MANDATORY health insurance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
sounds like they're just punishing diversity of thought.

and liberals socialists are supposed to be so open-minded!

Fixed that for you.

I'm sure we all know it's all about $s. Pissing off a tiny group of troglodytes is much better than pissing off an entire nation of people who at best fully support marriage for all, and at worst, really don't give a rat's ass who marries whom.
 
Champion of diversity in all but thought.
I don't live by the relativist creed of "It's all good' so no hypocrisy on my part. I believe in individual freedom of choice but reserve the right of others to judge the results of those choices.

(though a golf clap is deserved for the innuendo)

That's my point. I can understand being offended or under-whelmed by sophomoric humor. But how is one "offended" by a businessman touting the virtues of free-market capitalism over statism?
 
That's my point. I can understand being offended or under-whelmed by sophomoric humor. But how is one "offended" by a businessman touting the virtues of free-market capitalism over statism?



first, i reject your simplistic bifurcation of the issue.

but you're playing into my point. i personally don't care what the owner of Whole Foods does or says.

however, there are people who want to protest, and they are exercising their right to protest. you seem to think this is foolish when it happens on the Left, yet the people screaming about Hitler in town halls are just exercising their free speech?

that's the hypocrisy i'm talking about. there's not much appreciation for "diversity of thought" on the Right, is there?

i also agree with not agreeing with the "relativist crowd." i don't tolerate the bad thinking that says, "well, you can have a different opinion on homosexuality" or that says that "socialism is like Hitler."

you're trying to go both ways.
 
That's my point. I can understand being offended or under-whelmed by sophomoric humor. But how is one "offended" by a businessman touting the virtues of free-market capitalism over statism?

If a progressive executive in a service-related company in a primarily conservative area began promoting his or her political or social views, and that resulted in customer dissatisfaction and boycotts, would we expect anything less?

So, it would be equally as ridiculous for the consumers in my scenario to be "offended" to the point that the shareholders would want to remove the executive in order to mitigate losses to their company? Or would they merely be exercising their free will as consumers?
 
however, there are people who want to protest, and they are exercising their right to protest. you seem to think this is foolish when it happens on the Left, yet the people screaming about Hitler in town halls are just exercising their free speech?
Never said they didn't have said right. I just don't understand being "offended."

Unless,

public policy disagreement with President Obama is less difference in political philosophy and more blasphemy.

Unless,

Democratic healthcare reform is less legislation and more scripture.

Then I could understand being offended.
 
Never said they didn't have said right. I just don't understand being "offended."

Unless,

public policy disagreement with President Obama is less difference in political philosophy and more blasphemy.

Unless,

Democratic healthcare reform is less legislation and more scripture.

Then I could understand being offended.



you just seem to find some forms of protest more acceptable than others.

the only scripture-like worship going on is that of the "free market" and how it fixes everything, despite nearly bringing us to total ruin at the end of 2008.
 
you just seem to find some forms of protest more acceptable than others.

I suppose you're right. I find it much more acceptable to protest against the confiscation of wealth by the government than to protest for even more of it.
the only scripture-like worship going on is that of the "free market" and how it fixes everything, despite nearly bringing us to total ruin at the end of 2008.

Ruin (your word) of what? Only the most prosperous economy and creator of wealth in human history. And since when do Fannie and Freddie qualify as examples of free-market capitalism?
 
I suppose you're right. I find it much more acceptable to protest against the confiscation of wealth by the government than to protest for even more of it.


yes, i see your point here. protesting is cool when you agree with it, not cool when you don't. tactics are only acceptable when you agree with the cause.


Ruin (your word) of what? Only the most prosperous economy and creator of wealth in human history. And since when do Fannie and Freddie qualify as examples of free-market capitalism?


the ruin of said economy. Reganonmics are dead and buried. only the wealthy have truly benefited proportionately since 1980, and what good came to the middle and lower classes happened in the 1990s. the period from 2001-2006/7, when there was total GOP control of the House, Senate, and Presidency led us to the financial disaster we're still stuck in, and won't come out of for a long time when it comes to deficit and employment. it was the New Deal and it's reforms that created said "prosperous economy and creator of wealth," not it's dismantling.
 
So, it would be equally as ridiculous for the consumers in my scenario to be "offended" to the point that the shareholders would want to remove the executive in order to mitigate losses to their company? Or would they merely be exercising their free will as consumers?

See my Ben & Jerry example. I don't care if they're tie-dyed liberal hippies. Their busness model works and they're a net plus to the economy.

And Ben & Jerry's is sure preferable to a state-run/tax-subsidized/one-flavor-fits-all/we-decide-if-you-need-it-or-not ice cream store.
 
I suppose you're right. I find it much more acceptable to protest against the confiscation of wealth by the government than to protest for even more of it.
And do you honestly think that's what most of them are protesting?

And since when do Fannie and Freddie qualify as examples of free-market capitalism?

Ha ha, the conservative "understanding" of the economy: "Fannie and Freddie did all of this".
 
.
UK Dailymail
The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
By Jenny Hope and Nick Mcdermott

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.
The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000.
Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.
Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.
Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.
Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.
One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.
Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.
'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.
'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.
'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.'
The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.

Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening.
Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan for the exact time and place of every birth.
'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a named midwife.
 
And this has to do with healthcare in the states how? We'd have to really overpopulate at an alarming rate to ever have this problem...
 
See my Ben & Jerry example. I don't care if they're tie-dyed liberal hippies. Their busness model works and they're a net plus to the economy.

And Ben & Jerry's is sure preferable to a state-run/tax-subsidized/one-flavor-fits-all/we-decide-if-you-need-it-or-not ice cream store.

Right, you did say that.

But don't you agree that it's the right of all citizens on either side of the political spectrum to choose to support or not support businesses as they see fit? If only we were all as politically blind as you. ;)


Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.
Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.
Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.
One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.

So essentially, what this article is saying is that sometimes babies come when they decide to come, and it's not always at an opportune place. Also, sometimes maternity wards are full, so mothers in labour are moved to other hospital rooms and wards, or, on rare occasions, sometimes other hospitals.

It's really not that hard to parse that from the "oh noez!!! Mothers are giving birth to babies in the streets cause the health care system is inadequate and failing them!!11!!" implied tone of this piece.

And if a poor or working class person could have the healthcare they needed without jumping through hoops or bankrupting themselves, I'd gladly give birth in a hospital, but outside of the maternity ward.
 
we could go back to no government provided or private health insurance and have people being born in barns

that was good enough for ...

oh never mind, this is the public market place of ideas
 
we could go back to no government provided or private health insurance and have people being born in barns

that was good enough for ...

oh never mind, this is the public market place of ideas

Sorry Mary, no maternity rooms at Bethlehem General Hospital. Try down the street at Saint (to be named in a couple a hundred years).
 
Sorry Mary, no maternity rooms at Bethlehem General Hospital. Try down the street at Saint (to be named in a couple a hundred years).

Oh, that's funny. But tell me - how many babies are put at risk every year because of the US health care system? How many expectant mothers are foregoing prenatal care? How many don't give birth under proper circumstances? Why is your infant mortality rate higher than many other western nations, including those with socialized health care?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom