Hubby listening to talk radio - DPChallenge Forums

11/17/2009 10:46:40 PM · #126

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.

If the word naÃ¯vetÃ© offends you so much, I do humbly apologize...

Completely OT, I guess, but -- I haven't had time today to read the report, but why on earth would they say such things/?????????? That's downright stoopid. My understanding is that breast cancer is largely treatable and survivable simply because of the early detection education and practices.

They found that the number of false positives, and unnecessary biopsies were not worth it considering they didnt substantially increase the odds of survival. The findings, however, were non-partisan as they were conducted by a non-partisan agency.

11/17/2009 10:46:59 PM · #127

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.

If the word naÃ¯vetÃ© offends you so much, I do humbly apologize...

Ok.

But, we should bring this thread back to the OP's discussion. How does one reconcile different political ideologies in a relationship?

Agree to disagree. ;)

11/17/2009 10:48:40 PM · #128

Originally posted by karmat:

Why indeed? The article is definitely a wake up call and definitely worth reading...

11/17/2009 10:49:00 PM · #129

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :)

I honestly want the best for your country, so if I felt that your president was harming your country in any way, I would be suspicious. I am not suspicious of Obama, but was of Bush. Not that it makes any difference, but I vote conservative 80% of the time up here in the snow :)

11/17/2009 10:49:07 PM · #130

Originally posted by karmat:

Exactly. The article even goes on to mention a woman who had breast cancer who found it during a self-exam. Just because a "government task force" performed a statistical study, doesn't mean that its conclusions are valid or that anyone is taking action based on that study.

11/17/2009 10:49:49 PM · #131

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Agree to disagree. ;)

Of course :D It would be a realy boring debate if we agreed now wouldnt it?

:)

11/17/2009 10:54:53 PM · #132

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.

If the word naÃ¯vetÃ© offends you so much, I do humbly apologize...

Completely OT, I guess, but -- I haven't had time today to read the report, but why on earth would they say such things/?????????? That's downright stoopid. My understanding is that breast cancer is largely treatable and survivable simply because of the early detection education and practices.

Exactly. The article even goes on to mention a woman who had breast cancer who found it during a self-exam. Just because a "government task force" performed a statistical study, doesn't mean that its conclusions are valid or that anyone is taking action based on that study.

As I said previously, it might have previously been considered a statistical study alone. In light of the health care bill in Congress, I find the timing of this study to be suspicious. But then again, I'm a right-wing paranoid nut job, and you have all the answers. If I'm wrong, and you're right, no harm done. On the other hand.....

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

11/17/2009 10:57:30 PM · #133

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...

Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not?

Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations.

Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia.

It's a study, nothing more.

PUHLEEZE! Stop with the left-wing bullying. It's more than just a study. Even your beloved news channels reported on it all day. And tell that to women who have fought or are fighting breast cancer.

Oh, and the last time I checked, it's still a free country. I can be as paranoid and you can be as oblivious as you want to be. :)

OK then, come out from under your tinfoil hat and answer a few questions about your spewage. Have you been denied a mammogram? What makes you think that the results of this study will be used to deny women access to mammograms? Why does the thought of providing access to health care to those less fortunate than you rile you so? Are you a Christian? Do you believe in compassion for your fellow man or don't you care?

What beloved news channels? How do you know how I get my news?

cynthiann

Nikon D810

11/17/2009 10:58:05 PM · #134

Agree to disagree.

That's the OP's solution and I think it will work just fine.

But...

I will have to say that freedom of press was founded for the right reasons. From what I understand, it was to keep media from holding back.
ETA: fact

Message edited by author 2009-11-17 22:59:06.

11/17/2009 10:58:37 PM · #135

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :)

I honestly want the best for your country, so if I felt that your president was harming your country in any way, I would be suspicious. I am not suspicious of Obama, but was of Bush. Not that it makes any difference, but I vote conservative 80% of the time up here in the snow :)

Thank you for your kind words. I also want the best for my country. :) As a conservative voter 80% of the time, I'm surprised Obama hasn't given off any bad vibes to you. ;) Guess I watch and listen to news that isn't reported on a majority of news channels. Which was the original intent of the post, if I'm not mistaken. LOL Guess you know where I stand on that! :)

11/17/2009 10:58:58 PM · #136

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.

If the word naÃ¯vetÃ© offends you so much, I do humbly apologize...

Completely OT, I guess, but -- I haven't had time today to read the report, but why on earth would they say such things/?????????? That's downright stoopid. My understanding is that breast cancer is largely treatable and survivable simply because of the early detection education and practices.

Exactly. The article even goes on to mention a woman who had breast cancer who found it during a self-exam. Just because a "government task force" performed a statistical study, doesn't mean that its conclusions are valid or that anyone is taking action based on that study.

As I said previously, it might have previously been considered a statistical study alone. In light of the health care bill in Congress, I find the timing of this study to be suspicious. But then again, I'm a right-wing paranoid nut job, and you have all the answers. If I'm wrong, and you're right, no harm done. On the other hand.....

You're wrong.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/17/2009 11:08:26 PM · #137

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :)

I honestly want the best for your country, so if I felt that your president was harming your country in any way, I would be suspicious. I am not suspicious of Obama, but was of Bush. Not that it makes any difference, but I vote conservative 80% of the time up here in the snow :)

Thank you for your kind words. I also want the best for my country. :) As a conservative voter 80% of the time, I'm surprised Obama hasn't given off any bad vibes to you. ;) Guess I watch and listen to news that isn't reported on a majority of news channels. Which was the original intent of the post, if I'm not mistaken. LOL Guess you know where I stand on that! :)

I vote conservative mainly because at the time of the election, I felt that they would be best for Canada/Ontario. When I look at Obama, I like what the man has to say. But your right, from a Canadian perspective, I get different accounts of Obama. One thing I know is that the world's opinion of Americans blossomed in the wake of his election... like him or not, the world likes Americans more because of him.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

11/17/2009 11:12:15 PM · #138

Wow Cynthiann, you didn't even have to TRY :D

11/17/2009 11:12:21 PM · #139

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :)

I honestly want the best for your country, so if I felt that your president was harming your country in any way, I would be suspicious. I am not suspicious of Obama, but was of Bush. Not that it makes any difference, but I vote conservative 80% of the time up here in the snow :)

Thank you for your kind words. I also want the best for my country. :) As a conservative voter 80% of the time, I'm surprised Obama hasn't given off any bad vibes to you. ;) Guess I watch and listen to news that isn't reported on a majority of news channels. Which was the original intent of the post, if I'm not mistaken. LOL Guess you know where I stand on that! :)

I vote conservative mainly because at the time of the election, I felt that they would be best for Canada/Ontario. When I look at Obama, I like what the man has to say. But your right, from a Canadian perspective, I get different accounts of Obama. One thing I know is that the world's opinion of Americans blossomed in the wake of his election... like him or not, the world likes Americans more because of him.

From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal.

11/17/2009 11:19:06 PM · #140

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...

Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not?

Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations.

Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia.

It's a study, nothing more.

PUHLEEZE! Stop with the left-wing bullying. It's more than just a study. Even your beloved news channels reported on it all day. And tell that to women who have fought or are fighting breast cancer.

Oh, and the last time I checked, it's still a free country. I can be as paranoid and you can be as oblivious as you want to be. :)

OK then, come out from under your tinfoil hat and answer a few questions about your spewage. Have you been denied a mammogram? What makes you think that the results of this study will be used to deny women access to mammograms? Why does the thought of providing access to health care to those less fortunate than you rile you so? Are you a Christian? Do you believe in compassion for your fellow man or don't you care?

What beloved news channels? How do you know how I get my news?

Yikes! I can see where you get your DPC nickname. Apparently, left wingers can be very hostile and rude and not always compassionate. Let's see - no, I haven't been denied a mammogram yet. In fact, I have my first one scheduled for December. Honestly, I do believe waiting for the results will be very scary. I can't imagine having to wait until I'm 50 to see the results. I'm 37, almost 38, so it does frighten me to think these changes could take effect. My 40's are just around the corner. Yes, it bothers me to know that a screening that is currently considered preventative and free of charge with my current health care plan would, instead, cost me money to have done (if I could even opt to have one) due to age constrictions. Now, how is that helping the fortunate or less fortunate, for that matter? How is that an improvement or benefit? Obama's plan is not the only plan that has been thrown out there and is not the end all to health care woes. I said I'm against the government running health care. I believe there are other ways to manage health care. I do not believe the government is the answer to every problem in this country. I did not say I'm against helping those in need. There is a big difference. Not that it's any of your business, and not that Christianity has anything to do directly with compassion, but YES - I am a Christian. And obviously more capable of carrying on a more civil conversation than you....

11/17/2009 11:19:50 PM · #141

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia...

You sound exasperated, and I can't blame you.
It is unusual to see an administration sincerely intent on improving the human condition.
It is always easier to perpetuate the status quo, no matter how sorry, than to move forward. When we finally do, the first opposition we face always usually comes from those who would benefit from that progress the most.
It's like entering a room and turning on the lights, when people are sleeping.

11/17/2009 11:21:47 PM · #142

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.

Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.

If the word naÃ¯vetÃ© offends you so much, I do humbly apologize...

Completely OT, I guess, but -- I haven't had time today to read the report, but why on earth would they say such things/?????????? That's downright stoopid. My understanding is that breast cancer is largely treatable and survivable simply because of the early detection education and practices.

Exactly. The article even goes on to mention a woman who had breast cancer who found it during a self-exam. Just because a "government task force" performed a statistical study, doesn't mean that its conclusions are valid or that anyone is taking action based on that study.

As I said previously, it might have previously been considered a statistical study alone. In light of the health care bill in Congress, I find the timing of this study to be suspicious. But then again, I'm a right-wing paranoid nut job, and you have all the answers. If I'm wrong, and you're right, no harm done. On the other hand.....

You're wrong.

Then you have nothing to worry about, will have a good sleep tonight and can save your hot air for another topic of discussion...

11/17/2009 11:22:57 PM · #143

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia...

You sound exasperated, and I can't blame you.
It is unusual to see an administration sincerely intent on improving the human condition.
It is always easier to perpetuate the status quo, no matter how sorry, than to move forward. When we finally do, the first opposition we face always usually comes from those who would benefit from that progress the most.
It's like entering a room and turning on the lights, when people are sleeping.

or like turning off the lights when people are trying to get somewhere........

11/17/2009 11:27:02 PM · #144

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal.

The term, here, merely describes a centrist political party, interested in balancing diverse interests.

11/17/2009 11:35:48 PM · #145

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia...

You sound exasperated, and I can't blame you.
It is unusual to see an administration sincerely intent on improving the human condition.
It is always easier to perpetuate the status quo, no matter how sorry, than to move forward. When we finally do, the first opposition we face always usually comes from those who would benefit from that progress the most.
It's like entering a room and turning on the lights, when people are sleeping.

or like turning off the lights when people are trying to get somewhere........

I recommend Plato's analogy of the cave.

11/17/2009 11:53:08 PM · #146

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by AJHopp:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...

Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not?

Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations.

Again, I disagree with your naÃ¯vetÃ©. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will....

PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia.

It's a study, nothing more.

PUHLEEZE! Stop with the left-wing bullying. It's more than just a study. Even your beloved news channels reported on it all day. And tell that to women who have fought or are fighting breast cancer.

Oh, and the last time I checked, it's still a free country. I can be as paranoid and you can be as oblivious as you want to be. :)

OK then, come out from under your tinfoil hat and answer a few questions about your spewage. Have you been denied a mammogram? What makes you think that the results of this study will be used to deny women access to mammograms? Why does the thought of providing access to health care to those less fortunate than you rile you so? Are you a Christian? Do you believe in compassion for your fellow man or don't you care?

What beloved news channels? How do you know how I get my news?

Yikes! I can see where you get your DPC nickname. Apparently, left wingers can be very hostile and rude and not always compassionate. Let's see - no, I haven't been denied a mammogram yet. In fact, I have my first one scheduled for December. Honestly, I do believe waiting for the results will be very scary. I can't imagine having to wait until I'm 50 to see the results. I'm 37, almost 38, so it does frighten me to think these changes could take effect. My 40's are just around the corner. Yes, it bothers me to know that a screening that is currently considered preventative and free of charge with my current health care plan would, instead, cost me money to have done (if I could even opt to have one) due to age constrictions. Now, how is that helping the fortunate or less fortunate, for that matter? How is that an improvement or benefit? Obama's plan is not the only plan that has been thrown out there and is not the end all to health care woes. I said I'm against the government running health care. I believe there are other ways to manage health care. I do not believe the government is the answer to every problem in this country. I did not say I'm against helping those in need. There is a big difference. Not that it's any of your business, and not that Christianity has anything to do directly with compassion, but YES - I am a Christian. And obviously more capable of carrying on a more civil conversation than you....

Obvious to whom? You keep harping on the same point that you fear you would be denied a mammogram or some other health service under this administration's plan, but have yet to offer any basis for your fear or say why.

What other ways to manage health care? Please elaborate. I asked if you're a Christian because, Christ believed in helping those less fortunate and, so far, the Republicans haven't provided any alternatives, they've just been the party of "No", which seems to be short for "No, we don't give a damn about anyone other than our corporate donors.", is that what Christ meant? How do you mean to help those who are in need? Through a piecemeal, hodgepodge of free clinics and charitable organizations? Those are all well and good, but hardly capable of managing the care of millions. I'm eager to hear your suggestions, if you have something better, please share.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/17/2009 11:54:16 PM · #147

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal.

The term, here, merely describes a centrist political party, interested in balancing diverse interests.

Hmmm...well, I think I meant more that he'd be nearer the center, than the left of the spectrum

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/17/2009 11:59:53 PM · #148

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I recommend Plato's analogy of the cave.

Which is fine if you watch the shadows on the left , but those shadows on the right are liars!

11/18/2009 12:04:27 AM · #149

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal.

The term, here, merely describes a centrist political party, interested in balancing diverse interests.

Hmmm...well, I think I meant more that he'd be nearer the center, than the left of the spectrum

Yes. I only phrased it that way to show the difference in usage for the term. It lacks any inflammatory attributes and potential.