|
Oooh! Can I play the hair-splitting game too?
I don't think he said you were a libertarian. He said you were speaking in libertarian talking points.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
He made it quite clear he viewed it as an ideological duality.
Hairs: 0
Sebastian: 1
Hairs: Mid-torso
Sebastian: 1
The NJ article is about the fact that less women care getting the prenatal healthcare they need and the biggest predictive factor is whether they have health insurance.Very good. Now why is that happening? Because uninsuranced women are being denied prenatal care? I see a correlation, I am waiting for proof of a causation. You just keep repeating the correlation. Maybe the reason why uninsured women are not getting as much prenatal care (per capita) is because they are 1)less educated, 2)don't know about programs out there to aid them, 3)are being told by people like yourself that there are not programs out there to aid them. Or maybe health clinics and such are not giving them aid. How about before we start jumping the "rich folk hate poor folk" bandwagon we find out first?
I see, because you can't understand the difference between correlation and causation you retreat to sarcasm.But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.
Please note: that was sarcasm. As was this into infinite regress.
Were you insulted? Really?
Because you really did seem to be arguing that there is no problem and all pregnant women can afford healthcare. I don't believe I ever said that no pregnant women fail to take advantage of prenatal healthcare that is available to them. And we never even got to discuss whether other-than-insurance programs are adequate in this case.
Also all sarcasm is not intended to wound. And the infinite regress comment was intended to demonstrate irony and take out any sting. Regrets if it din't work for you. But simply asking me why I was being insulting might have worked better for this conversation rather than simply looking to salvo insults back, no?
But let me ask you honestly, do you believe that all pregnant women in this country receive adequate healthcare?
REPOST (because this seems to have gotten passed over in the flurry). Directed to Pres Man.
WTF? Dude. I think you've really lost the thread of things here. I suggested that it is a travesty that in America large numbers of pregnant women are without healthcare, prenatally.
You challenged the validity of that statement based on lack of adequate source material. I've come around and agreed that the source materials I can find don't support exact numbers for pregnant women without healthcare. They simply speak to the fact that many pregnant women do not get healthcare, not proving why they don't get it.
You also now seem to be arguing that because supplementary programs and charities exist to help uninsured pregnant women, it somehow follows that all uninsured pregnant women get the healthcare they need. That really doesn't follow either, and is off the original point, I think.
So, I've retracted and am instead suggesting it is a travesty that in America 8.7 million children are without healthcare coverage.
Do you actually mean to argue that with 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage, everything is hunky dory? Or do you think the census data is wrong? Or the other statistics surrounding the failure of our healthcare system to provide for Americans are wrong?
Or maybe you do feel that 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage is ok and not your problem? That's a genuine question without sarcasm.
WTF? Dude. I think you've really lost the thread of things here. I suggested that it is a travesty that in America large numbers of pregnant women are without healthcare, prenatally.
You challenged the validity of that statement based on lack of adequate source material.
Wrong. I challenged the idea that women who were uninsured were not able to get prenatal care. Stop. End of challenge.
I've come around and agreed that the source materials I can find don't support exact numbers for pregnant women without healthcare. They simply speak to the fact that many pregnant women do not get healthcare, not proving why they don't get it.
Exactly, we don't know why they are not getting it. It may be due to medical providers refusing them it because they don't have insurance or it may because they don't know about ways they can get it.
You also now seem to be arguing that because supplementary programs and charities exist to help uninsured pregnant women, it somehow follows that all uninsured pregnant women get the healthcare they need. That really doesn't follow either, and is off the original point, I think.
It doesn't follow because I never made that claim. Sorry.
So, I've retracted and am instead suggesting it is a travesty that in America 8.7 million children are without healthcare coverage.
Yes it is a travesty. Now what can we do to make it better? Go to a single user system. Possibly. But are there children right now that could have some way of getting health care even without insurance? Maybe the real travesty is that not enough people know about and use the programs already in place.
Do you actually mean to argue that with 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage, everything is hunky dory? Or do you think the census data is wrong? Or the other statistics surrounding the failure of our healthcare system to provide for Americans are wrong?
Never claimed it was hunky dory. Again, sorry. We should certainly look at ways to improve the situation, be maybe it would be best to see what is in place already before we toss the whole system. What if there are under utilized programs in place now that could cover all of those, without changing the system, would it be better to use those first?
Or maybe you do feel that 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage is ok and not your problem? That's a genuine question without sarcasm.
Again, never made that claim either. Sorry for a third time. What I am suggesting is that there may be programs already in place and instead of moaning about getting a single payer system in place, which will take time in any case, we look to solving the problems right now with the solutions we have. Will it fix every problem, absolutely not, but if the choice is between doing nothing but moaning and confusing people about what is out there to help them or directing them to the aid we have. I prefer to direct them to the aid.
WTF? Dude. I think you've really lost the thread of things here. I suggested that it is a travesty that in America large numbers of pregnant women are without healthcare, prenatally.
You challenged the validity of that statement based on lack of adequate source material.
Wrong. I challenged the idea that women who were uninsured were not able to get prenatal care. Stop. End of challenge.
I've come around and agreed that the source materials I can find don't support exact numbers for pregnant women without healthcare. They simply speak to the fact that many pregnant women do not get healthcare, not proving why they don't get it.Exactly, we don't know why they are not getting it. It may be due to medical providers refusing them it because they have insurance or it may because they don't know about ways they can get it.
You also now seem to be arguing that because supplementary programs and charities exist to help uninsured pregnant women, it somehow follows that all uninsured pregnant women get the healthcare they need. That really doesn't follow either, and is off the original point, I think.It doesn't follow because I never made that claim. Sorry.
So, I've retracted and am instead suggesting it is a travesty that in America 8.7 million children are without healthcare coverage.Yes it is a travesty. Now what can we do to make it better? Go to a single user system. Possibly. But are there children right now that could have some way of getting health care even without insurance? Maybe the real travesty is that not enough people know about and use the programs already in place.
Do you actually mean to argue that with 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage, everything is hunky dory? Or do you think the census data is wrong? Or the other statistics surrounding the failure of our healthcare system to provide for Americans are wrong?Never claimed it was...
Ok. I think we're on the same page now. I also regret the confusion. So do you think there are adequate programs out there that the 8.7 million children in question are just not taking advantage of? And if so, do you have an material to support such a claim? I'm interested.
|
What on earth makes you think I don't understand the difference? And why on earth would you take my levity as a reason to be insulting?LOL, because comments like:
But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.are not insulting.
"levity"? Perhaps you need to look back at the definition of sarcasm:
sarcasm
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasmSounds kind of insulting, doesn't it?
As for why I think you probably don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, well you keep pointing to something that says that women with insurance are more likely to get prenatal care and keep trying to make that imply that women without insurance can not get prenatal care. There is no evidence that you have present that justifies that claim. All you can say is that the probability someone gets prenatal care is higher if they also have insurance. Maybe people with insurance are more likely to be knowledge about the need of prenatal care. Maybe they are more likely to speak to a medical professional about the need for prenatal care prior to becoming pregnant. We just can't tell with what you have given us, are we can tell is correlations not causations.
WOW, this thread has taken a new life of its own. Does anyone remember this was a thread about McCain's new strategy?
Ok. I think we're on the same page now. I also regret the confusion. So do you think there are adequate programs out there that the 8.7 million children in question are just not taking advantage of? And if so, do you have an material to support such a claim? I'm interested.
I have no idea. I do know there are programs to aid children that don't have insurance (e.g. SCHIP). How many it covers, I honestly don't know.
Ok. I think we're on the same page now. I also regret the confusion. So do you think there are adequate programs out there that the 8.7 million children in question are just not taking advantage of? And if so, do you have an material to support such a claim? I'm interested.I have no idea. I do know there are programs to aid children that don't have insurance (e.g. SCHIP). How many it covers, I honestly don't know.
I was just looking over the census data and the numbers include those covered by SCHIP and other state programs. But they are also more accurate for any point in time during a year as opposed to a whole year.
So according to the census data, SCHIP like programs included as a kind of coverage, it appears to be fair to say that at any point in time during a year (but not necessarily for the whole year) data indicates that 8.7 million children are without health insurance coverage in America.
|
|
Um...so why is it again that you think the US should not pay for the health insurance of 8.7 million uninsured American children? What would be wrong with that, in your view, precisely?
Because health insurance is inherently a scam. The very concept approaches the absurd, and its function is never what it appears to be.
If you want to really discuss it, say it for what it would be:Why do you think a country should or should not pay for the medical care of its citizens?
If you think they should, how much care should they provide? Should it be based on an overall total of care? Have an age cutoff? Have a service price cutoff?
How much control should the government exert over the medical profession as a required corollary to providing this care?
How much overhead should the process require?
Now with the questions out there directly:
I do not think a country should provide medical care as part of the general services for its citizens. As a political concept, it would not be functional. In a specific context, it is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress according to the Constitution, and it would require a Constitutional amendment.
The reasons I do not think it should be done are because of all of the implications raised by the other questions.
Inevitably a question will be raised regarding how much care each individual is entitled to. Some people require little more than regular checkups, others require millions in constant care.
Because of that, someone will inevitably suggest a topped out limit on the amount of health care any individual ever receives. That would be extremely bad.
Someone else will suggest an age cutoff, after which you are no longer eligible for care. That would be extremely bad.
Someone else will suggest a cutoff by the price of a service. That would be extremely bad.
Because all health care is now managed, the government would have to take over total control of the medical profession.
Inevitably it could not tolerate an extra-governmental organization like the AMA policing itself, determining licensing standards, and disciplining physicians.
Because the system would be managed so closely, it would have to direct people into specific specialties. No matter how much that would be denied, it is impossible to provide health care without appropriately trained health care providers.
Such government control would inevitably be bogged down by the bureaucratic structure. It would be impossible to separate the two.
To gather the money to pay for this taxes and tarriffs would have to be imposed. The money would have to be used to pay the people who collected those fees, as well as the people who maintained all the records. It would then be used to pay the health care providers, as well as purchase the equipment to provide that health care. This will be a constant drain on the funds gathered, requiring even more to be gathered.
For all of these reasons, and the even greater underlying problems that each of them would lead to, it is imperative that responsibility for health care not be ceded to government. It would not provide a sufficient return, and it would decay at an ever increasing rate, particularly as medical technology improved.
Does that mean some people will wind up with no medical care?
Sadly, inevitably, yes.
Just as it means some people will wind up with a lesser job. Or no job. And some people will wind up with no property. Or no home.
It is unfortunate, but it is not an inherent responsibility of the government to provide any of those.
Does that mean the government can never do anything?
Not necessarily.
Just as the government has a reasonable vested interest in an educated workforce, the government has a reasonable vested interest in a living workforce. This is reflected in the requirements for innoculations for school. That those have significant issues with the safety of the products used demonstrates just how dangerous such government intervention can be even at the best of times.
What is the solution?
What it has always been, what it will always be - enlightened self-interest. A sick worker is a poor worker. A worried worker, because of family health issues, is a poor worker. Providing healthcare or sufficient pay to secure it will go a long way to raising both the ability and morale of the worker.
Sadly that principal has been decaying for years, both because of socialist ideology which demands labor with no concern for the self, and because of greed based ideology which demands profit for the self with concern for anything else. (And note that the excesses of the tort system are part and parcel of the greed based ideology at all levels, including the desire of those affected by malpractice to "get paid" because "someone" is at fault.)
Of course that requires people to accept that they cannot just "do something" and make it all better. In particular throwing money, especially other people's money, at the problem will not make it go away, even if it does salve your conscience in the short term, or fill your soul with smug.
|
|
Maybe (and forgive me, I DONT mean to put words in your mouth), but maybe you mean there are no metaphysically granted or inherent rights?
you're right, this is basically what i mean.
voting isn't a "right" as people generally define "rights". it is a "priveledge". were it a "right", something like a felony conviction wouldn't bar someone from voting.
my problem with the word "rights" is people seem to think that whatever THEY want is a "right", but what others want isn't a "right". and i will NEVER think that anything that can only be given by initiating the threat of force on someone else.
it saddens me that people feel entitled to anything they cannot or will not earn themselves.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
voting isn't a "right" as people generally define "rights". it is a "priveledge". were it a "right", something like a felony conviction wouldn't bar someone from voting.
Well, a felony conviction constitutes due process of law, which in the US is the allowed procedure for depriving people of their rights. For example, liberty and property.
The amendments refer indirectly to a right to vote (see the 15th and 19th and 24th amendments), which establishes that there is a right to vote, not a privilege.
|
|
Ok. I think we're on the same page now. I also regret the confusion. So do you think there are adequate programs out there that the 8.7 million children in question are just not taking advantage of? And if so, do you have an material to support such a claim? I'm interested.I have no idea. I do know there are programs to aid children that don't have insurance (e.g. SCHIP). How many it covers, I honestly don't know.
SCHIP will cover anyone who's parent's make less than $50k a year, as long as the parent takes the time to fill out and submit the forms.
|
|
Why would someone who could afford insurance in the previous year think that the cost of the same insurance would raise above what they can afford in the coming year?stuffquestion: if someone cannot afford insurance, why would they think they could afford a child?
why would someone who's insurance went up that dramatically drop the insurance so they could keep their cable tv? i find it hilarious that more people own two or more televisions, have cable tv, buy video game consoles, wear $200 tennis shoes and drive late model cars than have health insurance.
misplaced priorities, i guess...
So I saw a piece of George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama. George asked something about Palin and all the rumors. Obama said he didn't think it was appropriate and then went off how conservatives kept bringing in that he might be a muslim. He then tried to make it out that despite the fact that the McCain camp has never made that contention, that McCain should be smeared with those people but Obama should not be smeared with the people making up lies about Palin. Hypocrite much?
Is so rigidly locked into an ideology that they deny the *existance* of facts that do not support their position and rejects the OECD data without even knowing what the OECD is. Thinking that you have some better understanding of the comparative analysis of national systems of governance than the OECD is really sad - who do you think you are?
I'm a scientist, with training and a lifetime of experience in interpreting data -- in short, the ability to look at the nuts and bolts of a ranking system and see where it can be tinkered with, and by how much. I reject ALL interpretations from ALL sources unless I know how those interpretations are made. For the record, you have provided no OECD data for me to reject, only conclusions. I seem to be unable to convey to you the difference. The "rigid ideology" I'm locked into is that I don't accept conclusions at face value; I look at DATA -- none of which have been provided by you. I have no understanding of the comparative analysis yet because no outline of the analyis methodology has been provided, only a bunch of vague purpose goals of the overall organization. What I care about is HOW they determine their rankings. The real nuts and bolts, as I explained in detail. Your telling me I should blindly trust their statements is like someone telling me I should blindly trust whatever the Bible says, or the Koran, or Dr. Suess.
or Dr. Suess.
Hey now, you don't go knocking The Suess man. That's stepping over the line. ;)
So I saw a piece of George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama. George asked something about Palin and all the rumors. Obama said he didn't think it was appropriate and then went off how conservatives kept bringing in that he might be a muslim. He then tried to make it out that despite the fact that the McCain camp has never made that contention, that McCain should be smeared with those people but Obama should not be smeared with the people making up lies about Palin. Hypocrite much?
I don't think that's the point he's making. I think he's trying to say that there is mud being slung from both sides about things that are not what the country needs to talk about.
However, if you ask me, a person's capability to do the job of the President of the United States is fair game. If there is something, anything, that limits their ability to do that job, that's on the table for discussion.
Barack Obama's father being raised Muslim, now an Atheist? Fair game.
John McCain's age and the potential for any age-related conditions to affect his judgement or time on the job? Fair game.
Sarah Palin's family commitments? Fair game.
Joe Biden... well I can't think of anything but I'm sure there's something.
So I saw a piece of George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama. George asked something about Palin and all the rumors. Obama said he didn't think it was appropriate and then went off how conservatives kept bringing in that he might be a muslim. He then tried to make it out that despite the fact that the McCain camp has never made that contention, that McCain should be smeared with those people but Obama should not be smeared with the people making up lies about Palin. Hypocrite much?
Obama has been up-front that the people on the liberal side shouldn't be doing that with Palin's personal life. Has McCain done the same about the muslim lie?
Obama has been up-front that the people on the liberal side shouldn't be doing that with Palin's personal life. Has McCain done the same about the muslim lie?So I saw a piece of George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama. George asked something about Palin and all the rumors. Obama said he didn't think it was appropriate and then went off how conservatives kept bringing in that he might be a muslim. He then tried to make it out that despite the fact that the McCain camp has never made that contention, that McCain should be smeared with those people but Obama should not be smeared with the people making up lies about Palin. Hypocrite much?
True dat.
|
|
Obama has been up-front that the people on the liberal side shouldn't be doing that with Palin's personal life. Has McCain done the same about the muslim lie?
Does this qualify, or should he have done something more?
|
True dat.Obama has been up-front that the people on the liberal side shouldn't be doing that with Palin's personal life. Has McCain done the same about the muslim lie?So I saw a piece of George Stephanopoulos' interview with Obama. George asked something about Palin and all the rumors. Obama said he didn't think it was appropriate and then went off how conservatives kept bringing in that he might be a muslim. He then tried to make it out that despite the fact that the McCain camp has never made that contention, that McCain should be smeared with those people but Obama should not be smeared with the people making up lies about Palin. Hypocrite much?
A quick Lexus/Nexus search showed that the only media outlet that ever reported on the Muslim thing is The New York Times while reporting on an exclusive interview with Obama.
|
|
Does this qualify, or should he have done something more?
Obama has been up-front that the people on the liberal side shouldn't be doing that with Palin's personal life. Has McCain done the same about the muslim lie?
The article got one thing wrong. Fox News did not originate the story, Insight Magazine did, and they were basing their story on a press release from the Hillary Clinton campaign.The New York Times was the first to discuss the possible Muslim connection with Obama. And it was Barack Obama himself that told them things like how he found the call to prayer "the prettiest sound in the world," and how he could better relate to Muslims because "he had once read the Koran with them."
|
|
I've always had a perverse desire to live in Yellowknife. I can't convince the wife and kids to move there though.Where are you from?
Yellowknife is a pretty big culture shock if you have never lived in a remote community before.
The Canadian north is a literal gold mine of resource industry jobs, consulting and service companies, and major mining operators.
Wages are high, taxes low, housing scarce, and its cold as a mother f!&!er...
I live in Cedar City, Utah. We have about 26,000 people living here, but I grew up in a small mining town of about 250.
Oooh! Can I play the hair-splitting game too?I don't think he said you were a libertarian. He said you were speaking in libertarian talking points.
Hairs: 0
Sebastian: 1
We don't hold with fancy pants lawyer talk in these here parts... :)
According to the governer of New York, it is no long appropriate to refer to Barack Obama as a community organizer, because it's just a code word for racism.
Got a source for this?
Wow. Obama makes a pretty big slip. He says, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." Now I know some will argue that he wasn't talking about Gov. Palin with that comment but McCain's politics. Still though, there is a woman in the race and you choose to use that phrase? Especially given her playful comment about hockey moms. Talk about a big foot in the mouth comment.
Now I understand people saying that a comment like that is just being blown out of proportion. But I mean seriously if McCain or Palin said something like "Let's call a spade a spade" or "That's like the pot calling the kettle black" or "It is going to get us in a tar-baby" about some view or issue of Obama's, you don't think people would be jumping all over that?
According to the governer of New York, it is no long appropriate to refer to Barack Obama as a community organizer, because it's just a code word for racism.Got a source for this?
I found this.
[quote=]"I think that there are overtones of potential racial coding in the campaign," Paterson said during the Crain's Business Forum breakfast.
"...I think the Republican party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black' in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life - which I noticed they did at the Republican convention -- a 'community organizer.'
They kept saying it, they kept laughing, like what does this mean? It means that an individual who could have gone to Wall Street and made a lot of money and then run for office because he could buy media time chose to go back and work in programs in a neighborhood where he thought he could make a difference and became an elected official based on his involvement right in his own community."
Sorry David Fryer, you've been Ninja'ed!
|
|
According to the governer of New York, it is no long appropriate to refer to Barack Obama as a community organizer, because it's just a code word for racism.Got a source for this?
Just heard it on the local radio news on my way to work. I would assume they got the story from the Ap but I'm not sure.
|
|
Wow. Obama makes a pretty big slip. He says, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." Now I know some will argue that he wasn't talking about Gov. Palin with that comment but McCain's politics. Still though, there is a woman in the race and you choose to use that phrase? Especially given her playful comment about hockey moms. Talk about a big foot in the mouth comment.
Now I understand people saying that a comment like that is just being blown out of proportion. But I mean seriously if McCain or Palin said something like "Let's call a spade a spade" or "That's like the pot calling the kettle black" or "It is going to get us in a tar-baby" about some view or issue of Obama's, you don't think people would be jumping all over that?
Not to mention the comments made by the host at the MTV awards show. "Sarah Palin is so anti-abortion that she is going to force her daughter to have a baby. But she is also for the death penelty so she is going to electrocute her for being such a slut." How many people will that win over, and how many people will that drive away.
|
|
Not to mention the comments made by the host at the MTV awards show. "Sarah Palin is so anti-abortion that she is going to force her daughter to have a baby. But she is also for the death penelty so she is going to electrocute her for being such a slut." How many people will that win over, and how many people will that drive away.
That is why Sarah Palin was such a good choice.
She is a magnet for Obama and the Democratic machine to say stupid stuff. Never mind snide comments like that. The simple response will be to counterattack on the same level as the "community organizer" bit."So Senator Obama thinks hockey moms are like pigs? Does he feel the same way about all parent who spend time with their children, taking them to sporting events?"
|
|
Not to mention the comments made by the host at the MTV awards show. "Sarah Palin is so anti-abortion that she is going to force her daughter to have a baby. But she is also for the death penelty so she is going to electrocute her for being such a slut." How many people will that win over, and how many people will that drive away.That is why Sarah Palin was such a good choice.
She is a magnet for Obama and the Democratic machine to say stupid stuff. Never mind snide comments like that. The simple response will be to counterattack on the same level as the "community organizer" bit."So Senator Obama thinks hockey moms are like pigs? Does he feel the same way about all parent who spend time with their children, taking them to sporting events?"
I think the most interesting part is that Hillary Clinton has so far refused to take part in theattacks on Sarah Palin, even though the Obama campaign named her as one of their surragates that would be out there as late as Sunday on Meet The Press and Fox News Sunday. Some might even wonder if Hillary is doing this so that Obama will lose and set her up for a run in 2012.
]I think the most interesting part is that Hillary Clinton has so far refused to take part in theattacks on Sarah Palin, even though the Obama campaign named her as one of their surragates that would be out there as late as Sunday on Meet The Press and Fox News Sunday. Some might even wonder if Hillary is doing this so that Obama will lose and set her up for a run in 2012.
Possibly coupled with an awareness based on personal experience that certain types of attacks on female politicians produce results that are the opposite of what was hoped for.
|
|
Why would someone who could afford insurance in the previous year think that the cost of the same insurance would raise above what they can afford in the coming year?stuffquestion: if someone cannot afford insurance, why would they think they could afford a child?why would someone who's insurance went up that dramatically drop the insurance so they could keep their cable tv? i find it hilarious that more people own two or more televisions, have cable tv, buy video game consoles, wear $200 tennis shoes and drive late model cars than have health insurance.
misplaced priorities, i guess...
I find it quite amusing that this is immediately assumed to be the case whenever cracks emerge in the picture of the status quo -- yes, by all means, let's blame the victim shall we (nothing helps like making things up about them and assuming the worst)? That solves everything. They shouldn't have worn that red dress.
I think this is precisely the thing Lou was talking about with Attribution Error.
|
voting isn't a "right" as people generally define "rights". it is a "priveledge". were it a "right", something like a felony conviction wouldn't bar someone from voting.
How does that work, in the US?
Are convicted felons only prevented from voting while they are serving time, or does it extend, after their release?|
|
voting isn't a "right" as people generally define "rights". it is a "priveledge". were it a "right", something like a felony conviction wouldn't bar someone from voting.How does that work, in the US?
Are convicted felons only prevented from voting while they are serving time, or does it extend, after their release?
There is not a hard and fast rule as it is up to the states. Currently, only Kentucky and Virginia maintain a lifelong ban of felon voters. Most other states allow you to apply for your voting rights to be reenstates after you have completed your sentance and your parole or probation.
|
|
Obama has got to be frustrated that Sarah Palin is the new rock star in this race. She has suddenly become the phenomina that Barak Obama was until two weeks ago. Just yesterday, CNN broke into their live coverage of an Obama speech to broadcast Sarah Palin introducing John McCain. Once the introduction was over they went back to Obama's speech. Perhaps he's suffering from Palin rage.
Yeah at this point I think it is safe to say that McCain made the best possible choice for running mate. I also think it's safe to say that No matter who wins, we are going to see Palin run for president in either 4 or 8 years.
You just ran a chill up and down my spine.
|
|
It appears that Barack Obama supported a bill which required the teaching of sex ed in kindergarten. That is the kind of change I can't get behind.
It appears that Barack Obama supported a bill which required the teaching of sex ed in kindergarten. That is the kind of change I can't get behind.
I think that's more of a "don't talk to strangers"/"good touch-bad touch" class, not an instructional course on condom use.
|
|
It appears that Barack Obama supported a bill which required the teaching of sex ed in kindergarten. That is the kind of change I can't get behind.I think that's more of a "don't talk to strangers"/"good touch-bad touch" class, not an instructional course on condom use.
I would agree that would be a good use of the class. However the law itself said, "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
Out of curiousity, do they subsidize his trip? I'm as concerned about increasing the quality of US care as I am about the US providing universal coverage of costs. While these impact each other depending on the system chosen, they are nonetheless independent questions.The ranking of health system performance is a fact. Italy is number one.And my cousin (dual citizen for 20+ years) still comes to the US from Italy and pays for care? *scratches head*
Nope. She's on her own. It's really weird because the crowd she socializes with in Palermo has several doctors amongst it. You'd think she'd get top notch care with those kind of friends.
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
I'd sure like to see the quote in its actual context, though, rather than taken out of it by an anti-sex-ed website. If I get a few minutes later on I'll look it up. Kindergardeners probably need to know there are creeps around they need to avoid. Telling them babies come from a stork strikes me as being more twisted than just giving them a sanitized version of the facts. Teaching them to use condoms is not only a bit grotesque, but also pointless, because they're not at an age where they can effectively use them yet.
|
|
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."I'd like to see the quote in its actual context, though, rather than taken out of it by an anti-sex-ed website. If I get a few minutes later on I'll look it up.
If you find it, let me know. That was actually the best source I could find and the Illinois General Assembly website will not let you view old bills beyond this year.
Edit: Managed to find it.
Don't you guys have HMOs that require you or your doctor to get permission before you can get treated? Does that involve calling some person in a cubical somewhere who must approve or disapprove the treatment?For those Americans lucky enough to be insured, we typically have a choice: the HMO model you describe, or the more expensive PPO model, in which we don't have to ask "mother-may-I," but have an almost equally hard time getting insurance to cover anything. The HMO is cheaper, but allows them to refuse to reimburse for anything unless your "primary care physician" (not a cubicle person) okays it first and it's also "in network."
In either case, the person in the cubicle comes in afterwards and typically tells you that your insurance won't be covering your procedure, and that you have to pay $15,000 out of your own pocket for your 2 stitches or whatever. Then you get a doctor's note saying the stitches were a medical necessity, and you file an appeal. They come back and say they'll pay $5,000 and the remaining $10,000 is your problem. You appeal the appeal and threaten the CEO with public castration; they come back with "on later review, we find that the procedure maybe was necessary after all. We will cover $14,500, and the remaining $500 is your responsibility."
My wife files the same appeals several times a year, every 2 years, for the same required MRI scans. That keeps us down to around $750 a pop, instead of $5,000 each. In Canada, though, we're told there's an average 5 year wait for an MRI scan, which is no good for a person who needs them every 2 years.
That sounds a little better than how it gets portrayed on TV but it still seems kind of miserable. Especially if you're sick or recovering and have to deal with that kind of nonsense.
Stupid question (because it portrays my Canadian naivete :) ) but are there government agencies willing to help sick people jump through all these...
Michigan