http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=595_1320181518 Items in channel 'jgmurj' Sat, 18 May 2013 17:47:29 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=595_1320181518 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:43:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ad_1345516596 jgmurj Even the leaders of his own religion know he's a schmuck. Dear Rep. Paul Ryan, Welcome to Georgetown University. We appreciate your willingness to talk about how Catholic social teaching can help inform effective policy in dealing with the urgent challenges facing our country. As members of an academic community at a Catholic university, we see your visit on April 26 for the Whittington Lecture as an opportunity to discuss Catholic social teaching and its role in public policy. However, we would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress - "a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons." Catholic bishops recently wrote that "the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria." In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love. Cuts to anti-hunger programs have devastating consequences. Last year, one in six Americans lived below the official poverty level and over 46 million Americans - almost half of them children - used food stamps for basic nutrition. We also know how cuts in Pell Grants will make it difficult for low-income students to pursue their educations at colleges across the nation, including Georgetown. At a time when charities are strained to the breaking point and local governments have a hard time paying for essential services, the federal government must not walk away from the most vulnerable. While you often appeal to Catholic teaching on "subsidiarity" as a rationale for gutting government programs, you are profoundly misreading Church teaching. Subsidiarity is not a free pass to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices. This often misused Catholic principle cuts both ways. It calls for solutions to be enacted as close to the level of local communities as possible. But it also demands that higher levels of government provide help -- "subsidium"-- when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger. According to Pope Benedict XVI: "Subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa." Along with this letter, we have included a copy of the Vatican's Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, commissioned by John Paul II, to help deepen your understanding of Catholic social teaching. http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/usccb-tackles-paul-ryan http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ad_1345516596 jgmurj Catholic Bishops' Letter to Paul Ryan paul ryan, bishops, catholic church Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:31:09 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=425_1344194851 jgmurj http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=425_1344194851 jgmurj Don't you get it, Mitt, you nit-wit? You're full of shit, just quit, and lickety-split. mitt, money, romney, wealth, mitt romney, greedy Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:21:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b12_1343960440 jgmurj http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b12_1343960440 jgmurj Mitt is a shit. mitt romney, olympics, asshole Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:47:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20b_1343648596 jgmurj For those who haven't seen this. A little old, but good. source: http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/02/who-said-it-mitt-romney-or-mr-burns http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20b_1343648596 jgmurj Who Said It? Mitt Romney or Mr. Burns? romney, simpsons, mad magazine, greedy old fart, geezers, republican douche Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:42:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d65_1341008376 jgmurj Statement attributable to: Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD President, American Medical Association The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy. "The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system. "This decision protects important improvements, such as ending coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on insurance, and allowing the 2.5 million young adults up to age 26 who gained coverage under the law to stay on their parents' health insurance policies. The expanded health care coverage upheld by the Supreme Court will allow patients to see their doctors earlier rather than waiting for treatment until they are sicker and care is more expensive. The decision upholds funding for important research on the effectiveness of drugs and treatments and protects expanded coverage for prevention and wellness care, which has already benefited about 54 million Americans. "The health reform law upheld by the Supreme Court simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. It protects those in the Medicare 'donut hole,' including the 5.1 million Medicare patients who saved significantly on prescription drugs in 2010 and 2011. These important changes have been made while maintaining our American system with both private and public insurers." http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d65_1341008376 jgmurj American Medical Association Supports Supreme Court Decision on the ACA health care, affordable care act Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:30:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8f_1340897124 jgmurj This law was passed by Congress, signed by the President and is now affirmed by the Supreme Court, including the conservative Justice Roberts. Every branch of the US government confirms it, so take your broccoli argument elsewhere and get out of this country. Go to Canada...oh wait, they have universal healthcare. Well then you can go to Greenland. Nope. Iceland? No. Norway? New Zealand? Japan? Germany? Belgium? United Kingdom? Kuwait? Sweden? Bahrain? Brunei? Netherlands? Austria? United Arab Emirates? Finland? Slovenia? Denmark? Luxembourg? France? Australia? Ireland? Italy? Portugal? Cyprus? Greece? Spain? South Korea? Hong Kong? Singapore? Switzerland? Israel? Man, they all have that evil universal healthcare, where are you selfish Republican gonna go? Oh, I know, you can go to Syria. I heard it's lovely this time of year. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy health insurance. The narrowly delineated decision was a victory for President Obama and Congressional Democrats, with a 5-4 majority, including the conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama's presidency. Chief Justice Roberts, the author of the majority opinion, surprised observers by joining the court's four more liberal members in the key finding and becoming the swing vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=print http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8f_1340897124 jgmurj Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act and Individual Mandate healthcare, supreme court, affordable care act, mandate, individual mandate, obama Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:09:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff6_1339265283 jgmurj http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff6_1339265283 jgmurj Mitt Romney Killed Santa romney, bain, maher Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:51:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52c_1339213526 jgmurj Despite the radical freaks here on LL who made fun of the "whining liberals who lost," this represents an issue that we should all be concerned about, whether you lean left or right. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52c_1339213526 jgmurj Democracy Died Tonight wisconsin, walker, the young turks, citizens united, democracy Fri, 25 May 2012 13:04:44 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33d_1337965147 jgmurj Interview with Dr. Don M. Huber, one of the senior scientists in the U.S about area of science that relates to genetically modified organisms (GMO). http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33d_1337965147 jgmurj Interview with Dr. Don Huber about GMOs GMO, Huber, genetically modified organisms, monsanto Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:31 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=147_1337167050 jgmurj Interesting to watch them one after another. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=147_1337167050 jgmurj Commencement Speeches - Romney vs. Obama obama, romney, graduation, commencement, speeches Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:31:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1334402125 jgmurj A good article in the New England Journal of Medicine, puts this whole issue into a bit of perspective. Definitely worth it to take 5 minutes and read through this. by R. Alta Charo, J.D. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1361-1364 April 12, 2012 link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1202701 Foster Friess, a conservative political donor, recently discounted the importance of insurance coverage for contraceptives, saying, "Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly." Though his comment stunned interviewer Andrea Mitchell, it at least focused on the issue of contraceptives. Most critics of the federal effort to ensure access to contraceptives have reframed the issue as a war on religion. And as Georgetown University theologian Tom Reese told National Public Radio in early February, "If the argument is over religious liberty, the bishops win. If the argument is over contraceptives, the administration wins." Indeed, a 501(c)(4) advocacy group, "Conscience Cause," has already been formed to leverage media to spur legislative action and promote the view that this debate is not about contraception, but rather about "freedom and the protection of our religious values." Since the average American woman spends 5 years pregnant (or trying to be) and 30 years trying not to get pregnant, nearly 99% of sexually active women have used birth control. And the most effective contraceptives - such as the birth-control pill and intrauterine devices (IUDs) - are unavailable except by prescription, which makes them part of the health care system rather than merely a lifestyle choice akin to eschewing cosmetics. That such contraceptives constitute health care is even clearer when one considers the reduction of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality from the spacing out of births or the use of oral contraceptives for conditions ranging from acne to uterine fibroid tumors. But contraceptives can be pricey. Birth-control pills can run $600 per year, and an IUD may cost $1,000, so many women favor less expensive, albeit less reliable, options such as condoms and even withdrawal. Insurance coverage allows women to have a genuine choice. As the Institute of Medicine recommended, under the Affordable Care Act, insured women will qualify for contraceptives without copayments, as part of a range of preventive services. The Obama administration exempted houses of worship from the requirement of offering employees health insurance covering contraception - a more generous policy than those of many of the 28 states already requiring insurers to cover contraceptives (see below image for State Policies on Contraceptive Coverage). But the exemption initially didn't apply to institutions such as hospitals and universities whose fundamental purpose was nonreligious, even if the institution was affiliated with a religious sect. Such institutions are typically subject to generally applicable laws for their nonreligious functions, such as civil rights laws prohibiting employment discrimination outside the context of ministerial functions. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had already determined that singling out contraception from prescription-drug and preventive-care coverage is a form of sex discrimination forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with no exemption for religious employers. Nonetheless, amid growing conflict, the administration expanded its exemptions to include religiously affiliated hospitals and universities, deciding instead that their contracted insurance companies would be required to cover contraceptives without any financial support from the institutions. The goal was to ensure that women have all the recommended preventive-care coverage while eliminating even tenuous financial connections between religious employers and contraception benefits. Yet at least seven states - Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas - are joining lawsuits to overturn the requirement. And some states are considering bills that would allow insurance companies to ignore the federal rules. Measures in Idaho, Missouri, and Arizona would extend the exemptions to secular insurers or businesses, and the Senate defeated a similar measure by a narrow margin. Despite the administration's accommodations, the policy's opponents have reframed it as discrimination against religious organizations - even against religion itself. It has thus become yet another simmering health care controversy like the debate over religiously based refusals to prescribe or dispense contraceptives - a debate that remains unsettled, as witnessed by the yo-yo pattern of decisions in the challenge to Washington State's requirement that pharmacies dispense contraceptives. (The latest decision favored the pharmacists who did not want to dispense contraceptives on grounds of personal conscience or religion; the case is again heading for appeal.) But the current controversy is not about a personal reluctance to directly facilitate another person's action that one believes is immoral, even if the actor does not. Instead, it relates to passive forms of alleged complicity that are far more tenuous, and it touches on the ways in which a multicultural society cross-subsidizes the choices of its varied citizens. In other words, employee benefits are now embroiled in the struggle for the public square. There are at least two competing views about how to organize our public institutions, public places, and public duties. In one vision, individuals may exercise their freedom to act on their religious dictates even if their acts limit access to public goods by people who follow a different creed. A police officer, for example, argued in federal court that he ought not to be required to provide protection to a casino because he believed gambling was sinful. The competing view is that people performing public functions must make themselves available to everyone, regardless of personal creed - for example, an airport taxi driver must pick up passengers carrying duty-free alcohol even if he or she deems drinking to be sinful. The competition for the public space and the question of who may be forced to make some sacrifice was captured well by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who argued that "the government can't force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith. . . . If an employee wants birth control, that worker could . . . just choose to work elsewhere." Similar reasoning underlies many arguments for the acceptability of service denials: the patient should simply go elsewhere. But it is far from a solution when sectarian-hospital emergency departments refuse to provide emergency contraception to rape victims or to perform health-preserving surgeries after incomplete miscarriages. In the past decade, religiously affiliated organizations owned nearly one in five U.S. hospital beds, and doctrinal restrictions at secular hospitals are growing because of increasing mergers with religious hospital systems. A vision of a public space in which every religious practice blooms might quickly become one in which a single religious doctrine is imposed. Institutions opposing the new policy argue that they're still financially connected to the contraceptive benefit, in contradiction to their doctrine. But Americans don't usually succeed in claims that the use of their funds in contravention of their religious views violates their constitutional or statutory rights: tax resisters, for instance, have been swatted down by the courts, even when they were objecting to state-ordered killing in the form of capital punishment or war. And the objections in this instance are yet more tenuous: Catholic hospitals and universities are not required to pay for birth-control coverage. Nonetheless, coverage in the general benefit package is considered unacceptable complicity. By this logic, any benefit that an employee might use to commit an act contrary to institutional doctrine could be withheld - including, it would seem, ordinary salary. Given the lack of past controversy over state laws on contraceptive insurance coverage and the spate of recent efforts to constrict reproductive rights - ranging from "personhood amendments" granting fertilized eggs the same legal rights as liveborn children, to mandatory transvaginal ultrasonography before consenting to an abortion, to the defunding of screening for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases at organizations that separately provide privately funded abortion services - some observers characterize the debate over contraceptive coverage as a war on women. But others point to litigation about prayer in schools, Christmas displays on public lands, and requiring U.S. aid organizations to offer contraceptive services to rape victims in war zones as evidence of a war on religion. Let's recognize that the current debate is about public health and contraception. But at the same time, given the battle over framing, let's also take seriously the more enduring question about our public space: whether every religious institution and adherent is free to act to the point of imposing on others, or whether every individual is free from being imposed upon to the point of stifling some who would act. This debate deserves more than partisan sound bites and slogans. Perhaps Friess wasn't too far off, and the best cure for today's contraceptive headache is for the entire country to take two aspirin and lay off until after the election. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cab_1334402125 jgmurj Warning: Contraceptive Drugs May Cause Political Headaches contraceptives, religion, contraception, medicine, healthcare Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:08:29 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=135_1332884891 jgmurj Let's try and keep this debate intelligent and civil. It's not so hard. Can someone explain to me what the difference would be between being required to pay health insurance and the commercial activity (buying car insurance) most of us are already required to engage in? Also, what is the difference between being required to pay for health insurance and being required to pay for the Medicare we will all receive when we hit 65? Full video at this link: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/27/healthcare_debate_as_supreme_court_hears Supreme Court Review of the Health Care Reform Law by Gregory D. Curfman, M.D., Brendan S. Abel, B.A., and Ren'ee M. Landers, J.D. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:977-979 Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially producing a landmark decision. For most cases, the Supreme Court allocates 1 hour for oral argument - 30 minutes for each side. For the health care reform case, the Court has scheduled 6 hours for oral argument - the most time devoted to a case in more than 45 years. These arguments will take place on March 26, 27, and 28, and the Court's ruling will probably be announced in June. Setting the foundation for the largest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was established in 1965, the ACA will reach approximately 32 million of the 50 million Americans who are now uninsured. It will do so in two ways. First, beginning in 2014, the ACA's "individual mandate" requires most citizens and legal residents whose income is above the threshold for filing federal income taxes to maintain health insurance or pay a financial penalty - with exemptions for those who cannot afford coverage, have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level, or lacked coverage for less than 3 months of the year. Individuals with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty level will qualify for income-based federal subsidies. The individual mandate, when fully implemented in 2016, is expected to add 16 million people to the rolls of the insured. The ACA also authorizes the creation of mostly state-administered insurance exchanges through which individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance policies. States have considerable latitude in specifying minimal essential benefits that must be covered by all insurance policies offered. Among other requirements, under the ACA, insurance companies may not deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of preexisting medical conditions, are limited in their ability to rescind policies, and may not place annual caps on coverage. Second, the ACA extends Medicaid eligibility to all citizens and certain legal residents with incomes of up to 133% of the poverty level, making an additional 16 million people eligible for the federal-state program. States not complying with the expansion risk losing all federal Medicaid funds. The federal government will pay 100% of Medicaid coverage for the newly eligible for the first 2 years and gradually reduce its contribution to 90% in 2020. Challenges to both of these ACA provisions will require the Court to apply the principle of federalism, which recognizes the division of power between the federal and state governments. The U.S. Constitution assigns enumerated powers to the federal government, reserving the rest "to the states respectively, or to the people." The justices will determine whether, in crafting the ACA, Congress exceeded its powers. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the ACA, but the Supreme Court selected for review the case brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business ( Florida v. HHS ). In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but that the other insurance reforms in the ACA could stand. It further ruled that the Medicaid expansion was constitutional. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court will address four questions. First,the Court will determine whether the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which dates back to the 1800s, precludes review of the ACA until after 2014. The AIA provides that the legality of a tax cannot be challenged until the tax has been assessed. If, as some contend, the individual mandate's financial penalty is a tax under the AIA, no tax will be assessed until 2014 and a legal challenge now is premature. Others argue that the penalty is not a tax intended to raise revenue but a financial incentive to comply with the mandate. If the Court determines that the AIA makes review premature, it may conclude that it should not decide the substantive challenges to the ACA. If the Court determines that review is appropriate, it will next consider whether Congress has the authority to require most U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The government argues that it has such authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as providing Congress wide latitude to regulate activity that, when viewed cumulatively, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Americans spend an estimated $2.5 trillion annually on health care, which is indisputably a part of interstate commerce. The government will also argue that Congress derives authority to mandate health insurance coverage from its constitutional power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" for executing other powers. Challengers argue, however, that the mandate to purchase a product from a private entity is unprecedented and constitutes an intrusion on individual liberty. If this mandate is upheld, what else might the government force individuals to buy? They further claim that regulating "inactivity," the decision not to obtain health insurance, is outside Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Third, if the Supreme Court rules the mandate unconstitutional, it will determine whether the rest of the ACA must also be overturned or whether the mandate is "severable" from the rest of the law. ACA opponents argue that the whole law must be overturned if the Court invalidates the mandate, in part because the mandate is "inextricably intertwined" with the law's other elements. The government argues that only two other portions of the law would also have to fall if the mandate is invalidated: the requirements that insurers cover people with preexisting conditions and not charge them higher premiums. Without a mandate, these requirements would become infeasible. Some authorities argue that Congress, not the Court, should decide these questions. Finally, the Court will consider whether the ACA's Medicaid expansion is constitutional and whether states can be required to comply with it in order to remain eligible for federal Medicaid funds. The principal point of contention here is whether the ACA requirements "commandeer" or "coerce" state functions in a way that exceeds federal authority. Although the lower federal courts have consistently rejected this argument, the Supreme Court has opted to review it. The government will argue that states operate Medicaid programs voluntarily, contributing their own funds in order to receive federal funding, and that Congress has broad power under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause to require state compliance as a condition of receiving federal funding. However the Supreme Court rules, the implications for health care in the United States will be profound. At one extreme, the Court could strike down the entire ACA, implicitly endorsing a more limited role for the federal government in the regulation of health care and other areas. At the other extreme, the entire law could be upheld. Intermediate rulings, such as striking the mandate but upholding the Medicaid expansion, are of course also possible. If the Court upholds the ACA, the number of people with health insurance coverage will swell by as many as 32 million. This result would put pressure on providers to deliver more care. Currently, only about two thirds of physicians accept Medicaid patients, so the burden of serving the newly eligible populations would fall disproportionately on these physicians. The ACA begins to address this problem with workforce-development provisions. In addition, at least in the short run, health care costs would probably increase, though the ACA contains some cost-control measures. The Supreme Court's decision in this case could have a significant effect on the presidential election, since the ACA, President Barack Obama's signature legislative accomplishment, is already a hot-button issue. Public opinion, which favors some parts of the law but not others, makes the political calculus complicated. With all these factors in play, 2012 is shaping up to be a momentous year for U.S. health care. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=135_1332884891 jgmurj Supreme Court, the ACA and the Future of Healthcare in America healthcare, aca, supreme court, obama, insurance