don’t personally disassemble every electrical device before I buy it either. Instead I look for the UL label.
UL is not a govt agency. It is a private lab that rates consumer products. Companies are willing to pay for the priviledge of putting the label on their products because they know that consumers value that label.
Govt inspectors are useless, as you yourself have demonstrated, precisely because they know that no matter how badly they screw up, they will keep their jobs.
UL on the other hand knows that if they are ever caught in a scandal, consumers will no longer value or trust their label. If consumers don’t value the label, then businesses will no longer be willing to pay good money to apply that label. IE, UL goes out of business.
Did the SEC go out of business despite the fact that their laxness permitted the current economic crisis to get started?
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I respectfully disagree. As stated above, they can be medically indicated… unless you consider getting a total hysterectomy (which is more invasive, costly, and risky, not to mention future hormone therapy) a better choice than taking a hormonal BC pill. Why should those of us who suffer from various problems with our reproductive systems (problems helped or alleviated by hormonal BC) have to suffer just because another group of people are opposed to BC in general?
Anna on March 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM
On something as critical as this, you wait until you need it to check up on which emergency rooms are worth attending?
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM
A professional has an obligation to tell you that the procedure exists, especially before counseling you on an alternative.
Your brother in law has no ethical obligation to aid a criminal act, nor doe a doctor.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Complete and utter Bull Droppings.
You clearly have absolutely no idea how equity markets work.
As someone who has been involved in business startups, I can assure you that none of the investors relied on govt to get the information that they wanted.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Obama here is *forcing* individuals in the medical profession to violate their consciences. This is disturbing, to say the least. Has he no morals?
youngTXcon on March 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM
More bull droppings. The information is freely available.
In fact, anybody who claims that they have never heard of abortions doesn’t have the mental capacity to be making any decisions for themselves, much less one this important.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM
We aren’t talking about the Frank family — we are talking about Miep Gies, who broke the law by shielding the Franks, and then tried to bribe them out of prison thereafter. If you were being considered for a jury whose job was to determine whether Gies broke the law, what would you do?
I think this is quite a valid comparison. In both cases, we are talking about lying to authority to achieve what the liar thinks is a moral end which transcends the sin of lying. In Catholicism, lying is a venial sin, while killing someone is a mortal sin. And, since Catholicism also has the concept of a sin of omission, failing to act positively to prevent a mortal sin is a mortal sin too.
So, if a person believes that not serving on a jury considering a capital punishment is a sin of omission, they will lie.
Again, I wouldn’t do this, but I can understand and respect the reasoning of those who would.
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Obama has morals. The problem is that he also believes that he has the right to force everyone else to live by them.
Like all liberals.
Including several who post here.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I submit that the professional does not. It would be the equivalent to my brother in law suggesting that the books needed to be cooked, but that he doesn’t do it. That act of suggestion is participation in the immoral act, should it be done.
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM
unclesmrgol on March 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I don’t believe dedalus recognizes a difference between immoral and illegal.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM
After the Clinton administration I thought perjury was legal.:-)
darktood on March 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Did the markets succeed in policing themselves? Private enterprise solutions are great, when they function properly. If Wall Street had had private companies that stepped in and assigned ratings to the mortgage securities that banks and investors were buying, that would have been great. Maybe if there were multiple companies competing to do the best job of rating the securities and assign them letter grades like AAA, B, C while labeling some “investment grade” and others “non-investment grade” that would have helped. Oh, wait, they did. Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch all failed.
I’m probably more of an advocate of Austrian economics than most, but also know that markets aren’t found in nature and don’t spontaneously manifest themselves based on consumer need.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM
If the accounting treatment has been clearly approved by the IRS or FASB, I think he does have an obligation to let his client know that there are alternatives that he can’t provide.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Actually, that is at the heart of most of these comments.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Were the markets given a chance?
Indeed, is their any free market left in the financial sector.
You are aware that the financial market, is second only the medical market in terms of govt regulations.
Second, just because the free market is not perfect is not sufficient to prove that govt involvement is the answer.
It would help if you can demonstrate that govt regulation will actually improve the market.
It’s more than obvious that govt regulations have made the problems they were supposed to solve, worse, not better.
The only long term solution to any of these problems is for people to take responsibility for their own lives, and not rely on others to take care of them.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:38 PM
More complete and utter bullshit.
Everywhere you look in nature there are markets. For every conceivable good. Spontaneous formation of markets is not only natural, it is inevitable.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:39 PM
“…However, in many cases a patient will go directly to a specialist since a GP is unable to provide any insight into some conditions….”
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 12:46 PM
You need a new GP. You would be surprised how much is diagnosed by GPs. They are the triage unit -and have to assess all functions in addition to the patients complaint. If unable to diagnose & treat they refer. What more “insight” do you require or think you are going to get out of the gubment?
Patients do self-refer, but how is that accomplished? Let’s say you have scurvy, but all you know is your gums are bleeding and you have heart palpitations so you decide you have a heart condition and see a cardiologist and a dentist. How did you find those doctors? Did you open the phonebook & hit it with a dart? If so it is highly likely that is how you make most choices in your life & you will end up in an ER. Most folks ask around – for specialists – even if the referral is from your poodle groomer- you go there with some sense of trust.
During the exam & or testing the patient will be asked if they have a GP/IM and if they don’t the testing (normal labs) that would have been done & sent on to the cardiologist will be done now. This testing and exam will reveal your underlying abnormalities & hopefully lead to a diagnosis. In your case the Scurvy will be easy to diagnose & you will be advised to substitute oranges for Twinkies. In more difficult cases – believe it or not specialists do refer to other specialists or even to regional clinics.
You are right – folks forget that BC is hormone therapy.
batterup on March 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
any wonder why some call this guy the anti-Christ?
oldleprechaun on March 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Agreed, some of us think there should be a difference between the two concepts, and others don’t.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 1:47 PM
It will be interesting to see how the complaints of Muslim doctors will be handled by the administration and the media.
DFCtomm on March 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »