Mccain vs. Obama - Lets see it.

[EasyEJL]

Here is a quick caveat, hopefully displaying to you a greater sense of reality: The Democrats would still be farther right than the Conservative Party of Canada.

that has nothing to do with a greater sense of reality, thats like saying these two guys

are the same height as viewed by naked eye from the moon... not relevant. within the political system of the US, Obama is quite far to the left, further than any other candidate in recent memory. He votes the strict party line as called by Pelosi. Bill Clinton was quite a bit more centrist in action, not just campaign rhetoric. Actually Clinton was probably further left in campaign rhetoric

 

[Mulletsoldier]

that has nothing to do with a greater sense of reality, thats like saying these two guys

Well, in fact, considering multiple positions in multiple environments is exactly realizing a greater sense of reality beyond your limited scope. Further, he specifically made comparisons between Canadian and American Parties so, of course it is relevant. Finally, and this is not to diminish your All-American Rah-Rah-Sis-Boom-Ba attitude towards your country, politics exist outside American politics. While this is hard for many Americans to believe, you did not invent, do not solely propagate and are not solely considered in the wider spectrum of Politics.

So, of course what I said is relevant when I was both addressing a direct comparison and painting a broader picture of politics.

 

[EasyEJL]

Well, in fact, considering multiple positions in multiple environments is exactly realizing a greater sense of reality beyond your limited scope. Further, he specifically made comparisons between Canadian and American Parties so, of course it is relevant. Finally, and this is not to diminish your All-American Rah-Rah-Sis-Boom-Ba attitude towards your country, politics exist outside American politics. While this is hard for many Americans to believe, you did not invent, do not solely propagate and are not solely considered in the wider spectrum of Politics.

So, of course what I said is relevant when I was both addressing a direct comparison and painting a broader picture of politics.

Ah ok then. Within the confines of american politics then, Obama is the furthest left candidate every

 

[Dadof2]

I didn't vote today, in fact today was the first time that I skipped an election.

I wish that Obama was the guy that he claims to be, however the reality of the situation is that he is just another sleazy politician who will owe his win (if he is victorious) to the special interest within the Democratic Party.

John McCain is a loser candidate. If he was a maverick he wouldn't have gone to Washington and supported the bailout. He lost the election when he went against the voice of the people and supported Wall Street. I knew from the beginning that he was a terrible candidate, and a faux conservative, but I will go one further and call him the ******* that he is. I actually hope he loses the election.

If Obama wins and gets a majority he will steer the country so far left that the People of this country will finally have the opportunity to experience the Left in all of its dysfunctional glory. Hopefully after a term or two of unadulterated leftist policy the People will have had enough of their flirtation with socialism and will shout "ugggh left bad.......right good" like the politically/historically ignorant, neanderthal, behemith it is and as a result will run to a conservative party that respects the Constitution and small government.

If McCain wins it will be business as usual for the Republican party, and I am not looking forward to this. I actually hope that the Republican party implodes and is either reborn into a true conservative movement, or that it is replaced by another conservative party.

If push comes to shove Uruguay seems like a good place to expatriate to.

 

[flobot]

Yes but everything is relative. I don't see Republicans as extremely on the right but I do see big differences between the 2 countries.

One easy example is medical care. Canadians poor & rich will always have medical insurance. (Costs around 30 bucks a month or so for a single person. Which is not much more than a cell phone plan. If you can afford to pay for a cell phone or a bus pass, you can afford medical insurance.)

I guess that's something that would be viewed as leftist already in the US because it's so cheap and ultimately the rich are still paying for the poor through their taxes.

It's too bad that there's 300+million people there compared to 40 million here. Medical Insurance that cheap for Everyone just isn't feasible.

What I do envy from the US is that you don't have a Quebec or a party like Bloc Quebecois whose people totally screw up the elections at times, almost even succeeding in seceding Quebec from Canada. All respects to the French from the US and France and anywhere else but IME ONLY Quebeckers are the worst kind.

Here is a quick caveat, hopefully displaying to you a greater sense of reality: The Democrats would still be farther right than the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

[Omen]

Yes but everything is relative. I don't see Republicans as extremely on the right but I do see big differences between the 2 countries.

One easy example is medical care. Canadians poor & rich will always have medical insurance. (Costs around 30 bucks a month or so for a single person. Which is not much more than a cell phone plan. If you can afford to pay for a cell phone or a bus pass, you can afford medical insurance.)

I guess that's something that would be viewed as leftist already in the US because it's so cheap and ultimately the rich are still paying for the poor through their taxes.

It's too bad that there's 300+million people there compared to 40 million here. Medical Insurance that cheap for Everyone just isn't feasible.

You can get medical insurance for $100 for a single person here, drop your cable that you don't really need, that you think you must have and pay for your insurance, because I won't. :hammer:

 

[Dadof2]

You can get medical insurance for $100 for a single person here, drop your cable that you don't really need, that you think you must have and pay for your insurance, because I won't. :hammer:

My family of 4, soon to be 5, pays $175 a month for good health insurance (including dental). Either we are an anomaly, or it is possible for working class folks to get affordable health insurance and this whole lack of insurance thing is just media driven hype.

 

[flobot]

Hm wow I didn't know it was that "cheap" in the US nowadays. And $175 is a very good price. I'm genuinely surprised cuz most Canadians think that you guys pay $500-700 for a doc's/dental appointment hehe.

What State are you from btw?

My family of 4, soon to be 5, pays $175 a month for good health insurance (including dental). Either we are an anomaly, or it is possible for working class folks to get affordable health insurance and this whole lack of insurance thing is just media driven hype.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes but everything is relative. I don't see Republicans as extremely on the right but I do see big differences between the 2 countries.

One easy example is medical care. Canadians poor & rich will always have medical insurance. (Costs around 30 bucks a month or so for a single person. Which is not much more than a cell phone plan. If you can afford to pay for a cell phone or a bus pass, you can afford medical insurance.)

I guess that's something that would be viewed as leftist already in the US because it's so cheap and ultimately the rich are still paying for the poor through their taxes.

It's too bad that there's 300+million people there compared to 40 million here. Medical Insurance that cheap for Everyone just isn't feasible.

What I do envy from the US is that you don't have a Quebec or a party like Bloc Quebecois whose people totally screw up the elections at times, almost even succeeding in seceding Quebec from Canada. All respects to the French from the US and France and anywhere else but IME ONLY Quebeckers are the worst kind.

I am not sure if you realize this, but I am Canadian. If you are as well, you are horribly misinterpreting the political strata within our nation.

:lol:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

My family of 4, soon to be 5, pays $175 a month for good health insurance (including dental). Either we are an anomaly, or it is possible for working class folks to get affordable health insurance and this whole lack of insurance thing is just media driven hype.

(honest question): What do you feel is the greatest perpetuating factor in having such a large number of uninsured Americans, then? While price-points are overblown, the amount of Americans sans insurance is a true thing. I feel you would agree, something is amiss here.

As well, something that yourself and Omen are omitting, and that is incredibly pertinent to this debate, is that Privatized Insurance firms have the ability to deny claims; in Canada, such is not the case. You cannot be denied treatments for 'not disclosing medical history', or 'prior medical history', terms which are stretched and abused to their full capacity.

Not implying either system is better (it depends exclusively on core values), but merely suggesting you are not taking that into account. Again, this may not be your scenario (for all I know, you have found a fantastic provider and never been denied), but to deny this happens nationally is an oversight, IMO.

 

[EasyEJL]

(honest question): What do you feel is the greatest perpetuating factor in having such a large number of uninsured Americans, then? While price-points are overblown, the amount of Americans sans insurance is a true thing. I feel you would agree, something is amiss here.

As well, something that yourself and Omen are omitting, and that is incredibly pertinent to this debate, is that Privatized Insurance firms have the ability to deny claims; in Canada, such is not the case. You cannot be denied treatments for 'not disclosing medical history', or 'prior medical history', terms which are stretched and abused to their full capacity.

Not implying either system is better (it depends exclusively on core values), but merely suggesting you are not taking that into account. Again, this may not be your scenario (for all I know, you have found a fantastic provider and never been denied), but to deny this happens nationally is an oversight, IMO.

In the USA you can't be denied for existing conditions any longer than the gap between prior insurance and new insurance, up to 1 year. After 12 months on a new policy, everything is covered.

I think what is amiss is priorities of the people who have no health insurance. Many (we'll leave out speculation as to %) buy cigarettes, alchohol, have cellphones, cable tv, video game systems, etc. The truly indigent have programs they can use for free health insurance already. However people who have an income level where they could afford it, but choose not to buy it end up uninsured. For children even moreso, I think most elementary schools offer kids health insurance at something ridiculously low like $15 a month, can't recall the exact $ amount as it has been a while since I looked at it.

 

[Omen]

In the USA you can't be denied for existing conditions any longer than the gap between prior insurance and new insurance, up to 1 year. After 12 months on a new policy, everything is covered.

I think what is amiss is priorities of the people who have no health insurance. Many (we'll leave out speculation as to %) buy cigarettes, alchohol, have cellphones, cable tv, video game systems, etc. The truly indigent have programs they can use for free health insurance already. However people who have an income level where they could afford it, but choose not to buy it end up uninsured. For children even moreso, I think most elementary schools offer kids health insurance at something ridiculously low like $15 a month, can't recall the exact $ amount as it has been a while since I looked at it.

He speaks the truth! but I can't rep you two times in a row...:hammer:

I love watching people I know complain how "bad" their money situation is when they spend...NO SH*T.....$240 we calculated for an accquiatance when he told us....on beer, cigs and not to mention junk food, cable, new Xbox games every other week....bars....:icon_lol:

 

[Bionic]

For my 1000th post (thank you, thank you very much. You're too kind!) May I please present to you, the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...PRESIDENT OBAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMAAAAAA!!!!

 

[pata320]

Republicans = People who work hard for their money. (Conservative in Canada.)
Democrats = People who want money from people who work hard for their money. (Liberals in Canada.)
therefore
People who've become rich from their hard work will vote Republican. People who're poorer and feel that their somehow getting 'slighted' by the system will vote Democrat.

This is true. And there are a crap load of the poorer that feel like that. They decided this year to register. I, along with everyone else, have their own opinions about this matter.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

In the USA you can't be denied for existing conditions any longer than the gap between prior insurance and new insurance, up to 1 year. After 12 months on a new policy, everything is covered.

I think what is amiss is priorities of the people who have no health insurance. Many (we'll leave out speculation as to %) buy cigarettes, alchohol, have cellphones, cable tv, video game systems, etc. The truly indigent have programs they can use for free health insurance already. However people who have an income level where they could afford it, but choose not to buy it end up uninsured. For children even moreso, I think most elementary schools offer kids health insurance at something ridiculously low like $15 a month, can't recall the exact $ amount as it has been a while since I looked at it.

As we both know, preexisting conditions never cause issues within that twelve month period, correct?

 

[EasyEJL]

As we both know, preexisting conditions never cause issues within that twelve month period, correct?

with no gap in coverage there is no waiting period. so it is the individuals responsibility to maintain coverage particularly if they have existing conditions.

if you've decided to roll the dice and not pay for insurance, why should my rates be higher to pay for you to be ablr to go get insurance just when something serious happens?

the COBRA act allows you to keep yor employer group coverage even if you leave the job

 

[RobInKuwait]

a) You found one exception - one! To even suggest that this constitutes the rule is so beyond an objective statement that it is not worth addressing.

Easy addressed this point, but I'll be happy to expound as well.

You stated that workers were in slave-like conditions, that they metaphorically had only the choice to shoot themselves or jump off a cliff. My exception shows that choices are available in capitalism, even in the worst example an extremely intelligent critic of capitalism can manufacture.

Your fundamental argument, as I see it, is that the poorest workers in a capitalist system lack the ability to transcend their status. The example shows that is not the case.

Yes, he was exceptional, but his excellence, hard work, and genius is exactly what capitalism fundamentally rewards.

b) I understand each concept you are using in full; my point, however, is that you do not

Which ones other than the ones below do you feel I do not understand.

c) Define Socialism. Better yet, define the differences between Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and Marxism. Then, at such point where you have reached an adequate description, rephrase your first sentence. It is incorrect.

I just did a lot of reading on each of the divisions of communism you mentioned. I understand your critique coming from a Marxist perspective, as that seeks a classless and stateless society, but keep in mind that Marxism has never been executed true to form. Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism all advocate totalitarianism in some form.

As for the differences: Leninism institutes a dictator of the prolitariet in order to give Marxism a practical form of execution. He also used professional revolutionaries in order ignite the proliteriat revolution. He instituted Soviet Democracy and advocated State Capitalism until the country was properly prepared for Socialism and eventually Communism.

Stalinism continued with Leninism, but modified the worldwide theory to allow for one country communism. He also ended State Capitalism and instituted Socialism in the USSR. Stalinism is also often used as an example of totalitarianism.

Maoism changed the focus of Leninism and Stalinism from the prolitariat to peasant farmers. He also focuses more of societal structure and how to best optimize it.

d) I have stated a Neoclassical Synthesis is the lesser of two Evils. Saying one system fails less than the other is hardly a resounding endorsement. I feel, at least, I have acknowledged the detriments of an Interventionist system, while your position borders on faith-like.

I understand what you are saying, and I acknowledge what you see in capitalism as disadvantageous. I just don't concur that capitalism's detriments are necessarily just that.

One concept I came across while reading up on Marx and friends is the idea of Superexploitation. Reading about that helped me understand several of your capitalist critiques. While I acknowledge that other people may find some realities of capitalism unsavory, I am not one of those people.

e) Again, I feel you are almost completely glossing over the intricate relationship between why your goods cost very little, and the labor which produces them. It is quite a simplistic relationship, in fact. It is also intertwined with capitalism, so to insinuate it is dependent is ridiculous; however, here is your opportunity to show me how it is independent.

I understand the concept. Barring other variables, cheap goods requires cheap labor.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Easy addressed this point, but I'll be happy to expound as well.

You stated that workers were in slave-like conditions, that they metaphorically had only the choice to shoot themselves or jump off a cliff. My exception shows that choices are available in capitalism, even in the worst example an extremely intelligent critic of capitalism can manufacture.

Your fundamental argument, as I see it, is that the poorest workers in a capitalist system lack the ability to transcend their status. The example shows that is not the case.

Where have I stated that? Where have I insinuated that? You will labor to prove your assumption here. My point is that such slave-like conditions are the current status-quo, and that can potentially be revolutionary conditions.

Which ones other than the ones below do you feel I do not understand.

Keynesianism;
Interventionism;
Capital;
Socialist;
Equality;
Liberty;
Monopoly;
Free Market;
The Bolshevik Revolution;
Corporate Capitalism;
Perfect Competition;
Market Equity;
and so forth.

...but keep in mind that Marxism has never been executed true to form. Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism all advocate totalitarianism in some form...

Exactly what I have told you all along, in fact. I find it very comical that after incorrectly and cavalierly tossing the term 'Socialist' around for some time, (with me correcting you with those very points) you are now attempting to educate me on the divergences between these systems.

:lol:

As for the differences: Leninism institutes a dictator of the prolitariet in order to give Marxism a practical form of execution. He also used professional revolutionaries in order ignite the proliteriat revolution. He instituted Soviet Democracy and advocated State Capitalism until the country was properly prepared for Socialism and eventually Communism.

Stalinism continued with Leninism, but modified the worldwide theory to allow for one country communism. He also ended State Capitalism and instituted Socialism in the USSR. Stalinism is also often used as an example of totalitarianism.

Maoism changed the focus of Leninism and Stalinism from the prolitariat to peasant farmers. He also focuses more of societal structure and how to best optimize it.

Perfect! Now, does it not feel better to understand the terms you derogatorily use to describe others? (btw, Marx viewed Capitalism as the necessary step for Socialism. He did not feel any society could adequately develop without that particular stage of development).

I understand what you are saying, and I acknowledge what you see in capitalism as disadvantageous. I just don't concur that capitalism's detriments are necessarily just that.

One concept I came across while reading up on Marx and friends is the idea of Superexploitation. Reading about that helped me understand several of your capitalist critiques. While I acknowledge that other people may find some realities of capitalism unsavory, I am not one of those people.

Good to know you are expanding your knowledge base!

I understand the concept. Barring other variables, cheap goods requires cheap labor.

Exactly. And, historically, the more labor of one class is abused by the other (whether via Capital or Government) revolution ensues. In recent history, it has taken the form of Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism and so forth.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Where have I stated that? Where have I insinuated that?

You taking your job elsewhere constitutes another office; an Taiwanese worker taking their job elsewhere constitutes poverty and/or death. How is that equal? You seem to abstract equality away from any basis in reality in order to make it a premise in your Free Market theory. Your choices between workplaces and the choices an impoverished Chinese or Indian worker make could not be more different.

Also, when I spoke of Revolution, show me where I mentioned American Corporate Workers, please. I was speaking exactly about conditions such as in China and India (even mentioned it) which DO mirror the slave-like conditions of that period. Hm, I wonder what effect a worker's revolution and subsequent economic collapse in Asia Major would have in America? Hm, I wonder how our consumption habits (providing low-priced goods, as you said) could precipitate that?

You will labor to prove your assumption here. My point is that such slave-like conditions are the current status-quo, and that can potentially be revolutionary conditions.

My whole point was to show you those conditions are not slave-like. They may be poor conditions. But there is choice involved.

As for the revolution, its always a possibility with poor workers and professional revolutionaries.

Keynesianism;
Interventionism;
Capital;
Socialist;
Equality;
Liberty;
Monopoly;
Free Market;
The Bolshevik Revolution;
Corporate Capitalism;
Perfect Competition;
Market Equity;
and so forth.

That all you got? :lol:

I'll write what I think they all mean without using wiki.

Keynesianism- A market theory attempting to harness the positives benefits of capitalism, while using government intervention to overcome the natural market low points. Keynesianism also believes that maximizing employment leads to economic prosperity and government should also use infrastructure growth to minimize unemployment.

Interventionism- Goverment involving itself in the free market in some capacity.

Capital- Money, goods, labor, machinery.

Socialist- A system of government predicated on ownership of the means of production and control of the economy.

Equality- To be equal.

Liberty- Freedom.

Monopoly- One company controlling the entire means of production in a portion of the economy.

Free Market- Capitalism unhindered by government intervention.

The Bolshevik Revolution- Oct 1917 revolution in St. Peterberg and Moscow. Overthrew the provisional government instilled in Feb 1917.

Corporate Capitalism- Capitalism predicated on the modern marketplace with corporations controlling the means of production.

Perfect Competition- Not too much, not too little competition.

Market Equity- no idea on this one.

Exactly what I have told you all along, in fact. I find it very comical that after incorrectly and cavalierly tossing the term 'Socialist' around for some time, (with me correcting you with those very points) you are now attempting to educate me on the divergences between these systems.

This is what you said:

c) Define Socialism. Better yet, define the differences between Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and Marxism. Then, at such point where you have reached an adequate description, rephrase your first sentence. It is incorrect.

I wasn't attempting to educate you, you said to define the differences. I did. My original statement still stands with one modification, only because I thought it was implicit when I originally wrote it. I said: Please show me an example of Socialism that does not involve Totalitarianism in some form. I can't think of one. Perhaps I should have said show me a "real world" example of Socialism that does not involve Totalitarianism in some form.

Perfect! Now, does it not feel better to understand the terms you derogatorily use to describe others?

At what point does description become derogatory. Do you think it is inaccurate to say that nationalizing health care is the same as socializing health care? Should I call it Stalinizing health care instead, since he believed in single country communism?

(btw, Marx viewed Capitalism as the necessary step for Socialism. He did not feel any society could adequately develop without that particular stage of development).

I read that as well.

Good to know you are expanding your knowledge base!

Its the only way for a guy with a puny Bachelor of Arts to understand what you're saying!

Exactly. And, historically, the more labor of one class is abused by the other (whether via Capital or Government) revolution ensues. In recent history, it has taken the form of Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism and so forth.

Leninism also talks about the necessity of the professional revolutionary. Without those, very few revolutions would have happened.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You taking your job elsewhere constitutes another office; an Taiwanese worker taking their job elsewhere constitutes poverty and/or death. How is that equal? You seem to abstract equality away from any basis in reality in order to make it a premise in your Free Market theory. Your choices between workplaces and the choices an impoverished Chinese or Indian worker make could not be more different.

Also, when I spoke of Revolution, show me where I mentioned American Corporate Workers, please. I was speaking exactly about conditions such as in China and India (even mentioned it) which DO mirror the slave-like conditions of that period. Hm, I wonder what effect a worker's revolution and subsequent economic collapse in Asia Major would have in America? Hm, I wonder how our consumption habits (providing low-priced goods, as you said) could precipitate that?

And? Again, I did not say it was impossible, merely elucidating the incredibly poor conditions of living labor in those areas.

My whole point was to show you those conditions are not slave-like. They may be poor conditions. But there is choice involved.

Again, choice between two horrible alternatives is hardly choice.

As for the revolution, its always a possibility with poor workers and professional revolutionaries.

You have read too much into the professional revolutionary aspect of the 1917 revolt. The precipitating conditions are poverty and disparity, in that order.

Keynesianism- A market theory attempting to harness the positives benefits of capitalism, while using government intervention to overcome the natural market low points. Keynesianism also believes that maximizing employment leads to economic prosperity and government should also use infrastructure growth to minimize unemployment.

Yes. Again, why you misunderstood it so deeply and made improper comparisons to Socialism is beyond me.

Interventionism- Goverment involving itself in the free market in some capacity.

Correct, though incomplete. For what reason?

Socialist- A system of government predicated on ownership of the means of production and control of the economy.

No.

Equality- To be equal.

Liberty- Freedom

.

Exactly. Why did you modify the former so veraciously prior this definition?

Monopoly- One company controlling the entire means of production in a portion of the economy.

Better yet: One company controlling the entire process of aggregated demand, thereby crumbling a fundamental pretense of a free market.

Free Market- Capitalism unhindered by government intervention.

And? What does that involve?

The Bolshevik Revolution- Oct 1917 revolution in St. Peterberg and Moscow. Overthrew the provisional government instilled in Feb 1917.

Predicated upon what?

Corporate Capitalism- Capitalism predicated on the modern marketplace with corporations controlling the means of production.

From the most basic standpoint, yes; but like all your examples, what does that involve? What are the ramifications for both production and consumption?

Perfect Competition- Not too much, not too little competition.

Nope. Try again.

Market Equity- no idea on this one.

Related to above.

Please show me an example of Socialism that does not involve Totalitarianism in some form. I can't think of one.

And my point was that Maoism/Stalinism/Leninism have as much to do with Socialism as the Crusades had to do with Jesus.

At what point does description become derogatory. Do you think it is inaccurate to say that nationalizing health care is the same as socializing health care? Should I call it Stalinizing health care instead, since he believed in single country communism

?

Again, I am not entirely sure - even after all of this - you understand what the term Socialism implies. However, to even suggest that you have not derogatorily and deliberately used the term 'Socialist' to denote a wide range of things you do not agree with is beyond ridiculous.

Its the only way for a guy with a puny Bachelor of Arts to understand what you're saying!

Leninism also talks about the necessity of the professional revolutionary. Without those, very few revolutions would have happened.

Lenin does, but I disagree. Professional revolutionaries are a modern concept, whereas revolutions have pervaded civilization for thousands of years.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Key component you are missing (I have mentioned this already): Nationalism, and thereby an authoritative state, had no place in Marx's works - i.e., Socialism has little to do with the state. As well, Communism is a higher form of Socialism (you have mixed that up). Oh, and also Socialism is the realization of nothing more or less than the highest form of Democracy (direct representation).

I suggest you read a few primary documents ASIDE from a Wiki or two before making sweeping generalizations!

 

[Nonfactor]

Obama may have won, which I am happy about but he doesn't have 60 dems in the senate so it will take a lot of effort for much to change

 

[Dadof2]

(honest question): What do you feel is the greatest perpetuating factor in having such a large number of uninsured Americans, then? While price-points are overblown, the amount of Americans sans insurance is a true thing. I feel you would agree, something is amiss here.

As well, something that yourself and Omen are omitting, and that is incredibly pertinent to this debate, is that Privatized Insurance firms have the ability to deny claims; in Canada, such is not the case. You cannot be denied treatments for 'not disclosing medical history', or 'prior medical history', terms which are stretched and abused to their full capacity.

Not implying either system is better (it depends exclusively on core values), but merely suggesting you are not taking that into account. Again, this may not be your scenario (for all I know, you have found a fantastic provider and never been denied), but to deny this happens nationally is an oversight, IMO.

I don't know if they count people on Medicade and Medicare as being those among the ranks of the uninsured.

During my wife's second pregnancy she had lost her job, and her insurance coverage. We had to go on Medicaid for a short period of time as we could not afford to pay out of pocket for the doctor visits, hospital stays, etc. Technically we were uninsured, but we were not without health care.

If those on Medicaid/Medicare are counted as being uninsured then obviously the numbers are going to be artificially high. If this is the case then one factor for the large number of uninsured lies in the fact that some folks like getting free stuff. I honestly felt ashamed using Medicaid, and once we were able to get private insurance once again we did so. For others once they get on the government dole they stay there.

Some folks might not be insured because they just don't want to come out of pocket any amount of money for their healthcare. Every job that I have ever had has offered their fulltime employees healthcare. Some companies required that you work for them for a set time before they offered the health benefits, and others provided the benefits right away, and even some insured the employee for free. However, throughout my tenure in the workforce I have known many coworkers who ,for whatever reasons ,did not decide to get insurance.

I started working at a young age, 18, and as a result I opted not to get health insurance as I was not concerned about illness (I was fairly certain that I was if not totally invincible I was pretty close to it). I am sure many other folks do the same. So technically they are uninsured, but they are by choice.

Finally there are some folks who just do not work, or are unable to hold jobs. I am not of the opinion that anyone should get government benefits if they are physically able to work. So if these folks are without private insurance that is because of their lack of wanting private insurance enough to earn it.

You will not get any disagreement out of me concerning the corrupt practices of private insurance companies in denying claims and so forth. However, I think that there are ways that this can be dealt with within the private sector or judicial system.

 

[EasyEJL]

Obama may have won, which I am happy about but he doesn't have 60 dems in the senate so it will take a lot of effort for much to change

thank god. Neither party should ever be allowed to have such an overriding power as to be able to blare through bills at a whim.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't know if they count people on Medicade and Medicare as being those among the ranks of the uninsured.

During my wife's second pregnancy she had lost her job, and her insurance coverage. We had to go on Medicaid for a short period of time as we could not afford to pay out of pocket for the doctor visits, hospital stays, etc. Technically we were uninsured, but we were not without health care.

If those on Medicaid/Medicare are counted as being uninsured then obviously the numbers are going to be artificially high. If this is the case then one factor for the large number of uninsured lies in the fact that some folks like getting free stuff. I honestly felt ashamed using Medicaid, and once we were able to get private insurance once again we did so. For others once they get on the government dole they stay there.

Some folks might not be insured because they just don't want to come out of pocket any amount of money for their healthcare. Every job that I have ever had has offered their fulltime employees healthcare. Some companies required that you work for them for a set time before they offered the health benefits, and others provided the benefits right away, and even some insured the employee for free. However, throughout my tenure in the workforce I have known many coworkers who ,for whatever reasons ,did not decide to get insurance.

I started working at a young age, 18, and as a result I opted not to get health insurance as I was not concerned about illness (I was fairly certain that I was if not totally invincible I was pretty close to it). I am sure many other folks do the same. So technically they are uninsured, but they are by choice.

Finally there are some folks who just do not work, or are unable to hold jobs. I am not of the opinion that anyone should get government benefits if they are physically able to work. So if these folks are without private insurance that is because of their lack of wanting private insurance enough to earn it.

You will not get any disagreement out of me concerning the corrupt practices of private insurance companies in denying claims and so forth. However, I think that there are ways that this can be dealt with within the private sector or judicial system.

To my knowledge, those on Medicaid/Medicare are not counted as uninsured.

 

[suncloud]

contradictory to what we thought in the US until this point in time, is that mullets can raise your IQ! the canadian mullet must be an upgrade.

mullet, quick question for you, what is your view of the "needle exchange program" and has it spread to where you are?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

contradictory to what we thought in the US until this point in time, is that mullets can raise your IQ! the canadian mullet must be an upgrade.

mullet, quick question for you, what is your view of the "needle exchange program" and has it spread to where you are?

I am for them, but can empathize with both sides of the position. I think, objectively, one needs to look at whether or not these needle exchange programs are leading to increases in peripheral crime rates. From what I have seen, there have been no associated increases in needle exchange programs and crime rates within a substantially wide area.

 

[suncloud]

I am for them, but can empathize with both sides of the position. I think, objectively, one needs to look at whether or not these needle exchange programs are leading to increases in peripheral crime rates. From what I have seen, there have been no associated increases in needle exchange programs and crime rates within a substantially wide area.

thanks mullet. my dad spearheaded that program - it was his pet project, and i hear its wildly controversial. my dad's stance of course is that it decreases the spread of HIV/HEP-C viruses, which would help keep health care costs low.

the other side as you've pointed out, is it almost is like saying "go ahead and try it", which was never the intention. people trying it and getting hooked, would send the crime rate skyrocketing.

just curious what an obviously intelligent person thought about it, and if the idea had been used outside of B.C. thanks for your time mullet.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

thanks mullet. my dad spearheaded that program - it was his pet project, and i hear its wildly controversial. my dad's stance of course is that it decreases the spread of HIV/HEP-C viruses, which would help keep health care costs low.

the other side as you've pointed out, is it almost is like saying "go ahead and try it", which was never the intention. people trying it and getting hooked, would send the crime rate skyrocketing.

just curious what an obviously intelligent person thought about it, and if the idea had been used outside of B.C. thanks for your time mullet.

If your Dad created that project in Vancouver's East Side, then that is incredibly commendable, IMO. Last I heard, the Government was reassessing its effectiveness and may rebuke funding; is that the case?

 

[suncloud]

If your Dad created that project in Vancouver's East Side, then that is incredibly commendable, IMO. Last I heard, the Government was reassessing its effectiveness and may rebuke funding; is that the case?

didn't hear about that. i'll have to call him and ask.

now that he's retired from the ministry of health, his opinion doesn't matter as much as it used to, but i will call and ask about this tonight.

 

[EasyEJL]

I am for them, but can empathize with both sides of the position. I think, objectively, one needs to look at whether or not these needle exchange programs are leading to increases in peripheral crime rates. From what I have seen, there have been no associated increases in needle exchange programs and crime rates within a substantially wide area.

Its always difficult to draw the line between where it appears to be tacit approval or even encouragement of an act by providing part of the means to commit the act, similar to distributing condoms in high school.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Its always difficult to draw the line between where it appears to be tacit approval or even encouragement of an act by providing part of the means to commit the act, similar to distributing condoms in high school.

I avoid abstracting issues such as this to such a level; rather, I choose to view them practically, pragmatically, and realistically. Current evidence does not suggest that these programs are an encouragement, as drug-use is both socially deviant and illegal anyway. People who do drugs do so knowing the risk of fines, death and imprisonment, and still use - i.e., they need no encouragement. This use would beyond a shadow of a doubt be occurring anyway, and these refuge centers provide a safe environment. In my opinion, and for example, teenagers will have sex anyway, so one may as well educate them and provide them with safe means to avoid teen pregnancy, STDs, rape and so forth. These programs are cast in the same light.

 

[EasyEJL]

I'm much more ok with the needle programs than the condoms, as more of the needles are going to adults who however wrongly did as you say sort of already choose that life, but teenagers are stupid and easily swayed. Yes many teens will have sex anyway, but it seems like this is saying "its ok that you do" which sort of ruins the intimacy of sex. teen sex seems to have accelerated over time, and I wonder how much of it is sex ed classes.

For me its much more relevant as I have a 12 year old daughter, so its on my mind

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'm much more ok with the needle programs than the condoms, as more of the needles are going to adults who however wrongly did as you say sort of already choose that life, but teenagers are stupid and easily swayed. Yes many teens will have sex anyway, but it seems like this is saying "its ok that you do" which sort of ruins the intimacy of sex. teen sex seems to have accelerated over time, and I wonder how much of it is sex ed classes.

For me its much more relevant as I have a 12 year old daughter, so its on my mind

I will not pretend to empathize with your position, nor criticize it. I do not have children, so cannot make any objective statements here; however, even if only for some personal reflection, allow me to delineate my position.

I have heard your position echoed many times, and its pretense is that education and awareness about sex is an encouraging factor vis-a-vis removing any veil of mystery, intimacy, and 'romance' from the act; with this, however, I disagree strongly. Sixty years ago, such a position would have been valid due to several precipitating factors; most notably the more prominent roles of religion and the nuclear family units in early-teen socialization - the level of integration these two institutions had is very ostensibly lessened today, and as a result, socialization stems from a myriad of factors. In fact, most Sociologists and Psychologists postulate that the media and immediate peer groups have usurped the parents as primary socializing factors, especially in respects to sexual awareness.

From my perspective, openly and honestly discussing sexuality with your child assists in removing the desire for participation-by-curiosity - that is, 'seeing what the big deal is all about'. As well, I feel awareness and education would assist a child, both male and female, in navigating sexually-charged situations, as well as giving them personal respect for their body! A combination of natural curiosity and deep seeded resentment and shame often arise from stringent shielding of a child - this resentment can often manifest itself as sexual deviance later in life.

In the current phase of media ubiquitousness, the ability of parents to completely limit the child's reception of sexual messages - without significant psychological hindrances - is gone. The best one can do is equip them with the knowledge, awareness, and self-respect necessary to make the most proper decisions.

 

[EasyEJL]

In fact, most Sociologists and Psychologists postulate that the media and immediate peer groups have usurped the parents as primary socializing factors, especially in respects to sexual awareness.

Yes that largely is the problem, the sort of continued collapse of morals that lead to where nipple shots are just about acceptable on tv during primetime, and ass and s h i t are acceptable words for TV at 7pm (but apparently s h i t isn't acceptable on anabolic minds)

From my perspective, openly and honestly discussing sexuality with your child assists in removing the desire for participation-by-curiosity - that is, 'seeing what the big deal is all about'. As well, I feel awareness and education would assist a child, both male and female, in navigating sexually-charged situations, as well as giving them personal respect for their body! A combination of natural curiosity and deep seeded resentment and shame often arise from stringent shielding of a child - this resentment can often manifest itself as sexual deviance later in life.

In the current phase of media ubiquitousness, the ability of parents to completely limit the child's reception of sexual messages - without significant psychological hindrances - is gone. The best one can do is equip them with the knowledge, awareness, and self-respect necessary to make the most proper decisions.

Yeah, I basically agree with this as the most realistic course, I just wish it wasn't so. That is a piece of why I like the sex ed content that also teaches and talks about abstinence, however that tends to be considered unimportant in most curriculum

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes that largely is the problem, the sort of continued collapse of morals that lead to where nipple shots are just about acceptable on tv during primetime, and ass and s h i t are acceptable words for TV at 7pm (but apparently s h i t isn't acceptable on anabolic minds)

Whether or not you view current media as a collapse of normative values depends very highly on your opinion of the nature of media. If one assumes that population and media are reflexive entities, then causative relationships become more difficult to pin-down, as the 'genesis-point' becomes ambiguous; however, if one assumes that the relationship between media and morality is uni-lateral and causative, stemming from media to the public, your opinion would resonate. Personally, I feel postulating a 'moral collapse' is such a loaded suggestion, that it pains me to begin describing it! Collapse implies previous structure, which then necessitates disseminating the potential causes of that previous structure and the implications thereof, and, further, delineating the precipitating factors of current normative decay; all, obviously, necessitate suggesting a definitive genesis-point to a piece of social phenomena that is incredibly intricate.

Yeah, I basically agree with this as the most realistic course, I just wish it wasn't so. That is a piece of why I like the sex ed content that also teaches and talks about abstinence, however that tends to be considered unimportant in most curriculum

I think you would enjoy the book I suggested in this thread earlier: The Sociological Imagination by C.Wright Mills. I find it useful in situations such as yours.

 

[EasyEJL]

Whether or not you view current media as a collapse of normative values depends very highly on your opinion of the nature of media. If one assumes that population and media are reflexive entities, then causative relationships become more difficult to pin-down, as the 'genesis-point' becomes ambiguous; however, if one assumes that the relationship between media and morality is uni-lateral and causative, stemming from media to the public, your opinion would resonate. Personally, I feel postulating a 'moral collapse' is such a loaded suggestion, that it pains me to begin describing it! Collapse implies previous structure, which then necessitates disseminating the potential causes of that previous structure and the implications thereof, and, further, delineating the precipitating factors of current normative decay; all, obviously, necessitate suggesting a definitive genesis-point to a piece of social phenomena that is incredibly intricate.

perhaps downward spiral is more accurate and although the media was not the sole cause, it has accelerated it. The general media elements make more money when they get higher viewership, and they get higher viewership when they get more exposure, and they get more exposure when they dabble around the edges of acceptable.

I think you would enjoy the book I suggested in this thread earlier: The Sociological Imagination by C.Wright Mills. I find it useful in situations such as yours.

Hmm I'll have to take a look for it, looks like the local library doesn't carry it. Luckily I'm not embarassed or bothered by the thought of talking to her about it, more the question is "when" than if.

 

[rolandajoint]

Yeah, I basically agree with this as the most realistic course, I just wish it wasn't so. That is a piece of why I like the sex ed content that also teaches and talks about abstinence, however that tends to be considered unimportant in most curriculum

i cant agree as a parent on this issue of course. but as someone part of the younger generation, i agree with mullet. i think as long as you instill the same values your parents instilled in you, or that you instilled in yourself, you can have some sort of peace of mind about your child smart making decisions.