Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, Kelly Day, CEO of Blip?
The woman who heads up the largest independently owned video network tells how she's bringing TV into the digital age. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: What the Health Care Decision Really Means

What the Health Care Decision Really Means

Post Reply Back to Forums

51–75 out of 82 messages

Author	Message

it's just tv folks	Posted - 7/2/2012 5:02:20 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I hate liars liars like the neurotic nutjob of Newark.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 7/2/2012 6:13:49 PM \| show profile \| flag this post >>I do, however, abhor what Democrats DO, especially when they're consciously and deliberately dishonest about it...as you are.<< I also abhor liars, no matter who they are. What makes you think I'm a Democrat, and therefore someone whose every move and statement you must detest automatically?

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 7/2/2012 6:19:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Let me put it this way: Is everyone who isn't an uber-conservative Republican known as "Democrats" in your world?

mpdodgson	Posted - 7/2/2012 10:11:15 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Let's assume, for a minute No, the Republicans don't 'hate' poor people, the un-insured, the homeless, etc etc. That they believe, as I (and other libs) do that if nothing else--one of the purposes of ANY Government is to take care of their citizens...Let's assume that. And of course there are good reasons for that assumption. Affordable health care, the individual mandate--it WAS THEIR IDEA. Has everyone forgotten Romney care?? The story of Repubs pushing for this idea goes back years-- "In 2007, Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina sent a letter to President George W. Bush. DeMint said he would like to work with Bush to pass legislation that would “ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.” "Read that closely. DeMint does not say he wants legislation that would ensure all Americans have “access” to coverage -- the standard rhetorical dodge of politicians who don’t want to oppose universal coverage, but also don’t want to do what’s necessary to achieve it. He says that he wants legislation that ensures all American actually have coverage. He says that without making sure every American has coverage, “the health care system cannot be fixed.” For good measure, DeMint wants to achieve this “while protecting current government programs.” (Ezra Klein) YEA. THAT JIM DEMINT. Mr. Tea party. What has changed so drastically?? NOTHING. Except Obama is in the WH. And that is an evil scourge that must be stamped out...and he must not get credit for Americans being able to receive Affordable Health Care. The reason I keep harping on this aspect of it is simple--Repubs and conservatives refuse to face up to their own past and current hypocrisy. The ACA was a law passed by congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Surpreme Court--AND it was all our idea anyway--and we LOVED it--but now??? That guy in the WH is a dictator.

cruiser	Posted - 7/2/2012 10:32:04 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Me? Uber-conservative? Nah. I'm barely to the right of center on many issues. But I know what causes you and the other left wingers on here to label me...and that's my strong disagreement with the left wing agenda. There is virtually nothing on the left side of center with which I agree...and I don't hesitate to criticize it. That includes Keynesian economic philosophy, socialistic policies, "liberal" interpretations of our Constitution and the constant push by left wingers to "modernize" our Constitution. It doesn't need any "modernizing." Remember, the Constitution concerns itself only with the description and specification of the federal government, its branches elected figures and duties, the powers of congress (the so-called "enumerated powers"), limits on congress, some requirements for the states, some limits on the states, the Bill of Rights and a few amendments. That's it. On all other matters the Constitution is silent. This means, as Justice Scalia rightly points out, that the people...through their elected representatives...have the power to legislate ALL OTHER ISSUES so long as such legislation does not run afoul of the provisions of the Constitution. All the "modernizing" can be done through legislation...and I have little to no problem with that. In fact, much of the whole body of federal law does not strictly conform to the letter of the Constitution as ratified. That is a de facto modernization of our government. I am unashamedly a Constitutionalist. I resent and vehemently oppose any and all attempts to water down, weaken or modify our Constitution. It's close to perfect as is. But uber-conservative? Not me.

cruiser	Posted - 7/2/2012 10:38:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "What has changed so drastically?? NOTHING." I strenuously disagree. What has changed is the Republicans' desire to work through private enterprise to accomplish these goals as opposed to Obama's (and Hillary's) push to create a massive government bureaucracy to control and administer health care in the US. You left wingers seem to forget that the government works for us. We don't work for the government. Left to his own devices, Obama would increase the size, scope and power of the federal government to the detriment of every citizen of the US. That's what has changed.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 7/2/2012 10:46:27 PM \| show profile \| flag this post >>But uber-conservative? Not me.<< I said: I abhor liars. If you were merely a "constitutionalist" who's "slightly right of center," then you would have no reason to constantly, boringly, predictably create opportunities to bash Democrats and Obama.

stopbs--	Posted - 7/2/2012 11:37:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Ok, beenthere: I think I see where you are coming from now. I did use the words "worthy" and "unworthy. Here's what I think you are missing. Perhaps I did not state it well at first. I am judgmental about who is worthy because I give to people and causes with which I am intimately familiar. Just like the churches and hospitals and doctors gave to the poor long before insurance; I work with those whom I know are trying to benefit themselves but they can use some help to get there. The BIG difference is that no government is forcing me or anyone else to do this through forced taxation. We do it because we know we are blessed and we actually care. Big government gives indiscriminately based solely on income. I reject that notion and want no part of it. I want personal freedom over my money to help whom i choose. Anyone, the poorest among us will never be accountable for paying into the system. (If you've read up on it.) They will always be sponging off of it. Unless, of course, we try it another way and help them get jobs and dignity and their own places to live and the ability to afford their own insurance. There is no part of my argument which simple "hates" poor people. There's not much stock in that.

stopbs--	Posted - 7/2/2012 11:49:48 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp; I spent any days along with other conservatives, thinking that Roberts made a truly bad decision. I am starting to think that he is crazy like fox. What he did was throw the decision back to people. He noted that is was not necessarily good policy but that that was the voter's choice to decide. We will do that in November. In an odd way, this could not have worked out better for Romey.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 7/3/2012 9:01:38 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Cruzo thinks he's nearly moderate... no wonder he thinks the world is against him. The values and ideas he promotes here are to the extreme right. To him, all moderates are leftists. Most conservatives are leftists, too, in his world view.

beenthere	Posted - 7/3/2012 9:14:24 AM \| show profile \| flag this post I am judgmental about who is worthy because I give to people and causes with which I am intimately familiar. Just like the churches and hospitals and doctors gave to the poor long before insurance; I work with those whom I know are trying to benefit themselves but they can use some help to get there. The BIG difference is that no government is forcing me or anyone else to do this through forced taxation. We do it because we know we are blessed and we actually care. ____ You've just reinforced your point. Healthcare is not a charity, and to deem it such is illogical. You believe people need to have some sort of "stopbs" criteria in order to have healthcare. And what about that family six states away that "fits" your criteria, but you don't know about. Should they suffer while they are waiting for YOU to come save them? It's a shame people in this country feel they have a right to police protection, public schools and libraries. But helping to keep people healthy? Nah, not important. This is an issue that disgusts me. I have worked as a healthcare editor for many, many years, and one of the BIGGEST issues for all those diseases that kill us is: FOLLOW-UP CARE. Which people with no health insurance don't get. So, while the view from your high horse may be pretty as you choose who you deem "worthy, " people just outside your sight lines are dying. But that doesn't matter, they don't "deserve" it.

mpdodgson	Posted - 7/3/2012 9:57:59 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Aw c'mon cruize "I'm barely to the right of center on many issues" You're barely to the right of Cardnial Richelieu. And you contradictions about; "....our Constitution. It doesn't need any "modernizing." OH. Well, execept the "the Bill of Rights and a few amendments".. That's 27. AND the Repubs would like to add abortion, school prayer, flag burning, and gay marriage. And I know a few Libs wwho would like throw in internet privacy. Yep. No modernization going on there. "oppose any and all attempts to water down, weaken or modify our Constitution. It's close to perfect as is." That is the myopic head in the sand stance I've ever heard--and it also flies in the face of your other point of view...You have state here (about Gun Control) that when The SCOTUS decides somethnig it becomes 'de facto Part of the Consitution'. Fine. Now health care Reform is part of Consitution.... Following that...(you know where this is going)...you CAN'T be against it...because it's you're "I am unashamedly a Constitutionalist" One more thing--"Left to his own devices, Obama would increase the size, scope and power of the federal government to the detriment of every citizen of the US. That's what has changed." Oh so wrong. The ACA was argued in the public forum (the understatment of the year. Passed by both houses of Congress. Signed by the presdient. Upheld by the Suprme Court. And IF you ask american about specific provisions--they wouldn't give it up for the world. EVERYTHING about this was done legally, and the right way. Suck on it. The Steelers one (to use a sports metaphor)

cruiser	Posted - 7/4/2012 12:40:00 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "AND the Repubs would like to add abortion, school prayer, flag burning, and gay marriage." Not "the Repubs," as you quaintly phrase it but some far right splinter groupss. Most Republicans do not agree that those things should be embedded in the Constitution...I certainly don't...therefore their feeble attempts never succeed. As far as abotion, however, I would like to see it removed from its place of embedment in the Constitution (there is no "right of privacy" in the 9th and 14th Amendments...that was invented by an activist court) and PROPERLY RETURNED TO THE STATES because abortion is NOT one of the enumerated powers. The rest of your screed concerning my positions is...so typical of you...muddled, run together and so inaccurately quoted/characterized that I'm not even going to attempt to straighten you out. We've been over these issues so many times that you know my positions as well as I do...and they're not anything like you always mendaciously assert.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 7/4/2012 1:04:44 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Let us remember, cruzo... the Constitution does not simply protect the rights it mentions, but also those it implies. Those are the so-called "self-evident rights" that played such a big role in the founding of this country 236 years ago today. The right to privacy is implied not just by the 9th and 14th, but also the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. When HALF of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights contained privacy rights, it is clear the Founders wanted those protected. The Constitutional argument for a Constitutionally protected right to privacy goes all the way back to the Supreme Court of the 1920s.

cruiser	Posted - 7/4/2012 1:46:07 PM \| show profile \| flag this post The "right of privacy" was a liberal activist court invention and now our most prolific far left wing posters is trying to justify it with specious interpretations of other Constitutional provisions.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 7/4/2012 3:29:16 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Cool word, isn't it, "specious"? I see you're testing it in a few posts today.

mpdodgson	Posted - 7/4/2012 3:31:41 PM \| show profile \| flag this post cruiser; Sir; HOW could you possibly be so wrong on so many things at the same time and still manage to walk? Let me start with MY basic premise...The Party who puts on the mime makeup and says we should stay out of people's lives want JUST the opposite--They want into our bedrooms, our vaginas, our protests, our religious beliefs--hell, eveything short of what I feed the dog. Quoting you [which we all know you hate]: "AND the Repubs would like to add abortion, school prayer, flag burning, and gay marriage." Not "the Repubs," as you quaintly phrase it but some far right splinter groupss" [sic] REALLY?? Here's the 2008 RNC Platform, complete with abortion, school prayer, flag burning, and gay marriage stances; http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm They WANT to legislate personal behavior. WITH Constitutional Amends. "The video then highlights a clip from the Fox News Channel program "Huckabee," with the former Arkansas governor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate asking Romney "would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?" Romney replies "absolutely." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/03/democrats-attack-romney-over-controversial-abortion-amendment/ There's been a 'School Prayer Amendment' plank in the GOP platfom for years. http://www.criticism.com/policy/republicans-school-prayer-policy.php They've always pushed for school prayer too. Your HERO Newt: "Newt Gingrich, this week announced his intention to push immediately for adoption of his proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution "relating to voluntary school prayer." The Gingrich proposal states: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions" http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/constitutional-amendment-school-prayer Flag Burning too. I can't think of ANYTHING more American thatn being able to protest like that. Apparently Repubs disagree. The flag burning amendment failed to gain the necessary 2/3 majority in the U.S. Senate on June 27, 2006. The vote was 66-34 in favor, with Democrats voting against by 14-30 and Republicans voting in favor by 52-3.[2] The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and cosponsored by 59 senators, including all Republicans but Sens. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Oh, leave anything out? Oh yea! Let's BAN gay marriage in the Constitution!! Dozens of GOP members are signing for that!! (Quoting cruise again) "far right splinter groupss". Yea, apparently the entire friggin party. But you keep right on arguing the 'Right to privacy' is a "liberal activist court invention"---but the right for conseervatives to butt their noses into my private affairs is perfectly acceptable. Mind boggling double speak.

stopbs--	Posted - 7/4/2012 3:39:47 PM \| show profile \| flag this post beenthere, I am almost afraid to reply because you might misconstrue me further. But I'd like to try again. First, I believe in charity. I believe that government healthcare is FORCED charity. I believe that other government programs, i.e. welfare, are also forced charity. I am not in a postion to know who is deserving of help outside of my sphere of reference. I mentioned churches and doctors who used to help the poor (some still do) because I believe in that model. Yes, I help people in my smaller world. I don't believe that I should have to give more to a massive central government whose only criteria for giving away my income is whether someone else's income is much lower. That is socialism which seems to be the polite word we now use instead of communism. (You know, from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.) I am sure that there are people who are six states away and working their butts off and having a heck of a hard time. It is certainly not up to me to judge the worthiness of those people. THAT is my point. It's up to their churches and doctors and people like me (in their area) who know them and know they are trying, but need help. It is certainly, imo, not up to a Federal Government who doesn't know if they are trying to get ahead or just looking for another hand-out. I have never, and would never, set myself up as the arbiter of anyone whom I don't know. My point is that I am going to give away my money to the people whom I want to help because I know they are trying to better themselves. I wonder how many people, who are now cheering this AHA, ever bothered to actually help those right in front of them whom they know needed help. Or were they just hoping that someone else, like that faceless government where money just appears, would take over and solve the problem?

mpdodgson	Posted - 7/4/2012 5:23:20 PM \| show profile \| flag this post stopbs; I know you've addressed this to someone else; and if I'm out of line, pleasee tell me so...but if I could pick apart your points... "I believe that government healthcare is FORCED charity". While I can see where you're going with that--why do you then totally dismiss my objections about my taxpayer money FORCED into wars I object to? Is there a "check-list" out there somewhere you and I are not privy to? "I am not in a postion to know who is deserving of help outside of my sphere of reference". Uh yea. You are. Poor, sick, and homeless people simply don't exist because you run across them. If a homeless vet falls under a bridge in Des Moines, and you're not there to hear it, does he exist?? Maybe this goes back to the 'compassion' POV we were talking about before. Experiment: Look at this a different way. Let's suppose for a minute you're not really the dashing seductive Wall St combo Anne Hathaway/Emma Stone beautiful yet detached Libertarian you are--but instead an over-worked over-whelmed US Congresswoman. "I am sure that there are people who are six states away and working their butts off and having a heck of a hard time. It is certainly not up to me to judge the worthiness of those people." Well now it is my friend. Deal with it. You want to pee on them, or help them? Now all of the sudden it is your job, and it is personal. What do you do?? And another thing, you last graf about "I wonder how many people, who are now cheering this AHA, ever bothered to actually help those right in front of them whom they know needed help. Or were they just hoping that someone else, like that faceless government where money just appears, would take over and solve the problem?" Is that sort of some veiled crack at those who TALK about helping people but don't drop a buck or two in their basket??? Well, this liberal does--and always has. The same sort of back-handed question could be asked of those rich Republicans who drive around with a 'Yellow ribbon we support the troops' deal on their Hummer anad have never served, never mind evene donated to the local 'returning Vets Center'. Just saying.

cruiser	Posted - 7/4/2012 5:40:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "'specious'? I see you're testing it in a few posts today" Did you have to look up the meaning in a dictionary before posting? It's not a word one sees every day. But when one has a vocabulary like mine, one uses whatever words convey their meanings precisely and efficiently.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 7/4/2012 5:52:31 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Uh-huh. You just learned it, didn't you? Hahahahahahaha! Because everybody knows that when you're a MENSA-level aspiring media person, you use words specifically so you can tell people to look them up in a dictionary. You are a hoot and a half, and this place would be Dullsville without you! Have a wonderful holiday!

mpdodgson	Posted - 7/4/2012 7:34:45 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Love to quote your ass "But when one has a vocabulary like mine, one uses whatever words convey their meanings precisely and efficiently" Here's a old quote that "one uses whatever words convey their meanings precisely and efficiently"..... "…”the rest...or some number of them...may be trying to game the system. The percentage is way out of proportion to the number of disabled in previous wars...even Vietnam. that the younger veterans...those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan...are leaning more toward Obama. THE REASON IS THAT FULLY ONE HALF OF THEM ARE SEEKING DISABILITY. Of course, they are more likely to receive it under Obama's entitlement society" See? Quotes are a funny thing. They can come back to bite you in the ass. Maybe you want to spend your time defending the above comments this 4th of July before you start complaining about me using one word twice in one day.

cruiser	Posted - 7/4/2012 8:12:29 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I don't have to defend my words They were perfectly logical and not at all derogatory to those who are genuinely disabled. I said as much in the post you are trying (unsuccessfully) to critiique. You, however, should apologize to every veteran AND every American for being such a left wing idiot. While you do occasionally get all my words in the correct order, you NEVER preserve the context. There is ALWAYS an out-of-place political spin to everything you post.

orthicon	Posted - 7/4/2012 8:21:52 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp.. i happen to be one of those veterans.. and you certainly owe me no apology.. others might.. you don't.. happy 4th..

orthicon	Posted - 7/4/2012 8:22:14 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp.. i happen to be one of those veterans.. and you certainly owe me no apology.. others might.. you don't.. happy 4th..