The comparison was clearly between Christians and non-Christians. Not Dems and Reps; not liberals and conservatives. There are Christians and non-Christians in all groups. I don't think that because Olasky used a scandal featuring a Republican Gov and liberal media to make his point means he was extrapolating to political groups. I think it's pretty clear this was an article about religious values.

Actually, only Spain and Japan dispense codeine OTC. In Hong Kong, it is a strictly controlled substance, just like here. Other countries (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, and the UK) have complicated rules regarding codeine (depending on the preparation's strength), but for the most part it is more a "behind the counter" drug - controlled by pharmacists, and sometimes physicians. Besides, do you have any reason to remove it from the controlled substance list other than "Let's follow all the really cool kids"?
I understand Vioxx was taken off the market, but what's your complaint against Celebrex? It's a good drug, with fewer side effects than Codiene and no potential for abuse. Codeine is still prescribed for short-term...

I've been looking for that information; it wasn't addressed in the article. I must have missed it in the thread. I agree, they should be judged by their own constitution. Looks like they're in the right. Thanks!

Just wanted to fix something on my last post:
The former President was NOT impeached, which would have been the beginning of the fair trial by the legislative body. My mistake.

I think the situation in Honduras is messier than this article implies. It left out important facts, for example, the former President of Honduras's actions were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, but he was impeached and exiled without a fair trial to assess his guilt. A new President was sworn in, again without trying the first one. I don't know anything about the Honduran Constitution, so maybe there isn't a provision for a fair trial, I just know that here, he would've been tried before Congress, even after the Supreme Court condemned his actions. I support the current authorities safe-guarding their Constitution, that is truly admirable. I do not feel comfortable calling this a coup, but it looks like the government made some...

You said you comment here as a public service. If that is really your intent, I would appreciate it if you would actually comment on the article. I checked all the posts; all except one of yours is directed at other commenters. The one directed at the article does nothing to disprove any part of it, and really only expresses your dislike for the author. This is obviously not helpful, and doesn't appear to be in keeping with a genuine attitude of service. Maybe you should reexamine your motive? Or post something resembling relevant. Please provide sources for your claims. Thank you.

Putting the purchase power for insurance back in the hands of consumers (not employers) would also help the people who are uninsured due to transient unemployment - if they can still pay for coverage, they have it. Lowering premiums based on healthy behavior sounds nice, but that should be up to the insurance company and competition.

People can make their own health savings accounts. I also don't like the idea of compulsory coverage, except it relieves the pressure on ED staff and finances imposed by EMTALA. But mailing in your proof of insurance with your taxes? Definitely paternalistic. How about keep EMTALA, but impose fines on those unable to provide proof of insurance at the hospital door? (Just like car insurance). AND...

I respectfully disagree with the author. As I have understood it, he believes there is no such thing as an “absolute good,” which I have interpreted as something that is good in all circumstances. (Correct me if I have misunderstood the author).
Surely there must be such a thing. For example (this is not meant to be exclusive, but inclusive), love? Joy? Peace? Patience? Kindness? Goodness? Faithfulness? Gentleness? Self control? Against such things there is no law. When is even one of these not good? If it is good in all instances, then by the author’s definition as I have understood it, it is absolutely good. Even the choice to abandon one or all of these absolutely good things (as I and everyone else has at one time or another)...