|
|
On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from.
The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.'
Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing.
Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him.
Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.'
|
But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he also metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.
“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.”
"We pledge allegiance to that flag, we believe in a nation under God, a nation indivisible, a nation united, a nation with justice and liberty for all,” Mr. Romney said, “and for that to happen we’re going to have to have a new president that will commit to getting America working again, that will commit to a strong military, that will commit to a nation under God that recognizes that we the American people were given our rights not by government but by God himself.”
Seems like a new low in campaign rethoric this cycle.
Source
|
On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.'
Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed.
However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason?
What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)
I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues".
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 09 2012 08:35 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he also metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.
“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.” Show nested quote +"We pledge allegiance to that flag, we believe in a nation under God, a nation indivisible, a nation united, a nation with justice and liberty for all,” Mr. Romney said, “and for that to happen we’re going to have to have a new president that will commit to getting America working again, that will commit to a strong military, that will commit to a nation under God that recognizes that we the American people were given our rights not by government but by God himself.” Seems like a new low in campaign rethoric this cycle. Source
Someone... anyone... I am pleading... Get God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, get God out of my coins, and most importantly, get God out of my politics.
|
On September 09 2012 05:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
you know, depending on how you are defining "extreme" than one could say that the Dems are, arguably, more extreme than the Reps, or at least just as extreme.
voter ID laws: well to the left-of-center.
now, if I don't personally consider these positions to be "extreme", than obviously i won't call them extreme. but then i've turned "extreme" into a codeword for "what I don't agree with." if we define "extreme" as being outside the center of popular opinion, than the Democrats are certainly extreme, and so are the Republicans.
at the end of the day, its a moot point. mere name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
These voter ID laws are absolutely insane.
There has been nearly a statistically insignificant amount of voterfraud in the last 10 years.
These laws were passed in pretty much only republican controlled states.
I hate to quote the daily show as a source, but they do a pretty good job of outlining the insanity of these new laws.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/daily-show--democalypse-2012---cockblock-the-vote
|
On September 09 2012 08:55 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:35 Derez wrote:But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he also metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.
“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.” "We pledge allegiance to that flag, we believe in a nation under God, a nation indivisible, a nation united, a nation with justice and liberty for all,” Mr. Romney said, “and for that to happen we’re going to have to have a new president that will commit to getting America working again, that will commit to a strong military, that will commit to a nation under God that recognizes that we the American people were given our rights not by government but by God himself.” Seems like a new low in campaign rethoric this cycle. Source Someone... anyone... I am pleading... Get God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, get God out of my coins, and most importantly, get God out of my politics.
I couldn't agree more. I doubt it will happen for a long time though.
|
On September 09 2012 09:02 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:55 Souma wrote:On September 09 2012 08:35 Derez wrote:But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he also metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.
“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.” "We pledge allegiance to that flag, we believe in a nation under God, a nation indivisible, a nation united, a nation with justice and liberty for all,” Mr. Romney said, “and for that to happen we’re going to have to have a new president that will commit to getting America working again, that will commit to a strong military, that will commit to a nation under God that recognizes that we the American people were given our rights not by government but by God himself.” Seems like a new low in campaign rethoric this cycle. Source Someone... anyone... I am pleading... Get God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, get God out of my coins, and most importantly, get God out of my politics. I couldn't agree more. I doubt it will happen for a long time though.
You could just come and join us here in Canada :D
|
On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)
I'm sorry, but this just reads like "Private employers can't have morals unless they align with MY morals." It's a very intolerant stance to take when you basically tell people they're not allowed to think abortion or contraception is wrong, or they are allowed to think it's wrong but fuck you, you have to provide it anyway because WE think it's ok. If you don't agree with the morals of some place; don't work there! Company culture is an incredibly important part of picking a job. No one is forcing these women to work for catholic institutions just to deny them insurance-covered contraceptives and abortions (because they are still able to get them). That's something someone should take into account when they pick a workplace instead of forcing people to abandon the morals that they hold dear. Is it fair to make an employer pick between closing their business (or eating the obamacare tax for not offering a plan) and offering a health plan that they think is moral reprehensible?
|
I would vote for Romney if I were an american citizen. He isn't afraid to cut the outrageous spending Washington has approved over the years. A Romney presidency would be complemented by, most likely, a double majority in both the house and the senate in the 2014 midterm elections. That way Romney can slash the budget uninterrupted otherwise squabbling democrats would desperately stop excessive spending measures. Go RR
|
On September 09 2012 09:21 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist) I'm sorry, but this just reads like "Private employers can't have morals unless they align with MY morals." It's a very intolerant stance to take when you basically tell people they're not allowed to think abortion or contraception is wrong, or they are allowed to think it's wrong but fuck you, you have to provide it anyway because WE think it's ok. If you don't agree with the morals of some place; don't work there! Company culture is an incredibly important part of picking a job. No one is forcing these women to work for catholic institutions just to deny them insurance-covered contraceptives and abortions (because they are still able to get them). That's something someone should take into account when they pick a workplace instead of forcing people to abandon the morals that they hold dear. Is it fair to make an employer pick between closing their business (or eating the obamacare tax for not offering a plan) and offering a health plan that they think is moral reprehensible?
So now we are assuming that everyone is in a situation where they get free reign to choose whatever job wherever they want with whatever benefits they want? I'm not talking about birth control for sex I'm talking about birth control for freaking medical purposes. The business owner can whatever morals he wants, but he shouldn't force that on his employees.
Also what is morally wrong about giving hormone therapy to a women for a chronic disease? Stop thinking of it as birth control. If you think it's okay for an employer to deny a women medication for a chronic pain then I can't have a reasonable discussion with you.
|
On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues".
Why can't the girl...
a) pay for it herself
b) buy coverage herself
?
|
On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ?
Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons?
So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"?
Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of.
|
On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of.
Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol.
Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan?
|
On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan?
It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is, it's health coverage and it's a health expense, it should be covered. My stepfathers cheap medications and very expensive medications were covered, his coverage did not discriminate. No other conditions and medications are treated like this that I know of?
|
On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ?
The underlying premise is that health care in general is a right and not a luxury. We are one of the few first world countries left that see healthcare as a product or commodity. You should not be able to "buy health", which is why World Health Organization sees it as a right as well.
|
On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan?
Actually, doctors write scrips for Tylenol and a host of other OTC medications that are then covered by most insurances all the time. Also, keep in mind you are effectively offering forth a gendered "seperate but equal" access to healthcare.
|
On September 09 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan? It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is, it's health coverage and it's a health expense, it should be covered. My stepfathers cheap medications and very expensive medications were covered, his coverage did not discriminate. No other conditions and medications are treated like this that I know of?
Dental is separate from general medical. So is vision care. Why not separate reproductive coverage?
There's a difference between healthcare and insurance (this goes to other posters). You do not need insurance to get healthcare.
Edit: you can also get catastrophic health insurance that only covers big stuff.
|
On September 09 2012 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan? It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is, it's health coverage and it's a health expense, it should be covered. My stepfathers cheap medications and very expensive medications were covered, his coverage did not discriminate. No other conditions and medications are treated like this that I know of? Dental is separate from general medical. So is vision care. Why not separate reproductive coverage? There's a difference between healthcare and insurance (this goes to other posters). You do not need insurance to get healthcare.
Good luck convincing the 30-80 male demographic that they ought to pay seperately for their boner pills.
|
On September 09 2012 11:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan? It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is, it's health coverage and it's a health expense, it should be covered. My stepfathers cheap medications and very expensive medications were covered, his coverage did not discriminate. No other conditions and medications are treated like this that I know of? Dental is separate from general medical. So is vision care. Why not separate reproductive coverage? There's a difference between healthcare and insurance (this goes to other posters). You do not need insurance to get healthcare. Good luck convincing the 30-80 male demographic that they ought to pay seperately for their boner pills.
We're talking what, 0.1% of the population that both uses that AND works at a religious institution that doesn't want to pay for birth control pills?
|
On September 09 2012 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 11:00 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 10:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 09 2012 08:52 BlueBird. wrote:On September 09 2012 08:20 ikl2 wrote:On September 09 2012 07:25 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 07:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2012 06:06 frogrubdown wrote:On September 09 2012 05:56 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I'm interested in real issues: globalization, wars, economic strife, big-business power, stuff like that. I'm so tired of citizens and the media wasting their breath by firing us all up with ultimately useless moral issues. It's just to distract you from real problems. Please keep focus and vote according you most educated beliefs, and don't give in to the appeals to your emotions. It takes utterly goofy levels of privilege to assert that things like reproductive rights and gay marriage are "useless moral issues". Maybe they don't matter to you, but they greatly affect the lives of others. Maybe the middle road would be ... whether or not your civil unions can be called marriage or if your insurance company is forced to offer contraception in all its health plans is overshadowed by an extraordinarily growing debt burden, 8.1% unemployment with 368,000 Americans leaving the workforce, the war in Aftganistan, and the turmoil in the Middle East. There's an argument to be made that the desired cultural and political change necessarily must take a back seat in this situation. I don't understand on what grounds we're treating it as a zero sum game between "useless moral issues" and the types of things you and MountainDewJunkie would prefer. I guess he was complaining primarily about media attention (presumably mostly cable), but added cable news attention to the other issues wouldn't create insightful commentary and an informed voting populace. All it will do is create an even larger amount of time dedicated to disseminating the safe viewpoints that appeal to whatever bases the news organization derives its revenue from. The economy will always exist, and whatever political party is not in power will always predict its doom. There will always be menaces that threaten the security of the nation; if there aren't any especially credible ones, a party will exaggerate a threat in order to score points on security. There will always be 'more important' issues that will (apparently) give us good reasons to ignore 'useless moral issues.' Why does this give us good reason to ignore 'useless moral issues?' If we wait for both parties to proclaim that the economy is and will be in good shape for the foreseeable future, and that there are no threats to security, then we're clearly never going to get moral issues on the agenda. This 'focus on the economy/security' nonsense is nothing but framing. Edit: Not sure why I quoted frogrubdown, but I think it's pretty clear I am not disagreeing with him. Edit 2: I guess my question is why it's obvious that social/moral issues are cynical 'wedge issues' and economic/military issues are 'legitimate.' Look I am all for improving the economy and protecting the country, this benefits all members of our society from minorities to the majority, of course I want to see this addressed. However, I completely agree, that putting peoples civil rights and "useless moral issues" that are by far not useless too those that benefit from them on the back burner is not the direction I want my country to take. Actually think about being in the shoes of someone who can't marry their significant other because it's a "useless moral issue." You can be fired in some states for being gay or transgender and for no other reason. Imagine if you got fired from your job because of who you choose to sleep with, or because you aren't cisgender and for no other reason? What about the girl who can't get birth control too help with her endometriosis (1 in 10 women have it, which causes chronic pain) just because she has a "religious" based health care provider or workplace(which shouldn't even exist)I think a major problem is with our society as a whole, and our government can't wave their hands and remove the intolerance, but they can address some of the laws that are "useless moral issues". Why can't the girl... a) pay for it herself b) buy coverage herself ? Why can't every single person pay for their own medical treatment or get coverage. I mean we are talking about medical treatment here. If I was talking about people with cancer not getting treatment from their provider cause it's unethical to save this person's life according to their religion, wouldn't you be upset with that health care provider? We are talking about people that might not be able to switch cause of financial reasons or preexisting condition reasons? So if there is a treatment for cancer that is sometimes "unethical" when used for other uses, but when used for cancer can greatly help this person, it's "unethical"? Maybe cause there economic situation isn't as good as yours or mine? Maybe they can't simply pay for it or switch health care providers. Look I'd love it if everyone in the world was middle class, just had lots of cash lying around and everyone could pay for their own medicine without worry, no problem. But that's simply not the case, there are poor people out there with health issues that I feel an obligation to take care of. Cancer treatment is pretty expensive. Birth control can be had for as little as $9/mo (no insurance). Like, you don't need health insurance to buy Tylenol. Wouldn't an easy work around be for the government to change regulations and allow individuals to buy individual insurance for just birth control? Like a birth control insurance plan?
Jonny, you're better than that. While there are pills where cost is of little or no concern, there are many cases where the side effects are too strong for a patient, or where the drug is ineffective at treating the issue in the first place. At this point, they have to turn to more costly alternatives, that can cost $100 or $1000 a month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
