Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"

Agreed.It can even be said that the Middle East is getting more progressive, despite Islamic fundamentalist having semi, and in some case total, control. I am more progressive than my father, and he was more progressive than his. That is a common evolution for social ideologies that is gained ONLY through open dialogue.But, in this case, the opinions of the people are being dictated by the media, as is common for issues where distracting the public is needed. Healthcare is one of those issues. While the Big Dogs divide the money within themselves, behind closed doors, we the "bewildered masses" rip each others throat apart due to misinformation.CS and Phage are misinformed as to the outcome of a (properly run) universal healthcare plan, and I blame the mainstream news outlets for this confusion. But, we can, as fellow Americans, have discussions with them to (possibly) better inform them. Why should we turn our backs on people who've been lied to by the media?You have people on TV calling it socialism! How fuck'n retarded are these people? I'll tell you... they are not retarded at all. In the middle of that hyped up frenzy is a well thought out plan of mass confusion, set up to distract, while others convene and work out the real issues and make sure everyone gets paid.Meanwhile, citizens just get more and more divided.How easy is it to call to arms conservatives? Or liberals? It should really be evident how indoctrinated into a system of media control the US has become, when matters concerning healthcare are divided by party lines. It's as if no one has their own opinion anymore and simply agree with which ever side their particular news channel is on.We can help them though, and we should. Fair enough, he was acting like a bit of a douche. I think he was just trying to push your buttons. IMO, not when the root of the issue is the media misinforming people. The media creates the lies, people believe them, then argue in support of those lies.We can fix that with honest discourse that brings to light the fact that people have been lied to. Exactly. And by showing creationist that the so-called creation scientist are lying to them, you can change peoples minds. Not all, of course, I'm realistic. But ignoring them only gives them a chance to come up with more lies. Again, once people have been lied to and they believe these lies, the only approach at that point is to attack the source of the confusion. The media. Our fights should not be against one another, they should be against the media that continuously lies to people. I agree with you for the most part. I just feel that (both of our) efforts should be targeted to the sole entity responsible for the problem. The media. Some people have been made to feel like they're not a part of this country anymore by the greedy, filthy mainstream media which lies to them. It's not their fault they feel this way, and IMO, it's up to us to change it.- OniPS. You said "tea-baggers"

I don't know how easy it is to call liberals to arms, but it seems to me that it isn't easy. It could be that liberals are just like the Democrats - each have their own issues and interests and focus on those rather than jumping onto every bandwagon that comes along. Conservatives, on the other hand, are a well-oiled machine. Just looking at the tea-bagging thing and the town hall debates, you can see how easy it is to get conservatives out there to cause a ruckus despite it not being helpful to the debate. Even Wilson, a congressman, shouted out "you lie" during a speech the President was giving.When you look at the parties today, the Republican party has become increasingly homogeneous, focusing on having a single point of view for almost every issue. Think about it - you never hear from the pro-choice Republicans even though they are out there albeit increasingly rare. That's probably why many former Republicans have switched parties or have become independent. The Democrats, however, suffer from the increasing heterogeneity because it becomes more difficult to form a consensus (think Arlen Specter). In fact, despite the super-majority, the Blue Dogs are what is keeping meaningful reform from happening.Anyway, for people to have productive debate, the issues need to be talked about and people need to learn the facts of the debate. Otherwise the ruckus just prevents the rational people from begin heard.

Setting aside the fact that polls of the nation show large support for healthcare reform, these television ratings are bogus.If you'll notice, there are some minor differences in the titles of the shows compared to what they're normally called. "A" Daily Show and The Colber"T" Repor"T". These names come from during the Writers Guild Strike, when Viacom forced these shows back on the air despite not having writers. In a show of solidarity, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert changed the names to emphasize the fact that these are not the quality shows people should expect with their brilliant team of writers. Most of the shows were heavily ad-libbed, and while funny, they resorted to a fake feud with Conan O'Brien just to fill time on all three shows. Ratings would be quite noticeably down during this time. I'm not sure when a representative time would be, but an average over a year or two would probably be better, and I would pick a year without an election or a writer's strike on TDS, TCR {iand[/i] O'Reilly and compare apples to apples.I still think Fox is going to have higher ratings...but there are probably more than a few liberals who watch Fox for the reality show drama of it rather than because they actually agree with it.

Really? Start a thread and title it: Pro-choice vs Pro-life, or one titled: Gay marriage vs Traditional marriage, and see what happens.It's very easy to provoke either side IMO. There are hot-button issues that will trigger an emotional uprising from either parties supporters. How could you say that when almost every single issue facing our country is divided right down party lines? And the liberals did the same thing during Bush's term, and neither side EVER adds anything to the debate except more mass confusion. They're not rare at all. It's just that the news media sees no use for them right now and has down-played that whole issue... for now. Until it's needed as a distraction, then they're back on the TV rallying. Give it time and you'll see it happen.The media dictates where the focus is, not the citizens. You don't hear a word about gay-marriage anymore either, do you? Why? Same as the pro-choice people; there's no use for them right now. When there is, they'll be in the spotlight once again. Give it time. That's a good point. But it's the media's job to keep us misinformed of what's going on, so that we can't focus on anything and we just add to the ruckus.The media is the true enemy of progress and we seem to only focus on individual opinions. Meanwhile, the individual opinions are coming directly from what the mainstream media is saying. Like I said, people don't seem to have their own opinions anymore, they just agree with whatever news source they watch.- Oni

I think there is a big difference between someone who can't see through the fog and people who deliberatly shut their eyes because they KNOW they have the right answers.It is the former that I am talking about here because they aren't a product of the media, they are trying to drive it. They have a very specific agenda that is contra to the democratic process of open debate and discourse.It is a sad fact that out system can be moved by such blatant manipulation of the media but its a fact of human nature.(total side note, whatever you think of the guy, you should pick up Al Gore's book "Assault on Reason". I never really liked the guy 100% from his public perception but he is a fantastic intellect and this book is absolutly amazing at describing the influence that technological media has had on democracy.)So until we change the way people think and vote ("with their minds" rather than "for their lives"), the only recourse is to fight fire with fire. The media can be pushed by the same forces, outrage and controversy generates ratings and we can tap into that. All the non-crazy commentators using all the inuendo about the tea-baggers (he he) was exactly the right tact to take. Those kinds of people need to be ridiculed beyond recognition and done as publically and outrageously as possible.As for fixing the media, the internet is already helping with that. I only use TV news to suppliment my information intake and often times it really isn't necessary (its just nice to watch certain interviews sometimes). What we really need to fix is JOURNALISM and that is a bigger problem because you really need an institution to support journalists and as the traditional sources are less inclined to do so, at the same time the distributed structure of the internet makes it difficult to do there as well. I think the only real hope there is in the realm of professional blogging, a whole network of co-op and independent journalists that will end up being the primary source for most news in the future. There is a critical mass issue with getting that going but it should be possible.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

That's not necessarily true. Remember Proposition 8, a Californian constitutional amendment which limited marriages to a man and a woman? California is a heavily Democratic state and African-Americans are typically Democrat supporters. Well, it passed in California because of the African-Americans who went out to vote for Obama. Even though African-Americans traditionally vote Democrats, on this issue where they sided with the conservatives simply because those African-Americans were church-goers. You'll find this often - liberal issues that resonate with one group of Democrats don't resonate with another group of Democrats. Environmentally conscious Democrats will often clash with pro-logging Dems. Dems who support welfare often clash with Dems who don't support welfare. Blue Dogs will just as often vote with Dems as against.Compare that party disunity with the Republicans and conservatives in general. Conservatives are extraordinarily good at walking lock-step.Even look at the news for this past weekend. Which news organizations covered the gay rights march in Washington this past weekend? I'm willing to bet not many. Compare that to Fox News, which provided coverage for the tea-baggers' march which was also this past weekend. Conservatives walking in lock-step. You'll have to show me an example of an interruption at a town hall meeting during Bush's Administration. Remember too, protesters were bringing guns to Obama's town hall meetings. I don't recall that happening at any of Bush's town hall meetings. I'll grant you the media isn't helping matters, but speak to any pro-choice, or even moderate republicans and most will tell you the same thing: they feel increasingly left out of a party that they feel has been taken over by the more extreme faction. The worst of it is that if the moderate Republicans don't toe the party line, they are called traitors to the cause, called RINOs and punished for having views that conflict with the ultra-conservative view. Arlen Specter switched parties because the guy who was going to run against him in the Republican primary would've beat him because that guy is more conservative than Specter. Specter said so himself. The Democrats, on the other hand, had in their ranks Zell Miller, a guy who consistently ran as a Democrat but almost always sided with his Republican colleagues in the Senate. And don't forget Lieberman, a Democrat who campaigned for his pal McCain in 2008. And what did the Democrats do to Lieberman? Gave him a committee chairmanship. If a Republican had done for Kerry what Lieberman did for McCain, the Republican Party would've never been so kind. And that's what happened to Colin Powell, a moderate Republican who supported Obama. Colin Powell was rejected as a member of the Republican Party, called a traitor and a RINO.There's a big difference to how Democrats operate and how Republicans do.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Your seriously going to compare the tea-baggers to war-protesters?I'll tell you one major difference right off the bat, one is funded by the health care lobby, energy lobby, and Neo-conservative PACs and the other is not.The tea-bagger are creating confusion, but they are the only ones because it is a FALSE outrage. It does not match what we know to be true which is why it confuses people.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Specifically to one another, no.Let me clarify what I meant since you and Izanagi both replied to this. What I meant is that it's easy to get both sides out there to cause a ruckus and add nothing to the debate.Both sides seem motivated by media inspired rethoric (pro-choice/pro-life - gay marriage/anti-gay marriage - pro-gun/pro-gun control, etc, etc, etc). For every one conservative nut job spouting garbage motivated by the media there is his liberal counter-part spouting garbage as well.The point being that each side using this type of propaganda never acheives anything.And it's obvious why the media promotes such acts of stupidity, because that kind of hype sells advertising space on their networks.- Oni

One of the things that pisses me off is that my girlfriend and I are waiting to have kids. She's still in school and we're gonna wait until after she graduates and gets a decent job with health benefits so that she has adequate insurance and we can afford it better.What we're not doing is saying fuck it, lets just let the government pay for it. She could easily get aid as a single mother. We could probably even "bleed the beast", so to speak.Now, last April, one "everyone for himself" guy was explaining to me how, regardless of what you do have, you should claim 2 kids on your taxes, ones from different mothers, so that you get the most money back. I was appauled.I'm taking great strides to put myself in a situation where I am capable of taking care of myself and my own without having to rely on the government while the people around me are saying fuck it, let someone else take care of me.That's the kind of experiences that cause me to not want to give more free shit to people. Its not just the jobless blacks... there's a shitload of "everyone for themself"s out here and I think they're having a significant impact on the system. Providing them more opportunity to take better advantage is something I oppose. Yes, I think you're right. I'm not convinced that universal healthcare is not going to cost me, personally, more money. I might save money on insurance costs, but at the end of the day? Somebody's gotta pay for this stuff, its seems us single middle class income bracket guys are the ones who have been doing it. that was hilarious even though it was off the markWhat are you gonna get? Another one of these:

Even with insurance the way it is now you could be screwed. I was and I have pretty darn good private health care. For an accident of nature we pretty much got wiped out to zero even with insurance. If we would not have had insurance we would have been screwed. I make too much to get any government help, and kids aren't covered by government help while they are in the womb. This is called tax fraud and is a crime. How is it the government's fault that this guy is deciding to break the law? What if you can't take care of your own? What if your own is a child and the only thing preventing you from helping your own flesh and blood is money. Would you blame yourself for wanting your neighbors to help you in that situation? Hell, wouldn't you go door to door with a bucket if that is what it took to save your child? What about instead of giving "free shit to people" you say lets get together and all join the same insurance pool that we create via our democracy? Yes some people are going to pay more and/or use less of the insurance but that is the nature of insurance. God bless you if something tragic never happens to you and you end up paying more as a result of your good fortune. But if something does happen to you, I am more than willing to pitch in to help.And for those who can't afford to pitch in, by us helping them we know that more of them get to the point where they can pitch in. The deadbeats where you are are the minority. That IS a fact.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Good catch Perdition! Damn, I forgot all about the writers strike. You figure I'd remember since one of the scripts I and a few other writers were pitching got rejected once that strike hit and banks stopped lending studios money.You're right that it won't reflect the actual numbers. Good point as well. Yea I concede on the TV ratings; both you and Jazzns have made good points on that.- Oni

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. The strength of a community lies in the willingness of the people to stand together for the common good, to help each other in times of need, and to work together to solve our problems. When a community stands as one, works as one, and acts as one, there is very little that can stand up to the combine strength and determination of that community. But once the bonds of community are broken, once the self becomes more important than the neighbor, once a person becomes willing to stand upon the backs of his fellow man to grab the fruits for himself, the community weakens and crumbles under the assault of the world.By helping the less fortunate members of a community, the community potentially gains more than if it did nothing at all. Perhaps one of those individuals will go on to contribute much to the community, either through intelligence, creativity, or strength that the person wouldn't normally would not have been able to contribute had the community not provided help. The community also gains the dedication of the individuals, for if the individuals know that the community is there for their benefit, then the individuals will do what they can to make the community better.But if the community chooses to ignore its members, what reasons do the individuals have to help the community? For what reason should an individual be dedicated to a community if the community has no interest in the individual?We find ourselves divided and our own self-interests are dividing us against each other. How long do you think the US can survive as a divided nation?

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

I got, what I felt was, screwed by my insruance. I damn near cut my thumb off and, even as one of those macho guys who doesn't ever feel like he needs a doctor, I realized that I was definately gonna need some help in this instance.I went to the emergency room at a hospital that was specifically covered by my insurance. Little did I know that the emergency room was ran by a third party, out of Texas IIRC, that was not covered by my insurance. So instead of paying 80% they only paid 20% of the cost.I was pissed because I went to that hospital on purpose because I was under the impression I was covered. I can see how if it would have been something much more serious, I could have been.. (I actually heard this one from one of our customers) stuck between a wet dog and a fly rod. I was exemplifying the mentality that runs rampant 'round herr, not blaming the government, to explain why my attitude is negetive. If its such a great idea, then why the need for federal legislation to force people into the group? Can't you all create this thing without making laws that include me? I'm not convinced. It could go the other way too, where more deadbeats are getting more free shit and perpetuating their deadbeatary. Plus, now that they have better healthcare, they can multiply even more. How do you know that society, as a whole, wouldn't be better off if we reduce the problem but preventing their multiplying by maintaining the current healthcare? Should I just take your word for that?

Including all those nice things you mentioned it also gets us cold hard cash.Everything the government spends money on has a multipler attached to it denoting how much economic activity it creates. On the low end are things like tax cuts and military spending. Those are about a dollar for dollar investment. Things like food stamps, unemployment insurance, health care, social security, have multipliers greater than 1:1 so they actually put money back into everybody's pocket. If you have a 401k (or save money at all) and are bitching about health care, your also an idiot for not looking out for your own pocketbook. (Liberals tend to ignore this argument because the moral argument is much more important to us).As a side note, the social program with the greatest ROI is education. Don't hold me too hard on this number but I remember somewhere it being listed as a 1:10 (inflation adjusted) or more return. The only problem is that the return happens much later hence the comment about inflation.Beyond the direct economic benefits there are some indirect ones. Our companies are competing with other nations that DO provide universal health care. So while Japan is essentially subsidizing Toyota by paying that benefit to its employees and keeping its workforce healthy, we are telling our car manufacturers to go f' themselves and compete with them anyway. Then when our US manufacturers live off of tini-tiny profit margins in order to compete we yell at them when they tank during a recession.And yet we wonder why manufacturing is leaving this country like it has the plague. There are in fact other reasons besides this but I'll tell you what; if I wanted to build a factory right now I would do it in Canada instead of the US in a heartbeat. If I am going to have a business where my employees are going to be doing potentially dangerious physical work with machines and such you better damn well believe that I am going to want to be in a country that is interested in keeping those employees healthy. It is my bottom line.Conservatives? Aren't you pro-business? Anyone?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

It's not a reply to a message in particuliar but I have a question for you, what makes you think that universal healthcare will cost you more?
I already pointed it out to you that countries (like France) that have universal healthcare pays less per capita as well as a percentage of their gdp for healthcare and get better results regarding infant mortality and life expectancy. It means that on average, everyone would pay less for better results.
What makes you think that somehow, only the middle class would pay more whereas all the others would pay much less?