Well and that ain't the whole story. To quote from wikipedia:
During the convention's first three days, more than 300[50] individuals were arrested by police,[51] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[52] health-care workers and lawyer observers.[53] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[53]
It was more or less the same at 2004 RNC: people (1800 accordingly to wikipedia) were arrested, many just just for being in the wrong place. Not only reporters/lawyers/health care volunteers were arrested but also people completely unrelated to the protests that were going about their business (delivery men, people just going/coming to/from work, etc). I thought at that point this is something realy massive and NYC will be sued to oblivion, Bush will lose a lot of popularity and maybe resign and so on. But no, nothing like that...
Maybe there were not lawsuits because no one had a case against the city. I was in NY during the RNC (on non-related business) and got to see first hand what was going on. First, the police did an awesome job. They pretty much let people do what they wanted and were there to maintain the peace. They maintained a pretty light hand. Right in front of a couple of police officers, I was spit and threatened on by a peace protester who didn't understand the irony of his actions. The police did nothing. I asked them why and they basically told me that they had bigger fish to fry. Sadly, I agreed.
I saw people block entrances to businesses, block the bus routes for delegates, hurl objects such as fake blood, urine, and dirt at delegates, try to "release" protesters that had been arrested and partake in other activities that went far beyond their right to peacefully assemble. No one can deny that their attempt was to disrupt the RNC, meaning that their goal was to strip the rights of the RNC members. Those that resorted to illegal means were arrested.
The only bystanders that I saw arrested who were at the wrong place at the wrong time were given fair warning. For example, if a bunch of protesters were blocking a bus route and a reporter was in the mix interviewing them, that reporter was also arrested for helping to block the bus route. They were given ample warning to move.
What does this have to do with the recruiting center protests? When you block a legal activity in protest, you can count on getting arrested. These people crossed the line and were no longer "peaceably assembling". They were breaking the law.
Arts and music are for many what makes life worth it. Not having a chance at being exposed to those, at least once, in school, would be very sad for many kids who have no chance to look into it at home. I still remember art projects I did in junior high.
That's great. I think art and music should be taught in school. But personally, I don't feel it should be forced as it currently is.
I have no artistic talent whatsoever. I am tone deaf. I can't draw. I can't make stuff from clay other than a pile of dog doo (my jr high art project). I was forced to spend an hour a day at least, every day from the first to ninth grades doing something art or music related. Total waste of time for me and everyone like me.
Now, for some, these courses were great. They fostered creativity and even helped in other basic courses such as math and English. The base education in the arts have allowed some to be the most brilliant and creative minds that bring beauty to an otherwise dull world. I was not one of those people and no amount of education could have turned me into one.
I would have been better served if these courses were offered as an elective. My time would have been better spent in a science, computer, English or math class. That extra hour a day spent doing math, for example, could have really honed my math skills and led me to who-knows-what. I could have completed calculus before entering high school. Could you imagine how far I could have gotten by the time I graduated college? Instead, I was stuck being embarrassed singing "Good Morning, Miss Lawrence" before the entire class in what was NOT supposed to be a monotone voice.
>To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which >preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
Crock. Of. Shit. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The Bill of Rights does not enshrine religion, it neuters it, and rightfully so.
Yes, you have the right to worship whatever you like. Of course I also have the right to point out it's all fairy tales and magic worship.
First, you are confused. Yes, there is a freedom FROM a GOVERNMENT religion which is where the BoR states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but I'm free to practice whatever religion I wish because it says next, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
So, yes, the founders of the Bill of Rights thought religion was so important, they mentioned it first. I'd call that enshrining.
The right that allows you to ridicule religion comes in next in the first amendment under freedom of speech. So, to say that the founders did not "enshrine" religion in the BoR is also saying that freedom so speech is not "enshrined" since the founders thought it important enough to list religion first and second.
However, the freedom of speech also covers you to look ignorant. When you call religion "fairy tales and magic worship", it proves that you have very little clue as to what religion entails. Most of religion are rules to live by. It sets a standard on how to live. It teaches not to steal, murder, lie, cheat on your spouse or several other things that cause problems between people. It also teaches to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, forgive those that have done you wrong, and other things that make us better people and improve society as a whole.
Evidently, you don't understand any of that, which makes you ignorant. Maybe you just think that kind acts like feeding the hungry is all fairy tales, which would just make you an asshole. I'll be kind and assume that it's just ignorance on your part. Tomorrow is Sunday. Please wake up early enough to attend a church and talk with the people there before you embarrass yourself further.
Re:I wrote a song about it. Wanna hear it? Here it
on
OpenBSD 4.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Sorry you feel that way. I don't know where you are from, but the country I live in values religion so highly that it is listed as the very first guaranteed right. We call the entire list The Bill of Rights and freedom of religion is ranked pretty high. It is listed as the very first right in the very first amendment. It is the number 1 of number 1. I'd like to thing the document that has guided my country for over 200 years and has made us the powerful nation on earth might have some street cred. I also like to think that men who wrote it were unequaled geniuses of their time as well as ours. You see, that document they wrote that protects and respects my religious views is the same one that protects you from my religious views. To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
So, to ridicule religion, you are ridiculing my Bill of Rights. Sorry, but until you found a country that becomes the most powerful in the world while guaranteeing the freedom of not just its citizens, but fights for the rights of people around the world, I'm going to say that are not qualified to criticize these men nor the document they wrote. For that matter, it kinda makes you look like an immature little dumb-ass with absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. I don't say that as an insult, but as constructive criticism.
>The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions > that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe, > just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence, > so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
I have no problem with people who have opinions that are different than my own.
As long as they aren't based in mysticism and superstition. Those opinions deserve nothing but scorn and laughter.
Oh, so your problem is with religion then? Does it have to do with lack of provable facts? Well, let's define some words.
bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations bigot - one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Yup, there's your proof. By definition, you are a bigot. Congratulations.
>The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. >He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
I'm so tired of this Bush apologizing.
The translation is, "He was a backward fuckwad pandering to religious nuts, but hey, at least his reach exceeded his grasp!"
That's the spirit. Ignore the facts and hurl insults.
The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe, just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence, so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations. We don't know how many "patients" died or were mutilated in the process of supposedly perfecting this treatment. That sort of thing wouldn't fly in the US.
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research... as they approach age 75.
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
From TFA:
As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections for diseases like ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury â" many of these are considered incurable diseases.
Cord blood stem cells was NOT under any restrictions from the previous administration. For that matter, the Bush administration was the first US administration to fund this type of stem cell research.
I understand your desire to blame everything on Republicans, but you should really try to give credit where credit is due and stop making stuff up to make them look bad.
Fine, enough already. Bush was Satan and Hitler's love baby. Happy? We get it. You hate Bush and all that are different than you. Conservatives are evil because they have different opinions. We all know that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, evil and stupid. We all must keep an open mind and hate conservatives equally. We get it.
The whole point of Net Neutrality is that an ISP can not treat packets differently based on their type or destination. Here are some examples of why Neutrality is a good idea:
What is to stop TW from blocking or slowing packets related to Vonage's service in order to push their own? What would stop TW from creating their own search engine and blocking Google, Yahoo, and MSN?
The whole point is that TW can create its own version of any service currently provided by the web and choke off their competition or charge extra for access to their competition. When there is only one game in town, that's monopoly abuse. That would be like your power company selling toasters with a special plug and charging extra or blocking users from buying a competing toaster.
As for usage caps. I really hate it, but I can't really find a good argument against this one. Unfortunately, Internet service is like a utility, or should be, and every utility is based on usage. This is why competition is good. Once a utility has competition, they are forced to compete and lose their monopoly status.
Since when has the government EVER, EVER, EVER been more efficient than the private sector?
Road construction, airports, law enforcement, defense, schools,... I could go on, but I don't need to. One example would be enough to counter your argument. Or are you asking about a particular government?
Road construction is done by private companies. Sure, they are paid by tax payer dollars, but they are still done privately. Most are done at a local level. Still, 100% private toll roads are usually better maintained than federal interstates.
Airports are paid for by renting gates to private airline companies and booths to private businesses. The original construction is paid for by the gov't. Still, it is much easier to board a plane at a private airport than a public one. Also, compare the service you get from government funded Amtrak vs the service you receive from privately owned Continental. If government did a better job, why doesn't the government run the businesses and shops that are in the airport? Why doesn't government run the airlines?
Law Enforcement and Military. The feds are required to provide these via the Constitution. I don't see health care listed. And again, private security firms offer much better security than the police force, that's why so many companies hire them. This is because a private firm hired to protect a building are not called off to settle some dispute caused by an alcoholic arguing with his wife.
Schools? Really? You mean public education is better than private? Seriously? I don't know where you live, but here in the US, public schools are a joke.
So, you really need to provide me an example of where government does a better job than private companies.
Yes, if I believed in all the BS spewed out by right-wing propagandists, I'd be against it, too.
Did you read my post? I said that I am against government provided health care not because of some "right wing BS", but from my personal experience. I've lived under government provided health care and it sucked. There was nothing that motivated doctors to make you want to get your health care from them. You didn't choose a doctor, you were assigned one. Sorry, but that sucked. No "right wing propaganda" required.
Really? I'm a Republican, and when I say Socialist, I mean Socialist, like China, Cuba, Venezuela, Stalin's Soviet Union... you know, Socialists.
What about Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Germany, Finnland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK or Canada? Would you call them "socialist"?
Listen, my problem with socialized medicine is that I fear it will suck.
Many countries have such system. Some suck. Many don't. Take a good look at them, find out what causes suckiness, and avoid that in a planned implementation.
The GP said that when Republicans say "Socialist", they really mean "Anti-Christ". That is what I was responding to, even though I'm more Libertarian than Republican. The Libertarian in me has searched the Constitution and found no reference to the government controlling health care. Sorry, but it is just not in there.
As for your question... I have to say sorta. Socialized medicine is Socialist by definition.
I'm sure that many countries have great government provided health care as a whole. However, I'm not concerned about the overall health of the nation. I'm concerned with the health of my family. Right now, I don't see how the care part of it could get any better. Sure, it could get worse, but if it does, it is because I made bad choices. Choice is what it is all about. I am in control of my own health care. I choose my coverage. What choices do these other countries have? What recourse is there when something goes wrong? There is a saying, "You can't fight city hall" and it rings true. How much more powerful is the Federal Government? What do you do when the feds say, "Your fat and lazy and we are not going to spend tax payer money on your bypass".
A GREAT DEAL OF US CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY!!! Why in the hell is that so hard to understand?!
It's impossible to understand because you've never said it. All you've said up to this point is how evil private insurance companies are and how much better it would be if the government ran it. But if it's a money thing... why didn't you just say so.
First, it is against the law to deny you treatment. If you are dieing, go to the emergency room and get treatment man. If you have the sniffles, DON'T. For anything that is NOT an emergency, that's what these little McClinics that you see popping up all over the place are all about.
Also, there is medicaid for people who can't afford health coverage. I understand that a lot of people are in a catch-22 because if they make any more money, they will LOSE their health benefits... well that sucks. The government should do something about that. Actually, some states are passing bills that cause those making more money to lose their free coverage at a graduated rate. Let's say you are on medicare and you get a better job that pays more, but not enough to get your own insurance. You can stay on Medicare, but you have to pay a little bit for it. If you make even more, you pay a little more. As soon as you get your own insurance, you get off Medicare. There, problem solved.
Now, if you are talking about health insurance for the poor, that's different. I have no problem with that. That's not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is UNIVERSAL health care. That means putting everyone on the same health care system. Hey, I don't want on that system and I certainly don't want to pay for it. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't want to be on medicare or medicaid, or socialist medicine.
Nope, that's -precisely- what the evangelical base of the Republican Party believes. I don't care what bullshit they say about Socialism and "just being concerned for the little guy", they see Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ an his attempt to maybe HELP PEOPLE as some sort of Devil's plot.
Don't believe me? Wonder down to a group Southern Baptist (Who I happen to be a member of, say amen). Get them behind closed doors (though a fair amount will tell you straight out) and that's exactly what they believe.
Hmmmm. I was at church just the other day... and a week before that and a week before that and have been behind closed doors with several of them, and I have not heard that. Sure, I've heard some people say it, but not in my Texas based Baptist Church (don't get much more southern than that!). Then again, I heard that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ. Why just count the letters in his names. I heard that Clinton was the anti-Christ. I heard that George Bush as a Fascist, anti-Christ, Darth Vader, emperor for life, evil genius, bumbling bafoon, chimp and so on. It doesn't mean a thing.
Whenever you here a Republican use the word "Socialist", THAT is code for everything these people are afraid of (one world government, anti-christ, all the bullshit attached to the Book of Revelation, etc.)
Really? I'm a Republican, and when I say Socialist, I mean Socialist, like China, Cuba, Venezuela, Stalin's Soviet Union... you know, Socialists.
Al Franken
I'd trust any of those people over a damn insurance company.
Wow, enough said.
Listen, my problem with socialized medicine is that I fear it will suck. Everything the government touches turns to crap and I see no reason why this will be any different. I understand that some people don't have coverage, but that's not me. Why should my health and my child's health suffer because someone else can't... or won't get coverage? Well, some people can't get a car. Should I have to give them rides? Some can't get a home, should I have to provide them a room in mine? Are transportation and shelter not n
If you are speaking of me, I *DID NOT* say I wanted the Government to "protect" me from a preventable disease, I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE FROM A TREATABLE/CURABLE DISEASE.
I am speaking of you this is exactly what you said:
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
My God, man! You can't even copy and paste accurately!
But to expand on the point, UPS and FedEx do better than the postal service, your "public" utilities are really just highly regulated private companies and you really did say PREVENTABLE diseases. Don't think the government will try to protect you from "preventable" diseases? It's happening now. NY has banned trans-fats. Some states want to drug test medicaid recipients. Cigarettes just saw the highest tax increase in history. (BTW, why did the government raise taxes on smokes? Because they say that it costs the government too much money. So, let me ask you this, genius, if government is not paying for healthcare now, why does caring for smokers costs the government money?)
This entire debate (not just between us, but country wide) is driven by *money*.
Are you illiterate? This is about choice. Whoever pays makes the decisions. If you let the government pay for your health care (even with YOUR money), the government makes the decisions. I trust my health to ME, not my government.
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
Who said that? What, you can't refute the real arguments so you have to make up stupid ones that you can knock down?
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Who will appoint directors? Bureaucrats. Just like who appointed the director of FEMA before Katrina? How'd that system work out? Now you want to trust the life of your and your children to that system? More Democratic? Like the highway system? Like the IRS? Like... name me any government program that is "more democratic" than one you pay for yourself... Actually private industry is more like a dictatorship, only YOU are the king.
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting).
So you'd trust your health care to Bush appointee? How about an Obama appointee? What if Obama catches the swine flue and dies? Would you trust your health to Biden? How about Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich or Al Franken? Really? You put more faith in your health care decisions in Al "Frakkin" Franken than yourself?
Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Um, I live in State A. All my reps are Party X. Do you think that me calling them up will make a damn bit of difference? Do you think that my call will suddenly make them change their mind and vote with the Party Y?
Let me ask you, if you get denied for an insurance claim for a new heart, who can you run to now who might be able to help you before you die?
The press and civil courts of course. Actually, it's happened before. Google Erin Brockovich for an example of what happens when a private company screws over citizens. Then google "Japanese Internment" or "Trail of Tears", or "Tuskegee experiment" to find out what happens when the gov
And your precious private insurance ALREADY DOES JUST THAT! They are charging more if you smoke, they are charging more if you are overweight and some companies are just firing you outright so they don't have to pay the healthcare costs associated.
Um, stop right there. No, my healthcare provider does NOT charge me more if I smoke or if I'm overweight. They have never asked if I smoke and they have never weighed me. Sorry, but you are ill informed. This is what I mean by choice. I'm sorry that your insurance company treats you that way. May I suggest you find another? You may have to change jobs, but if you work at a place that gives you such crappy benefits, you would do better working elsewhere anyway.
And, since you clearly have not been paying attention, most of the proposals that anyone actually supports INCLUDE YOUR ABILITY TO SEEK PRIVATE INSURANCE!
Really? I can opt out of the system, keep my private provider and not pay the higher taxes that will be used to pay for "universal" health care? Or is more like, "you pay up bitch, just like everyone else. If you want private insurance above and beyond what Big Brother provides, you must pay for it yourself" (like Europe has it today).
For fucks sake, go take an economics course and look how much of a fucking drag on our economy our healthcare system is as it is currently run by the private insurance industry.
I know! It sucks! But seriously, do you think that the federal government can do the same or better job, with the same level of customer CARE (read my Army story), than the private sector does today for LESS Money!!??!! Since when has the government EVER, EVER, EVER been more efficient than the private sector? Seriously, do you not pay attention to history? Let's see, it's government less efficient 100% of the time... let's give them something else. Really?
This isn't about big bad fucking government, I am not a fan of big government, but this is one of those things like water, electricity, and roads that the government should at least be involved in.
No, it's NOT like power, water or electricity. Most utilities are private companies. They are merely regulated monopolies. They are still private.
What REALLY fucking kills me...is one of the most vocal people I know about this "socialist" healthcare crap that frequently goes on about the same stupid talking points... HAD FUCKING MILITARY HEALTH INSURANCE ALL HIS LIFE!
Maybe that is what made up his mind. It is certainly what made up my mind. Here's my story... well first read a few comments up about how my buddy's wife had to wait through a weekend before the government doctors would remove the dead baby from her uterus. Next read about my own experiences.
I decided to have my wisdom teeth pulled in the Army while it was free. I was given a day to have the procedure done and showed up that day at 6:00am. I stood in line until 9:00 before I could check in and then I was in a waiting room. Actually, it was windowless room with a bench with a bunch of sick soldiers standing around. Of course, I had no choice about when my appointment was, who I saw, or anything else for that matter except for which teeth were to be pulled. I only chose to have two removed so I could still eat on one side of my mouth. So, once my name was called, I got my assigned dentist and he went to work. I received local anesthesia only. This means I was fully conscious, aware of everything that was happening. I heard the drill cut my teeth in half while they were still in my mouth. I smelled the smoke and blood and saw the bone fly. I felt him push his knee in my chest as he twisted the cut tooth from my mouth... In short, it sucked. I decided to leave the other two teeth in my mouth!
Four years after leaving the Army I had the other two teeth pulled at a private dentist. The private dentist, who I chose a
What was the vote for the war? Was it something like 99-0 in the Senate? And failed? Really? Saddam Hussein is dead, the Taliban is out of power... I'd call those successes. Sure, there's clean up work to do, but as far as war goes, I think we've met the most common standard for victory.
"deregulation of banks that have destroyed the economy" You mean how John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but it was shot down by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Dodd and Frank were Republicans that day.
Maybe you forgot the part where Obama's "support of efforts by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to empower the Federal Housing Administration to help struggling homeowners."
I'm sorry, how is that Government deregulation again? The banking mess is what started this mess and if Dodd and Frank were at fault and they were Democrats... HMMMM. That would make you full of shit.
"deregulation of industry which has lead to increased polution"... First, it's spelled pollution. Next, while I keep reading how the environment has gone to shit, I see absolutely no evidence of. Quite the contrary, I see things like "flex-fuel" vehicles, hybrid cars, bio diesel, and so on. So, tell me again how US government de-regulation stopped the Japanese from creating the Prius?
"removal of personal civil rights" Name one. Just one civil right you had before that you don't have now.
"loss of our standing in the world" Don't care. Sometimes the world is wrong. Didn't your mother ask you what you would do if everyone else were jumping off a cliff?
The noisy ones on the extreme right wing of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, including but not limited to the folks on Fox who have clearly sold their souls.
This is my favorite part. Here is a guy who claims to be a champion of civil rights, bashes the press for being free. I guess you think that the freedom of the press only applies to left-wing outlets?
NO NO NO! My main bitch about government health care is that government will try to tell citizens how to live their lives. Is that not exactly what the article I pointed to is doing? Here are state employees, with state provided health insurance, being forced to pay not just for their own government deemed unhealthy activities, but for their spouse's. If the government can make you pay more because you smoke, how long before they make you pay more if you are overweight? Or more to the point, what the government considers "overweight". Keep in mind that many professional athletes would be considered overweight by government standards. What about your diet. Why should a smoker pay more for health coverage and not someone who sleeps with strangers? Statistics show that gay men are more likely to get AIDS than straight, married Christian women? Why should the Christian women pay the same as gay men? For that matter, why should Christian women pay more than atheist women? How far do you go?
And yeah, I understand private insurance companies do the same thing. You know what you can do if you don't like it? GET ANOTHER INSURANCE COMPANY and stop paying the ones that are screwing you over!!!! What do you do if your government healthcare provider does something you don't like? Nothing! You can't get a new government, can you? All you can do is bend over and take it like the "prom queen" at the county penitentiary.
So, please, don't compare private and government provided insurance because you have thousands of private options vs one government. There is no doubt that there are private insurance companies that are worse than government provided health coverage. We know that. I freely admit it so you don't need to point it out. But if your private insurance company sucks, fire them and hire a new one. You can't do that with the government. And THAT is the difference. You are taking away CHOICE. You are giving up freedom in exchange for security (where have I heard that before?).
The consequences, in this case, will be a $600 smoking surcharge that goes into effect on New Year's Day 2010 for everyone in the state employee health system who smokes, or has a smoker for a spouse.
So, it appears the government will do what it can to force those who it provides care for into living the the government sees fit. Don't tell me it doesn't happen when it already is!
The GP said that he wanted the government to protect him from preventable disease. Heart disease is a preventable disease. So are STD's. How do you think the government will "protect" you from those diseases?
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Oh, bullshit. I'm so sick of this "One world Government", single religion, Book of Revelations BULLSHIT coming out *ANYTIME* someone tries to do *anything* to help people on a massive scale.
You know what scares ME, someone like you telling me I've got to die simply so YOU don't have to pay an extra $100 bucks come April. THAT'S what scares me.
I agree, the whole papers please argument is BS. I got so tired of hearing it when ever a Real ID topic came up. However, the same people that say, "I fear a government powerful enough to force me to carry an ID... papers please" are the same ones saying, "I want to put the government in charge of my health".
I don't have a problem carrying an ID... so what. You want to see my ID, here ya go. I really don't care. But do NOT put an incompetent government in charge of my health. I've lived under government paid for health care and it sucked.. it sucked bad. A buddy's wife in the Army had a miscarriage. She went to see the Army doctor at the Army office at 7:00am. At 4:30pm, they told her that her baby was dead and that because it was 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, she would have to wait until Monday to get a DNC (have the baby removed). She had no recourse, no one to complain to, no other option but to wait until Monday. She had to spend all weekend with her dead child in her uterus. All her husband could do was hold her while she cried all weekend. Private practice doesn't pull that crap.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any military wife how they like their health care. It's much better than the actual service member as the families can see private doctors, but it still sucks compared to private medicine. Better yet, ask anyone who had their child operated on by a Medicaid approved surgeon. Did they get to choose the doctor? How was the care? Were they able to complain? Were they able to complain without filling out endless paperwork in tripplicate?
See, we have government health care already for those that can't afford it. They think it sucks. I don't want to see the whole country forced onto Medicare.
Just because your *LOCAL* postmaster is shitty, don't judge the whole postal system as such.
Well, if my local postmaster is shitty, it takes a week to get my mail. If my local medi-master is shitty, I lose a leg.
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
Even though I rarely ship packages via USPS, they've still lost a package of mine. What is the medical equivalent of the USPS losing my package? UPS and Fedex do a much better job. Why? Because they are private and if they don't do a better job, they die as a company. Besides, we are talking about UNIVERSAL health care. That means your health care must be as shitty as my own.
As for the preventable disease part... that's what worries me. Do you enjoy the occasional cheese cake, beer, cigar or cheap floozies? Do you drive too fast, sky dive, swim or anything else the government might consider risky? Be prepared to give it up. You see, heart disease, lung cancer, liver disease, and STD's are all preventable diseases. You want the government to make sure you don't die from them? Be prepared to give up some freedoms. How about what the government may consider a risky lifestyle? Be prepared to give that up or lose your health coverage.
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
I've *yet* to see a private company match that.
BZZZTT! Wrong. $0.42 MIGHT get your letter across the country in one piece in a week.
Besides, if my insurance provider does not give me the coverage I want, I go with another. What do you do when the government doesn't give you the coverage that you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Well and that ain't the whole story. To quote from wikipedia:
During the convention's first three days, more than 300[50] individuals were arrested by police,[51] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[52] health-care workers and lawyer observers.[53] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[53]
It was more or less the same at 2004 RNC: people (1800 accordingly to wikipedia) were arrested, many just just for being in the wrong place. Not only reporters/lawyers/health care volunteers were arrested but also people completely unrelated to the protests that were going about their business (delivery men, people just going/coming to/from work, etc). I thought at that point this is something realy massive and NYC will be sued to oblivion, Bush will lose a lot of popularity and maybe resign and so on. But no, nothing like that...
Maybe there were not lawsuits because no one had a case against the city. I was in NY during the RNC (on non-related business) and got to see first hand what was going on. First, the police did an awesome job. They pretty much let people do what they wanted and were there to maintain the peace. They maintained a pretty light hand. Right in front of a couple of police officers, I was spit and threatened on by a peace protester who didn't understand the irony of his actions. The police did nothing. I asked them why and they basically told me that they had bigger fish to fry. Sadly, I agreed.
I saw people block entrances to businesses, block the bus routes for delegates, hurl objects such as fake blood, urine, and dirt at delegates, try to "release" protesters that had been arrested and partake in other activities that went far beyond their right to peacefully assemble. No one can deny that their attempt was to disrupt the RNC, meaning that their goal was to strip the rights of the RNC members. Those that resorted to illegal means were arrested.
The only bystanders that I saw arrested who were at the wrong place at the wrong time were given fair warning. For example, if a bunch of protesters were blocking a bus route and a reporter was in the mix interviewing them, that reporter was also arrested for helping to block the bus route. They were given ample warning to move.
What does this have to do with the recruiting center protests? When you block a legal activity in protest, you can count on getting arrested. These people crossed the line and were no longer "peaceably assembling". They were breaking the law.
Arts and music are for many what makes life worth it. Not having a chance at being exposed to those, at least once, in school, would be very sad for many kids who have no chance to look into it at home. I still remember art projects I did in junior high.
That's great. I think art and music should be taught in school. But personally, I don't feel it should be forced as it currently is.
I have no artistic talent whatsoever. I am tone deaf. I can't draw. I can't make stuff from clay other than a pile of dog doo (my jr high art project). I was forced to spend an hour a day at least, every day from the first to ninth grades doing something art or music related. Total waste of time for me and everyone like me.
Now, for some, these courses were great. They fostered creativity and even helped in other basic courses such as math and English. The base education in the arts have allowed some to be the most brilliant and creative minds that bring beauty to an otherwise dull world. I was not one of those people and no amount of education could have turned me into one.
I would have been better served if these courses were offered as an elective. My time would have been better spent in a science, computer, English or math class. That extra hour a day spent doing math, for example, could have really honed my math skills and led me to who-knows-what. I could have completed calculus before entering high school. Could you imagine how far I could have gotten by the time I graduated college? Instead, I was stuck being embarrassed singing "Good Morning, Miss Lawrence" before the entire class in what was NOT supposed to be a monotone voice.
>To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which
>preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
Crock. Of. Shit. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The Bill of Rights does not enshrine religion, it neuters it, and rightfully so.
Yes, you have the right to worship whatever you like. Of course I also have the right to point out it's all fairy tales and magic worship.
First, you are confused. Yes, there is a freedom FROM a GOVERNMENT religion which is where the BoR states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but I'm free to practice whatever religion I wish because it says next, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
So, yes, the founders of the Bill of Rights thought religion was so important, they mentioned it first. I'd call that enshrining.
The right that allows you to ridicule religion comes in next in the first amendment under freedom of speech. So, to say that the founders did not "enshrine" religion in the BoR is also saying that freedom so speech is not "enshrined" since the founders thought it important enough to list religion first and second.
However, the freedom of speech also covers you to look ignorant. When you call religion "fairy tales and magic worship", it proves that you have very little clue as to what religion entails. Most of religion are rules to live by. It sets a standard on how to live. It teaches not to steal, murder, lie, cheat on your spouse or several other things that cause problems between people. It also teaches to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, forgive those that have done you wrong, and other things that make us better people and improve society as a whole.
Evidently, you don't understand any of that, which makes you ignorant. Maybe you just think that kind acts like feeding the hungry is all fairy tales, which would just make you an asshole. I'll be kind and assume that it's just ignorance on your part. Tomorrow is Sunday. Please wake up early enough to attend a church and talk with the people there before you embarrass yourself further.
Is this to the tune of 'O Caaaanada'?
I was thinking "Jingle Bells".
Sorry you feel that way. I don't know where you are from, but the country I live in values religion so highly that it is listed as the very first guaranteed right. We call the entire list The Bill of Rights and freedom of religion is ranked pretty high. It is listed as the very first right in the very first amendment. It is the number 1 of number 1. I'd like to thing the document that has guided my country for over 200 years and has made us the powerful nation on earth might have some street cred. I also like to think that men who wrote it were unequaled geniuses of their time as well as ours. You see, that document they wrote that protects and respects my religious views is the same one that protects you from my religious views. To ridicule those that value religion, you are rejecting that which preventss them from forcing you into their "hocus pocus sham".
So, to ridicule religion, you are ridiculing my Bill of Rights. Sorry, but until you found a country that becomes the most powerful in the world while guaranteeing the freedom of not just its citizens, but fights for the rights of people around the world, I'm going to say that are not qualified to criticize these men nor the document they wrote. For that matter, it kinda makes you look like an immature little dumb-ass with absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. I don't say that as an insult, but as constructive criticism.
>The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions
> that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe,
> just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence,
> so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
I have no problem with people who have opinions that are different than my own.
As long as they aren't based in mysticism and superstition. Those opinions deserve nothing but scorn and laughter.
Oh, so your problem is with religion then? Does it have to do with lack of provable facts? Well, let's define some words.
bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
bigot - one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Yup, there's your proof. By definition, you are a bigot. Congratulations.
>The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research.
>He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
I'm so tired of this Bush apologizing.
The translation is, "He was a backward fuckwad pandering to religious nuts, but hey, at least his reach exceeded his grasp!"
That's the spirit. Ignore the facts and hurl insults.
The translation is: "You are hateful bigot who can't accept the idea that some people have opinions that are different than your own. You make yourself hate them rather than even consider that maybe, just maybe, their ideas have merit. You are unable to promote your own ideas with any intelligence, so you rely on belittling those who differ from you in a lame attempt to promote yourself."
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations. We don't know how many "patients" died or were mutilated in the process of supposedly perfecting this treatment. That sort of thing wouldn't fly in the US.
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research ... as they approach age 75.
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
From TFA:
As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections for diseases like ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury â" many of these are considered incurable diseases.
Cord blood stem cells was NOT under any restrictions from the previous administration. For that matter, the Bush administration was the first US administration to fund this type of stem cell research.
I understand your desire to blame everything on Republicans, but you should really try to give credit where credit is due and stop making stuff up to make them look bad.
Fine, enough already. Bush was Satan and Hitler's love baby. Happy? We get it. You hate Bush and all that are different than you. Conservatives are evil because they have different opinions. We all know that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, evil and stupid. We all must keep an open mind and hate conservatives equally. We get it.
Now STFU and get on with your life.
I dunno who's on third.
and I made to home base with your sister.
retro as they are, the rockets are used for braking to stop the cosmonauts breaking
or...
If the retro retro's break, there will be no brakes to break the fall and the cosmonauts will become cosmo-nots.
The whole point of Net Neutrality is that an ISP can not treat packets differently based on their type or destination. Here are some examples of why Neutrality is a good idea:
What is to stop TW from blocking or slowing packets related to Vonage's service in order to push their own? What would stop TW from creating their own search engine and blocking Google, Yahoo, and MSN?
The whole point is that TW can create its own version of any service currently provided by the web and choke off their competition or charge extra for access to their competition. When there is only one game in town, that's monopoly abuse. That would be like your power company selling toasters with a special plug and charging extra or blocking users from buying a competing toaster.
As for usage caps. I really hate it, but I can't really find a good argument against this one. Unfortunately, Internet service is like a utility, or should be, and every utility is based on usage. This is why competition is good. Once a utility has competition, they are forced to compete and lose their monopoly status.
Since when has the government EVER, EVER, EVER been more efficient than the private sector?
Road construction, airports, law enforcement, defense, schools, ... I could go on, but I don't need to. One example would be enough to counter your argument. Or are you asking about a particular government?
Road construction is done by private companies. Sure, they are paid by tax payer dollars, but they are still done privately. Most are done at a local level. Still, 100% private toll roads are usually better maintained than federal interstates.
Airports are paid for by renting gates to private airline companies and booths to private businesses. The original construction is paid for by the gov't. Still, it is much easier to board a plane at a private airport than a public one. Also, compare the service you get from government funded Amtrak vs the service you receive from privately owned Continental. If government did a better job, why doesn't the government run the businesses and shops that are in the airport? Why doesn't government run the airlines?
Law Enforcement and Military. The feds are required to provide these via the Constitution. I don't see health care listed. And again, private security firms offer much better security than the police force, that's why so many companies hire them. This is because a private firm hired to protect a building are not called off to settle some dispute caused by an alcoholic arguing with his wife.
Schools? Really? You mean public education is better than private? Seriously? I don't know where you live, but here in the US, public schools are a joke.
So, you really need to provide me an example of where government does a better job than private companies.
Yes, if I believed in all the BS spewed out by right-wing propagandists, I'd be against it, too.
Did you read my post? I said that I am against government provided health care not because of some "right wing BS", but from my personal experience. I've lived under government provided health care and it sucked. There was nothing that motivated doctors to make you want to get your health care from them. You didn't choose a doctor, you were assigned one. Sorry, but that sucked. No "right wing propaganda" required.
Really? I'm a Republican, and when I say Socialist, I mean Socialist, like China, Cuba, Venezuela, Stalin's Soviet Union... you know, Socialists.
What about Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Germany, Finnland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK or Canada? Would you call them "socialist"?
Listen, my problem with socialized medicine is that I fear it will suck.
Many countries have such system. Some suck. Many don't. Take a good look at them, find out what causes suckiness, and avoid that in a planned implementation.
The GP said that when Republicans say "Socialist", they really mean "Anti-Christ". That is what I was responding to, even though I'm more Libertarian than Republican. The Libertarian in me has searched the Constitution and found no reference to the government controlling health care. Sorry, but it is just not in there.
As for your question... I have to say sorta. Socialized medicine is Socialist by definition.
I'm sure that many countries have great government provided health care as a whole. However, I'm not concerned about the overall health of the nation. I'm concerned with the health of my family. Right now, I don't see how the care part of it could get any better. Sure, it could get worse, but if it does, it is because I made bad choices. Choice is what it is all about. I am in control of my own health care. I choose my coverage. What choices do these other countries have? What recourse is there when something goes wrong? There is a saying, "You can't fight city hall" and it rings true. How much more powerful is the Federal Government? What do you do when the feds say, "Your fat and lazy and we are not going to spend tax payer money on your bypass".
A GREAT DEAL OF US CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY!!! Why in the hell is that so hard to understand?!
It's impossible to understand because you've never said it. All you've said up to this point is how evil private insurance companies are and how much better it would be if the government ran it. But if it's a money thing... why didn't you just say so.
First, it is against the law to deny you treatment. If you are dieing, go to the emergency room and get treatment man. If you have the sniffles, DON'T. For anything that is NOT an emergency, that's what these little McClinics that you see popping up all over the place are all about.
Also, there is medicaid for people who can't afford health coverage. I understand that a lot of people are in a catch-22 because if they make any more money, they will LOSE their health benefits... well that sucks. The government should do something about that. Actually, some states are passing bills that cause those making more money to lose their free coverage at a graduated rate. Let's say you are on medicare and you get a better job that pays more, but not enough to get your own insurance. You can stay on Medicare, but you have to pay a little bit for it. If you make even more, you pay a little more. As soon as you get your own insurance, you get off Medicare. There, problem solved.
Now, if you are talking about health insurance for the poor, that's different. I have no problem with that. That's not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is UNIVERSAL health care. That means putting everyone on the same health care system. Hey, I don't want on that system and I certainly don't want to pay for it. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't want to be on medicare or medicaid, or socialist medicine.
Nope, that's -precisely- what the evangelical base of the Republican Party believes. I don't care what bullshit they say about Socialism and "just being concerned for the little guy", they see Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ an his attempt to maybe HELP PEOPLE as some sort of Devil's plot.
Don't believe me? Wonder down to a group Southern Baptist (Who I happen to be a member of, say amen). Get them behind closed doors (though a fair amount will tell you straight out) and that's exactly what they believe.
Hmmmm. I was at church just the other day... and a week before that and a week before that and have been behind closed doors with several of them, and I have not heard that. Sure, I've heard some people say it, but not in my Texas based Baptist Church (don't get much more southern than that!). Then again, I heard that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ. Why just count the letters in his names. I heard that Clinton was the anti-Christ. I heard that George Bush as a Fascist, anti-Christ, Darth Vader, emperor for life, evil genius, bumbling bafoon, chimp and so on. It doesn't mean a thing.
Whenever you here a Republican use the word "Socialist", THAT is code for everything these people are afraid of (one world government, anti-christ, all the bullshit attached to the Book of Revelation, etc.)
Really? I'm a Republican, and when I say Socialist, I mean Socialist, like China, Cuba, Venezuela, Stalin's Soviet Union... you know, Socialists.
Al Franken
I'd trust any of those people over a damn insurance company.
Wow, enough said.
Listen, my problem with socialized medicine is that I fear it will suck. Everything the government touches turns to crap and I see no reason why this will be any different. I understand that some people don't have coverage, but that's not me. Why should my health and my child's health suffer because someone else can't... or won't get coverage? Well, some people can't get a car. Should I have to give them rides? Some can't get a home, should I have to provide them a room in mine? Are transportation and shelter not n
First, two words, "Al Franken"
read more for the explanation
If you are speaking of me, I *DID NOT* say I wanted the Government to "protect" me from a preventable disease, I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE FROM A TREATABLE/CURABLE DISEASE.
I am speaking of you this is exactly what you said:
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
My God, man! You can't even copy and paste accurately!
But to expand on the point, UPS and FedEx do better than the postal service, your "public" utilities are really just highly regulated private companies and you really did say PREVENTABLE diseases. Don't think the government will try to protect you from "preventable" diseases? It's happening now. NY has banned trans-fats. Some states want to drug test medicaid recipients. Cigarettes just saw the highest tax increase in history. (BTW, why did the government raise taxes on smokes? Because they say that it costs the government too much money. So, let me ask you this, genius, if government is not paying for healthcare now, why does caring for smokers costs the government money?)
This entire debate (not just between us, but country wide) is driven by *money*.
Are you illiterate? This is about choice. Whoever pays makes the decisions. If you let the government pay for your health care (even with YOUR money), the government makes the decisions. I trust my health to ME, not my government.
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
Who said that? What, you can't refute the real arguments so you have to make up stupid ones that you can knock down?
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Who will appoint directors? Bureaucrats. Just like who appointed the director of FEMA before Katrina? How'd that system work out? Now you want to trust the life of your and your children to that system?
More Democratic? Like the highway system? Like the IRS? Like... name me any government program that is "more democratic" than one you pay for yourself... Actually private industry is more like a dictatorship, only YOU are the king.
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting).
So you'd trust your health care to Bush appointee? How about an Obama appointee? What if Obama catches the swine flue and dies? Would you trust your health to Biden? How about Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich or Al Franken? Really? You put more faith in your health care decisions in Al "Frakkin" Franken than yourself?
Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Um, I live in State A. All my reps are Party X. Do you think that me calling them up will make a damn bit of difference? Do you think that my call will suddenly make them change their mind and vote with the Party Y?
Let me ask you, if you get denied for an insurance claim for a new heart, who can you run to now who might be able to help you before you die?
The press and civil courts of course. Actually, it's happened before. Google Erin Brockovich for an example of what happens when a private company screws over citizens. Then google "Japanese Internment" or "Trail of Tears", or "Tuskegee experiment" to find out what happens when the gov
And your precious private insurance ALREADY DOES JUST THAT! They are charging more if you smoke, they are charging more if you are overweight and some companies are just firing you outright so they don't have to pay the healthcare costs associated.
Um, stop right there. No, my healthcare provider does NOT charge me more if I smoke or if I'm overweight. They have never asked if I smoke and they have never weighed me. Sorry, but you are ill informed. This is what I mean by choice. I'm sorry that your insurance company treats you that way. May I suggest you find another? You may have to change jobs, but if you work at a place that gives you such crappy benefits, you would do better working elsewhere anyway.
And, since you clearly have not been paying attention, most of the proposals that anyone actually supports INCLUDE YOUR ABILITY TO SEEK PRIVATE INSURANCE!
Really? I can opt out of the system, keep my private provider and not pay the higher taxes that will be used to pay for "universal" health care? Or is more like, "you pay up bitch, just like everyone else. If you want private insurance above and beyond what Big Brother provides, you must pay for it yourself" (like Europe has it today).
For fucks sake, go take an economics course and look how much of a fucking drag on our economy our healthcare system is as it is currently run by the private insurance industry.
I know! It sucks! But seriously, do you think that the federal government can do the same or better job, with the same level of customer CARE (read my Army story), than the private sector does today for LESS Money!!??!! Since when has the government EVER, EVER, EVER been more efficient than the private sector? Seriously, do you not pay attention to history? Let's see, it's government less efficient 100% of the time... let's give them something else. Really?
This isn't about big bad fucking government, I am not a fan of big government, but this is one of those things like water, electricity, and roads that the government should at least be involved in.
No, it's NOT like power, water or electricity. Most utilities are private companies. They are merely regulated monopolies. They are still private.
What REALLY fucking kills me...is one of the most vocal people I know about this "socialist" healthcare crap that frequently goes on about the same stupid talking points... HAD FUCKING MILITARY HEALTH INSURANCE ALL HIS LIFE!
Maybe that is what made up his mind. It is certainly what made up my mind. Here's my story... well first read a few comments up about how my buddy's wife had to wait through a weekend before the government doctors would remove the dead baby from her uterus. Next read about my own experiences.
I decided to have my wisdom teeth pulled in the Army while it was free. I was given a day to have the procedure done and showed up that day at 6:00am. I stood in line until 9:00 before I could check in and then I was in a waiting room. Actually, it was windowless room with a bench with a bunch of sick soldiers standing around. Of course, I had no choice about when my appointment was, who I saw, or anything else for that matter except for which teeth were to be pulled. I only chose to have two removed so I could still eat on one side of my mouth. So, once my name was called, I got my assigned dentist and he went to work. I received local anesthesia only. This means I was fully conscious, aware of everything that was happening. I heard the drill cut my teeth in half while they were still in my mouth. I smelled the smoke and blood and saw the bone fly. I felt him push his knee in my chest as he twisted the cut tooth from my mouth... In short, it sucked. I decided to leave the other two teeth in my mouth!
Four years after leaving the Army I had the other two teeth pulled at a private dentist. The private dentist, who I chose a
Ah, more left-wing moon bat talking points.
Let's start from the top. Two failed wars:
What was the vote for the war? Was it something like 99-0 in the Senate? And failed? Really? Saddam Hussein is dead, the Taliban is out of power... I'd call those successes. Sure, there's clean up work to do, but as far as war goes, I think we've met the most common standard for victory.
"deregulation of banks that have destroyed the economy"
You mean how John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but it was shot down by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Dodd and Frank were Republicans that day.
Maybe you forgot the part where Obama's "support of efforts by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to empower the Federal Housing Administration to help struggling homeowners."
I'm sorry, how is that Government deregulation again? The banking mess is what started this mess and if Dodd and Frank were at fault and they were Democrats... HMMMM. That would make you full of shit.
"deregulation of industry which has lead to increased polution"...
First, it's spelled pollution. Next, while I keep reading how the environment has gone to shit, I see absolutely no evidence of. Quite the contrary, I see things like "flex-fuel" vehicles, hybrid cars, bio diesel, and so on. So, tell me again how US government de-regulation stopped the Japanese from creating the Prius?
"removal of personal civil rights"
Name one. Just one civil right you had before that you don't have now.
"loss of our standing in the world"
Don't care. Sometimes the world is wrong. Didn't your mother ask you what you would do if everyone else were jumping off a cliff?
The noisy ones on the extreme right wing of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, including but not limited to the folks on Fox who have clearly sold their souls.
This is my favorite part. Here is a guy who claims to be a champion of civil rights, bashes the press for being free. I guess you think that the freedom of the press only applies to left-wing outlets?
NO NO NO! My main bitch about government health care is that government will try to tell citizens how to live their lives. Is that not exactly what the article I pointed to is doing? Here are state employees, with state provided health insurance, being forced to pay not just for their own government deemed unhealthy activities, but for their spouse's. If the government can make you pay more because you smoke, how long before they make you pay more if you are overweight? Or more to the point, what the government considers "overweight". Keep in mind that many professional athletes would be considered overweight by government standards. What about your diet. Why should a smoker pay more for health coverage and not someone who sleeps with strangers? Statistics show that gay men are more likely to get AIDS than straight, married Christian women? Why should the Christian women pay the same as gay men? For that matter, why should Christian women pay more than atheist women? How far do you go?
And yeah, I understand private insurance companies do the same thing. You know what you can do if you don't like it? GET ANOTHER INSURANCE COMPANY and stop paying the ones that are screwing you over!!!! What do you do if your government healthcare provider does something you don't like? Nothing! You can't get a new government, can you? All you can do is bend over and take it like the "prom queen" at the county penitentiary.
So, please, don't compare private and government provided insurance because you have thousands of private options vs one government. There is no doubt that there are private insurance companies that are worse than government provided health coverage. We know that. I freely admit it so you don't need to point it out. But if your private insurance company sucks, fire them and hire a new one. You can't do that with the government. And THAT is the difference. You are taking away CHOICE. You are giving up freedom in exchange for security (where have I heard that before?).
Wow, just wow. How silly of me to think that a government that pays for health care would dare tell it's "customers" how to live their lives.
Oh wait, here is a story of just such a thing:
The consequences, in this case, will be a $600 smoking surcharge that goes into effect on New Year's Day 2010 for everyone in the state employee health system who smokes, or has a smoker for a spouse.
So, it appears the government will do what it can to force those who it provides care for into living the the government sees fit. Don't tell me it doesn't happen when it already is!
The GP said that he wanted the government to protect him from preventable disease. Heart disease is a preventable disease. So are STD's. How do you think the government will "protect" you from those diseases?
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Oh, bullshit. I'm so sick of this "One world Government", single religion, Book of Revelations BULLSHIT coming out *ANYTIME* someone tries to do *anything* to help people on a massive scale.
You know what scares ME, someone like you telling me I've got to die simply so YOU don't have to pay an extra $100 bucks come April. THAT'S what scares me.
I agree, the whole papers please argument is BS. I got so tired of hearing it when ever a Real ID topic came up. However, the same people that say, "I fear a government powerful enough to force me to carry an ID... papers please" are the same ones saying, "I want to put the government in charge of my health".
I don't have a problem carrying an ID... so what. You want to see my ID, here ya go. I really don't care. But do NOT put an incompetent government in charge of my health. I've lived under government paid for health care and it sucked.. it sucked bad. A buddy's wife in the Army had a miscarriage. She went to see the Army doctor at the Army office at 7:00am. At 4:30pm, they told her that her baby was dead and that because it was 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, she would have to wait until Monday to get a DNC (have the baby removed). She had no recourse, no one to complain to, no other option but to wait until Monday. She had to spend all weekend with her dead child in her uterus. All her husband could do was hold her while she cried all weekend. Private practice doesn't pull that crap.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any military wife how they like their health care. It's much better than the actual service member as the families can see private doctors, but it still sucks compared to private medicine. Better yet, ask anyone who had their child operated on by a Medicaid approved surgeon. Did they get to choose the doctor? How was the care? Were they able to complain? Were they able to complain without filling out endless paperwork in tripplicate?
See, we have government health care already for those that can't afford it. They think it sucks. I don't want to see the whole country forced onto Medicare.
Just because your *LOCAL* postmaster is shitty, don't judge the whole postal system as such.
Well, if my local postmaster is shitty, it takes a week to get my mail. If my local medi-master is shitty, I lose a leg.
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
Even though I rarely ship packages via USPS, they've still lost a package of mine. What is the medical equivalent of the USPS losing my package? UPS and Fedex do a much better job. Why? Because they are private and if they don't do a better job, they die as a company. Besides, we are talking about UNIVERSAL health care. That means your health care must be as shitty as my own.
As for the preventable disease part... that's what worries me. Do you enjoy the occasional cheese cake, beer, cigar or cheap floozies? Do you drive too fast, sky dive, swim or anything else the government might consider risky? Be prepared to give it up. You see, heart disease, lung cancer, liver disease, and STD's are all preventable diseases. You want the government to make sure you don't die from them? Be prepared to give up some freedoms. How about what the government may consider a risky lifestyle? Be prepared to give that up or lose your health coverage.
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
I've *yet* to see a private company match that.
BZZZTT! Wrong. $0.42 MIGHT get your letter across the country in one piece in a week.
Besides, if my insurance provider does not give me the coverage I want, I go with another. What do you do when the government doesn't give you the coverage that you want?