The problem with labels like "modern feminism" is that it allows for grossly oversimplifying the discussion. All you've done here is expose your own beliefs about what women might be thinking and charicatured them in the process.
How many interviews have you been on where the interviewer explained that all your potential coworkers like to make raunchy jokes and talk about female body parts, and if you don't like that kind of environment then you should quit the interview process? I more than positively sure you've never had such an interview. So how is this hypothetical interviewee supposed to know what the environment is like when they accept a position (ignoring the fact that the company would almost surely be sued for intimidating/offending/harassing a job applicant)?
So the fact that false accusations have been made in some cases means we have to scrap the whole concept of harassment? What a stupid implication. Should all rape accusations be dismissed because some woman somewhere falsely accused someone of raping her? Obviously not. And read the OP more closely. He clearly believes that the work environment will abusive, not that some woman is going to come in and decide to retire on the settlement proceeds from a false sexual harassment claim.
Vilifying Political Correctness is used far too often, as in this case, as an excuse to be a disrespectful ass. Sure, there are lots of cases I'm sure you could dig up of PC gone amok, but this isn't one of them.
Says the guy who's obviously never been in the minority position in an uncomfortable environment.
I've always felt like I had a reasonable understanding of what it might feel like to be in such a minority position, at least in an intellectual sense, but it wasn't until I worked in a fairly large team that was >60% Indian and 20% Chinese (myself being white) that I truly understood it. So unless you've "walked a mile in her shoes", you're in no position to criticise a woman who feels uncomfortable in a group of men who act like crude sexist jerks (while claiming not to be). I'm not a big fan of zero-tolerance PC policies, but I do strongly believe in having respect for others, and if that means no sexual innuendo or whatever, I'm fine with that.
And note that in the OP's case, it may very well be that the woman that joins the group is perfectly comfortable in that environment, but that's a decision she gets to make, like it or not. Where I work now, there are women who can dish it out just as well as the guys (and seem to enjoy doing so), but we're all aware of what others are comfortable with. It's a natural part of simply being respectful.
The converse of "work" intruding on "personal time" via our gadgets is "life" intruding on "work time" via those same gadgets. How many people check their facebook accounts, read slashdot, respond to emails/IMs/texts from friends/family, etc while at work? So we might as a general rule not really be working many, if any, more hours, we're just blurring the transition between work and non-work. Whether this is welcomed as flexibility or despised for allowing employers to take advantage is really up to individual perspective.
I had a different experience. Had a blood test, 1500+ triglycerides (under 200 is "normal"). Doctor said I was in for serious trouble if I didn't fix it. Gave me a couple of options, one to take Niacin, the other to change my lifestyle from non-vegetable, meat-eating couch potato to healthy eater with lots of exercise. I took Niacin for 90 days, during which I lost 40 lbs and went from completely winded after running 100 yds to running 10ks (in addition to swimming, biking, lifting weights). Triglycerides dropped well into normal range (100), stopped taking Niacin, and have been doing well since, as long as I keep up with a reasonable diet and exercise.
Many, perhaps most, people will not do what I did. I have a *very* strong preference to avoid drugs if at all possible (I don't drink alcohol mostly for that reason), so I could motivate myself to make an extreme change in my lifestyle. You had a crappy doctor for not even discussing the alternatives, but if I were a doctor and had patient after patient saying, "exercise every day, lose 40lbs, eat vegetables with every meal, are you kidding?", I might get tired of wasting the time making the suggestion, too.
So, while your doctor may have been getting incentives to offer drugs, it's just as likely he was playing the odds that you weren't capable of doing what you did. Kudos, by the way, for not being a lazy asshole taking expensive drugs just so you could avoid changing an unhealthy lifestyle.
The issue with advertising costs, in my opinion, is not *how much* is spent, but *why and where* it is spent. Drug companies have started going after consumers so that those consumers go to their doctor and insist on getting a drug they saw on TV that they are sure is going to fix everything for them. That's what the commercial said, right? It should be the responsibility of the physician to be aware of the available drugs and discuss the best options with the patient.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always work out in practice, as the drug companies have been buying (at least some) physicians for a long time. As a patient, it's very hard to know if a doctor is recommending a drug because it's the best choice or because the manufacturer sent them to Hawaii for two weeks. Barring gifts/incentives/etc might help remove conflicts of interest, but that opens up a whole other line of argument.
The problem with that theory is that there is reasonably strong competition in the pharmaceutical industry, so there's bound to be at least one company that can see the significant $$ to be made from a cure, especially if they have a patent on it and can set the price as necessary to insure a good profit.
It's just a little too conspiracy-theorist for me to think all drug companies are colluding to squash any research into cures versus "maintenance" drugs. We all like to hate the drug companies, but we hate them because they are more motivated by greed/profit than by altruism. They also don't control all avenues of research, with plenty of public-sector researchers being very interested in research on cures.
If the federal government can use taxation powers to force you to do anything, then the federal government has no limit to its powers. This is in direct opposition to the structure of our government.
The government has always had the power to do this, but the people have always had the power to vote out anyone who passes such laws. Consider this the fourth check and balance. Don't like all the new taxes? Vote for someone who feels the same way and will work to repeal them. The propensity of elected officials to want to remain as elected officials works to mitigate what might be viewed as excessive governmental powers.
The Constitution is meant to be simple to read, and there is ample documentation from the Founders to refer to in case anything needs clarification.
If that's true, then why did the Founders create the Supreme Court to debate and decide on constitutional matters in the first place? There's plenty of contradictory opinions on constitutionality right from the very start to believe that the Constitution is so simple and clear cut. They knew that they weren't going to get everything perfectly right or clear, especially given that they weren't even all of the same mind on many of the issues covered by the Constitution (and thankfully so).
I take it you are unaware that in a group where ALL members will have similar medical costs over a lifetime, cost of "health insurance" for each member must be approximately the cost of all the health care required by each member?
That's intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
In other words, you're not actually saving ANYONE any money by doing health insurance - there's no spreading of risk when we all get old....
You've taken a big leap here, right off a cliff. How do you possibly conclude that ALL people will incur the same health care costs? That isn't even a remotely realistic assumption. Over the past 20 years or so, I've personally incurred health care costs that add up to maybe six months of insurance premiums, probably less, while my wife has had her gall bladder taken out and had spinal surgery (not to mention two pregnancies, one C-section). That's a huge discrepancy in costs just for a sample size of two.
Selfish, damn straight I am. What I've earned is mine by right of physical or mental effort and I will not give it away without receiving equal value in return.
And you've had absolutely no support whatsoever from anyone or anything that was funded via the taxes of others? Didn't attend public school? Don't drive on public roads? Have your own source of clean air and water? (Yeah, "clean" is relative, but I'd wager air and water are certainly cleaner with federal regulations than they would be without, so let's not get side-tracked with that argument.) Etc, etc, etc.
What you've earned has almost certainly been enabled to some extent by resources that others have helped pay for. At least you admit that you're selfish. That doesn't mean you can just decide not to contribute back to the society that has helped you be where you are, but you aren't required to be happy about it.
I think this staunch religious stand is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm not a student of politics, but I don't think conservative religious belief has always had so much sway over the political right. They've somehow managed to take over the Republican party and wield it towards their own ends. I tend slightly towards the conservative side fiscally, but the social conservatives make me want to puke.
IOW, it's easy when you follow the Constitution. It's hard when you try to bend the Constitution to your ideology.
That's an argument I can agree with. I've always been disappointed that politicians are such ideologues and can't, as a general rule, seem to actually think through problems and come up with good solutions. Tow the party line or get the boot. But when you see that behavior from SCOTUS on a regular basis, it's doubly disappointing.
But this latest ruling is a different beast altogether. The ACA ruling is interesting in that the swing vote was from a traditionally conservative Justice, which no one expected to vote in favor of the law being constitutional. It makes it really difficult to argue that Roberts was working hard to bend the Constitution to his ideology. Given your argument about taxation powers being so dangerous in the hands of the federal government, you would expect the conservative Roberts to have been adamantly against the penalty/tax provision of the ACA, as well as the ACA in principle. Makes for a lot of knee-jerk reactions that don't hold up under scrutiny (mine are just as susceptible to that as everyone else's).
As far as I understand, the ACA doesn't *mandate* health care, it simply imposes a tax on those who choose to free-ride on those who have insurance. You only have to pay slight attention to SCOTUS goings-on to understand that the Constitution is nothing if not finely nuanced and very difficult to interpret in non-partisan ways. There is a distinction between a mandate and a tax for not adhering to federally *suggested* behavior according to CJ Roberts (who, I think, would prefer not to be classified as a liberal), as he clearly explained in the majority opinion.
Now, you might oppose the idea that Congress, according to today's opinion, has the right to impose taxes like this, but that has little to do with this particular legislation and should not be used as an argument against ACA. One would have to assume such powers existed before the ACA, whether or not there were any precedents in prior case law. Or maybe one would have to hope that, otherwise SCOTUS decisions are somewhat capricious. I personally find it utterly ridiculous that so many SCOTUS decisions break along party lines--Justices aren't supposed to be ruling based on party affiliations--but the Constitution just isn't exact enough for there to be one answer to constitutional questions. I guess that's why the rulings are called "opinions". I think I might be arguing against myself here, time to shut up.
Funny thing is, I think the far right would have just as much a problem with "higher order thinking skills" as they appear to have with "Higher Order Thinking Skills", especially given the part at the end, "... and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I think that last part is why anyone more towards the middle of the political spectrum might misinterpret what the GOP was explicitly saying and might legitimately believe that between the lines, the GOP really is opposing critical thinking skills. Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.
Was that comment directed at me? I can't really tell with the./ threading layout. If it is...
My 10yo daughter had a cold a few weeks ago. After a few days, she started asking to go to the doctor, to which I patiently explained that there's nothing the doctor could do and it was unnecessary. A couple days later, when she could not hear us speaking at normal levels, my wife took her to the doctor where she was diagnosed with a severe ear infection that, if left untreated, could cause long-term hearing loss.
So while I whole-heartedly agree that medical services are often over-used, I also understand the importance of early intervention to prevent much more significant issues later on that could cost far more than a doctor's office visit and some anti-biotics.
And where do you get off calling me entitled? I make a decent living, have acceptable insurance at work, and pay my bills. The ACA is not going to materially affect me unless I or someone in my family ends up with a long-term health condition. Without the ACA, I would not be able to change jobs without fear of losing everything to medical costs because of a "pre-existing condition". I don't see how fear of that situation (and having been recently laid off from a previous job, I think that fear is reasonable) somehow makes me an "entitled fuck".
If I were Rush Limbaugh (and had his fortune), I wouldn't care in the least about this issue other than using it to stir up hatred of all things slightly left of the far right among my acolytes and drive ratings numbers on my radio show and maybe sell books. You really think using Rush Limbaugh as an example helps your argument?
Why not make the HSA laws MORE liberal, so I can save for my medical needs pre-tax....and make my own adult medical choices? Why shouldn't it be up to the individual to save for medical care much as we save to pay our utilities, mortgages, rent...etc?
...
I'm a responsible adult and know to take care of myself...everyone should be.
You live in the same world I used to live in where you believe that a reasonable majority of people are actually responsible. I don't live there any more, I moved to a neighborhood much closer to the real world, and I have to say I miss the old neighborhood. The colors were a little brighter and people smiled more there.
Pay attention to the tone of the post I responded to (and his signature). Somehow I don't think "The Mighty Buzzard" is going to be overly offended by being called a shit head.
And worse than a tax, you might be convicted of a crime if you drive without mandated insurance. If you cause an accident, you might also be sued and have to pay far, far more than the insurance would have cost you.
Lots of conservative-leaning company executives have been saying things like this since ACA was introduced. Ask them to specify exactly *why* ACA will cause them to raise your rates and exactly *why* those rates would not have gone up as much or more without ACA. Perhaps they really do have real data to support the claim, but I doubt it. More likely they get all their news from Fox, but I'd be very interested to hear their well-reasoned and backed-up by facts explanation. Otherwise, they're just blowing partisan smoke.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
Take that argument up with Republicans. Obama wanted to offer (not require, mind you, but provide the option of) a public health plan. So rather than paying a tax and not having a plan, you would alternatively be forced to pay for the public option if you did not choose to pay for a private option.
And before you get all worked up about being "forced" to pay, you are already forced to pay (assuming you are employed) for medicare, social security, and a host of other things you don't even get to use until you are of retirement age. I fail to see how Obama's proposal's were so horribly evil.
I haven't seen people anywhere near as upset about being forced to buy auto insurance, and that's been around for decades. The only real difference between the ACA and forced auto insurance is that one is forced by the federal government and the other by state governments. Unless you are a state's rights lawyer or scholar, the distinction is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me or to the vast majority of citizens *who* is forcing me to buy something, the fact is I have to buy it.
The relevant difference in these two cases is that I can avoid the cost of auto insurance by opting out of driving, but I can't opt out of ever needing health care and thus can't avoid the cost of health insurance under the ACA.
Agreed. I have no problem affording my health care plan.
It's not so much that the current system is not affordable for most people, at least not yet, but that it is becoming increasingly unpalatable and the longer-term prospects are quite bleak.
The new law might not be perfect, but can you really argue that the current system isn't horribly broken and getting worse by the minute? I think that history will show that Obama made a huge positive difference by championing this law and getting it passed, and that as it's more positive effects become more obvious, even the whiny Republicans will end up getting behind it to some extent. Maybe they'll actually participate and help make it better rather than fighting against it just to prevent a Democrat president from "scoring a victory".
Look, shit head, if you want to have that attitude, then wear a big wrist band that says "DO NOT PROVIDE ME WITH MEDICAL CARE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". Add something about religious beliefs or some such nonsense so that when you get in an accident/get seriously sick/have a heart attack/whatever, you aren't forced into participating in the health care system to which you do not want to contribute.
The difference here between health care and auto insurance is that you can opt out of owning a vehicle and driving and not increase the cost for the rest of us. You can't opt out of ever getting sick or injured or otherwise needing medical attention for your entire lifetime. Society generally will not allow you to bleed to death on the side of the road just because you refused to pay for health insurance (or pay the fine/tax imposed by the new law). So whether you like it or not, you *are* participating in the health care system, and you *are* being a selfish asshole for refusing to acknowledge that.
And irony of ironies, getting yourself thrown in prison for refusing to pay for health care (or aforementioned fine/tax) provides you with a government-paid health care plan.
Without some sane form of protection (current system != sane), you run the risk of the copycats making most of the money, leaving true innovators struggling to fund future innovations. Say you owned a company and spent several years developing the best widget since sliced bread, then some Chinese company immediately cloned it and sold it for half what you could sell it for, would you still be railing against IP protections? I think not.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to get a patent on some painfully obvious idea, but that's an issue with implementation, not with the actual concept of IP protections.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with labels like "modern feminism" is that it allows for grossly oversimplifying the discussion. All you've done here is expose your own beliefs about what women might be thinking and charicatured them in the process.
How many interviews have you been on where the interviewer explained that all your potential coworkers like to make raunchy jokes and talk about female body parts, and if you don't like that kind of environment then you should quit the interview process? I more than positively sure you've never had such an interview. So how is this hypothetical interviewee supposed to know what the environment is like when they accept a position (ignoring the fact that the company would almost surely be sued for intimidating/offending/harassing a job applicant)?
So the fact that false accusations have been made in some cases means we have to scrap the whole concept of harassment? What a stupid implication. Should all rape accusations be dismissed because some woman somewhere falsely accused someone of raping her? Obviously not. And read the OP more closely. He clearly believes that the work environment will abusive, not that some woman is going to come in and decide to retire on the settlement proceeds from a false sexual harassment claim.
Vilifying Political Correctness is used far too often, as in this case, as an excuse to be a disrespectful ass. Sure, there are lots of cases I'm sure you could dig up of PC gone amok, but this isn't one of them.
Says the guy who's obviously never been in the minority position in an uncomfortable environment.
I've always felt like I had a reasonable understanding of what it might feel like to be in such a minority position, at least in an intellectual sense, but it wasn't until I worked in a fairly large team that was >60% Indian and 20% Chinese (myself being white) that I truly understood it. So unless you've "walked a mile in her shoes", you're in no position to criticise a woman who feels uncomfortable in a group of men who act like crude sexist jerks (while claiming not to be). I'm not a big fan of zero-tolerance PC policies, but I do strongly believe in having respect for others, and if that means no sexual innuendo or whatever, I'm fine with that.
And note that in the OP's case, it may very well be that the woman that joins the group is perfectly comfortable in that environment, but that's a decision she gets to make, like it or not. Where I work now, there are women who can dish it out just as well as the guys (and seem to enjoy doing so), but we're all aware of what others are comfortable with. It's a natural part of simply being respectful.
The converse of "work" intruding on "personal time" via our gadgets is "life" intruding on "work time" via those same gadgets. How many people check their facebook accounts, read slashdot, respond to emails/IMs/texts from friends/family, etc while at work? So we might as a general rule not really be working many, if any, more hours, we're just blurring the transition between work and non-work. Whether this is welcomed as flexibility or despised for allowing employers to take advantage is really up to individual perspective.
I had a different experience. Had a blood test, 1500+ triglycerides (under 200 is "normal"). Doctor said I was in for serious trouble if I didn't fix it. Gave me a couple of options, one to take Niacin, the other to change my lifestyle from non-vegetable, meat-eating couch potato to healthy eater with lots of exercise. I took Niacin for 90 days, during which I lost 40 lbs and went from completely winded after running 100 yds to running 10ks (in addition to swimming, biking, lifting weights). Triglycerides dropped well into normal range (100), stopped taking Niacin, and have been doing well since, as long as I keep up with a reasonable diet and exercise.
Many, perhaps most, people will not do what I did. I have a *very* strong preference to avoid drugs if at all possible (I don't drink alcohol mostly for that reason), so I could motivate myself to make an extreme change in my lifestyle. You had a crappy doctor for not even discussing the alternatives, but if I were a doctor and had patient after patient saying, "exercise every day, lose 40lbs, eat vegetables with every meal, are you kidding?", I might get tired of wasting the time making the suggestion, too.
So, while your doctor may have been getting incentives to offer drugs, it's just as likely he was playing the odds that you weren't capable of doing what you did. Kudos, by the way, for not being a lazy asshole taking expensive drugs just so you could avoid changing an unhealthy lifestyle.
The issue with advertising costs, in my opinion, is not *how much* is spent, but *why and where* it is spent. Drug companies have started going after consumers so that those consumers go to their doctor and insist on getting a drug they saw on TV that they are sure is going to fix everything for them. That's what the commercial said, right? It should be the responsibility of the physician to be aware of the available drugs and discuss the best options with the patient.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always work out in practice, as the drug companies have been buying (at least some) physicians for a long time. As a patient, it's very hard to know if a doctor is recommending a drug because it's the best choice or because the manufacturer sent them to Hawaii for two weeks. Barring gifts/incentives/etc might help remove conflicts of interest, but that opens up a whole other line of argument.
The problem with that theory is that there is reasonably strong competition in the pharmaceutical industry, so there's bound to be at least one company that can see the significant $$ to be made from a cure, especially if they have a patent on it and can set the price as necessary to insure a good profit.
It's just a little too conspiracy-theorist for me to think all drug companies are colluding to squash any research into cures versus "maintenance" drugs. We all like to hate the drug companies, but we hate them because they are more motivated by greed/profit than by altruism. They also don't control all avenues of research, with plenty of public-sector researchers being very interested in research on cures.
If the federal government can use taxation powers to force you to do anything, then the federal government has no limit to its powers. This is in direct opposition to the structure of our government.
The government has always had the power to do this, but the people have always had the power to vote out anyone who passes such laws. Consider this the fourth check and balance. Don't like all the new taxes? Vote for someone who feels the same way and will work to repeal them. The propensity of elected officials to want to remain as elected officials works to mitigate what might be viewed as excessive governmental powers.
The Constitution is meant to be simple to read, and there is ample documentation from the Founders to refer to in case anything needs clarification.
If that's true, then why did the Founders create the Supreme Court to debate and decide on constitutional matters in the first place? There's plenty of contradictory opinions on constitutionality right from the very start to believe that the Constitution is so simple and clear cut. They knew that they weren't going to get everything perfectly right or clear, especially given that they weren't even all of the same mind on many of the issues covered by the Constitution (and thankfully so).
I take it you are unaware that in a group where ALL members will have similar medical costs over a lifetime, cost of "health insurance" for each member must be approximately the cost of all the health care required by each member?
That's intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
In other words, you're not actually saving ANYONE any money by doing health insurance - there's no spreading of risk when we all get old....
You've taken a big leap here, right off a cliff. How do you possibly conclude that ALL people will incur the same health care costs? That isn't even a remotely realistic assumption. Over the past 20 years or so, I've personally incurred health care costs that add up to maybe six months of insurance premiums, probably less, while my wife has had her gall bladder taken out and had spinal surgery (not to mention two pregnancies, one C-section). That's a huge discrepancy in costs just for a sample size of two.
Selfish, damn straight I am. What I've earned is mine by right of physical or mental effort and I will not give it away without receiving equal value in return.
And you've had absolutely no support whatsoever from anyone or anything that was funded via the taxes of others? Didn't attend public school? Don't drive on public roads? Have your own source of clean air and water? (Yeah, "clean" is relative, but I'd wager air and water are certainly cleaner with federal regulations than they would be without, so let's not get side-tracked with that argument.) Etc, etc, etc.
What you've earned has almost certainly been enabled to some extent by resources that others have helped pay for. At least you admit that you're selfish. That doesn't mean you can just decide not to contribute back to the society that has helped you be where you are, but you aren't required to be happy about it.
I think this staunch religious stand is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm not a student of politics, but I don't think conservative religious belief has always had so much sway over the political right. They've somehow managed to take over the Republican party and wield it towards their own ends. I tend slightly towards the conservative side fiscally, but the social conservatives make me want to puke.
IOW, it's easy when you follow the Constitution. It's hard when you try to bend the Constitution to your ideology.
That's an argument I can agree with. I've always been disappointed that politicians are such ideologues and can't, as a general rule, seem to actually think through problems and come up with good solutions. Tow the party line or get the boot. But when you see that behavior from SCOTUS on a regular basis, it's doubly disappointing.
But this latest ruling is a different beast altogether. The ACA ruling is interesting in that the swing vote was from a traditionally conservative Justice, which no one expected to vote in favor of the law being constitutional. It makes it really difficult to argue that Roberts was working hard to bend the Constitution to his ideology. Given your argument about taxation powers being so dangerous in the hands of the federal government, you would expect the conservative Roberts to have been adamantly against the penalty/tax provision of the ACA, as well as the ACA in principle. Makes for a lot of knee-jerk reactions that don't hold up under scrutiny (mine are just as susceptible to that as everyone else's).
As far as I understand, the ACA doesn't *mandate* health care, it simply imposes a tax on those who choose to free-ride on those who have insurance. You only have to pay slight attention to SCOTUS goings-on to understand that the Constitution is nothing if not finely nuanced and very difficult to interpret in non-partisan ways. There is a distinction between a mandate and a tax for not adhering to federally *suggested* behavior according to CJ Roberts (who, I think, would prefer not to be classified as a liberal), as he clearly explained in the majority opinion.
Now, you might oppose the idea that Congress, according to today's opinion, has the right to impose taxes like this, but that has little to do with this particular legislation and should not be used as an argument against ACA. One would have to assume such powers existed before the ACA, whether or not there were any precedents in prior case law. Or maybe one would have to hope that, otherwise SCOTUS decisions are somewhat capricious. I personally find it utterly ridiculous that so many SCOTUS decisions break along party lines--Justices aren't supposed to be ruling based on party affiliations--but the Constitution just isn't exact enough for there to be one answer to constitutional questions. I guess that's why the rulings are called "opinions". I think I might be arguing against myself here, time to shut up.
Funny thing is, I think the far right would have just as much a problem with "higher order thinking skills" as they appear to have with "Higher Order Thinking Skills", especially given the part at the end, "... and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." I think that last part is why anyone more towards the middle of the political spectrum might misinterpret what the GOP was explicitly saying and might legitimately believe that between the lines, the GOP really is opposing critical thinking skills. Can't have the littl'uns questionin' authority or back-talkin' their Momma and Daddy.
Was that comment directed at me? I can't really tell with the ./ threading layout. If it is...
My 10yo daughter had a cold a few weeks ago. After a few days, she started asking to go to the doctor, to which I patiently explained that there's nothing the doctor could do and it was unnecessary. A couple days later, when she could not hear us speaking at normal levels, my wife took her to the doctor where she was diagnosed with a severe ear infection that, if left untreated, could cause long-term hearing loss.
So while I whole-heartedly agree that medical services are often over-used, I also understand the importance of early intervention to prevent much more significant issues later on that could cost far more than a doctor's office visit and some anti-biotics.
And where do you get off calling me entitled? I make a decent living, have acceptable insurance at work, and pay my bills. The ACA is not going to materially affect me unless I or someone in my family ends up with a long-term health condition. Without the ACA, I would not be able to change jobs without fear of losing everything to medical costs because of a "pre-existing condition". I don't see how fear of that situation (and having been recently laid off from a previous job, I think that fear is reasonable) somehow makes me an "entitled fuck".
If I were Rush Limbaugh (and had his fortune), I wouldn't care in the least about this issue other than using it to stir up hatred of all things slightly left of the far right among my acolytes and drive ratings numbers on my radio show and maybe sell books. You really think using Rush Limbaugh as an example helps your argument?
Why not make the HSA laws MORE liberal, so I can save for my medical needs pre-tax....and make my own adult medical choices? Why shouldn't it be up to the individual to save for medical care much as we save to pay our utilities, mortgages, rent...etc?
...
I'm a responsible adult and know to take care of myself...everyone should be.
You live in the same world I used to live in where you believe that a reasonable majority of people are actually responsible. I don't live there any more, I moved to a neighborhood much closer to the real world, and I have to say I miss the old neighborhood. The colors were a little brighter and people smiled more there.
Pay attention to the tone of the post I responded to (and his signature). Somehow I don't think "The Mighty Buzzard" is going to be overly offended by being called a shit head.
And worse than a tax, you might be convicted of a crime if you drive without mandated insurance. If you cause an accident, you might also be sued and have to pay far, far more than the insurance would have cost you.
Lots of conservative-leaning company executives have been saying things like this since ACA was introduced. Ask them to specify exactly *why* ACA will cause them to raise your rates and exactly *why* those rates would not have gone up as much or more without ACA. Perhaps they really do have real data to support the claim, but I doubt it. More likely they get all their news from Fox, but I'd be very interested to hear their well-reasoned and backed-up by facts explanation. Otherwise, they're just blowing partisan smoke.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
Take that argument up with Republicans. Obama wanted to offer (not require, mind you, but provide the option of) a public health plan. So rather than paying a tax and not having a plan, you would alternatively be forced to pay for the public option if you did not choose to pay for a private option.
And before you get all worked up about being "forced" to pay, you are already forced to pay (assuming you are employed) for medicare, social security, and a host of other things you don't even get to use until you are of retirement age. I fail to see how Obama's proposal's were so horribly evil.
I haven't seen people anywhere near as upset about being forced to buy auto insurance, and that's been around for decades. The only real difference between the ACA and forced auto insurance is that one is forced by the federal government and the other by state governments. Unless you are a state's rights lawyer or scholar, the distinction is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me or to the vast majority of citizens *who* is forcing me to buy something, the fact is I have to buy it.
The relevant difference in these two cases is that I can avoid the cost of auto insurance by opting out of driving, but I can't opt out of ever needing health care and thus can't avoid the cost of health insurance under the ACA.
Agreed. I have no problem affording my health care plan.
It's not so much that the current system is not affordable for most people, at least not yet, but that it is becoming increasingly unpalatable and the longer-term prospects are quite bleak.
The new law might not be perfect, but can you really argue that the current system isn't horribly broken and getting worse by the minute? I think that history will show that Obama made a huge positive difference by championing this law and getting it passed, and that as it's more positive effects become more obvious, even the whiny Republicans will end up getting behind it to some extent. Maybe they'll actually participate and help make it better rather than fighting against it just to prevent a Democrat president from "scoring a victory".
Look, shit head, if you want to have that attitude, then wear a big wrist band that says "DO NOT PROVIDE ME WITH MEDICAL CARE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". Add something about religious beliefs or some such nonsense so that when you get in an accident/get seriously sick/have a heart attack/whatever, you aren't forced into participating in the health care system to which you do not want to contribute.
The difference here between health care and auto insurance is that you can opt out of owning a vehicle and driving and not increase the cost for the rest of us. You can't opt out of ever getting sick or injured or otherwise needing medical attention for your entire lifetime. Society generally will not allow you to bleed to death on the side of the road just because you refused to pay for health insurance (or pay the fine/tax imposed by the new law). So whether you like it or not, you *are* participating in the health care system, and you *are* being a selfish asshole for refusing to acknowledge that.
And irony of ironies, getting yourself thrown in prison for refusing to pay for health care (or aforementioned fine/tax) provides you with a government-paid health care plan.
Without some sane form of protection (current system != sane), you run the risk of the copycats making most of the money, leaving true innovators struggling to fund future innovations. Say you owned a company and spent several years developing the best widget since sliced bread, then some Chinese company immediately cloned it and sold it for half what you could sell it for, would you still be railing against IP protections? I think not.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to get a patent on some painfully obvious idea, but that's an issue with implementation, not with the actual concept of IP protections.