Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by slurper_la, Sep 20, 2009.
Day in the Life of a Joe Six-Pack Republican - Global One . TV
Joe wouldn't have used the subway, I don't think.
It's amazing how God, guns and "family values" are used to get people in huge sections of the country to consistently vote against their own best interest. At the 9/12 Washington protest, there were actually people without health insurance saying they didn't want government healthcare. They're only one doctor's visit away from losing all they have and don't even know it.
It's scary because even in some European countries such as Switzerland there are political parties that invoke a two class medical system.
Yep, I know people like that. I definitely want government healthcare, or really, guaranteed healthcare (whether government or otherwise) where I wouldn't have to lose everything I have to get treatment. And where I could actually afford to go to the doctor for routine checkups! I mean, I haven't had a pap smear since 2002 (because from 2003-2005 I was recovering from other serious illnesses, and from 2005 until now I've been uninsured and can't afford to go to the doctor), and I had an abnormal pap result in the 90s! And as for the "Get a job!" people, I work when I can, but not all employers provide insurance. I've mostly had temporary jobs because in this economy that's about all there are.
I just noticed that you're from Indianapolis! You may literally know the same people I do!
1) many insurers do NOT cover PAP smears or Mammograms
2) you would most likely be denied coverage due to "pre-existing" conditions"
3) it's nothing new that many employers would limit an employee's shift to just under the minimum necessary to qualify for coverage. There are millions of people now who are "underemployed" or working part-time jobs.
It is not the job of your employer to see that you have healthcare, it is a benefit. If Exxon/Mobile, GM, GE were to stop giving health insurance the clammier for healthcare reform would be more than a deafening roar.
This is definitely true; in fact they are the reason I have health insurance.
Have any representatives of these large insurers offered an opinion on healthcare reform? I'd be curious to hear what they'd think.
There's an old saying goes something like this... "Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it"
EH.Net Encyclopedia: Health Insurance in the United States
Employer-provided health care: where's the justice? | Physician Executive | Find Articles at BNET
Health insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All the more reason to have universal, full coverage with no loopholes for "pre-existing conditions" etc.
Now, when I had my pap smears in the late 90s to 2002, they were covered by my insurance, but apparently not all insurances cover that? I know that my insurance even covered me getting my tubes tied, but a lot of them don't. I consider myself to have been very lucky during the years from 1995-2005 when I had the really good insurance. But not that many people are that fortunate, and I am no longer.
Democratic socialism would do you americans good!
The American political system strongly resembles an eagle with two right wings. There is nobody in office in Canada as right wing as the most "left wing" of U.S. politicians. Steven Harper, our current prime minister is as right wing as we grow 'em and he is still well to the left of Ralph Nader or any other supposed "lefty" in the U.S. spectrum. A bit of left wing thought may be helpful to balance the system down there as we get to have a pretty good look at the conservative side every 4 years in our news feeds.
I always find it funny when the term "socialist" gets thrown around down South as if it is the dirtiest word in the world. It goes along with that most mystifying insult to the rest of the world "un-American."
Proudly Un-American here myself, but also fond of our wacky and loveable neighbors and all the strange games they play in the press and at the polls. It would be nice though to see a party there that speaks for the non-rich people. That could be refreshing. Unfortunately in many ways we are more alike each other though than we are different. I would love to see us elect a real socialist government here some time and try to put some sensible limits on the powers of large banks and trans-nationals to rule us all.
That would be wonderful. In my opinion I think that is the problem with the health bill we have now. Over 1000 pages. Why is it that long and I think most people are thinking where in there are they going to screw me?
How hard is it to say, you get the same coverage we in congress get? Or you can buy into the same coverage our military retirees get. That is it. We don't need all this other stuff.
Say that, say that you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions and it is all good.
Also I know it is my opinion, but calling it Health Care Reform is hurting it. Do we want to reform Health Care, or reform how to pay for health care? Calling it Health Care Reform send people running. Calling it Health Insurance Reform, or something along those lines might help.
Not when a perfectly good car service is available.
I think there's actually a book on the subject. If I remember correctly it's called "What's wrong with Oklahoma?" Basically it's about how Oklahoma's economy and best interests are served much better by the stance of the Democratic party than the Republicans, but they have consistently voted Republican for decades due to the view that they'll lose those fundamental rights under Democratic rule.
This is actually why I hate political parties, as well as most people's opinions on poilitics. It seems they are incapable of looking past arbitrary labels placed on people or groups in politics, and they make wild, blanket assumptions about everyone under that label. Throughout my life I've heard people complain left and right about political campaigns just being mudslinging competitions, with whoever finds the most dirt on their opponent winning. During the last election, that was why I didn't vote for McCain, but when I mentioned that reason to anyone they said "But all politicians are like that." It somehow totally escaped them, even with the amount of media coverage that Obama received during the campaign, that his messages were "It's time for change." and "Yes we can." rather than "McCain is a douchebag."
Ironic, that one of the most lauded aspects of our government is the multiparty system of electoral succession, where no one has power indefinitely, but most people in America are convinced, one way or the other, that one party is so superior that they don't even look at their opponent. Then they look at the history of the Soviet Union, which "elected" their leader, even though that person was the only one on the ballot, and somehow they don't see the correlation.
I suppose this was too 'socially' for Republicans as well:
Republicans block child nutrition bill
But tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are essential.
They claim that "the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach".
So providing healthier meal options to needy students in schools is too expensive, but those tax cuts for their benefactors isn't? Can we provide a list of names of those idiots who voted no on this? Stuff like this needs to be seen in that kind of detail by EVERYONE so we can see exactly who need to be voted out of Congress. And it needs to be repeated just as much (if not more) than garbage about the Kardashians or Snooki falling on her ass in a drunken rage.
Fiscal conservatism or not, there are some things that are just common sense. You don't deny children a meal just to save yourself money. As a person who benefitted from school lunch programs while growing up, who know how beneficial they are to struggling families who need all the help they can get, fuck them.
^ VB it's all such a fuckin sham it's simply unbelievable. The Republicans will pay a political price of ZERO for this bill and for not extending unemployment benefits to the 'lazy'. We have modern day Marie Antoinette's 'Let Them Eat Cake' crowd but I may be too elitist to know French history.
This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that just baffles me with regards to those who would support or justify this position. It's so baldy hypocritical, so purely untenable, that only a supreme act of lying to oneself would allow for the ongoing support of this kind of political maneuvering.
It's so blatantly obvious that the Prime Directive is to protect the wealthy, and damn everyone else, that no matter how these political actors try to obscure the fact that that's their mission, only the willfully deceived can actually be deceived. So the "supporters" of this kind of politics are either self-deceiving, self-hating, absolutely cold-hearted, intellectually deficient or a combination thereof.