EPTUS government shutdown - Page 96
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States43247 Posts
| ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote: If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. god bless english democracy. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote: If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. I am just curious, what happens if people then vote for the same parliament (hint: gerrymandering)? | ||
|
Yurie
11929 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:19 Alex1Sun wrote: I am just curious, what happens if people then vote for the same parliament (hint: gerrymandering)? A new election is called. Repeat it a few times and people take the hint. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:19 Alex1Sun wrote: I am just curious, what happens if people then vote for the same parliament (hint: gerrymandering)? See the rest of the world realizes that it shouldn't be the people being voted for that should decide voting districts. But to move on. since the people are informed about what happened to create the gridlock, which in the US they dont because of horribly biased media and a basic failure in journalism, and it will effect there opinions. Realistically the chance of the same exact vote distribution is marginal. Esp when you combine it with more then 2 political parties creating a more diverse field and if a coalition of A+B doesnt work we can always try A+C or B+C. Yet another point where the basic US system fails. Ofc you cant take a single instance of the workings of the rest of the world and expect it to fix your problems when the entire US system is bollocks. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote: If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections. Let say Labour holds 55% of the seats and 45% goes to rest. Labour does same kind of thing (having senate to block is as rest have majority) but they see their support going down. Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period: If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first. If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". I dont think there would be general election in UK as Labour wouldn't want to resolve House of Commons at any point as they could lose majority. But UK doesn't have same kind of senate as USA has to block these things. House of Lords is different that way. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:19 Alex1Sun wrote: I am just curious, what happens if people then vote for the same parliament (hint: gerrymandering)? Gerry-mandering does not occur in British style democracies because we have had the good cultural sense/tradition to put those decisions in the hands of non-partisan bureaucratic bodies. Check this link out if you actually want to know an objectively better way to draw electoral boundaries relative to how it's done in the United States: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/bck&document=index&lang=e | ||
|
micronesia
United States24741 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:04 KwarK wrote: I can't see why. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that is in no way comparable to a mild allergy or a rash. If there were any other normal everyday activity that resulted in an organism living and growing inside you for 9 months, consuming your body's resources and displacing organs while dramatically altering your ability to live and work as you wanted then a cheap pill that prevented that would be seen as necessary healthcare. But when it's women having sex it's suddenly seen as an optional extra. It'd be bizarre if it wasn't part of a larger pattern of misogyny. You made an argument for why birth control is an important thing to cover, but not why it should somehow be treated differently than other things that do/don't get covered. Some health insurance plans won't cover the majority of the costs if you get shot by a stray bullet and need surgery in order to not bleed to death. Some health insurance plans won't cover most of the treatment if you suddenly discover as an adult you have some serious genetic disease that has the potential to kill you. Basically, there are things where you can pay a lot of money or die, even having health insurance (of course this isn't true of most of the better health insurance plans). If there are many conditions and situations where health plans won't cover you sufficiently that you won't be at risk of death without substantial financial support outside of your insurance, why should some other medical need like birth control suddenly be a guaranteed covered service for all medical plans? Once life-threatening things are guaranteed to be covered by your plan, then I consider prescription birth control to be in the next category of things that should be covered by health plans. Men who try to argue that birth control shouldn't be covered, but that other preventative healthcare for non-life-threatening conditions should be covered are indeed doing the wrong thing. Kwark I think due to your location you are not aware of how diverse and sometimes shitty healthcare plans are here. For the record, I think everyone should have access to healthcare that isn't as shitty as some of the bad plans I alluded to earlier, and that birth control should be included (not to mention the other argument made about how it's actually cheaper to cover birth control anyway). | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:23 Yurie wrote: A new election is called. Repeat it a few times and people take the hint. It happened in Canada a few years ago (we had three-four elections in almost as many years). Basically, people get tired of it after a couple of times, and the party that is viewed as unnecessarily pushing for an additional election as opposed to co-operating and actually compromising to get shit done would be punished in the polls, and the parties get the hint. It's funny how typing that out made me realize how well it kind of works.... | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
On October 13 2013 12:04 Introvert wrote: Tell me a time in the past 2-4 years where the democrats have made significant concessions? They can't even pass a budget, and they got their tax hike. The republicans have achieved jack-all. Democrats are now championing original republican Ryan's budget, original republican healthcare system and have agreed to put a spending sequester on top of it all. Whatever GOP proposes, Democrats just take it and advertise as their own proposal a bit later. Left wing media does not talk about it, because they don't want Democrats to look turncoats, while right wing media does not talk about it so that Republicans can ask for more. However if you look at the actual bills (budget numbers, healthcare details), you will see that this is exactly what is happening. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 14 2013 07:35 packrat386 wrote: "other issues" are a pretty common use for the pill. Also, sexual health is an important part of health. Just because conservative employers may not want to recognize that sex exists doesn't mean that we should base our healthcare around the idea that sex is an "extra". Sex is recreational. What I don't understand is why the employers have to pay for the activity. Why shouldn't employers pay for everyone to have a gym pass as well if they live in a city where its hard to go for a jog or something? Is sexual health a good thing? Sure, but I don't expect my employer to pay for things I enjoy in my free time. Why not have employer's subsidize our groceries if we eat healthy, or pay for a daily vitamin? I just don't see how its someone else's responsibility to pay for contraception. That's entirely on an individual. Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident. NOT a regular activity that the majority of the population frequents in on a daily basis. Same reason car insurance covers the abnormal things that happen, but will exclude your own failure to simply maintain your vehicle. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Sex is recreational. What I don't understand is why the employers have to pay for the activity. Why shouldn't employers pay for everyone to have a gym pass as well if they live in a city where its hard to go for a jog or something? Is sexual health a good thing? Sure, but I don't expect my employer to pay for things I enjoy in my free time. Why not have employer's subsidize our groceries if we eat healthy, or pay for a daily vitamin? I just don't see how its someone else's responsibility to pay for contraception. That's entirely on an individual. Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident. NOT a regular activity that the majority of the population frequents in on a daily basis. Same reason car insurance covers the abnormal things that happen, but will exclude your own failure to simply maintain your vehicle. Sexual health refers to more than just the act of sex. From the CDC..... The World Health Organization defines sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. Sexual Health | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Sex is recreational. What I don't understand is why the employers have to pay for the activity. Why shouldn't employers pay for everyone to have a gym pass as well if they live in a city where its hard to go for a jog or something? Some employers and health insurers actually choose to do just that because it makes for healthier more productive workers. Some employers even choose such insanity as having a gym on location where you can say "fuck work" and go and run, or lift, or play a game of basketball on the clock because it makes for happy, less stressed, more productive employees. Not providing a pill that keeps your female employees happy and productive seems pretty stupid. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
If, however, you have a system that will refuse to pay for coverage of Serious Condition B if you contract it from performing Activity A, then it might make sense not to cover the cheap preventative care. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:50 OuchyDathurts wrote: Some employers and health insurers actually choose to do just that because it makes for healthier more productive workers. Some employers even choose such insanity as having a gym on location where you can say "fuck work" and go and run, or lift, or play a game of basketball on the clock because it makes for happy, less stressed, more productive employees. Not providing a pill that keeps your female employees happy and productive seems pretty stupid. What you said is hardly relevant to what I said. I'm fully aware they do such as my employer does that. By choice. Employers, if they choose to do so, could pay for nearly every expense you have. I'm talking about it being mandated. Food is pretty damn important to being healthy, why isn't mandatory to pay for as well? Fairly significant consequences if you don't eat. Insurance shouldn't be to cover everyday costs, that defeats the entire purpose of insurance.... the costs just end up getting built into the premiums... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote: Sex is recreational. What I don't understand is why the employers have to pay for the activity. Why shouldn't employers pay for everyone to have a gym pass as well if they live in a city where its hard to go for a jog or something? Is sexual health a good thing? Sure, but I don't expect my employer to pay for things I enjoy in my free time. Why not have employer's subsidize our groceries if we eat healthy, or pay for a daily vitamin? I just don't see how its someone else's responsibility to pay for contraception. That's entirely on an individual. Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident. NOT a regular activity that the majority of the population frequents in on a daily basis. Same reason car insurance covers the abnormal things that happen, but will exclude your own failure to simply maintain your vehicle. Gym passes, groceries, and vitamins don't fly because it would be considered an absurdity culturally and have no popular backing. Call it health care and insurance regimes, mutter about how it'll actually save costs by forcing everybody to have this and that included in their plans, and voters back away from opposition. They're actually going to save money, everybody's going to save money, if they reduce your wages and they're forced to give you a Risk-Adjusted Gym Membership (in an area where you can't really jog for health). You might make the unhealthy choice and not spend the money on the gym pass and healthy groceries, so we need common-sense legislation to help us invest in our health. The ideologically honest here would have no opposition to such a scheme, I mean after the linked studies on eating healthy and exercise would save this many billion of dollars each year. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43247 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 14 2013 09:20 FabledIntegral wrote: What you said is hardly relevant to what I said. I'm fully aware they do such as my employer does that. By choice. Employers, if they choose to do so, could pay for nearly every expense you have. I'm talking about it being mandated. Food is pretty damn important to being healthy, why isn't mandatory to pay for as well? Fairly significant consequences if you don't eat. Insurance shouldn't be to cover everyday costs, that defeats the entire purpose of insurance.... the costs just end up getting built into the premiums... I'd say that as those things become more and more the norm and help advance a better society they'll be seen as something so beneficial they should be mandatory. Some people might disagree but people will disagree with anything. Many things that were once considered a needless expense became mandated eventually because people realized that there is benefit in them being a requirement. They become the price of even playing ball. I don't see employers ever having to provide their employees with 3 healthy meals a day because that starts getting awfully close to the whole "scrip" debacle of yesteryear. I don't think its unreasonable for a person being paid a decent enough wage where they can actually afford to eat something healthier than saltines and ramen though. IMO either insurance covers everyday costs or insurance companies crumble as we take on a single payer system that all but cuts them entirely from existence to the betterment of society. I think some birth control pills seem to be a pretty small price of admission there. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
Reddit quote: Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner. Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something? e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3 Is this scenario really happening? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
| ||
