DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US Health Reform
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 425, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/23/2010 11:38:43 AM · #176
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I guess I've been silenced...my post disappeared.

Why? Did you say something that's out of line? Has to be fairly rude and vulgar to get hidden in a 'Rant' thread. I saw your post initially, but don't remember it being extreme. ???


No, it just has to be something SC disagrees with. I been there too.


Balderdash...I can assure you that I have had disagreements with the SC on a variety of issues and none of the comments I submitted were ever removed. One must take into consideration the nature of the comment made, whether it will generate a civil discourse or give rise to inflammatory retorts and whether or not it violates any of the prescribed norms.

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal.

Ray
03/23/2010 02:09:28 PM · #177
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I forgot to mention that without requiring everyone to buy insurance and going to a system of health savings accounts, you actually end up with less people insured. Some people will take the cash their employer gives them and buy health insurance with it, but a lot of people would just take the cash and not buy insurance. Now with the mandates in place, I don't know how it will play out in the long term, but I think the authors of the bill have tried to structure a system that will provide access to more people and make preventive care more likely and thereby save more in the long term.


Perhaps the result would be similar to people like myself and my gf who are self employed. The current system screws us ridiculously with high rates so many go without. Unfortunately, it looks like this go around of healthcare reform doesn't address the issue of private insurance premiums. At least it does abolish the draconian practice of not covering prexisting conditions, which allows my gf to finally be able to shop around for another insurance plan and not be a slave to the one she has now. Now if only pharmaceutical reform would follow I'd be happy.

Message edited by author 2010-03-23 14:11:10.
03/23/2010 02:13:35 PM · #178
Just thought I'd add this, I learned it yesterday. Employers started offering medical insurance as a benefit during WW2 when it was hard to find workers and rationing was in place freezing wages. It was used to lure people from other jobs. Before that people bought their own or didn't have it. Interesting how a small thing like that in large part put us where we are today.
03/23/2010 02:21:22 PM · #179
Originally posted by pawdrix:

We're so in the dark ages on this issue it's really shocking compared to the rest of the world. I'm winding down on a corporate plan that I'm about to lose and if I try to maintain it the cost will be around $700 or more...which is insane. And if I go to the doctor or actually get sick...there will still be all the deductibles and denials of care, certain medications etc.....and if you get really, really sick...then you're screwed.

What I really take issue with is people casting dispersions on folks in my situation as a loser or a lazy, scofflaw...looking for a handout. Especially after seeing corporate raping of our country nearly spinning the planet off it's axis and what appears to be strong desire to maintain the status quo...it's a bad dream. How many people go bankrupt with the system we have in place? How many people pay their own way into the system for years and get denied decent care? No other country in the civilized world have this mentality and it's beginning to reveal not only who we really are but...what we aren't...how crude we are and why we're falling behind other nations, in every way imaginable.


I agree with you that the attitude you're talking about here is so depressing. But don't take it personally. I think of these people as "empathically challenged." They're incapable of putting themselves in another person's shoes. But their lack of ability reflects poorly on them, not you.
03/23/2010 02:32:55 PM · #180
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

We're so in the dark ages on this issue it's really shocking compared to the rest of the world. I'm winding down on a corporate plan that I'm about to lose and if I try to maintain it the cost will be around $700 or more...which is insane. And if I go to the doctor or actually get sick...there will still be all the deductibles and denials of care, certain medications etc.....and if you get really, really sick...then you're screwed.

What I really take issue with is people casting dispersions on folks in my situation as a loser or a lazy, scofflaw...looking for a handout. Especially after seeing corporate raping of our country nearly spinning the planet off it's axis and what appears to be strong desire to maintain the status quo...it's a bad dream. How many people go bankrupt with the system we have in place? How many people pay their own way into the system for years and get denied decent care? No other country in the civilized world have this mentality and it's beginning to reveal not only who we really are but...what we aren't...how crude we are and why we're falling behind other nations, in every way imaginable.


I agree with you that the attitude you're talking about here is so depressing. But don't take it personally. I think of these people as "empathically challenged." They're incapable of putting themselves in another person's shoes. But their lack of ability reflects poorly on them, not you.


That's good advice, and the line of thinking I usually try to follow. Yet, sometimes you just can't help but think "these people would rather see me dead then get help with health care". It boggles my mind and depresses me to no end.
03/23/2010 02:34:20 PM · #181
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I forgot to mention that without requiring everyone to buy insurance and going to a system of health savings accounts, you actually end up with less people insured. Some people will take the cash their employer gives them and buy health insurance with it, but a lot of people would just take the cash and not buy insurance. Now with the mandates in place, I don't know how it will play out in the long term, but I think the authors of the bill have tried to structure a system that will provide access to more people and make preventive care more likely and thereby save more in the long term.


Perhaps the result would be similar to people like myself and my gf who are self employed. The current system screws us ridiculously with high rates so many go without. Unfortunately, it looks like this go around of healthcare reform doesn't address the issue of private insurance premiums. At least it does abolish the draconian practice of not covering prexisting conditions, which allows my gf to finally be able to shop around for another insurance plan and not be a slave to the one she has now. Now if only pharmaceutical reform would follow I'd be happy.


Agreed on the pharmaceuticals, there really is no excuse for what the Dems did with that.

My husband and I also are both self-employed, and my husband is over the age of 55, so we cannot find affordable health insurance that's meaningful beyond catastrophic. As for private insurance premiums for people in our situation, I think the reform bill does address it through the exchanges that we can join (in four years when they're finally set up) and pool with other similarly situated people. Being part of a large pool will reduce premiums by quite a lot.
03/23/2010 02:42:24 PM · #182
Tea Party crowd Heckling an uninsured man with Parkinsons...

No compassion. It's so sad. The insensitivity, telling a person who's incapacitated "nothing for free, you have to WORK for everything you get" is so, f%@#$@d-up. No other civilized country would allow a fellow citizen to wallow like this while defending and protecting the interest of big business to the point of bloodshed.

I suppose what we need are more tax cuts for the wealthiest 12% in the country and more corporate deregulation.... it's worked so incredibly well so far. Maybe all the fiscal watchdogs that have come out of the woodwork...after a long deep sleep, might put another war or two on the VISA card.

Message edited by author 2010-03-23 15:19:05.
03/23/2010 02:44:38 PM · #183
•Older people have "socialized medicine"
•People who work for the government have "socialized medicine"
•People in the military have "socialized medicine"
•Military veterans have "socialized medicine"
•People who are impoverished have "socialized medicine"
•People who are bankrupt have "socialized medicine"

In most of these cases more health care is delivered at a lower cost than comparable care funded by private insurance. Why shouldn't those of us who don't (yet) fit one of the above categories enjoy the benefits of "socialized medicine" as well? Besides, that's the one way improve efficiency (e,g, one billing system) and to rein in the runaway profits enjoyed by Big Pharma, health and liabilty insurance companies, and malpractice lawyers.
03/23/2010 03:20:55 PM · #184
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Tea Party crowd Heckling an uninsured man with Parkinsons...

And then there's this one, some insane woman shouting "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli trying to talk about health care issues. After he goes understandably apoplectic, he tries to explain how he was charged $8,000 for a two hour emergency room visit. Her response is so gravely shameful that everyone in this perplexing "movement" should hide their faces in embarrassment.
03/23/2010 03:39:38 PM · #185
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Tea Party crowd Heckling an uninsured man with Parkinsons...

And then there's this one, some insane woman shouting "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli trying to talk about health care issues. After he goes understandably apoplectic, he tries to explain how he was charged $8,000 for a two hour emergency room visit. Her response is so gravely shameful that everyone in this perplexing "movement" should hide their faces in embarrassment.


It's getting tougher and tougher everyday admitting that you're an American. I better figure out something quick, before I go completely insane.

eta: Maybe I can hide in the Panamanian Cloudforest?

Message edited by author 2010-03-23 16:03:10.
03/23/2010 04:59:46 PM · #186
For your reading pleasure, two NY Times links:

HEALTH_TIMELINE (interactive timeline; history of overhauling healthcare)

An Absence of Class Bob Herbert op-ed piece on the GOP

The Op-Ed column kicks ass.

03/23/2010 05:54:20 PM · #187
Doesn't take much google searching to find idiots at liberal protests too. Sadly they are all over.

For those of you that are shocked, yes it's true, there are non-liberal idiots out there!
03/23/2010 06:07:15 PM · #188
The idiocy of those who would teabag far outstrips the idiocy of any other idiot I have ever had the displeasure to experience.

PS: Who remembers the green teabagger?

Message edited by author 2010-03-23 18:08:46.
03/23/2010 07:00:10 PM · #189
Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal. Ray


Did you read it yourself beloved one?
03/23/2010 08:04:34 PM · #190
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal. Ray


Did you read it yourself beloved one?

I just went back and did -- in this instance it transgressed acceptable boundaries.

Now (everybody) get back to talking about the thread topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.
03/23/2010 08:16:27 PM · #191
nm, wrong context...

Message edited by author 2010-03-23 20:17:44.
03/24/2010 12:06:00 AM · #192
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal. Ray


Did you read it yourself beloved one?

I just went back and did -- in this instance it transgressed acceptable boundaries.

Now (everybody) get back to talking about the thread topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.


How bout we get back to talking about how this health-care bill allows for government sanctioned abortion. A procedure which results in the death of unborn children. Now I will have to pay for these women to kill their own children, who were and are irresponsible with their own bodies. This is a complete violation of my rights as a human being. My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. It may not violate the laws of man in this country but it is the law of the God that created me that I seek to uphold in my own conscience. This Health-care bill should be repealed for this reason alone and yet there are so many more reasons.
03/24/2010 12:21:05 AM · #193
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal. Ray


Did you read it yourself beloved one?

I just went back and did -- in this instance it transgressed acceptable boundaries.

Now (everybody) get back to talking about the thread topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.


How bout we get back to talking about how this health-care bill allows for government sanctioned abortion. A procedure which results in the death of unborn children. Now I will have to pay for these women to kill their own children, who were and are irresponsible with their own bodies. This is a complete violation of my rights as a human being. My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. It may not violate the laws of man in this country but it is the law of the God that created me that I seek to uphold in my own conscience. This Health-care bill should be repealed for this reason alone and yet there are so many more reasons.


1: There are many reasons for abortion outside of irresponsibility, a few of which mean helping to save the mother's life and/or health, or situations beyond anyone's control. I only say this, not because I'm trying to counter your argument myself, but because the black and white of your stance can be, and generally is, considered offensive, irresponsible in itself, and confrontational at best.

2: Your religious beliefs, and freedom to practice your religion, does not give you an automatic free-pass, especially on a privately owned business website, to discuss those beliefs ad infinitum. You ARE still subject to the rules of the website and any behavior deemed to violate said rules of conduct is still subject to discipline. REGARDLESS of whatever religious beliefs and freedom of said beliefs you may possess legally.

3: There are many reasons among many people both for, and against this measure. There is nothing wrong with listing things you don't agree with, or do agree with, but I think it's reasonable to expect that if:

a) you make it personal
b) you are seen to be baiting people
c) you make statements that are deliberately (or seen as such) intended to shock and/or offend
d) you cannot make your arguments outside of any of the above

that you will, again, be subject to thread removals as deemed necessary by the governing body of the website.

4: Finally, this is a very general thread. Perhaps, if you wish to discuss something IN DETAIL about a specific argument you have, that you'd be better served creating a new thread to do so. Something with a title that is informative, so that people that may be easily offended/horrified/disturbed/angered/etc. by your opinions can more easily avoid such a thing. Stating such opinions, especially using words that only select groups of people actually believe to be true, in an open, general thread, can almost only be taken as trying to bait people, or generate strong response. This type of thing is, of course, frowned upon, generally.

If you do not wish to be 'silenced', then it is in your best interest to possibly observe any or all of the above and make it easier on yourself, in the future, no?

Message edited by author 2010-03-24 00:22:12.
03/24/2010 12:37:08 AM · #194
Originally posted by dponlyme:

My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. This Health-care bill should be repealed...

Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief.
03/24/2010 12:51:20 AM · #195
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be argued that the intitial submission made in this instance transgressed acceptable boundaries and therein lies the reason for its removal. Ray


Did you read it yourself beloved one?

I just went back and did -- in this instance it transgressed acceptable boundaries.

Now (everybody) get back to talking about the thread topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.


How bout we get back to talking about how this health-care bill allows for government sanctioned abortion. A procedure which results in the death of unborn children. Now I will have to pay for these women to kill their own children, who were and are irresponsible with their own bodies. This is a complete violation of my rights as a human being. My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. It may not violate the laws of man in this country but it is the law of the God that created me that I seek to uphold in my own conscience. This Health-care bill should be repealed for this reason alone and yet there are so many more reasons.


1: There are many reasons for abortion outside of irresponsibility, a few of which mean helping to save the mother's life and/or health, or situations beyond anyone's control. I only say this, not because I'm trying to counter your argument myself, but because the black and white of your stance can be, and generally is, considered offensive, irresponsible in itself, and confrontational at best.

2: Your religious beliefs, and freedom to practice your religion, does not give you an automatic free-pass, especially on a privately owned business website, to discuss those beliefs ad infinitum. You ARE still subject to the rules of the website and any behavior deemed to violate said rules of conduct is still subject to discipline. REGARDLESS of whatever religious beliefs and freedom of said beliefs you may possess legally.

3: There are many reasons among many people both for, and against this measure. There is nothing wrong with listing things you don't agree with, or do agree with, but I think it's reasonable to expect that if:

a) you make it personal
b) you are seen to be baiting people
c) you make statements that are deliberately (or seen as such) intended to shock and/or offend
d) you cannot make your arguments outside of any of the above

that you will, again, be subject to thread removals as deemed necessary by the governing body of the website.

4: Finally, this is a very general thread. Perhaps, if you wish to discuss something IN DETAIL about a specific argument you have, that you'd be better served creating a new thread to do so. Something with a title that is informative, so that people that may be easily offended/horrified/disturbed/angered/etc. by your opinions can more easily avoid such a thing. Stating such opinions, especially using words that only select groups of people actually believe to be true, in an open, general thread, can almost only be taken as trying to bait people, or generate strong response. This type of thing is, of course, frowned upon, generally.

If you do not wish to be 'silenced', then it is in your best interest to possibly observe any or all of the above and make it easier on yourself, in the future, no?


It's all cool... I never said the owners and or operators of this website don't have the right to do what they have done. It's certainly not my right to post here at all. It is a privilege to be allowed to. Perhaps it was for the best because I did get to the heart of the matter in an abrasive way but when you strip it all down, no matter how you spin it, there are more protections for the life of convicted murderers than for an unborn child. I find this morally repugnant. Those of a liberal bent are in agreement with this current state of affairs and with the passage of this health-care bill have strengthened and entrenched this amoral ideology. I now point out that I find this very ironic in addition to tragic.
03/24/2010 01:10:25 AM · #196
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. This Health-care bill should be repealed...

Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief.


The problem with this argument is that some of these same people may not ever have been born, lived a life, and then had the misfortune to have died due to a 'lack of health-care' if abortion on demand were fully sanctioned and paid for by the government as it will be now. No, they would have been butchered in the womb and now they want me to pay for it with my tax dollars. It's not right. Even without health-care coverage I would be willing to bet that most prefer having had the chance to live. Let's take a vote.. who would have liked to have been aborted with the assistance of the federal government??... anybody??...
03/24/2010 02:11:54 AM · #197
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. This Health-care bill should be repealed...

Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief.


The problem with this argument is that some of these same people may not ever have been born, lived a life, and then had the misfortune to have died due to a 'lack of health-care' if abortion on demand were fully sanctioned and paid for by the government as it will be now. No, they would have been butchered in the womb and now they want me to pay for it with my tax dollars. It's not right. Even without health-care coverage I would be willing to bet that most prefer having had the chance to live. Let's take a vote.. who would have liked to have been aborted with the assistance of the federal government??... anybody??...


The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions.
03/24/2010 08:51:02 AM · #198
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

... Stating such opinions, especially using words that only select groups of people actually believe to be true, in an open, general thread ...

Ahhh, but this is not an open, general thread - it's a 'Rant' thread. Expect to be presented with strong, limited, and personal opinions. Enter 'Rant' at your own risk basically.
03/24/2010 08:57:23 AM · #199
Originally posted by Niten:



The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions.


I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order??
03/24/2010 09:11:38 AM · #200
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Niten:



The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions.


I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order??


Planned parenthood is about women's health, not abortion. I went there for many years and used their services. And guess what? I've never had an abortion!
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 05/29/2020 10:43:28 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/29/2020 10:43:28 AM EDT.