Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (281109)	3/21/2006 5:11:03 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572772

Still believe in "no children without a children drivers permit". Taro

To: bentway who wrote (281109)	3/21/2006 10:32:16 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1572772

RE: "I really admired the sanity of the Chinese "one child" policy to address their overpopulation problem." Agreed by using the same number for everyone, they don't create a warped situation where uneducated people get better rights from the govt (e.g. financial incentives, govt support) to breed more than educated people. I think there should be equal treatment. RE: "I'd go FAR beyond that Amy" Agreed. As an investor, you have to ask yourself about the future of the USA vs China. news.yahoo.com RE: "I'd say that people only be allowed to replace themselves here" I agree with this, but then you'll find the govt doesn't. A capitalistic govt is seeking growth, not a flat-line, which is why they permit 1.5m uneducated illegal people to enter the USA, while denying PhD candidates. Volume consumption is more important than creating intellectual property you can export - (and they wonder why our trade imbalance is so high) RE: "to codify that unchecked reproduction is NOT a "right", but a privelige" From my observation, the only people this country supports the "right" to reproduce are people that are poor. They get earlier and better prenatal care, according to the latest study. A poor female gets to enter WIC immediately, which is a prenatal care program you fund, as soon as she gets pregnant. They are immediately told the first trimester is the most critical to their babies development, and they are told what foods to avoid that can kill their baby (e.g. deli ham, etc.) Meanwhile, your average working stiff is declined care with an OB at any US clinic until she is essentially through her critical first trimester. Oops, she didn't have enough folic acid (which is needed in the first month), oops, she ate feta cheese, oops, she ate deli ham. Do you realize a female engineer in certain cases would be better off quitting her job to gain free medical care from the govt than to continue working because health care is discriminatory to women. For example, if a female engineer needs to get breast milk from a milk bank, she would have to pay $1.5k/month out of her own pocket, but if she quits her engineering job, it would be free. Talk about backwards. Likewise, if a female needs a breastpump, it is only free to them if they are not working. RE: "they'd have to demonstrate that they were capable of providing for them, fiancially and emotionally" The USA is going to go downhill with its policies. You know, even Singapore has a really cool policy. Unlike the USA which only gives poor women the right to have children, Singapore does just the reverse. The more education the woman has, the more they support the women's right to have children. They impose a tax on any women that have children above a certain number. Just the opposite of Backwards USA. This country is basically funding itself into a grave, with its policies. Regards, Amy J

To: bentway who wrote (281109)	3/22/2006 2:18:28 AM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572772

Re <<I really admired the sanity of the Chinese "one child" policy to address their overpopulation problem.>> I think that policy will go down as one of the most insane policies and will have profound negative implication for the future. Chinese population age profile is now significantly uneven and China will pay dearly for this. In several decades there will be small number of people (the one child generation) that has to take care of a much larger older population. This uneven population is much worse than anything ever seen before, with any country. Due to the strong family ties of Chinese culture, this will damage productivity growth for years to come. Some experts even predict that China will face negative productivity growth and depression for many years. That's what you get when some "know it all" idiots make decision without thinking about it. Mani

To: bentway who wrote (281109)	3/22/2006 10:56:18 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572772

Chris, this story is about yet another teenage pregnant child. She gave birth at Regional. Two months later she learned "elective Medi-Cal" treatment is not covered at the hospital. Here are my questions: 1. where is the story about the lack of govt funding for abortion or adoption to pregnant teenage girls? I read in the newspaper that poor women in Mississippi have to pay $500 to $1000 out of their own pockets to have an abortion, which of course is a barrier for them to have an abortion - why isn't this a covered medical benefit that the govt pays? Where is the funding for abortion and adoption? 2. why only stories about poor women? you'll never find a story in California about working women not getting good health care whether that be for breast cancer prevention (illegal immigrants have better breast care prevention than unemployed hightech workers due to the programs and focus on poor women), first trimester prenatal care that's non-existant for workers (oops, you didn't know you were suppose to take folic and avoid cat litter?) while poor people get better care from WIC (WIC only educates poor women), or being denied coverage for fertility, etc. "Suzanne Garcia didn't know about the hospital's Medi-Cal policy until her teenage daughter had an emergency delivery of her baby at Regional earlier this year." mercurynews.com 3. The story should focus on what defines "elective medical", because that sounds like that is the real issue. Why is the govt defining what is elective or not? Why does the govt get in the way of consumer health care? Why is a respiratory illness considered "elective"? Regards, Amy J

To: bentway who wrote (281109)	4/6/2006 1:32:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572772

and to codify that unchecked reproduction is NOT a "right", but a privelige. Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate reproduction. In that sense it is a right under the constitution. Things are murkier for state regulation but I think our courts would be likely to extend protection against state laws as well if such laws could ever get passed in the first place. In terms of natural rights, I believe it is indeed a natural right, and its basically none of the governments business. In theory at a certain point practical considerations could justify the government stepping in anyway but I see no reason to think that the government is going to automatically make better decisions then individuals, and even if I did think it could do so, the restrictions would be at best a "necessary evil", a violation of rights justified by practical concerns. But in reality it isn't even necessary. There is no population crisis in the US. Tim