• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

yet another fine example

KJUN said:
Again I ask, what specific part is actually going to help any of the less fortunate?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the part where healthy, non-working Americans like the ones I drive past on a daily basis will have free access to health care...

In addition to the free food, free housing, free transportation and free schooling they now get. All on my tab as a hella hard working tax payer.

Perhaps that is the good that people see from this???
 
Lauren, the cynicism and sarcasm of your wit.....is like a wonderfully expensive, aged, dry champagne. Very chilled, and several bottles for good measure.
 
vetusvates said:
Lauren, the cynicism and sarcasm of your wit.....is like a wonderfully expensive, aged, dry champagne. Very chilled, and several bottles for good measure.
Click to expand...

Thank you Eric. It's always nice to be surrounded by people who truly appreciate. It has a distinct tendency to fall flat on the teenagers I am usually surrounded by. ;)

Just saw this....

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...tz-Says?tickers=^dji,^GSPC,unh,ihf,AET,WLP,CI

The talking head in the video argues that "we" i.e. working Americans are still footing the bill for the uninsured one way or the other, and that having a national health plan will save money on that because the uninsured will go to the doctors sooner rather than later and get help, thus reducing overall costs.



As an aside, I work a job for the state of Maryland during the summer inspecting summer camps. Today I got paid $18 an hour to drive across town to inspect two camps, both of which had already been inspected by another person yesterday. We were both assigned the camps, and the "powers that be" had no freaking idea.

End result, the state of Maryland and Maryland tax payers got to pay $36 per hour for the inspection of those two camps.

It's things like this that really make me cringe thinking of the government maintaining serious money and serious decisions with regards to my health care and that of my family, especially my grandparents.
 
Hypancistrus said:
Perhaps that is the good that people see from this???
Click to expand...

Probably. If so, why can't we even get a single reference about the level of care - or anything - that they like about it specifically. Strange, isn't it?

Hmmm, matter of fact, I agree that it would be nice for these people to have it (but TANSTAAFL), and there may be ethical/moral reasons to justify it, but why can nobody ever tell me why they DESERVE it at the expense of others' welfare? I'm asking for "those believers" to educate me. I'm giving them a chance to convince me with their idea of logic. I'm begging to be informed so maybe I can agree with them one day.

The reply is always echos of silence.

KJ
 
KJUN said:
Hmmm, matter of fact, I agree that it would be nice for these people to have it (but TANSTAAFL), and there may be ethical/moral reasons to justify it, but why can nobody ever tell me why they DESERVE it at the expense of others' welfare? I'm asking for "those believers" to educate me. I'm giving them a chance to convince me with their idea of logic. I'm begging to be informed so maybe I can agree with them one day.
Click to expand...

This is a great question.

I can tell you all honestly that Tara and I are barely staying afloat right now. Barely. IF taxes get raised, this would mean that we would be less capable of supporting ourselves. We'd have to look at giving up something.

Would it be cable? The internet? Our cell phones? Our snakes? My dog? Hers?

So I agree... tell me why the people I see lounging around the inner city of Baltimore all day deserve for me to give up my snakes, my cable TV or any aspect of MY life in order for them to have access to this healthcare plan?

Edited to change wording: These folks DO have access to healthcare... they can walk into any ER in Baltimore City and be treated, regardless of their ability to pay.
 
Hypancistrus said:
Are you just trying to find ways to be offended?
Click to expand...
Whoa, not this again!. Clearly when it's phrased as "Disabled and mis-guided people (like Ricky)", I'm being placed as the symbol for both things; disabled and misguided. That characterizes me and the things I do to maintain my consciousness and dignity. I don't care to see my name in any reference, and if anybody's point needs my name to validate, than clearly it's lacking to begin with. If that's looking to be offended than fine. Clearly some CS.com lifers have learned how to weave within the system to make baitful remarks without interference. I personally prefer to talk direct, but be who you are. I'm not mad at all. In the end I only brought it up to eliminate the condescending nature in which we revel, but revel away. I'm not aiming that at you personally Lauren, because you do seem respectful, but I've done nothing to get any dis-respect from anybody and I try to be a very positive member on this site, yet mostly all I get is comments like this!.
 
Hypancistrus said:
I can tell you all honestly that Tara and I are barely staying afloat right now. Barely. IF taxes get raised, this would mean that we would be less capable of supporting ourselves.
Click to expand...

Stop being selfish by thinking that you deserve what you earn. :sidestep:

Seriously, though, lots of people are in the same boat as you - MANY Americans. And this is why the "tax and spend" can't work. More taxes on you means you have less to spend...that means the companies you buy from get less money (meaning they generate fewer taxes meaning you get taxed even more), and they go out of business. That means unemployment rises, fewer people have money to buy, and more business go out of business firing even more people.

The problem isn't just income taxes any longer on the "middle class." Taxes are supposed to generate revenue - that's it. Check out the basis of our constitutional government if you don't believe me. Now, however, Obama is using it to guide us into exactly what he wants: taxes on some foods, cola tax, "gas guzzler tax," etc. Basically, you are penalized and fined (i.e., taxed) for not buying just what he says you should buy. He didn't start it (i.e., the sin taxes), but he took an inch and turned it into a parsec!

Taxes on farmers mean your food goes up. Taxes on anything means the consumer has prices increased even if they are paying the taxes indirectly. Income tax isn't going to be the make it or break it - it is going to be the other taxes they slap you with that make the belt have to get cinched tighter.

Ignore taxes - what about hyperinflation? What happens when the dollar is worth 10% less? If that happens over a 2 year period, do you think your rise in salary in this over-taxed economy is going to keep up with it? Even iwthout taxes, our paychecks are going to shrink in buying ability thanks to the coming rates of inflation. :(
 
Ricky87 said:
I'm not aiming that at you personally Lauren, because you do seem respectful, but I've done nothing to get any dis-respect from anybody and I try to be a very positive member on this site, yet mostly all I get is comments like this!.
Click to expand...

I am not disrespecting you OR your position. I would LOVE to hear your take on the questions asked, though, because I truly do not understand. I really don't.

I am NOT again helping people who cannot work due to their disability. One of my good friends' mother is fully blind in one eye and partially in her second, and has a muscular condition that makes it difficult for her to do fine motor movements with her hands. She has not yet found a job that she can do and is supported by disability. She CANNOT work at this point, literally cannot. If there was not a state program to help her, you can bet your butt I would do anything I personally could to help her.

That is NOT true of the people I mention in my post above.

So taking my friend's mom and others who are validly disabled out of it, why is it that I should be forced to give up things that I love and work hard for in order to pay for the slackers in Baltimore city to have access to this health care plan?

Please, please answer... I really want to know your thoughts on that specific question.
 
Ricky87 said:
Whoa, not this again!. Clearly when it's phrased as "Disabled and mis-guided people (like Ricky)", I'm being placed as the symbol for both things; disabled and misguided. That characterizes me and the things I do to maintain my consciousness and dignity. I don't care to see my name in any reference, and if anybody's point needs my name to validate, than clearly it's lacking to begin with. If that's looking to be offended than fine. Clearly some CS.com lifers have learned how to weave within the system to make baitful remarks without interference. I personally prefer to talk direct, but be who you are. I'm not mad at all. In the end I only brought it up to eliminate the condescending nature in which we revel, but revel away. I'm not aiming that at you personally Lauren, because you do seem respectful, but I've done nothing to get any dis-respect from anybody and I try to be a very positive member on this site, yet mostly all I get is comments like this!.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I offended you Ricky, but you yourself stated that you are disabled. And in my opinion someone supporting this plan (as you do) is misguided.
You support this plan, but won't say why. Obama's very own advisors on this plan are the ones that are saying that people like you won't get treatment..I'm not saying that, they are!
And it would be ironic (and awful) if this plan was passed with your support, and you ended up dying BECAUSE OF IT!
 
WOW I had to read a lot this morning to catch up. It fascinates me that not one person has been able to answer KJ’s simple request. I know there are supporters out there, what do you support? It’s a simple question.
 
Hypancistrus said:
Please, please answer... I really want to know your thoughts on that specific question.
Click to expand...
My true thoughts are that it would be a shame if this bill sank because of abuse, and I hope President Obama get's the same questions that your asking. Defying authority is a part of the balance, and their are some serious questions in this bill. For starters, how will they prevent sapping the system, and will disabled and elderly people get a fair shake. I just think, though, that their are so many people out their waiting for treatment they can't afford, while rich tycoons sit on top of their fat stacks of cash.

I personally would love to see the excessively rich get taxed to pay for some of these people dying out here without treatment, and I hope it will make it easier for those of middle to low income as well. I promise you I'll learn more about this bill as it comes out, and in the end if it's not conducive to a sustainable economy I'll pass. I just like the proposals out their, and I desire change in a major way. Idea's are the beginning to every invention and I've seen such a lack of political and systematic innovation over the last few years that I'm ecstatic to see someone trying to reshape American society. BTW, my other thought's on government health-care, is that along with it their should be a large focus on prevention. Most illnesses today are either treatable or preventable, and I would like to see things like healthy school meals, free clinics, or new ways of activating our interest in health. I may be disabled, but I try to eat as healthy as possible, and I try to go and play with my dog's outside until I get tired. I just think health is of the upmost importance and those who have a chance to attain it should have it regardless of finances. I can't pay to be "abled", as it will, but if I could it would be a shame if I couldn't afford it. Any more questions, ask away!. I would just appreciate it if we steered away from the "disabled and misguided's", because it does trivialize my condition and my consciousness, and I would like to keep healthy disagreement to the forefront. Thanks!!.
 
Ricky87 said:
My true thoughts are that it would be a shame if this bill sank because of abuse, and I hope President Obama get's the same questions that your asking. Defying authority is a part of the balance, and their are some serious questions in this bill. For starters, how will they prevent sapping the system, and will disabled and elderly people get a fair shake. I just think, though, that their are so many people out their waiting for treatment they can't afford, while rich tycoons sit on top of their fat stacks of cash.

I personally would love to see the excessively rich get taxed to pay for some of these people dying out here without treatment, and I hope it will make it easier for those of middle to low income as well. I promise you I'll learn more about this bill as it comes out, and in the end if it's not conducive to a sustainable economy I'll pass. I just like the proposals out their, and I desire change in a major way. Idea's are the beginning to every invention and I've seen such a lack of political and systematic innovation over the last few years that I'm ecstatic to see someone trying to reshape American society. BTW, my other thought's on government health-care, is that along with it their should be a large focus on prevention. Most illnesses today are either treatable or preventable, and I would like to see things like healthy school meals, free clinics, or new ways of activating our interest in health. I may be disabled, but I try to eat as healthy as possible, and I try to go and play with my dog's outside until I get tired. I just think health is of the upmost importance and those who have a chance to attain it should have it regardless of finances. I can't pay to be "abled", as it will, but if I could it would be a shame if I couldn't afford it. Any more questions, ask away!. I would just appreciate it if we steered away from the "disabled and misguided's", because it does trivialize my condition and my consciousness, and I would like to keep healthy disagreement to the forefront. Thanks!!.
Click to expand...

Have you thought that some of those rich tycoons earned those fat stacks of cash? They're not all corrupt.
The ones I disagree with are the "professional athletes" making millions of dollars. Why not put a cap on how much they can earn (say $75,000 per year?) and any endorsements they do, instead of going to them, can go towards government programs, like education, or the D.A.R.E. program, or the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs? I can guarantee you, though, that there would be a lot less people clamoring to become professional athletes, and you'd only get the people that play because they love the sport and would be much better role models for kids instead of the ones that we have now that fight dogs, do excessive amounts of drugs, drink excessively, etc.
 
starsevol said:
And it would be ironic (and awful) if this plan was passed with your support, and you ended up dying BECAUSE OF IT!
Click to expand...
See, that's what I'm talking about!. Quick fact about my condition; many if not most people with it die before the age of thirty due to sudden heart or lung failure, not to mention extreme susceptibility to illness and hypothermia OR dangerous surgical procedures!. Death is not a device of irony, and my awareness is all too real. That's still no excuse not to consider a change for the better in our society!. I've learned not to depend on health-care anyway, and under the current system we have, if it weren't for private organizations I would be dead. I was told at 13 if I didn't have surgery I would die, yet even until the surgery date insurance wouldn't cover it. My family would have been in ruins financially if it weren't for private donors, and that is a serious flaw in the current system. I've seen first hand how little they care, and if someone wants to change how they operate than I'm all for it. Obama's message was "Change", and that's why I voted. I hope to see that change within all of us someday!!.
 
RobbiesCornField said:
Have you thought that some of those rich tycoons earned those fat stacks of cash? They're not all corrupt.
The ones I disagree with are the "professional athletes" making millions of dollars. Why not put a cap on how much they can earn (say $75,000 per year?) and any endorsements they do, instead of going to them, can go towards government programs, like education, or the D.A.R.E. program, or the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs? I can guarantee you, though, that there would be a lot less people clamoring to become professional athletes, and you'd only get the people that play because they love the sport and would be much better role models for kids instead of the ones that we have now that fight dogs, do excessive amounts of drugs, drink excessively, etc.
Click to expand...
What about Kevin Garnett who built homes for 25 families after Katrina hit, or Warrick Dunn who helps finance homes for single mothers. DeAngelo Williams is even donating all proceeds of his mogul sales to St.Judes, and their are countless other athletes who do so much for the community. Also, all athletes get tested for drugs, and many never even drink. The only person who I can think of who fights dog's was Michael Vick, and Clinton Portis is the only other athlete to publically say he even attended one.

One of my favorite things to do during the NBA season is watch "Celtics Now" on CSN, where on most of the episodes it shows all the Celtics players doing things like food-drives or visiting childrens hospitals, etc. Yes, athletes doing bad things is mostly what they show, but I know from watching sports and athletes very closely that most are genuine human beings who fully understand that their looked up to as role models. As for how much their paid, that's based on the revenue of their sport. If that money wasn't going to the players than it would be going to the owners, and that's a scary thought!. At least this way it goes to the people who keep it running, and much of that money finds it's way into deserving homes. I do wish their would be less value on material things like jewelry and cars, but that's across the boards for all excessively rich people. Not just athletes!!.
 
So if they donate all that money already, they shouldn't have any problems with it automatically going to a charity instead of them deciding how much. :shrugs:
 
Ricky87 said:
See, that's what I'm talking about!. Quick fact about my condition; many if not most people with it die before the age of thirty due to sudden heart or lung failure, not to mention extreme susceptibility to illness and hypothermia OR dangerous surgical procedures!. Death is not a device of irony, and my awareness is all too real. That's still no excuse not to consider a change for the better in our society!. I've learned not to depend on health-care anyway, and under the current system we have, if it weren't for private organizations I would be dead. I was told at 13 if I didn't have surgery I would die, yet even until the surgery date insurance wouldn't cover it. My family would have been in ruins financially if it weren't for private donors, and that is a serious flaw in the current system. I've seen first hand how little they care, and if someone wants to change how they operate than I'm all for it. Obama's message was "Change", and that's why I voted. I hope to see that change within all of us someday!!.
Click to expand...



Ricky, I gave Beth rep points for that post you are criticizing because I thought she explained herself very well. I can’t find any criticism of you or anything derogatory in her statement. I think the statement made earlier that you are quick to find offence was pretty accurate and justified.

No one questions your disability or your need for help from others. That is not and has not been the issue here.

Yes Mr. Obama sold himself on a platform of change. Sometimes when things are tough the grass looks greener anywhere but here. But change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. Tell me how you are going to change things and I’ll think about it. Maybe you have a good idea, maybe not.
 
RobbiesCornField said:
The ones I disagree with are the "professional athletes" making millions of dollars. Why not put a cap on how much they can earn (say $75,000 per year?) and any endorsements they do, instead of going to them, can go towards government programs, like education, or the D.A.R.E. program, or the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs? I can guarantee you, though, that there would be a lot less people clamoring to become professional athletes, and you'd only get the people that play because they love the sport and would be much better role models for kids instead of the ones that we have now that fight dogs, do excessive amounts of drugs, drink excessively, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree that athletes make sick money, and regulation is needed to even the disparity between average Americans. But this is an almost double edged sword, then we should look at lawyers, doctors, CEO's, lottery winners, singers, actors, etc... Sports is big business, their paychecks may not be equivalent to what they deserve, but the money the athletes make is earned one way or another. It makes me crazy too, they shouldn't get a fraction of those checks, but the owners make even more, and it's really the over consumption of alcohol, beauty products, car commercials, etc... that pays their salary.
I also think the generalization of Dog Fighters, drug users, and alcoholics is inaccurate. It probably isn't even a comparable figure compared to the rest of society, as it is mostly the mainstream alcohol consumption that gives them their millions. I have to agree with my brother and say that there are those who do give back, and it is a terrible disservice to those players that these stories aren't glorified instead. Sports media is just like any other, controversy will make papers fly off the rack quicker that a feel good story will.
Michael Vick committed a disgusting crime, but in all fairness he paid his
debt to society, lost all of his money (deservedly so), and really hasn't been glorified in the way most people think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top