My sons school called me today to tell me he was in the nurses office because of eye irritation due to allergys. I asked them is they could give him some allergy medicine, they said not without a doctors note and a parents note. I had to drive the 30 miles to give him a teaspoon and a half of over the counter medicine, then drive back to work. That is all fine and good, and that is not what I am complaining about, the thing is, if he were a teenage girl she could go have an abortion easier then it was for my son to get a dose of Benadryl. I am just saying, this is all because of liberals and their stupid ideas.

if he were a teenage girl she could go have an abortion easier then it was for my son to get a dose of Benadryl.

Interesting...

What, precisely, is involved in a teenage girl getting an abortion where you live?

And how do you know exactly?

I am just saying, this is all because of liberals and their stupid ideas.

And how did you come to this conclusion that it is all "because of" the big bad liberal boogeyman?

I am just saying, this is all because of liberals and their stupid ideas.

Care to explain more?

Interesting...
What, precisely, is involved in a teenage girl getting an abortion where you live?

And how do you know exactly?

He's right. The same girl who can get a non-consensual abortion can't get an aspirin from the school nurse.

Care to explain more?
Gererally, when you find an exception or inconsistency in the law, it falls on the side of left wing politics.

The abortion vs. aspirin is a good example.

Another is medical questionnaires that are designed to protect doctors, police and teachers not including AIDS information.

Another is a police officer not being allowed to report the immigration status of a criminal to the INS.

etc.

My sons school called me today to tell me he was in the nurses office because of eye irritation due to allergys. I asked them is they could give him some allergy medicine, they said not without a doctors note and a parents note. I had to drive the 30 miles to give him a teaspoon and a half of over the counter medicine, then drive back to work. That is all fine and good, and that is not what I am complaining about, the thing is, if he were a teenage girl she could go have an abortion easier then it was for my son to get a dose of Benadryl. I am just saying, this is all because of liberals and their stupid ideas.

Yeah, that's pretty silly but I don't think it's because of liberals. Schools do stupid things to cover their own asses. My college had to close a couple of weeks ago because a water line broke and the water wasn't safe to drink. They had "DO NOT DRINK" signs up on all of the water fountains but they closed regardless. Probably to avoid being sued by someone dumb enough to drink the water (it was brown) or some pansy whining that they didn't have access to water for 2 hours.

In your sons case, if you were one of those whacky parents that didn't believe in medicine or medical care because it goes against God's will or whatever you could sue the crap out of them.

Schools should have a certified Nurse,available.
Or at least a system to handle school emergencies.
Therefore a hot number to access a Doctor,very quickly.

I agree with CBL, this is definitely due to the sue-happy culture we live in, which I don't think is the fault of people on just one side of the fence.

I agree with CBL, this is definitely due to the sue-happy culture we live in, which I don't think is the fault of people on just one side of the fence.

Trial lawyers overwhelming support Democrats. Draw your own conclusions. :)

Trial lawyers overwhelming support Democrats. Draw your own conclusions. :)

Why is that the case? I'm too lazy to draw my own!

Why is that the case? I'm too lazy to draw my own!

Trial lawyers usually sue corporations. Republicans usually support corporations.

In your sons case, if you were one of those whacky parents that didn't believe in medicine or medical care because it goes against God's will or whatever you could sue the crap out of them.

and those types are not liberals...

He's right. The same girl who can get a non-consensual abortion can't get an aspirin from the school nurse.

How old does a girl have to be to get a non-consensual abortion? In what states do they allow this?

How old does a girl have to be to get a non-consensual abortion? In what states do they allow this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_US_minor_abortion_laws.svg
There are five or six states that allow abortions with no parental notifications at all.
But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)

Trav, I posted this message on one of the Obama threads last night before I saw the title of this one. It belongs here. Hope you don't mind me adding it to your discussion.


If there's one thing that really bugs me about libs, it's how easily they overlook any moral flaws a fellow lib may have. To hear them tell it, nothing is taboo. Adultery is fine. Drugs are BFD. Abortions are cool. Lying under oath is no biggie. Atheism is so 2008. It's OK for presidential candidates to belong to churches where the minister preaches GOD DAMN AMERICA. Millions of foreign people are being murdered and tortured... so what? We can't help. We need all our military folks to come home so they'll be safe and sound. And we need all that $$$ being 'wasted' to save helpless, innocent people to finance programs to make US more comfortable and secure.

This Country wasn't founded on those premises, folks. To pull the relic card, I remember when the Democrats sweated blood over nominating a CATHOLIC for their ticket. And we ended up with a great president... who also couldn't keep his willie in his pants.

Welcome to the Moral Decay of America. Far as I'm concerned, libs can take full credit for the downfall.

SMW

Trial lawyers overwhelming support Democrats.

Other way around.

He's right. The same girl who can get a non-consensual abortion can't get an aspirin from the school nurse.

No offense but I don't think I will take your word for it.

As CBL pointed out, it is because of the people who don't believe in medicine who will sue the school for dispensing it that created that situation and they are not "liberals".

There are five or six states that allow abortions with no parental notifications at all.

5 or 6 out of 50...
That means that only 44 or 45 do not. :slap:

http://www.wellho.net/pix/mounthill.jpg
Talk about being "Dhramatic" and making a mountain out of a molehill...

:rolleyes:

No offense but I don't think I will take your word for it.

As CBL pointed out, it is because of the people who don't believe in medicine who will sue the school for dispensing it that created that situation and they are not "liberals".
The liberal inconsistency is in the notion that "children" can't even make an aspirin, sexual, spray paint purchase, box cutter purchase decision but are old and mature enough to make an abortion decision.

5 or 6 out of 50...
That means that only 44 or 45 do not. :slap:

http://www.wellho.net/pix/mounthill.jpg
Talk about being "Dhramatic" and making a mountain out of a molehill...

:rolleyes:
Did you read the rest of the post.

"But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

The liberal inconsistency is in the notion that "children" can't even make an aspirin, sexual, spray paint purchase, box cutter purchase decision but are old and mature enough to make an abortion decision.

I agree that there is a logical disconnect there, but I'm not sure if it is simply liberals messing up the system. As I see it, it shows what happens when our government don't operate in a consistent manner, from both the right or the left. As well, the point about the litigation happy attorneys is particularly germane.

I certainly agree that it is ridiculous a child cannot be administered medication by a school nurse. And yes, it is even more inconsistent when a girl can then get an abortion without consent at sixteen. However, the bases for these two policies come from different places, so it is something akin to the apples/oranges comparison.

Trav lives in California.

Aboration is a Parental Consent Law there is it not ?

I agree that there is a logical disconnect there, but I'm not sure if it is simply liberals messing up the system.
I don't think the system is messed up and if it was I don't think liberals are necessarily reponsible for it.

I was just pointing out that if there is an inconsistency in the law it always seems to fall into an area a liberal would favor.

Other way around.
dummycrats supporting trial lawyers? makes sense! they both make their living off the backs of the stupid and unlucky.

LionelHutz: Trial lawyers overwhelming support Democrats.
Dhrama: Other way around.
"The total contributions from the AAJ total more than $27M since 1989, with over 90% of that going to the Democrat coffers...... You might know this organization better as the ATLA (American Trial Lawyers Association),

http://www.helium.com/items/186311-about-monied-corruption-charges

I don't think the system is messed up and if it was I don't think liberals are necessarily reponsible for it.

I was just pointing out that if there is an inconsistency in the law it always seems to fall into an area a liberal would favor.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I can see how you would come up with it. I just don't really think that liberals are as destructive and shortsighted as some believe.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I can see how you would come up with it. I just don't really think that liberals are as destructive and shortsighted as some believe.

While it's true that *Democrats* do have something to do with the running of this country....

....people who are actually *liberal* have virtually nothing to do with the day to day running of the country or the structuring of the extremely conservative, pro-war, pro-militarist, anti-environmentalist system of government we currently live under.

Truly 'liberal' citizens make up a very small segment of American society.......holed up in a few enclaves located in cities like San Fransisco, Berkeley, Seattle and Hartford and New Haven Connecticut.

The liberal inconsistency is in the notion that "children" can't even make an aspirin, sexual, spray paint purchase, box cutter purchase decision but are old and mature enough to make an abortion decision.

In a whopping 5 or 6 states. :rolleyes:

You are being so Mello-"Dhramatic"...

Did you read the rest of the post.

"But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

Yeah, I read it and frankly I don't believe you.

Interesting...

What, precisely, is involved in a teenage girl getting an abortion where you live?

In many states nothing more than her expressing the desire to have one.

And how do you know exactly?

I read the newspapers. Don't you. You seem woefully ignorant of the laws dealing with teenagers and abortions. But then again, you seem woefully ignorant of so many things. There are states in which teens do not need parental permission or even parental notification to get an abortion. The same goes for birth control. They can get that but not an aspirin or cold medication.



And how did you come to this conclusion that it is all "because of" the big bad liberal boogeyman?

Do you honestly think conservatives would be the ones to liberalize abortion laws? Having been involved in public education for more than three decades I can speak from personal knowledge that liberal teacher's unions have had a large say in the dispensing of any sort of medications, including aspirin, without a doctor's and parent's written permission.

The difference between the school giving your son some cough syrup and a dr doing an abortion is that a non medically trained person is not allowed to administer medication to anyone other than themselves and their dependants.
Non medical personnel do not take a medical history and they are not trained to look for or see oddities that may cause problems.


And it would be the republican lawyers that would sue the schools ass of it they administer meds and something happens to the kid.

My sons school called me today to tell me he was in the nurses office because of eye irritation due to allergys. I asked them is they could give him some allergy medicine, they said not without a doctors note and a parents note. I had to drive the 30 miles to give him a teaspoon and a half of over the counter medicine, then drive back to work. That is all fine and good, and that is not what I am complaining about, the thing is, if he were a teenage girl she could go have an abortion easier then it was for my son to get a dose of Benadryl. I am just saying, this is all because of liberals and their stupid ideas.
This all could have been avoided if you had aborted the sucker.

This all could have been avoided if you had aborted the sucker.
not funny.

not funny.

...but that is easier!


BTW.... agreed, Mike... it's NOT funny, only easy.

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?
No... As a product of public schools at the beginning of the "no tolerance" hysteria, I fully believe that.

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?
Since I've grown up with that system for the past 12 years, I find it hard to question its existence.

I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I can see how you would come up with it.
I just don't really think that liberals are as destructive and shortsighted as some believe.
I don't conclude that from my examples either.

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?

Yes the whole thing seems far fetched...

In a whopping 5 or 6 states. :rolleyes:
You are being so Mello-"Dhramatic"...
For the third time:

"But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

Yeah, I read it and frankly I don't believe you.
I don't care.

For the third time:

"But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

Suuuuuuuuure it does Mr. Brooks.
Sure, that happens all the time...
Sure it does. :rolleyes:
</sarcasm>

Brooks:There are five or six states that allow abortions with no parental notifications at all.
But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)
Dhrama: 5 or 6 out of 50...
That means that only 44 or 45 do not. :slap:

Talk about being "Dhramatic" and making a mountain out of a molehill...
"5 or 6 out of 50...

That means that only 44 or 45 do not."
No offense but I don't think I will take your word for it.

Brooks: "But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

Dhrama: "Yeah, I read it and frankly I don't believe you."

Here's the breakdown:
No parental consent - 6 states
Judicial bypass (the one you didn't believe) - 33 states
"Consent enjoined or not enforced" - 9 states
Determined by doctor - 1 state
Consent required - 1 state
http://www.reproductiverights.org/st_law_notification.html


Although I think the "I don't believe you" argument is adorable (my daughters used to use it), I'm sorry to disappoint you with facts and a chart from a "reproductive rights" website.

Since your entire counter to my argument has been that this isn't true, now what?

1. The difference between the school giving your son some cough syrup and a dr doing an abortion is that a non medically trained person is not allowed to administer medication to anyone other than themselves and their dependants.

2. And it would be the republican lawyers that would sue the schools ass of it they administer meds and something happens to the kid.

1. Then why is it that hospitals need parental consent before they can take non-life threatening actions such as setting a fracture? It's because medical consent is required for everything else besides abortion.
Your above explanation is made up, isn't it.

2. "The total contributions from the AAJ total more than $27M since 1989, with over 90% of that going to the Democrat coffers...... You might know this organization better as the ATLA (American Trial Lawyers Association),
http://www.helium.com/items/186311-a...uption-charges

Since your entire counter to my argument has been that this isn't true, now what?

You have not proven the ease of getting a Judicial Bypass that you are implying by saying there "is no parental consent" in states that require parental consent but where a judicial bypass is a legal possibility. How often are judicial bypasses actually obtained for abortions with no parental consent and how many abortions with parental consent happen in those states by way of comparison?

I am simply saying that I think you are being mello-"dhramatic"... again.

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?
Dhramatic side-kick: "Yes the whole thing seems far fetched...

Here's an example of a form a parent and a doctor have to fill out in order to give a student an over the counter medicine
http://forestpark.groupfusion.net/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/4035/File/medication%20authorization.pdf?sessionid=6462d6866 b6f0cb4a82a49ffda85d84c

Here's another:
http://www.evangelbaptistchurch.org/forms/3g5_permission_to_give_medicine.pdf

This is from another school's procedure:
10) School staff shall not administer other medication (e.g. aspirin or acetaminophen) to students without a written prescription under any circumstances.
http://www.stjohnsdayton.org/Religious%20Ed/Policies/STUDENT%20MEDICATION%20PROCEDURES.doc

This is from Washington State Law:
"Washington State Regulations REQUIRE written permission and directions from the physician/dentist AND parent/guardian for ALL medications given during school hours. No exceptions.
http://www.orting.wednet.edu/Images/mmDocument/district/Medication%20permission.pdf

Any other questions.

Did it ever occur to anyone to just use normal precedure.
When a kid gets sick in school,they're sent home.
What's the big deal.
The kid goes to the principles office,and sits in a chair,while
the principle calls home to establish a guardian.
If worst comes to worst,the Principle is obligated to care for
the student or drive student home or to a relatives residence.
Liberals just don't know how to use good old-fashioned sense.
Is All.

Any other questions.

Yes, Can you be any more mello-dhramatic?

:lolhit:

1. You have not proven the ease of getting a Judicial Bypass that you are implying by saying there "is no parental consent" in states that require parental consent but where a judicial bypass is a legal possibility.
2. How often are judicial bypasses actually obtained for abortions with no parental consent
3. and how many abortions with parental consent happen in those states by way of comparison?

Your entire argument up to this point has been that you don't believe me. I show you proof and you change the argument to "you have not proven the ease of getting a Judicial Bypass".
Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes you're really wrong but now you're just being a jerk.

Not that the ease of "judicial bypass" is even relevant to this, but now what will you say about this:
"It is also noteworthy that almost all adolescents who exercise the judicial bypass option provided in parental consent/notification laws governing abortion are successful in obtaining court permission to forgo parental involvement (Ambuel, 1995; Crosby & English, 1991; Pliner & Yates, 1992)."
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html


I can see it now: "Yeah but you haven't shown that the state is providing transportation".

Does anyone else here have a hard time swallowing the **students in the U.S. school system cannot be given an aspirin by the school nurse** claim.........?

As someone who's immediate family has more than 75 years in education I know for a fact that schools cannot dispense aspirin without written permission from a doctor and parent.

Yes, Can you be any more mello-dhramatic?

Wow, you really countered the aspirin argument with that.

Sucks when facts get in the way.

Your entire argument up to this point has been that you don't believe me.

Not exactly. I think you are being mello-"dhramatic" and blowing this way out of proportion.

It would be more accurate to say that in general, I take you with a large grain of salt.


I show you proof

Proof of what?
You are the one who is trying to say that the legal possibility of a Judicial bypass is the same as "no parental consent".

You have not shown me anything to justify such a "dhramatic" leap of logic.


and you change the argument to "you have not proven the ease of getting a Judicial Bypass".

I am not "changing" anything. That is a key point to your entire argument. :slap:


Not that the ease of "judicial bypass" is even relevant to this, but now what will you say about this:
"It is also noteworthy that almost all adolescents who exercise the judicial bypass option provided in parental consent/notification laws governing abortion are successful in obtaining court permission to forgo parental involvement (Ambuel, 1995; Crosby & English, 1991; Pliner & Yates, 1992)."
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html


I would say that it seems to me that Judicial Bypasses are only given in cases where it is well justified, such as in cases involving abusive parents.

I also submit to you as evidence that you are wrong (http://www.miplannedparenthood.org/courtconsent.htm) and the judicial bypass is not the same as no parental consent:

Q. What happens in court?
A. First, you will fill out a form (known as a petition) asking that the court give you permission to get an abortion without having your parent’s permission (consent). You don’t need to use your full name–you may just put your initials on your petition. Everything that happens in court will be kept secret and all documents will be sealed. Second, you will sign another form–an affidavit–with your full name, and this will be kept confidential. Then the clerk will arrange a time for you to see the judge in a private hearing. During the private hearing, you and your lawyer will meet with the judge who will ask you a few questions. If after talking with you the judge decides to give you a judicial bypass, you will get a written order saying that you have permission to have an abortion without your parent’s consent. You must bring the permission form with you when you go for your abortion. If you lose the form, you need to go back to court or your lawyer to get another copy.

Q. Do I have to go to a judge in the county I live in?
A. No. The law lets you file a petition anywhere in Michigan.

Q. What does the judge need to know? What will they ask me?
A. The judge must find you mature and informed about your decision to have an abortion, or decide that it is in your best interest to have an abortion, before s/he will give you a judicial bypass. The questions a judge might ask you vary from one judge to another. You should be prepared to answer questions like these:

* Do you know how an abortion is done, and do you understand the medical risks?
* How did you make the decision to have an abortion?Are you aware of alternatives to abortion, such as adoption and parenting the child?
* What steps have you taken since you found out that you were pregnant?
* Who have you talked with about your pregnancy?
* Why are you unwilling or unable to tell your parents? Are you worried about their reaction to your pregnancy? What do you believe would happen if you told them?
* Do you work? Where and when do you work, and how much money do you make? Do you go to school?
* What is your relationship with your parents like?
* What are your plans for the future? Do you plan to work or go to school?
* What do you know about birth control? Are you planning to use it in the future?


If a girl is willing to go through all of that to get a judicial bypass so her parents don't know, she must have a really good reason.

AND A JUDGE GETS TO DECIDE WHETHER SHE HAS A GOOD REASON.

I have to wonder what kind of parents would instill such fear in their child at the thought of knowing about her being pregnant or getting an abortion that they would go through all of that?


WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS ON ADOLESCENTS? (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html)

Parental notification and consent laws can have harmful psychological and health consequences for the minors affected by these laws. By restricting adolescent access to confidential contraceptive services, these laws can result in an increased number of unintended pregnancies.

These laws often have the following additional unintended effects:

*

Delayed timing of contraceptive services and/or abortion, which increases health risks and expenses (Ambuel, 1995; Lieberman & Feierman, 1999; Melton, 1987; Pliner & Yates, 1992);

*

Stress, fear, and anxiety for those adolescents who go to court to obtain a judicial bypass for an abortion (Crosby & English, 1991; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990);

*

Intrafamilial conflict in abusive homes (Ambuel, 1995; Melton, 1987; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990); and

*

Restriction of adolescent access to abortion resulting in teenage parenthood or the use of dangerous extralegal methods of abortion (Crosby & English, 1991; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990).

As someone who's immediate family has more than 75 years in education I know for a fact that schools cannot dispense aspirin without written permission from a doctor and parent.

Well Danny it's yer and yer Family's fault we have such
a crises in Public Education and retention.

Sucks when facts get in the way.

Yeah, you would know. :rolleyes:

You are the one who made the claim you cannot back up.


"But of the others, the law usually allows minors to acquire a judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired (in other words no parental consent there either)"

You are wrong.

You know it.

And you are resorting to calling me a "jerk" for pointing out the facts and how wrong you are.

Grow up.

:slap:

Yeah, you would know. :rolleyes:

You are the one who made the claim you cannot back up.



You are wrong.

You know it.

And you are resorting to calling me a "jerk" for pointing out the facts and how wrong you are.

Grow up.

:slap:

I find you and FT,like Hillary.
Boat yuz,are seemingly Piggy Proud,but are also Priggishly incapable of
just admitting err,with some semblance of Humility.

dhramabum: Proof of what?
You are the one who is trying to say that the legal possibility [what do you mean by legal possibility] of a Judicial bypass is the same as "no parental consent".
This is from the paragraph you posted about judicial bypass:
"First, you will fill out a form (known as a petition) asking that the court give you permission to get an abortion without having your parent’s permission (consent)."

I would say that it seems to me that Judicial Bypasses are only given in cases where it is well justified, such as in cases involving abusive parents.
First, I think that's why it was established.
Second, what part of "almost all adolescents who exercise the judicial bypass option provided in parental consent/notification laws governing abortion are successful in obtaining court permission to forgo parental involvement" didn't you understand?

I also submit to you as ...evidence that you are wrong[/URL] and the judicial bypass is not the same as no parental consent:
This is from the paragraph you posted about judicial bypass:
"First, you will fill out a form (known as a petition) asking that the court give you permission to get an abortion without having your parent’s permission (consent)."

and then, we have dharma's STINGING, BACKED UP rebuttal to lawyers voting democrat by saying:

"other way around"

ooooooo now THAT one hurts!!!

LMAO

MrBrooks: Second, what part of "almost all adolescents who exercise the judicial bypass option provided in parental consent/notification laws governing abortion are successful in obtaining court permission to forgo parental involvement" didn't you understand?

I don't understand how you can spin the word "almost" into "the same as" and expect to be taken seriously.

Your "dhramatic" leaps of logic (gaps in logic, really) just make me laugh.

:lolhit:

You guys make everything a liberal or conservative issue. Allergy to Aspirin is a very common thing among kids. Also, Rye Syndrome. I'm no doctor (but I play one on TV). But maybe nurses are not giving aspirin because the kid may have an allergy to it.

What is a conservative issue is that families of 4 pay close to $ 1,000 per month (either directly or through employer) and they still have to pay a co-pay to the doctor and also a co-pay at the pharmacy. That my friend will be the downfall of American small business, unless we put a stop to it.

What is a conservative issue is that families of 4 pay close to $ 1,000 per month (either directly or through employer) and they still have to pay a co-pay to the doctor and also a co-pay at the pharmacy. That my friend will be the downfall of American small business, unless we put a stop to it.

What solution do you propose?

What solution do you propose?


This is a tough one. If I knew the answer to this one, I'd run for president.
However, the government does and has in the past regulated cable and utility companies to ensure that they just don't keep increasing the cost to consumers every year. It seems that health insurance premiums go up by 10% to 20% every year for the last 5 years. Although last year the increase was not too much. If the government can control prices of cable TV, I think there should be a cap on how much the health insurance companies can increase the premium every year. Just a cap!

For most families of four, we are probably only using about $ 2,000 per year of that $ 12,000 premium we are paying. We are being fucked!

This is a tough one. If I knew the answer to this one, I'd run for president.
However, the government does and has in the past regulated cable and utility companies to ensure that they just don't keep increasing the cost to consumers every year. It seems that health insurance premiums go up by 10% to 20% every year for the last 5 years. Although last year the increase was not too much. If the government can control prices of cable TV, I think there should be a cap on how much the health insurance companies can increase the premium every year. Just a cap!

For most families of four, we are probably only using about $ 2,000 per year of that $ 12,000 premium we are paying. We are being fucked!

I find your solution reasonable, if only a stop-gap measure.

If you were a politician you can expect that you would be criticized for "imposing big government regulations" and "punishing success" and would probably be called a "socialist" and a "communist" for your trouble.

I would personally rather see government provide health insurance and take that burden off our businesses so we can be more competitive in global markets.

As it stands right now, the health insurance "industry" is little more than scalpers who profit off being a middleman in a transaction and providing no value to the transaction itself.

I find your solution reasonable, if only a stop-gap measure.

If you were a politician you can expect that you would be criticized for "imposing big government regulations" and "punishing success" and would probably be called a "socialist" and a "communist" for your trouble.

I would personally rather see government provide health insurance and take that burden off our businesses so we can be more competitive in global markets.

As it stands right now, the health insurance "industry" is little more than scalpers who profit off being a middleman in a transaction and providing no value to the transaction itself.

Yes. You would think that a strong a rich country like the US should be able to provide healthcare to its tax paying citizens - like the UK. Sure the healthcare may not be the best there, but atleast the common man has a safety net to fall on if he gets sick or injured. And people who can afford more sophisticated care and procedures are able to get them. But here, many people in the US go broke because of medical bills.

Everyone asks "well how would we pay for it?". Well I ask, how are we paying for this war? As I said before, the money ain't coming from Jesus.

Where I live, I am of one of only two democrats here (surprisingly the other democrat is a retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company). Everybody else is republican. They are always pushing for lower taxes. I say to them that we live in houses much bigger than most can afford (10,000 sqft plus), we drive 4 or 5 of the most high end cars available on earth, what more do you want?

As I see it, our US society/system has allowed us to succeed. It is our own doing of course, but the US system has provided a proper "playground" for us to succeed in - the proper legal system, infrastructure, business laws, etc. etc. Its ok to give back a little to that system that supports you in return.

Yes. You would think that a strong a rich country like the US should be able to provide healthcare to its tax paying citizens - like the UK. Sure the healthcare may not be the best there, but atleast the common man has a safety net to fall on if he gets sick or injured. And people who can afford more sophisticated care and procedures are able to get them. But here, many people in the US go broke because of medical bills.

Everyone asks "well how would we pay for it?". Well I ask, how are we paying for this war? As I said before, the money ain't coming from Jesus.

Where I live, I am of one of only two democrats here (surprisingly the other democrat is a retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company). Everybody else is republican. They are always pushing for lower taxes. I say to them that we live in houses much bigger than most can afford (10,000 sqft plus), we drive 4 or 5 of the most high end cars available on earth, what more do you want?

As I see it, our US society/system has allowed us to succeed. It is our own doing of course, but the US system has provided a proper "playground" for us to succeed in - the proper legal system, infrastructure, business laws, etc. etc. Its ok to give back a little to that system that supports you in return.

Well said.
I agree with you.

What more do the cons want? They just want more. They believe that "greed is good" and they feel justified in wanting more than they need or can possibly use.

Social responsibility is anathema to them because it repudiates their philosophy of greed.

Well said.
I agree with you.

What more do the cons want? They just want more. They believe that "greed is good" and they feel justified in wanting more than they need or can possibly use.

Conservative Healthcare: The Let 'em Eat Cake Plan

Yes. You would think that a strong a rich country like the US should be able to provide healthcare to its tax paying citizens - like the UK.

*able to*...............?!?!?

Of course the U.S.A. would be able to, if it so wished.

But the far right Corporatists who run the country vastly prefer seeing the money spent on building ever more bombs and tanks and warplanes, so as to facilitate the waging of endless (and unnecessary) "wars" in foreign nations.

The far right Corporatists who run this country would much rather have a few more hundreds of billions sitting in their bank accounts than to see adequate healthcare made available to all the People, like most other First World nations have done.

The tragedy is that this Corporate faction --with their iron control of the mainstream Media-- has been able to convince the gullible Public to vote for and support the very same politicians that would deny the Public a national health care system; they have brainwashed the electorate into voting against their own best interests.

The tragedy is that this Corporate faction --with their iron control of the mainstream Media-- has been able to convince the gullible Public to vote for and support the very same politicians that would deny the Public a national health care system; they have brainwashed the electorate into voting against their own best interests.

Ultimately that may be the epitaph written on the tombstone of our Democracy.

For families like mine, with a lot of medical expenses, our health insurance is actually great. If we had to pay out of pocket for even all the prescriptions for my parents and me (we pay nothing for most prescriptions right now), we'd be paying more than we pay for our insurance. And that's not even taking into account the multi-thousand dollar surgeries that would cost about twice as much if we didn't have insurance. Our dental coverage sucks but that's about it.

1. I don't understand how you can spin the word "almost" into "the same as" and expect to be taken seriously.
2. Your "dhramatic" leaps of logic (gaps in logic, really) just make me laugh.

1. I didn't

2. I love how you call me by your name as an insult.
It is an insult, but I can take it.

Ultimately that may be the epitaph written on the tombstone of our Democracy.


Yeah, its amazing how the right wing machine has made healthcare into a political thing. It should not be a liberal or conservative thing, its a human thing to do. Also, it is completely brilliant that they have personified certain issues:
Global Warming = Al Gore (you can't even discuss global warming without people brining up Al Gore)
National Healthcare = Hillary Clinton (same as above)
Then they go ahead and attack the issue and the person that they have tied it to as if they are one in the same. AND PEOPLE FALL FOR IT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

Yeah, its amazing how the right wing machine has made healthcare into a political thing. It should not be a liberal or conservative thing, its a human thing to do.

That's just it, MeskDXB.

The brand of ConservaFascism that has taken control of this country and its government has nothing to do with expressing humanity, or caring for human needs. Its approach and philosophy is decidedly anti-human in outlook.

Hence, they have made certain that the sheep have no national healthcare system like the rest of the more advanced nation have. Might cut into the profits of the conservafascist's cronies in Big Pharmaceuticals. Can't have that.

2. Your "dhramatic" leaps of logic (gaps in logic, really) just make me laugh.


2. I love how you call me by your name as an insult.


a) He did not "call you" any name.

b) Not the sharpest pencil in the box when to comes to recognizing sarcasm, I see.

ROTFL.

society.......holed up in a few enclaves located in cities like San Fransisco, Berkeley, Seattle and Hartford and New Haven Connecticut.


Have you been to SF and Berkley? They are awful places crawling with filth and crime, as are most liberal cities

Have you been to SF and Berkley? They are awful places crawling with filth and crime, as are most liberal cities

I used to live in the Bay Area in CA.
San Francisco is one of the cleanest big cities I have ever seen. It is immaculate compared to New York or Chicago. Especially the BART system.

Berkley is a typical college town.

You must have gone to San Francisco in Bizzaro world. The SF in California is full of bums and panhandlers who shit in the doorways of buisnesses and constantly harrass the population. Berkley is the same.

No Trav, they are utopian palaces of elite masterminds where buildings are constructed in gold and everyone is peaceful and calm. Oh, and they smell their own farts and have about 10,000 wine and cheese shops too LOL.

You must have gone to San Francisco in Bizzaro world. The SF in California is full of bums and panhandlers who shit in the doorways of buisnesses and constantly harrass the population. Berkley is the same.

Like every big city, SF has its bad sections, but as I said, in general it is cleaner than New York or Chicago and is much nicer than Detroit.

Again, Berkley is just a typical college town.

You must have gone to San Francisco in Bizzaro world. The SF in California is full of bums and panhandlers who shit in the doorways of buisnesses and constantly harrass the population. Berkley is the same.

When it comes to panhandlers, #1 worst city I ever visited was PORTLAND, OR. They were so brazen, they'd follow you down the street, demanding a handout. First time I ever attended a conference where an announcement was made on how to deal with the bums on the street prior to the lunch break.

#2 was SAN FRANCISCO, CA.

Liberal havens, indeed.

San Francisco is s smelly, dirty place that I would never take my family to, that is all I know. They have "family" events that turn out to be whip and leather parades. SF is a joke. If that is what "real" liberalism has in store for us count me out.

ANY city is nicer than detroit. Saying a city is nicer than Detroit is like saying a certain color is lighter than black.

San Francisco is s smelly, dirty place that I would never take my family to, that is all I know. They have "family" events that turn out to be whip and leather parades. SF is a joke. If that is what "real" liberalism has in store for us count me out.

I am starting to doubt that you have ever been to San Francisco and you don't seem to know much about it outside whatever rumors you might have heard on right wing talk radio.

Of course anyone that contradicts you in anyway is a liar right? :rolleyes:

Of course anyone that contradicts you in anyway is a liar right? :rolleyes:
So when you were in San Francisco, you were at a family event that turned into a BDSM parade?

no man, I said I don't take my family to SF, weren't you paying attention?

Yes Dharma.. even though people have BEEN THERE and SEEN it with their OWN eyes.. they must be mistaken and drinking "right wing radio coolaid"... you are such a tool.

no man, I said I don't take my family to SF, weren't you paying attention?

So this was a lie?

They have "family" events that turn out to be whip and leather parades.

no man, I said I don't take my family to SF, weren't you paying attention?

I took mine once... it was a great opportunity to teach the kids all about deviant sexual practices. I especially loved the free porn on every corner. Only other place I've seen literature like that is in Vegas.

Yes, it is a lie, nothing like that ever happened in god fearing SF :rolleyes:

So this was a lie?

Yes, it is a lie...

Ok, just making sure.

There you go again, taking peoples quotes out of context

Yes, it is a lie, nothing like that ever happened in god fearing SF :rolleyes:

Dhrama knows all about lying... he does it with such ease.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
There are people in the house, like Sander Levin, who I have met and spoken to in person...

Like my mama used to say, "He lies when the truth won't hurt him."

There you go again, taking peoples quotes out of context

Don't blame me because you decided to tell lies. :rolleyes:

whatever man, I am sick of you and your stupid games. maybe if you were just honest you would not have to pull stupid stunts to make it look like you won an argument for once. Asshole.

maybe if you were just honest you would not have to pull stupid stunts to make it look like you won an argument for once. Asshole.

You are projecting... again. :rolleyes:

OK, how many of your quotes have I chopped up so as to make it look like you said something I wanted you to say? none. You have done that to me at least 6 times, and every time you make it seem like it is no big deal, but if someone did that to you you would, oh WTF, every time I "argue" with you I feel like I am arguing with my 5 year old daughter. It is not worth it. Better to let you think you got the best of me so you move on to other shiny objects.

dharma needs maturity.. and quick...

I won't cross my fingers though.

OK, how many of your quotes have I chopped up so as to make it look like you said something I wanted you to say?

If I quote one sentence out of a paragraph to respond to that specific point, it is not changing anything.

Face facts, you were exaggerating and being a silly "dhrama"-queen. Your rant had nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with your own prejudices.

You keep getting mad at me because I keep pointing out how silly you are.

You keep getting mad at me because I keep pointing out how silly you are.

That's like Hitler telling someone how fascist they are.

first of all, you did not, and do not, take a sentence out of a paragraph. You take a sentence and break it down. Please refer to post # 88 please. This is NOT the first time you have done this, and every time you try and worm your way out of it with the same bullshit.

first of all, you did not, and do not, take a sentence out of a paragraph. You take a sentence and break it down. Please refer to post # 88 please. This is NOT the first time you have done this, and every time you try and worm your way out of it with the same bullshit.

I did not change anything in that quote.

Quit your damn whining.

You got called out for your "dhrama" and now you are acting like a 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum.