|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1571777827 Message started by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 13:57:07 |
|
Title: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 13:57:07 Seriously, is this how all conservatives view themselves? County Official Rants About A ‘Queer’ Running For President, Loss Of White Men’s Rights A county commissioner in Tennessee launched a tirade against the Democratic presidential field and the general state of white men in America on Monday during a debate about guns. Warren Hurst, who sits on the Sevier County Commission, spoke up during a discussion on an upcoming vote to become a gun sanctuary city. He told the crowd, many of whom were holding little American flags, that it was time to “wake up people.” “We got a queer running for president if that ain’t about as ugly as you can get,” he said, in comments captured by Knoxville-based station WVLT. “Look what we got running for president in the Democratic Party. We can go over here to Hoss’ jail [the Sevier County sheriff] and get better people out of there than those running for [the] Democratic [nomination] to be president of the United States.” Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is running in the Democratic primary. If elected, he would be the first openly gay president. His campaign didn’t immediately return a request for comment. At least one woman objected to Hurst’s remarks and stormed out, but others applauded and agreed with him. “I’m not prejudiced, but by golly, a white male in this country has very few rights and they’re getting took more every day,” the commissioner added. In a follow-up interview with WVLT, he stood by his comments and noted that he has some Black friends. HuffPost repeatedly attempted to contact Hurst, but his line was busy. “Sevier County Commissioner Warren Hurst is using his position of power to publicly spew bigotry against LGBTQ people [ch8213] people who are very likely his own constituents. A group of people having rights doesn’t take away those of another,” said Nick Morrow, a spokesman with the LGBTQ equality group Human Rights Campaign. Morrow grew up one county over from Sevier. “But with LGBTQ people running for office at every level of government and more and more people voting for candidates who support equality, he should be more worried about losing his seat than losing his rights.” So, conservatives - is that what you believe? If not, then how about some condemnation? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Serowbot on 10/22/19 at 14:03:59 It's okay,... he has some black friends... ;D |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/22/19 at 15:27:59 4F594E534B5E53483C0 wrote:
And of course, tt and Bot both 'say' they have a gun. So they are unequivocally qualified to say, What kind of gun a person should have, and who should have one. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 15:51:59 72516C4F4D5651583F0 wrote:
And of course, tt and Bot both 'say' they have a gun. So they are unequivocally qualified to say, What kind of gun a person should have, and who should have one.[/quote] What's that got to do with a racist, homophobic county official? Do you ever stay on topic? Do you always run in the other direction? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/22/19 at 16:08:18 Every post will be about guns, we should know this by now. My favorite was the outcry when the new Star Wars films had a lead female, a lead black male and a lead white male. How dare they! What will all the little white boys do now, will they like a girl in a movie??? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 16:18:03 7A5A58504D5A3F0 wrote:
LOL - agreed! [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 18:32:21 Wow - look at all that condemnation by the cons..... *crickets* |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 07:33:11 4F515E5F524F54493B0 wrote:
Yep, exactaly the same as, all that condemnation by the UL FDS GBS's, About a person running for POTUS, who has been arrested for Burglary, had a DWI. Has said he will Confiscate Guns. And has said he believes all 'churches', who do Not do as he says, should be punished by having their tax-exempt status removed. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/23/19 at 07:44:13 54774A696B70777E190 wrote:
Yep, exactaly the same as, all that condemnation by the UL FDS GBS's, About a person running for POTUS, who has been arrested for Burglary, had a DWI. I've commented on that. he paid his debt - he's good by me. He's not getting DUI's on a daily basis. Has said he will Confiscate Guns. And has said he believes all 'churches', who do Not do as he says, should be punished by having their tax-exempt status removed. [/quote] I agree about the churches. To be clear, it's not about then "not doing what he says", it's about them commenting and supporting any political candidate. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/23/19 at 16:24:25 293738393429322F5D0 wrote:
So, how is it you, Minimal-Effort-Spring, got this so factually wrong? Are you- 1) simply ignorant of fact 2) misinformed 3) just a liar Maybe there's some other option that should go on that list- if so, do enlighten us. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 17:14:00 25293E212F272F3D26480 wrote:
"Former Texas representative and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Thursday that churches, charities and other religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status. And if he becomes president, this is a policy that he will seek to quickly enforce by executive action, according to the LGBTQ plan on his website." “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we are going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.” (Well according to what, HE, believes someone should do, not what they believe, as in THEIR religion) "O’Rourke appeared to go dramatically further than the existing political and legal conversation over LGBTQ rights and religious discrimination, " "Ben Sasse of Nebraska called O'Rourke's remarks "bigoted nonsense" that "would target a lot of sincere Christians, Jews, and Muslims." "This extreme intolerance is un-American," Sasse added." "Beto O'Rourke says churches should be taxed if they refuse to support gay marriage " “And so, as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.” (Again Beto is punishing because someone does not see, HIS POV) "his proposal to tax religious institutions that don’t approve of same-sex marriage." "And a few would be disastrous. Beto O’Rourke’s call last week to deny tax-exempt status to churches and other religious institutions if they oppose marriage equality falls squarely within the last category." "there would be a profound impact on America’s spiritual infrastructure. Most Christian denominations—including the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the Latter-Day Saints movement, as well as the Baptist, Methodist, and other evangelical traditions—oppose same-sex marriages and would be swept up in this policy change. So would many Orthodox synagogues and a wide swath of mosques and other Muslim cultural organizations." Legal precedent is pretty clear in determining that denying tax-exempt status based on a group's viewpoint would be in violation of the First Amendment. That's Right, you don't care about anybody's, 'Rights', unless they are, YOUR, 'Rights'. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/23/19 at 21:12:16 4) Beto jumped the political shark. I'll rate Marginal Spring's statement "partly true"- yes, O'Rourke asserted religious institutions that obstruct civil liberties should loose their tax exemption privileges, no, not simply because they "do not do as he says". I'll also rate T and T Garage's statement "partly true"- yes, revocation of tax exemptions was not because religious institutions are "not doing what he says", no, in this case it wasn't merely for transgressive political endorsements. Back in 1983, the Supreme Court confronted the conflicting principles of religious freedom and freedom from discrimination. Institutions which enjoy tax exempt status do so for their contribution to the public good; the SCOTUS concluded the religious Bob Jones University's tax exemption could be revoked for policies against inter-racial dating and marriage. Simply, their mission diverged from the interests of the greater community, and their activities were no longer subsidized via tax exemption. So, yes, violations of civil rights may be a basis for loosing a tax subsidy. No, Beto O'Rourke did not invent Civil Rights, the proposition that we should all have access to the institutions our taxes pay for. Without doubt some religious institutions promote discriminatory policies; while it is within their First Amendment rights to do so, that right is not infringed merely because a special privileged is no longer extended- no more so than the many essential journalistic institutions that speak freely without any tax exemption. So, Beto is right in principle and law- but, perhaps, very wrong politically: moving consensus prescriptively requires a keen apprehension of the Zeitgeist. Maybe he understood that, and only sought to progress our consideration, without concern for his own immediate political future- or maybe he grossly misjudged the extent hate is treasured in our nominal Union. When asking folks to choose between free money and hate, it's foolish to forget the third option not proffered: withdrawal of political support. I'm reminded of another who mistakenly spoke the unvarnished truth- "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." So, I'll eat half a parakeet for my initial rebuke of Muddy Spring- not a crow, as his was still a carnival lens applied to a real occurrence; a gritted-teeth-glad-for avian feast in recognition of the opportunity provided to bridge my own gaps in knowledge. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 08:43:19 7A76617E7078706279170 wrote:
Aw-sum SPIN on the substance of: 'You WILL do this, or I WILL do that' LOL Purely the old UL FDS GBS credo: "I don't like something, YOU will NOT do it, I like something, you WILL do it". |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 08:55:04 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
Aw-sum SPIN on the substance of: 'You WILL do this, or I WILL do that' LOL Purely the old UL FDS GBS credo: "I don't like something, YOU will NOT do it, I like something, you WILL do it". [/quote] Naw - that's trump's way of doing things. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 09:24:09 61427F5C5E45424B2C0 wrote:
Aw-sum SPIN on the substance of: 'You WILL do this, or I WILL do that' LOL Purely the old UL FDS GBS credo: "I don't like something, YOU will NOT do it, I like something, you WILL do it". [/quote] Hey, look at this from your orange savior's administration: White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said Thursday that President Trump does not regret using the term “human scum” to describe Republicans who criticize him, saying they are “just that.” “The people who are against him and have been against him and working against him since the day he took office are just that,” Grisham said on Fox News. “They deserve strong language like that.” Trump lashed out Wednesday at “Never Trumper Republicans,” calling them more “dangerous” to the country than Democrats. “The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!” the president wrote on Twitter. http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-press-sec-claims-143725831.html Now, tell us all again how 'You WILL do this, or I WILL do that' is so terrible??? LOL - can't wait to see the spin on this. (I'm gonna have to get my windbreaker on!) |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Serowbot on 10/24/19 at 09:24:15 5D7E436062797E77100 wrote:
Anti-abortion much?... |
|
Title: Spin-vs-Substance Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 09:25:03 Mendacity Spring claims his primary concern is substance - yet fixates on semantics. The substance here is not subject to any such linguistic contortions, but stems from a core concern of those founding our Nation. We should not gladly pay tribute to elevate the interest of individuals or groups over our entire community- be it a king or church. A "government for the people" means everybody. That also means we will no be an apartheid state, in which rights- such as commerce, education, and association -are denied any group. Without doubt the First Amendment guaranties your right to associate privately with whom you will, say what you will, bigoted and hateful as you please- but step onto the public square, and your rights must merge into the civil traffic of a community. Our greater community is not in the business of subsidizing exclusion of citizens. Your religious group can hate and discriminate as they please- but not on our dime. That's the substance. |
|
Title: Re: Spin-vs-Substance Post by Serowbot on 10/24/19 at 09:30:37 6B67706F6169617368060 wrote:
Nicely said... |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 09:49:45 7365726F77626F74000 wrote:
Absolutely knew that would be said. A poster here said: Your religious group can hate and discriminate as they please- but not on our dime. I'll rephrase that very same thing. Your group can, KILL, as many babies as you want, but not on our dime. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 10:46:43 Wow- Murky Spring almost understood a basic concept. This is going to be a real challenge for you to understand: subsidizing discrimination and supporting rights you don't approve of are opposites, not equals. This is more nuanced than the reductive lie of 'I don't like it, so I shouldn't have to pay to support it'. In the case of homosexual rights, non white-white marriage, and women's healthcare, you do not have a legal, Constitutional basis for limiting anyone's civil rights- or for the State to express support for limiting the rights of any group of citizens. There is no right to not pay taxes because you don't like what taxes are used for. Here's the kicker: women's healthcare is a civil right; those that provide health care to women are supporting a right of citizens, and are eligible for public subsidy. Those who oppose civil rights for some group they don't like are not eligible for public subsidy. It's really very simple: there is a legal precedent for not extending public support for discrimination. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 12:20:58 606C7B646A626A78630D0 wrote:
Yet, some day when you grow up, you, 'may', understand. Allowing, money that one has earned/worked for, to be given to help those that are truly in need, is a different concept, than having money one has worked for/earned, taken/stolen from you, and GIVEN, to the absolute lazy, for their pleasure. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/19 at 12:54:06 No one has a RIGHT to anyone else's Labor. That's called slavery. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 12:55:42 2D0E331012090E07600 wrote:
Ah, now we are talking about lazy people. It's amazing- we've gone from a bigot contending equal rights for homosexuals equates to a loss of rights for white men, to, somehow, women's healthcare... and now your characterization of women as "absolutely lazy" and healthcare a "pleasure". You are a demagogue, not a victim. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 13:08:43 3B37203F3139312338560 wrote:
WOW, you got that, "Putting Words In Someones Mouth" Down Pat ! Just like tt does ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 13:14:11 Your words are there for all to read - it's bizarre and sadly expected that you would blame me for what you've written. You characterized tax relief for the causes you deemed unworthy as "theft", cited women's health care as example, and recipients of the benefit of tax relief as "lazy". It's like you haven't developed object permanence, forgetting what you've write as soon as you've puked it up. Zero integrity, you drop words like feces, then scurry away from them to crap out some more. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 13:33:10 72516C4F4D5651583F0 wrote:
WOW, you got that, "Putting Words In Someones Mouth" Down Pat ! Just like tt does ! [/quote] Ok then - who are you calling lazy? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by verslagen1 on 10/24/19 at 13:50:47 212D3A252B232B39224C0 wrote:
There is no right to get healthcare without the responsibility of paying for it. There is no right to free healthcare. There is a right to service. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 13:57:11 4D5E4948575A5C5E550A3B0 wrote:
There is no right to get healthcare without the responsibility of paying for it. - There should be. There is no right to free healthcare. - There should be. There is a right to service. - That's not sufficient. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by verslagen1 on 10/24/19 at 14:09:13 677976777A677C61130 wrote:
There is no right to get healthcare without the responsibility of paying for it. - There should be. There is no right to free healthcare. - There should be. There is a right to service. - That's not sufficient. [/quote][/quote] Warrens medicare for all will not be free. There will be taxes for it, we are currently paying for it with premiums. I suspect there will be a lot of services that will not be covered. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 14:18:21 342730312E2325272C73420 wrote:
There is no right to get healthcare without the responsibility of paying for it. - There should be. There is no right to free healthcare. - There should be. There is a right to service. - That's not sufficient. [/quote][/quote] Warrens medicare for all will not be free. Nope. No one said it would be. There will be taxes for it, we are currently paying for it with premiums. We are? Hmm... well, let's cut out the middle man, raise taxes across the board and eliminate premiums all together. I suspect there will be a lot of services that will not be covered. - That's a lot of speculation. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 14:24:44 4B584F4E515C5A58530C3D0 wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Do you have a model in mind? Or is this more along the lines of “Orville, that thing's never gonna fly”? Here's one thing for sure: getting anything off the ground is a whole Hell of a lot harder with nay-sayers and saboteurs, rather than folks contributing toward the best effort in good faith. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by verslagen1 on 10/24/19 at 14:57:40 676B7C636D656D7F640A0 wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Do you have a model in mind? Or is this more along the lines of “Orville, that thing's never gonna fly”? Here's one thing for sure: getting anything off the ground is a whole Hell of a lot harder with nay-sayers and saboteurs, rather than folks contributing toward the best effort in good faith. [/quote] I'm not nay-saying, I'm saying keep your eyes open. The 'you can't read it, just vote for it' crowd will be in charge. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/24/19 at 16:17:04 "There is no right to get healthcare without the responsibility of paying for it. - There should be." Where would all this money come from? We are talking about an astounding amount of money to maintain even one care type in the US. I find people tend to isolate "care" into very narrow valleys of what it consists of. For instance "Women's" healthcare, or "Cancer Treatment" etc. The problem is we never stop failing in health, every human will need many forms of care in their lives unless that life is cut short. Healthcare can be a "right" but the ability to pay for all forms of care in the US is a tremendous amount of money in a constantly shifting environment. One very difficult topic is how do we offer free care to people who do not attempt to maintain their health? Do we just fight to keep them alive with public funds? Where is the cutoff? Who makes the decision that you aren't trying hard enough? How are those algorithms established? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Matchless G11 on 10/24/19 at 17:47:25 1131333B2631540 wrote:
Health Care? My mom in the 1960s said she did not have health insurance it was not that expensive. So I neither see the Democrats or the republicans addressing the root cause. It is simple....... Just turn on daytime tv. "Have you taken this drug? Has it turned your eyeballs purple? call us we at Shytser Sueem and Howl will get us , umm we mean you the million dollar compensation you deserve! " The endless lawsuits have wreaked our health system. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/24/19 at 18:24:13 "The endless lawsuits have wreaked our health system. " That is a large component. Also the inability to downsize staff and automate or increase efficiency that matches or exceeds livable wages is a large factor. We still need humans, we can't increase healthcare volume and quality while automating the system like you can with things like vehicles, food etc. So wages continue to rise, but you can't increase the volume of patients a human can safely treat at the same rate. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 20:28:34 1636343C2136530 wrote:
How is it done in Canada, Sweden or Finland? It's not impossible. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 20:30:09 534A44441212514657464048101716230 wrote:
Health Care? My mom in the 1960s said she did not have health insurance it was not that expensive. So I neither see the Democrats or the republicans addressing the root cause. It is simple....... Just turn on daytime tv. "Have you taken this drug? Has it turned your eyeballs purple? call us we at Shytser Sueem and Howl will get us , umm we mean you the million dollar compensation you deserve! " The endless lawsuits have wreaked our health system.[/quote] Agreed. Tort reform is needed. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/24/19 at 20:58:55 "Where does the money come from now? The crippling medical bills, and long-term debt with no calculable resolution by providers has developed an unsustainable medical care crisis which is the reason for all these reforms. "I get that it's not free... but Medicare works. Medicare for all can work as well." How? That's the actual question, since the system creates expense faster than it creates income, how will it sustain itself? Higher taxes for sure, and most likely employer contribution changes. "How is it done in Canada, Sweden or Finland?" It's not. We do not even come close to having similar medical care guidelines or even similar economies. Comparing our medical care to Sweden is like comparing our gun laws to Israel. You can find some similarities, but the differences far outnumber them. To put it simply our legal structure at this time prohibits us from denying healthcare, very expensive healthcare from those that inflict damage routinely to themselves. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Matchless G11 on 10/25/19 at 03:48:38 203E31303D203B26540 wrote:
Health Care? My mom in the 1960s said she did not have health insurance it was not that expensive. So I neither see the Democrats or the republicans addressing the root cause. It is simple....... Just turn on daytime tv. "Have you taken this drug? Has it turned your eyeballs purple? call us we at Shytser Sueem and Howl will get us , umm we mean you the million dollar compensation you deserve! " The endless lawsuits have wreaked our health system.[/quote] Agreed. Tort reform is needed.[/quote] Yes TT The most sickening law suit I have seen, is one going after a company making the chemo drug for breast cancer treatments. They are asking for those who experience hair loss after the treatments to sue. So in effect they win (or even if they don't, still lots of fees to defend you're self in court) The cost of the drug skyrockets and women who have breast cancer cannot afford the drug to save their lives. >:( |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/25/19 at 05:54:15 5070727A6770150 wrote:
Agreed. And what's being proposed is a seachange in how the US deals with healthcare. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/25/19 at 06:53:29 322C23222F322934460 wrote:
While this has developed into an interesting and substantive exploration of national healthcare policy, let's remember why we're talking about it: Mendacious Spring didn't like us talking about the bigot Warren Hurst, Tennessee's Sevier County Commissioner, citing a homosexual running for the Presidency as a reason to weaken gun restrictions- to which some in the audience clapped and said "amen". Bigots see hate as legitimating their governance preferences; when called out, they run off in another direction at high speed; if actually held to account, they double down on demagoguery and hate- as though a reflexive validation. We see it in this space all the time. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/25/19 at 07:34:27 2E22352A242C24362D430 wrote:
While this has developed into an interesting and substantive exploration of national healthcare policy, let's remember why we're talking about it: Mendacious Spring didn't like us talking about the bigot Warren Hurst, Tennessee's Sevier County Commissioner, citing a homosexual running for the Presidency as a reason to weaken gun restrictions- to which some in the audience clapped and said "amen". Bigots see hate as legitimating their governance preferences; when called out, they run off in another direction at high speed; if actually held to account, they double down on demagoguery and hate- as though a reflexive validation. We see it in this space all the time. [/quote] Thanks for righting the ship Mavigogun! On nearly every thread, someone takes off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the OP. More often than not, I get caught up in it. Medicare for all should have its own thread - and what a thread that could be.... |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/25/19 at 09:46:37 "Agreed. And what's being proposed is a seachange in how the US deals with healthcare." Except that if healthcare without requirement to pay is a "right" it can not be infringed upon and so people who repeatedly inject heroine, won't take insulin, refuse physical therapy still have the "right" to healthcare and can not be refused. I don't think its possible to say there is a "right" to free healthcare without refusing service, or reducing quality to maintenance levels. I for one do not think my taxes should go to repeat diabetic patients who just eat what they want and just sell their insulin that I pay for them to have. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/25/19 at 11:39:48 4A6A68607D6A0F0 wrote:
Fair enough. Then enact some sort of means testing. Again, other countries have cracked this, why can't we? I think it's safe to say that one of the main reasons is that it's a trillion dollar industry and large corporations (big pharma) have most every legislator in their pocket - except a few like Bernie and Warren. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/25/19 at 15:40:21 "Again, other countries have cracked this, why can't we?" They haven't. I think that's the fundamental problem with these comparisons, people think other countries "solved" the problem when they in fact never had it. Other countries have solved gun violence, why can't we? Other countries have solved homelessness why can't we? Other countries have solved Education Debt why can't we? This is like someone in Turkey saying we cracked our refugee problem. See the issue? They aren't solving our problem, they never had to, they never had our problem. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/28/19 at 06:01:53 133331392433560 wrote:
OK, take that tack. Is our problem insurmountable? Is it worth tackling? What we have now is not working for tens of millions. Far too many actually die due to lack of care. Far too many go bankrupt paying their medical bills. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/28/19 at 08:48:46 They aren't solving our problem, they never had to, they never had our problem. Is our problem insurmountable? Is it worth tackling? This actually wraps back into the original post. The notion that our problems are not OUR problems, that they aren't surmountable for rationalization X, isn't the argument of defeatists, but that of Idon'tgiveafuxs. The Idon'tgiveafuxs can't see the benefit to themselves of not having neighbors living in poverty- they don't actually see those people as neighbors, as members of their community. The Idon'tgiveafuxs are really, really bad at math, believing problem Y will never visit their door. The Idon'tgiveafuxs don't really believe in community, see community as a consumable of convenience, or as a threat. The Idon'tgiveafuxs are akin to astronauts that attribute their altitude entirely to themselves. They throw their elbows when they walk as though there weren't 350 million of us sharing the same space. They dump crap in the air and river without care for the impact downstream. They see the light from the fire over the hill, think "glad it's not my house", go back inside to watch the game. "Why should my life be different because of problems over there?" Insulated by geography, they consume the products of urban America while only valuing urban America as a market. They have contempt for mutual respect. Your marriage devalues my marriage. Your safety at the cost of my convenience. Me. Me. Me. "I just want to be left alone." They didn't get here alone. They were never alone. But, content with what they have, they think they can pull up the ladder on reality, stop time, and act as if what happens in their greater community has nothing to do with them. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/28/19 at 09:17:19 717D6A757B737B69721C0 wrote:
Well stated! |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/28/19 at 11:32:30 "Is our problem insurmountable? Is it worth tackling?" It is. But trying to convince others something needs done by comparing our problem to locations with almost no similarities in the actual structure of their economy, healthcare and patient loads is a futile exercise. It's the same as saying we should ban all red cars if one is used in a crime, nobody takes it seriously, so nobody who is involved in changing things listens to you. "What we have now is not working for tens of millions. Far too many actually die due to lack of care. Far too many go bankrupt paying their medical bills." Agreed. However using the US legal system, Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of other countries, if we make free medical care a "right" we limit our ability to refuse care, and we remove a portion of funding. So we need to reduce quality of care, restructure the economy, change what "rights" are defined as, or massively increase funding across a huge platform. So using the US legal system and Constitution we all get an equal voice, within reason, so one challenge would be convincing 30 year olds in good health to approve raising taxes, even on "just the rich" which almost every economic model shows doesn't work anyway. There's a lot of options, I just don't think saying "Sweden solved it" will help us at all. We can't use many of Sweden's methods here unless we alter our Bill of Rights, and make some Amendments to our Constitution, and most likely remove capitalism from the legal system. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/28/19 at 12:02:02 0626242C3126430 wrote:
The contention isn’t that everything is the same- rather, mindful of our circumstance, that mechanisms applied successfully elsewhere might be adapted to tackling our not-entirely unique problems. Your characterization is crudely synthetic and altogether pejorative. Agreed. However using the US legal system... What follows seem arbitrary predictions of doom, stemming more from an apparent ideological distaste than pragmatism. Are you seeking potential problems as excuses for dismissal, or points to navigate around while exploring solutions? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/28/19 at 12:08:39 6444464E5344210 wrote:
If you're talking about capitalism in the political system - I totally agree. Citizens United should be struck down tomorrow and all dark money removed from our political system. That would be a great start along with Tort reform. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/28/19 at 15:41:47 "What follows seem arbitrary predictions of doom, stemming more from an apparent ideological distaste than pragmatism. Are you seeking potential problems as excuses for dismissal, or points to navigate around while exploring solutions?" I have actually worked in healthcare for 13 years and have been on numerous panels, been to DC over 300 times, written national policy in conjunction with peers. I've mentioned this in the past on these forums. So no, I am not seeking dismissal, I am saying that over a decade of interaction across multiple continents and working data through thousands of health-policy panels has afforded me the means to understand that US law doesn't exactly come close to other countries that people say we should replicate. I'd say my "arbitrary predictions of doom, stemming more from an apparent ideological distaste than pragmatism" aren't predictions at all. They are assessments derived from my multiple experiences attempting, and at times succeeding, at solving problems within the US healthcare system that increase quality of care, and broaden availability of options among multiple incomes. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/28/19 at 16:06:59 382629282538233E4C0 wrote:
Let's see. A person pays 5-9,000 a year In a Premium for him/her. Suddenly, their is Medicare for all. So the 5-9,000 paying person, (who now, instead of paying that 5-9,000 a year Premium, pays the same or more in Taxes) gets the same HC as the $0.00 paying person ? Now before little feet start stamping, the person paying 5-9,000.00 a year is also, and will continue, paying to help people that really need help. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/28/19 at 16:22:59 HMO crap introduced a big parasitic burden on the system and also limited access to services AND how service providers performed their jobs. And it was better before HMO. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/28/19 at 16:24:08 "So the 5-9,000 paying person, (who now, instead of paying that 5-9,000 a year Premium, pays the same or more in Taxes) gets the same HC as the $0.00 paying person ?" So that's one of the big questions. Since the current 5,000 a year premium is sustaining less than 1/3rd of the current medical treatment system then where does the other 2/3rds come from? People would need to pay more that $5000 a year in taxes. If the average non-payer is due to lack of income, taxes won't resolve that issue. That's part of why tax the rich is in play. ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance, but it needs improved upon. Unfortunately since people think Obama before they thing healthcare they want ACA removed instead of improved, which puts us back to square one. For instance pre-existing coverage denial. People don't want that, but they also don't want to let the program that stopped it to exist. It mitigated a lot of harm done by HMO, so people want those impacts reduced, but want the program that limited their impact removed. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/28/19 at 17:01:26 4F6F6D65786F0A0 wrote:
Is that like Car Insurance in Minn and AZ ? (many other states, may, be similar) Where a person can get Car Insurance for ONE WEEK, then go into the DMV office and get license tabs for ONE YEAR. Meaning 11 months and 3 weeks, one can drive with NO insurance. Because I, (and about) 89% of the others that drive, PAY for the Non-Insured drivers. Is that what you mean when you say: ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance, Like that ? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/28/19 at 18:01:54 Is that like Car Insurance in Minn and AZ ? (many other states, may, be similar) Where a person can get Car Insurance for ONE WEEK, then go into the DMV office and get license tabs for ONE YEAR. Meaning 11 months and 3 weeks, one can drive with NO insurance. Because I, (and about) 89% of the others that drive, PAY for the Non-Insured drivers. Is that what you mean when you say: ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance, Like that ? No not like that. ACA doesn't allow 1-month payments of insurance to apply for a year. You don't get registration tags for your body every year. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/28/19 at 18:38:03 7B5B59514C5B3E0 wrote:
That is true. Please explain then why you believe: ASA is basically like car insurance. ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance, |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/28/19 at 19:18:57 Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system. This means anyone using a vehicle on public roads should contribute to the system, instead of 20-30 year old drivers opting out. This creates a more predictable and manageable financial pool even amongst competing companies. Health insurance isn't exactly the same as in identical, extremely similar, precisely comparatively equal or otherwise similar to extreme degrees. The concept in application is what shares similarity, but not identical attributes. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/28/19 at 20:12:14 0020222A3720450 wrote:
The ACA presently enjoys a higher favorability rate than the President- about 53%. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/29/19 at 07:40:57 64477A595B40474E290 wrote:
Let's see. A person pays 5-9,000 a year In a Premium for him/her. Suddenly, their is Medicare for all. So the 5-9,000 paying person, (who now, instead of paying that 5-9,000 a year Premium, pays the same or more in Taxes) gets the same HC as the $0.00 paying person ? Now before little feet start stamping, the person paying 5-9,000.00 a year is also, and will continue, paying to help people that really need help. [/quote] So then you must hate Medicare as well, huh mn? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/29/19 at 07:41:51 3B242225383F0E3E0E36242863510 wrote:
HMO - 100% profit driven. There's your unabated capitalism at work. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/29/19 at 08:00:41 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
What a shameless, blatant, lie. If you have a driving accident, you have a 1 in 8 chance having it with, a, totally "uninsured motorist" I/You, have to pay for someone that has NO car/truck insurance. In fact, my/your cost of insurance factors in, (about) 13%, of the drivers that do NOT pay. (Just for the tt & Clones) About 13% Pay NOTHING, You/I pay For them ! Again do what tt says, when it comes to looking things up. (But But, But says the UL FDS GBS, it is my 'right', to drive) |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/29/19 at 08:29:01 There's this point when you realize a person is so dumb they've gone beyond where their impairment can be regarded humorously. Class for idiots is back in session: Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system. Mangled Spring, you lack the required reading comprehension to parse meaning from syntax, understand even the most basic elements being communicated. Again, I'm unable to provide a cartoon illustration- so, good luck with this post. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by verslagen1 on 10/29/19 at 09:03:44 He made the point that 1 in 8 drivers are uninsured. This is a given fact as most insured drivers have uninsured driver insurance. Would be like if you caught a cold from someone that doesn't have health insurance? Could you collect from them? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/19 at 09:12:22 475956575A475C41330 wrote:
HMO - 100% profit driven. There's your unabated capitalism at work.[/quote] Not the point. We need to end that program. When things go to crap Look at what changes were made just prior. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/29/19 at 09:13:54 223D3B3C21261727172F3D317A480 wrote:
HMO - 100% profit driven. There's your unabated capitalism at work.[/quote] Not the point. - No, that IS the point. We need to end that program. When things go to crap Look at what changes were made just prior. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/19 at 09:17:07 So you just want to criticize. Actually trying to figure out an answer to WHY our health care system went to crap doesn't need to happen. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by T And T Garage on 10/29/19 at 09:27:52 415E585F42457444744C5E52192B0 wrote:
The "WHY" is that massive corporations are in charge of our healthcare. They single handedly changed the face of the insurance landscape and put more people into bankruptcy than any other single entity. That and the big pharma. But then, this all goes back to buying our politicians with unlimited bribery - er - donations.... |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/29/19 at 10:04:21 32213637282523212A75440 wrote:
Please- let's be absolutely clear: this is one long run away from the topic of the lead post. It's a fractal digression, as the need to distract from the last stupid utterance leads to the next. Witness this latest forking: Eegore, our resident public healthcare policy expert, mentioned car insurance as a conceptual placeholder for the impact of requiring insurance for participation- no "opting out" if a member is of a particular demographic. Mangled Spring, instead of speaking to the substantive point, digressed into the details of how to register a car and then drive it illegally in some States. Eegore redirects back from automobiles to national health care by explaining that the ACA can not be gamed as the automobile licensing example. Eegore then, after prompting, returned to characterizing the benefit of requiring participation in the insurance market, qualifying the comparison to auto insurance thusly: "Health insurance isn't exactly the same as in identical, extremely similar, precisely comparatively equal or otherwise similar to extreme degrees. The concept in application is what shares similarity, but not identical attributes." In other words, 'ya, there are differences- but they aren't pertinent, because we aren't talking about replication'. So, this entire spiral down into how some driving illegally transfer their liability onto legal drivers is totally and completely irrelevant. In point of fact, the very concept of transferred liability is one of the primary concerns mandatory participation aims to address in the first place. Then, Michael/verslagen1, you do us all the disservice by chasing the laser pointer dot. It doesn't fuxing matter that there are some uninsured motorists on the road. Eegore was not 'shamelessly and blatantly lying', as Malignant Spring slurred, by limiting consideration in his analogy explicitly to legal drivers as a conceptual aid. We've all come to anticipate Minimal-effort Spring's throwing crap at the fan, Michael- but at least I expect more from you. Instead of exploring why a council member felt comfortable saying 'gun laws should be relaxed because a homosexual is running for the Presidency', we're trying to catch the spinning crap as it falls. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by verslagen1 on 10/29/19 at 10:46:22 OMG, how many laser pointers are you going to use? |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Mavigogun on 10/29/19 at 10:51:12 Sewing discord and chaos is easy- order takes time, effort, and here, a shovel. Deriding crap removal -well, you pick your priorities. |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by MnSpring on 10/29/19 at 13:33:21 Sewing discord and chaos is easy- as demonstrated by the UL FDS GB Socialists. order takes time, effort, As demonstrated by sensible comments. Like education about firearms, not banning firearms. Like punishing the person that used a thing wrong, not the thing. Or people that do NOT use the thing wrong. Like teaching a person how to fish, instead of GIVING them fish. And the list goes on, and on, and on, . . . |
|
Title: Re: The "Loss Of White Men’s Rights" Post by Eegore on 10/29/19 at 16:14:53 "What a shameless, blatant, lie." Why are we always going over the structures of sentences with you? Do you actually read these posts? I very specifically said: "Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system." Because I assumed you would divert this into differences instead of processing what is actually being said here. "Legal Operation" I am in exclusivity talking about humans who are legally driving. Not any other human in any other context. This is for a reason, so we can continue the conversation, not cry about uninsured motorists, I already said ACA is NOT like that. Now for those who do not insure their vehicle and are caught, they are fined. No not everyone pays, not everyone gets a ticket not everyone is subject equally, like all things in all parts of life all of the time. ACA is like car insurance as it expects more people to contribute to the pool, if they are legal, LEGALLY, using a vehicle on public roads. Legally, not illegally, very specifically legal drivers. The pool of people not paying is SMALLER, when there are legal repercussions, not all people pay. Everyone does not pay, we get it, you don't need to make some other argument about it, we know not all people pay. But the pool of non-payers is smaller, so your 13% distribution of cost to payers to cover uninsured would be HIGHER if insurance wasn't required at all. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |