|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2009 08:32:18 PM · #1 |
Thanks for posting. I want to read it and see what in this version. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 10:27:43 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 10:21:16 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Niten:
They don't seem to be a racist group to me. If you are really looking to join a group like this maybe the Daughters of Confederate Veterans will take you. Or maybe Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War or Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, there are alot of these groups. You should talk to a few of them before you condem them to hell. |
Do you actually know anything about American history?
In case you don't, which seems apparent, the Confederacy was opposed to freeing the slaves, primarily for economic reasons.
The slaves were black, in case you were unaware of that, and in general, slavery is considered kind of a racist thing.
NOW.......should you be an advocate, or member, of the group whose basic mindset was this, you ARE a racist by your condoning them.
PLEASE explain to me how the Union Veterans, those who opposed slavery, would be racist.
Oh, and I'm not condemning them to Hell......unfortunately, racists are protected by the same Constitution that I uphold, but that doesn't mean that I have to like or condone their narrow views.
ETA: WHY on God's green earth would it even occur to you for one second that I would have any interest in any of those groups who seemed bound and determined to live in the past, the worst of which apparently celebrate some of the darkest moments in our history.
The Civil War pitted brothers, sons, daughters, and many family members against each other, the attrition rate was just atrocious, and the whole fucking thing was stupid and unnecessary.
Sometimes you don't need to argue just to take the other side of the fence.....this is REALLY an unnecessary position to uphold. |
You clearly have only been taught the Northern version of the war as fact. read a little, you might learn something.
Take this to another thread if need more learnin. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:53:13 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...but to say that the Civil War was about land really does an injustice to the first attempt we made to actually set a gross inequality situation right. |
Jeb, I just don't think this is accurate, historically. It's an American fairy tale. The War Between the States (the "Civil War") was fought over the issue of secession. And the South wanted to be independent for essentially the same reasons the colonies had broken with England in 1776; economic reasons.
"Prior to secession, the South had complained for decades about unfair, unconstitutional Northern economic policies, especially tariff policy. One of the seven ordinances of secession and two of the Declarations of Causes of Secession of the Deep South states mention unfair Northern economic policies. Jefferson Davis mentioned the South's complaints about Northern protectionist tariff policies in his first message to the Confederate congress (he cited the North's imposition of "burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests"). In his famous speech on secession to the Georgia legislature, Robert Toombs spent the first half of the speech listing some of the South's economic complaints against the North, and he cited these complaints as reasons the South needed to be independent."
.....
"When Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation [about] two years after taking office, he did so largely because he was under intense pressure from abolitionist Republicans in Congress, who were threatening to cut off funds from the army if Lincoln didn't issue some kind of emancipation statement. One only has to read the Emancipation Proclamation itself to see that it was a war measure that only applied to slaves who were in Confederate territory; it did not apply to any slaves who were in Union-controlled territory, not even to slaves who were in the four Union slave states."
Quoted, italicized portions are from //www.factasy.com/civil_war/node/2338, and they correspond with what I've always understood to be the real-world history of why and how the war began.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 06:37:34 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by SDW:
The Emancipation Proclamation was more about land than slavery but it was made to look as slavery was the real reason for the civil war, when it was about land. |
Umm, no...
South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860, as a result of Lincoln's election, whom they regarded as a rabid abolitionist. The six other states quickly followed....
They saw no future with him as POTUS, and with thge travails of the Wilmot Proviso, the Missouri Crisis, and the Nullification Controversy, the Civil War most certainly *WAS* about slavery.
The land aspect came into being because of slavery's relevance as it pertained to the costs of agriculture, and states wanting admission into the Union. Yes, it was about land, but to say that the Civil War was about land really does an injustice to the first attempt we made to actually set a gross inequality situation right.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 02:37:20 AM · #6 |
Thanks to everyone who confirmed my reluctance to engage in this thread. I am just not going to have a discussion or take seriously those who say "it's all the whites / blacks/ liberals / republicans / greedy corporations etc. fault" In your minds, all you are looking to do is to validate your unwavering devotion to your chosen or given philosophies. You reject anything that comes from someone who thinks differently than you do regardless of facts and you attempt to label them and make assumptions about their attitudes and philosophies when you know nothing at all about them. This went on for 8 years and all most of these people did is switch sides and it will apparently go on for another ? years. Some change.
Anyway - I have lots of reasonable, open-minded friends of differing political views that I am able to have civil and productive discussions with, so I don't need it here. I'd rather focus on the things we have in common here. Sorry for jumping in and for the tirade - if I said anything that doesn't apply to you, ignore it. If I said anything that does, I'm confident you already have.
Enjoy. I'm out. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:53:39 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I'm just not buying that this has as much to do with racism as it has to do with the conservative right getting their asses handed to them in the last few elections cycles. Let's face it, they are frothing at the mouth that they have lost power by losing the White House, House and Senate all in a two year span. In my opinion I feel that the resistance would be just as bad if not worse for Hillary had she won the Presidency. In fact, before Obama started gaining traction in the primary the vitriol was solely aimed at Hillary from the right. Don't get me wrong, there are those who base it primarily on race but I don't feel it's the driving factor for the masses who disagree with the President, it's more of an extreme difference in political views. |
I do agree that any Democrat would have been subjected to a similar campaign, being labeled a socialist and all that sort of nonsense, just as Bill Clinton was harassed for eight years. But I do also believe that the nature of the invective directed at Obama has a definite racist flavor, at least in the public spectacles that we've been witnessing all summer. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:38:25 AM · #8 |
I'm just not buying that this has as much to do with racism as it has to do with the conservative right getting their asses handed to them in the last few elections cycles. Let's face it, they are frothing at the mouth that they have lost power by losing the White House, House and Senate all in a two year span. In my opinion I feel that the resistance would be just as bad if not worse for Hillary had she won the Presidency. In fact, before Obama started gaining traction in the primary the vitriol was solely aimed at Hillary from the right. Don't get me wrong, there are those who base it primarily on race but I don't feel it's the driving factor for the masses who disagree with the President, it's more of an extreme difference in political views.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 00:39:47. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:22:58 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Niten:
They don't seem to be a racist group to me. If you are really looking to join a group like this maybe the Daughters of Confederate Veterans will take you. Or maybe Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War or Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, there are alot of these groups. You should talk to a few of them before you condem them to hell. |
Do you actually know anything about American history?
In case you don't, which seems apparent, the Confederacy was opposed to freeing the slaves, primarily for economic reasons.
The slaves were black, in case you were unaware of that, and in general, slavery is considered kind of a racist thing.
NOW.......should you be an advocate, or member, of the group whose basic mindset was this, you ARE a racist by your condoning them.
PLEASE explain to me how the Union Veterans, those who opposed slavery, would be racist.
Oh, and I'm not condemning them to Hell......unfortunately, racists are protected by the same Constitution that I uphold, but that doesn't mean that I have to like or condone their narrow views.
ETA: WHY on God's green earth would it even occur to you for one second that I would have any interest in any of those groups who seemed bound and determined to live in the past, the worst of which apparently celebrate some of the darkest moments in our history.
The Civil War pitted brothers, sons, daughters, and many family members against each other, the attrition rate was just atrocious, and the whole fucking thing was stupid and unnecessary.
Sometimes you don't need to argue just to take the other side of the fence.....this is REALLY an unnecessary position to uphold. |
You can't ask someone "Do you actually know anything about American history?" and just put a few things out there that makes the southern states look bad. When in fact the northern states were doing the same thing.
Before I go any further let me BOLDLY SAY, 1)SLAVERY WAS WRONG. AND 2)ANYONE THAT IS RACIST IS CLEARLY IN THE WRONG AND NARROW MINDED. (BOTH SIDES).
Edit to clarify: The Civil war was about secession and land. The Emancipation Proclamation was more about freeing only the slaves in southern states that had broke ties with the Union and wanted to form another country. But did nothing to free the slaves of union states. In fact if anything kept them as slaves to so they could use them as solders.
As early as 1849, Abraham Lincoln believed that slaves should be emancipated, advocating a program in which they would be freed gradually. Early in his presidency, still convinced that gradual emaciation was the best course, he tried to win over legislators. To gain support, he proposed that slaveowners be compensated for giving up their "property." Support was not forthcoming.
In September of 1862, after the Union's victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued a preliminary decree stating that, unless the rebellious states returned to the Union by January 1, freedom would be granted to slaves within those states. The decree also left room for a plan of compensated emancipation. No Confederate states took the offer, and on January 1 Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation declared, "all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.
The proclamation allowed black soldiers to fight for the Union -- soldiers that were desperately needed. It also tied the issue of slavery directly to the war.
Reference
Don't forget there were thousands of white and native American slaves and even black slave owners.
Again all the above is a mute point and is not intended to claim racism or slavery is ok. Both are degrading and wrong. All men and women of every race should be equal. IMO!
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 20:42:20. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:01:50 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think the real reason that the valid arguments cannot be heard, and some reasonable accommodation and effective compromise bill on health care will probably not come to pass, is precisely because of all the false charges and misrepresentations... |
Did YOU really just say that? I just fell off the couch. I'd say pot meet kettle but I'd probably be accused of something. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 11:49:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
Racist if done to Rice; to Bush, no. Why would you expect the answer to be different for Rice? What's amazing is that you and LoudDog obviously feel it was racist when done to Rice, but can't admit the same when Obama is the target. |
Whoa there! I didn't even weigh in on the witch doctor issue. While I did find it racist and in poor taste, I don't consider it indicative of the attitudes of anyone else but the person holding the sign.
Frankly I am sick of all the racist this and racist that rhetoric regardless of where it comes from. The accusation has been thrown around so much as an attempt to discredit any valid arguments on real issues and I believe the charge is equally as true or equally as false as applied to all parties & all races in the US. But all that aside, I just see it being used as a convenient excuse for dismissing or trying to discredit opposing opinions on unrelated issues. |
I just fundamentally disagree with you, and I think the real reason that the valid arguments cannot be heard, and some reasonable accommodation and effective compromise bill on health care will probably not come to pass, is precisely because of all the false charges and misrepresentations raised by the fringe elements of the extreme right-wing. This summer was one long absurd circus featuring paranoid and, yes, racist screeds brought to you by the secessionists (secession? when is the last time secession was seriously discussed in this country?), militia members, armed protesters at presidential events, screaming mobs, and hysterics proclaiming "I want my 'Merica back!" What do you think underlies all of this nonsense? Why are we afraid to call it by its proper name? And the Republican Party has been feeding the monster all the while. I think pawdrix did an excellent job of making the case that racism or racial fear is certainly an undercurrent of that fringe and becoming more overt day by day. Everyone knows, every sane person knows, that to maintain the status quo in health care in this country is suicide. The average insurance policy to cover a family of four cost $5,500 seven years ago. Today it costs $12,000. Seven years from now it will cost $25,000. Does anyone really believe that employers will still be offering health care coverage as a benefit when it costs $25,000 to cover a family of four? Are we going to have to wait until the sky crashes in on our heads before we can make meaningful reform? Do we need to wait until 100 million or 200 million are uninsured? The Baucus bill hasn't even been voted out of committee yet, no one even knows what's in it yet, and already the Republican leadership are speaking out against it. And you're going to blame this state of affairs on race rhetoric??
At least we agree on one thing, that the witch doctor was a racist image. That's a start. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 09:59:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Niten:
They don't seem to be a racist group to me. If you are really looking to join a group like this maybe the Daughters of Confederate Veterans will take you. Or maybe Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War or Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, there are alot of these groups. You should talk to a few of them before you condem them to hell. |
Do you actually know anything about American history?
In case you don't, which seems apparent, the Confederacy was opposed to freeing the slaves, primarily for economic reasons.
The slaves were black, in case you were unaware of that, and in general, slavery is considered kind of a racist thing.
NOW.......should you be an advocate, or member, of the group whose basic mindset was this, you ARE a racist by your condoning them.
PLEASE explain to me how the Union Veterans, those who opposed slavery, would be racist.
Oh, and I'm not condemning them to Hell......unfortunately, racists are protected by the same Constitution that I uphold, but that doesn't mean that I have to like or condone their narrow views.
ETA: WHY on God's green earth would it even occur to you for one second that I would have any interest in any of those groups who seemed bound and determined to live in the past, the worst of which apparently celebrate some of the darkest moments in our history.
The Civil War pitted brothers, sons, daughters, and many family members against each other, the attrition rate was just atrocious, and the whole fucking thing was stupid and unnecessary.
Sometimes you don't need to argue just to take the other side of the fence.....this is REALLY an unnecessary position to uphold.
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 22:04:08.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 09:51:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Just for the record, there are a lot of private male-only groups. Just as there are private female-only groups. There are also private gay-only, private black-only, private Jew-only, private age-dependent only, the list goes on. Equality does not apply to private clubs/etc. Freedom also means being able to have private organizations that are free to exclude anyone they want to. I think sometimes you get so hung up on this 'gung-ho for women!' idea that you try to apply it to situations it's not exactly warranted. Just a thought. |
I won't deny I'm a pretty avid feminist......blame my gender guilt for the unnecessary struggles that women deal with every day at the hands of men.
That is merely one of the glaring inconsistencies of the SCV spouting liberty and equality....the other being that this comes from a group whose ancestors fought to keep black Americans enslaved.
It's just ridiculous to not be fully cognizant of what they are saying by their very existence.
Back to......I don't have to be bitten by a rattlesnake to know it's dangerous.
ETA: The private male-only groups you offer up most certainly are not offering themselves up as the upholders of the American way of liberty and freedom. They are merely exercising their right to those pursuits.
A group excluding the very thing they profess to uphold is simply hypocritical. |
They don't seem to be a racist group to me. If you are really looking to join a group like this maybe the Daughters of Confederate Veterans will take you. Or maybe Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War or Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, there are alot of these groups. You should talk to a few of them before you condem them to hell. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 09:43:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Judith Polakoff "If in your opinion, LoudDog, this isn't racist, can you point to an image that you WOULD consider racist?"
LoudDog"If the sign said “get the (insert racial slur here) out of office” or even “don’t trust our black president” then I’d say it’s without question racist. " |
I saw LoudDog's comment, and obviously if racial slurs are written across an image, the author is conveying a racist message. But I asked if there was any image, standing alone, that LoudDog could point to as conveying a racist message, because if this witch doctor image doesn't do it for you, I don't know what can. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 07:38:37 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Racist if done to Rice; to Bush, no. Why would you expect the answer to be different for Rice? What's amazing is that you and LoudDog obviously feel it was racist when done to Rice, but can't admit the same when Obama is the target. |
Very bad assumption. Obviously you are full of crap and have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about it being racist when it happened to Rice??? What gave you that idea? Do you just make this up as you go to make yourself feel good? Asinine. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 06:37:08 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The accusation has been thrown around so much as an attempt to discredit any valid arguments on real issues and I believe the charge is equally as true or equally as false as applied to all parties & all races in the US. But all that aside, I just see it being used as a convenient excuse for dismissing or trying to discredit opposing opinions on unrelated issues. |
For the record, I was just pointing out that it seems to be out there in some force and it's showing how muddy the waters actually are. I'm willing to listen to any reasonable debate but the false statements on both sides, I find disconcerting. I'm honestly getting a little rattled by the mean spirit of things I've been reading about and witnessing on TV.
Your question for example, made me do some searches and I came up with this article by Scott Atlas in Forbes Magazine. I didn't like some of his presumptions and I don't think there's anyone out there willing to offer competitive plans. He also states that innovation is strongest in the private sector and I would say some of the greatest tech innovations probably came from the military (NASA) so that doesn't hold up. France has always been a world leader in HIV/AIDS research and Viagra came from England so innovation and competition can be found anywhere. Obama wants or sees cost relief from competition coming from a public option. It makes sense that that would peg a price point that would force competition.
If there's some insurance company offering a full comprehensive plan (that won't drop me if I get sick) for $250-350/mo. sign me up. I'll petition for Interstate competition in a minute.
GenIE's posted radio interview was quite informative. Well worth a listen. A good point Reid makes is something I brought up earlier and that's that we need to decide what kind of people we wish to be. He mentions that someone refereed to taking care of every individual as "applied Christianity" and then asked where the religious-right were in this discussion. A person here kept calling a public option a "hand-out" and I feel that's individualism at it's very worst. we're better than that as a people.
eta: I'm very disappointed that there's been no reform of the banking system and Wall Street and Goldman is still paying huge bonuses made possible by our tax dollars. Right out of the gate they did a piss poor job of looking out for our money. So, I'm quite unhappy with Obama and Geitner, I'm not sure I trust them to do anything well on my behalf. However, I would still like to see some healthcare improvements based on my hopes and a roll of the dice, assuming their aim is true. Whether we should have reform and a public option is one discussion. Whether we can pull it off is another.
I'd like to at least see us agree (or disagree) on that first point.
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 18:49:09. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 06:10:52 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
Racist if done to Rice; to Bush, no. Why would you expect the answer to be different for Rice? What's amazing is that you and LoudDog obviously feel it was racist when done to Rice, but can't admit the same when Obama is the target. |
Whoa there! I didn't even weigh in on the witch doctor issue. While I did find it racist and in poor taste, I don't consider it indicative of the attitudes of anyone else but the person holding the sign.
Frankly I am sick of all the racist this and racist that rhetoric regardless of where it comes from. The accusation has been thrown around so much as an attempt to discredit any valid arguments on real issues and I believe the charge is equally as true or equally as false as applied to all parties & all races in the US. But all that aside, I just see it being used as a convenient excuse for dismissing or trying to discredit opposing opinions on unrelated issues. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 05:41:59 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
Racist if done to Rice; to Bush, no. Why would you expect the answer to be different for Rice? What's amazing is that you and LoudDog obviously feel it was racist when done to Rice, but can't admit the same when Obama is the target. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 05:02:14 PM · #19 |
I was trying to make the sarcastic, hyperbolic nature of my comments obvious ...
No they are not all greedy bastards, but health insurance company CEOs apparently make more (on average) than oil company, investment bank, or big pharma execs ...
As with environmental standards, I'm OK with a national standard of it adopts the most stringent of the state regulations, however I'm sure that the $200 million or so the health industry has spent lobbying Congress so far this year is at least partially an attempt to make sure that it is the weakest standards which are incorporated into any such legislation. It's not much of a "reform" if a deal with the Feds takes away someone's current protections against insurance company abuse.
Please listen to Mr. Reid's interview -- it's not a matter of an extremes being the only solutions, but the system we have now has been proven to not work -- it's time to try something else. Why not look at the various ways other countries have made it work, and build on their experience? |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:52:17 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
Sure, let's drop whatever consumer-protections are now in place -- I'm sure the insurance companies will fall all over themelves to change their behavior 180° from that of the past 40 years or so ...
You know what insurance companies are worried about? With significant reform, what about all those thousands of new unemployed people who'll be out of their previous jobs of denying claims (about 30%) or searching out reasons to recind policies...
An unregulated, for-profit insurance company is required by law to charge as much in premiums and pay out as little in benefits as possible. |
A couple thoughts on this - first of all, it is impossible to take seriously someone with the "they're ALL greedy and evil" attitude. You are part of the problem of having a reasonable, fact-based discussion. Secondly, I did not mean to suggest that one act would solve all the problems - I was just looking for any arguments against doing it as part of any proposal. You say this would "drop consumer protections" - I don't know enough about why there is no interstate insurance market, but I assume it has something to do with state's regulating their own markets, hence your comment. My thought on that is that uniform federal regulations would replace state regulations as part of the reform effort. Like I said, I don't know the history, but it baffles me why we can buy auto insurance nationally, but not health insurance. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:46:51 PM · #21 |
T.R. Reid: 'The Healing of America'
Perhaps most importantly (to this discussion here, anyway), he points out that those other "wealthy countries" with universal health care do not all have "socialized medicine" -- some have a national health system, some use a mixture of public and private, and some use private insurance and health care facilities, but under strict regulation. All of them provide care for all their citizens at a lower cost than the USA spends to leave millions uninsured and thousands of families bankrupt.
Link to mp3 audio
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 16:48:57. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 04:26:30 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
Sure, let's drop whatever consumer-protections are now in place -- I'm sure the insurance companies will fall all over themelves to change their behavior 180° from that of the past 40 years or so ...
You know what insurance companies are worried about? With significant reform, what about all those thousands of new unemployed people who'll be out of their previous jobs of denying claims (about 30%) or searching out reasons to recind policies...
An unregulated, for-profit insurance company is required by law to charge as much in premiums and pay out as little in benefits as possible. |
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:22:50 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-) |
That's just WRONG!!! LOL!!!
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I have a healthcare debate question - |
I'm sorry, we've moved on.....come back later when it cycles 'round.
Or perhaps try your friendly neighborhood religion thread.....surely they'll be glad to answer your question.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I scanned through the endless partisan bickering in this thread and couldn't find any mention of it, but it probably was discussed at some point - If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
I'd be afraid of collusion to keep the prices where they are, or perhaps higher.
The insurance companies would take the stance that medical costs keep soaring, never mind that it *could* be insurance company driven, or possibly you'd see these bare-bones policies, just major medical with high deductibles popping up for the cut-rate customers who'd be willing to play Russian Roulette with their health by waiving certain types of benefits like long term cancer care.
Couldn't you see it now?
A menu a lĂ McMedicine.....I'll have the Major Medical with a side of Optical, hold the Dental and Long Term Dialysis.
Then what would happen to that guy when his kidneys shut down......would he be thrown into a pool that'd be government, or insurance company funded, or would he merely die slowly and painfully at home knowing he gambled and lost?
Edited for fat fingers...
Message edited by author 2009-09-15 15:29:28.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:14:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Racism, in my opinion, is treating someone different (better or worse) because of their race. Bush had bad photoshop jobs done on him, so did Hillary. Now Obama gets it. Sure you can call it racist and maybe the person that did it meant that way, but is it racist if they put Hillary's face on the witch doctor? The witch doctor may look strange to you, but they are real in african culture. Do you think there is something strange or offensive about witch doctors or being compared to one? Is it a bad thing? I thought they were leaders in the tribe and highly regarded? Please explain why you think the sign is racist, and not just stupid. |
that's the whole subtelity of racism. Sure there are still some isolated tribes in africa, with their witch doctor, but to consider that they are representative of african culture is a big no-no. It's like saying that a redneck (you know, the one wearing a hunting shirt to his wedding) is a good representation of a US citizen.
But racist or not, this is stupid and does not have its place in civilized debate. But sadly, today's big trend is to attack the person, not the ideas. If someone disagrees with Obama's plan because he feels it is a path toward socialized medecine, it's alright. But instead of yelling "Socialist!" like people used to yell "Witch!", he should explain why he feel that socialized medecine is a bad idea and what he would prefer instead.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 03:12:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
was it racist when they witch doctored bush and rice? |
It is never racist when the target is a Black conservative. ;-)
I have a healthcare debate question - I scanned through the endless partisan bickering in this thread and couldn't find any mention of it, but it probably was discussed at some point - If most everyone agrees that the lack of competition in the insurance industry is the biggest problem with insurance rates, it has been proposed by some to drop the state regulations and allow competition among existing insurance companies nationwide. Have there been any argument about doing this? (instead of, in addition to, or as part of any proposed reforms) |
That has been asked but not answered. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:23:18 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:23:18 PM EDT.
|
