Ensuring insurance
Jul 21st, 2009 | By Nunzia Rider | Read more in: Politics
I have a really nice healthcare plan. It does what I need it to do with minimal hassle. If I wanted to insure a same-sex partner, I could do that.
I haven’t tested it on any big ticket items, short of a surgery several years ago, but the plan has changed since then. The percentages have changed. The co-pays have gone up. The part of the premium I pay — with my employer paying the rest — has gone up.
I’m lucky, I know. I have a close friend, a friend who works in the medical profession, who has no health insurance. Zero. Her doctor employer doesn’t provide it and she can’t afford it. Her partner’s insurance doesn’t cover same-sex partners.
Should anything happen to her, god forbid, she’s screwed.
She doesn’t even have catastrophic coverage — insurance strictly for big ticket items. For those “lucky” enough to have just that much coverage, they’re missing any kind of preventative care that might keep them from having to dip into the catastrophic care.
This is not a good system, although for the moment, it works for me. Or does it? Depends on what I need.
The naysayers whine that fixing health care in this supposedly enlightened nation would end up costing taxpayers money, would force us to ration care.
But we already do that. Badtux:
If you are in the United States, health care is rationed according to your family income and insurance status. If you need, say, a knee replacement, and you have money and insurance, you immediately jump to the front of the queue. If you need a heart-lung replacement due to chemotherapy killing your lungs, well, you’ll get the first one but then your insurance will be dropped and you will be sent home to die.
Yet every time anybody proposes to solve this problem of people being killed by this nation’s heartless, brutal, and murderous health care system that rations by sending healthy people to the front of the line and sending sick people home to die, we’re told “it can’t be done.” Nevermind that every other industrialized nation does it, they’re can-do nations and we’re can’t-do America. We can’t do this, we can’t do that, we can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t.
Nice to know that if my notoriously hinky knee finally gives up the ghost, my insurance is likely to take care of it for me. But cancer? Maybe not.
Meanwhile, Sean Hannity is lying to the Fox “News” audience.
If we look at the provisions of the [House] bill, it’s pretty astounding. For example, if you’re not — if you don’t have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can’t get that later on from your employer.
That’s a lie. The bill very specifically says the opposite. In pretty plain language.
The conservatives lie about other things too. They’ll tell you that liberal health care reform is slavery, that it will take away your right to make decisions about your own health care. What planet are they from? Jesse Taylor of Pandagon:
The crux of this argument, as it is with so many conservative attempts to convince people that they’re standing on the Gold Coast of liberal slavery, is that the government may take away one of those decisions you love making, like whether or not you harangue your doctor for a $86 prescription to Flomax or how long to stay at this shitty job given that you think you might have diabetes.
Autonomy in the sense of personal liberty, from a liberal perspective, revolves around the idea that we are free to make decisions about the course and direction of our lives, even though those choices may not be particularly favored by society. The liberal safety net is designed (or supposed to be designed) to allow for people to move from activity to activity, job to job, in order to figure out what works best for them – in essence, to maximize their happiness. There is a concept of shared sacrifice, but there’s also a concept of shared benefit – opportunity has costs, and it makes more sense if those costs are distributed so as not to potentially ruin those who seek it. There is still room for success and failure (and the consequences thereof), but you are at least provided the chance to succeed or fail.
Conservative autonomy, on the other hand, is the autonomy of money. It doesn’t matter if you’re locked into constricting social roles, shut out of jobs, bolted down to a single place doing a single thing for the entirely foreseeable future, so long as nobody tells you how to spend your meager paycheck. If you were going to dinner, liberal autonomy might land you in a vegan restaurant or in a rib shack or at a really terrible taco stand, but the nice thing about it is that you have all of those options. Conservative autonomy would land you at any Applebee’s that took your new Discover Card, so long as you didn’t get one of those homo arugala salads.
Not Michael Steele. Not even a representation of Michael Steele. But Mike Tyson will try to scare you too.
Then there’s GOP chairman Michael Steele, screaming “Socialism! Socialism” about healthcare reform as if it’s the only word he knows, but when pressed on specifics all he can do is shuck ‘n’ jive something vague and ignorant about how he “don’t do policy.”
And then, of course, there’s the rest of the goons jumping up and down and waving their arms maniacally screaming that we’re moving too fast, that health care reform needs more time to get right.
More time? More time? We’ve been dealing with this very issue for how long now? Maybe about 60 years, since the UAW tried to convince the Big Three automakers to back their push for government provided health insurance — a plan that would have pre-empted the employer-provided insurance they all bitch about now? Southern Beale:
“Slow down” has to be the most dishonest GOP talking point since Dick Cheney simply stated there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. But fine, if that’s how you folks want to play it, let’s roll with it. If the GOP talking point is 60 years isn’t enough time to figure out a national healthcare policy, then clearly you people are idiots who cannot govern your way out of a paper bag.
I have just one thing to say to you folks: time to get out of the fucking way.
That’s true, but that’s not their problem. Their problem is that they got their marching orders from the Ayatollah Limbaugh back in January: Obama must fail. If he succeeds, it’ll be a cold day in hell before Republicans again have the control they need to continue dismantling the promise of this nation and making life easier for themselves and the other rich folk of America.
That’s the plan. Stop Obama. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMented was all over that this weekend, talking about how he and his buddies planned to “break” Obama by stopping health care reform.
None of this is any surprise. We’re talking about the party of no here. Hell, they even have a 12-page memo explaining all these strategies to stop this bill.
The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,
the memo says. Of course, we haven’t seen any “sensible alternatives,” but that might be because the GOP really doesn’t want to change the way health care is done here, given that it’s such a cash cow for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. The status quo, it’s all right by those guys, although they do make a lot of noise about how health care costs families and businesses too much.
I guess that means that business shouldn’t be in the business of providing health care. And families should only have it if they can afford it.
And that means there’ll be millions more like my friend — on top of the millions in her shoes already — who won’t get the coverage they need.
But hey, the emergency rooms will never hurt for business.
AWOP contributing editor, politics
On Facebook
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
News Writer,
I know you and I have a somewhat shaky relationship to start with, and my comments here probably aren’t going to help. Rather than give you a bunch of opinions, facts, or humorous anecdotes, let me just address a couple of things you said.
You quote (accurately) Sean Hannity in saying “…if you don’t have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can’t get that later on from your employer.”, and then you add “That’s a lie. The bill very specifically says the opposite. In pretty plain language.”
What is that language? On Page sixteen, under the ironically titled “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage” section, under the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section, it states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.” Okay, I’m not a rocket scientist (I think we all know that), but doesn’t it pretty much say that, if you’re not signed up with your private insurance company the day the law passes, you can’t. In pretty plain language.
As for Conservative autonomy, stating “It doesn’t matter if you’re locked into constricting social roles, shut out of jobs, bolted down to a single place doing a single thing for the entirely foreseeable future, so long as nobody tells you how to spend your meager paycheck” call me crazy (again, you probably already have), but I know people in dead end jobs, people who yes, will probably be in such jobs for life, but I’ve yet to see anyone actually holding a gun to their heads keeping them there. And I think that whole “constricting social roles” thing lost a lot of steam once we elected an African-American president.
Sure, some people are going to have a tougher time “making it” than others. If I had to bet, I’d be willing to bet a white kid born in the suburbs has a better shot at a job with health care than a black kid from the ghetto, but I’d also bet on the black kid from the suburbs over the white kid from the ghetto. But that’s another argument for another day…..
This is the part where you tell me I don’t “get it” and accuse me of racism, an accusation that seems pretty lame after your Michael Steele comments (… but when pressed on specifics all he can do is shuck ‘n’ jive something vague and ignorant about how he “don’t do policy.”)
The steam also went out of the “Their problem is that they got their marching orders from the Ayatollah Limbaugh back in January” comment, considering that Obama actually held a conference call with liberal bloggers yesterday, a conference call which, by the way, he admitted that he was unaware of the specifics of the healthcare bill he is currently pushing.
And yes, the Republicans have a plan to stop this bill. It’s a bad bill, and stopping it is a good thing. That being said, it would be nice if they actually had a good bill of their own…..
As for ““Slow down” has to be the most dishonest GOP talking point since Dick Cheney simply stated there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had WMDs”, I could say “what’s the rush”, but I actually feel that this is an issue that deserves prompt and quick attention. However, I think the goal should be passing the right bill, not hitting a deadline. As for the “WMD” jab, I give you this: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
I could give you similar ones from Clinton (Bill & Hillary), Gore, Kerry, and just about every other liberal icons, but you get the point. And as for the “We’ve had 60 years to fix this”, you are 100% right, but sadly we haven’t been talking about it for that long, or more to the point, no one was listening.
I also don’t understand the whole “For those “lucky” enough to have just that much coverage…” crap. It’s not like Company “X” is going to hire 30 people for sales positions, and give insurance to the “lucky” eight. I worked in retail management most of my life, and I can’t tell you the huge number of twenty-something’s that refused company provided insurance because they didn’t want to pay their share of it. If you have a shitty job, get a new one. And don’t give me that privileged crap, because it is crap. Sure, a high school drop out raised by a single mother with a kid of her own isn’t likely to get a nice middle management job, and waitressing or fast food isn’t likely to have a health insurance option, but even a cashier at Target can get insurance. And from their she can become a shift leader, and then maybe get a job at the Famous Footwear next door as an assistant manager, and then maybe someday manager. Is she going to become CEO of a fortune 500 company? Probably not. Does she have the opportunity to make something for herself and her kid? Yes she does, because I know plenty of people who started out with less than my fictitious friend here who did just that.
And finally, I’m not even sure if you are even aware that you used a certain term, and if you are aware, I wonder if you really thought about what you were saying. That term: “government provided health insurance”. Government doesn’t provide shit, and even if they pass this bill – which they probably will in some form or another – and get into the health care insurance business, it will be the TAX PAYERS that are doing the providing.
Now lets take a minute discussing what we agree on. I agree with you when you say “Of course, we haven’t seen any “sensible alternatives,” but that might be because the GOP really doesn’t want to change the way health care is done here, given that it’s such a cash cow for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies”, and the same statement holds true for the Democrats and the Unions and Lawyers. You want to drive down insurance costs, how about Tort Reform. General practitioners paying over $111,000 a year for malpractice insurance – not 111k of coverage but PAYING $111,000 – can not be helping health insurance costs.
Is health care screwed up? Big time. Do I have the answers? No. Do the Republicans or the democrats? Well, they have the answers that are best for their special interests, the answers that will keep them in power, but do any of us really believe that heath care will be better when these folks are done with it?
Now if you want to attack me, then do so. If you want to have a real debate on the issues, lets try that for a change.
[Reply]
I don’t like to complain, but it really bothers me when people make comments that are longer than the original post. And when it is a negative comment, it seems like a cry for attention.
News Writer, you made some great points. That guy should leave the writing to the professionals.
[Reply]
thank ya kindly, joeyjo. i preciate the vote of confidence.
[Reply]
Joey Jo,
I admit that I can get long winded, and I’ll try not to in this response. News Writer did make some great points, and also made what I felt were several erroneous ones. If there was a single error (in my judgment), my response would have been shorter. If you disagree with any of my views, lets debate.
[Reply]
Bob,
Get a blog of your own. No, I’m serious. They are available for free through Blogger or Wordpress.
No one comes here to read your rambling comments: they come here to read News Writer’s work. The only way to measure your impact on blog readers is to get a blog of your own. Who knows, you may create the next Powerline or Instapundit. Or you may fizzle, receiving no attention and no comments. But as long as you are posting your gigantic screeds here, you don’t know. You can’t, for example, see me, eyes glazed over, paging rapidly past everything you write. And it appears to me you need such a lesson in blog reality.
One other thing. Some of us… including me and including the proprietors of this blog… pay real money for our bandwidth. That means that when you post long things here frequently, you are effectively blogging on someone else’s coin. There are many words one might apply to that practice, but “conservative” is not one of them.
[Reply]
News Writer
Reply:
July 24th, 20092009-07-24T15:51:48ZF jS, Y at 11:51 am2009-07-24T15:51:48Zg:i a
[Reply]
I missed this one due to transporting Mrs Mike to her cancer treatments. Treatments which the government insurance would’ve partially covered had Dumbya & the GOP Congress not decided Medicare was good enough for us retirees. Now that I’m IN a ‘government’ program, our coverage from Medicare is actually far more comprehensive than our old Government Employee coverage was. Surprising, considering how badly the government runs stuff. (according to some) Many don’t realize that (most)Government Employee coverage is actually private coverage from about every major insurer.
As for Bob’s inane comment about staying in ‘dead-end’ jobs, I think ‘MOST’ stay for their families sake and lack of ability to switch financially. Not everyone has a nice bank balance that allows them choices of that magnitude. I see folks like that coming in for help more and more these days. The biggest change I see is how many were both well-off and conservative.
Nothing like a good dose of poverty or even greatly reduced lifestyle to get them to see who really has THEIR interests at a high priority. One thing I really hear a lot is can you imagine if Palin was president?
[Reply]
ps…as a notoriously long-winded Geezer, I still agree with the ’10s’ awarded to Mr Bates. I’d actually like to see a higher score, but that would be inflationary:):)
[Reply]
1) I was invited to visit this website by a contributor and friend, Lori at Hahn@home. Actually I didn’t receive a personal invite, I received a generic one on Facebook. Lori has since deleted me as a friend on Facebook, I guess the left preaches tolerance only for those who agree with them. That’s okay, I still consider Lori a friend, and will continue to read her posts here and at Hahn@home, as I find her writing style very engaging and her memories of our hometown to be very entertaining.
2) It was Lori, or it might have been News Writer, who, upon my agreeing with one of their points of view early on, said something like “That’s great you agree with us, but why not go and put forth that view on a conservative website that doesn’t share our view”. Great advice, and I did just that, and in that same spirit, I am here, learning new things, and challenging ideas, facts and opinions I either know to be or consider to be incorrect. This is a great opportunity for you to either educate me, learn from me (yeah, I know that’s not going to happen), or, expose me for the wing-nut I am, further solidifying your position.
The problem is, no one (okay, almost no one) ever wants to debate ideas or discuss issues, they’d rather make assumptions about me (usually off, occasionally dead on), berate me for my support of Palin or McCain (despite the fact that I have never supported either – although I did come to Palin’s defense once), complain about Bush, or just call me names. Whoever said “”The debate is over” is a line that is used only by those who realize they would never win a debate.” was dead on.
3) AWOP Rule #3: “Spirited discussion is encouraged”. Yeah….. not so much. Spirit AGREEMENT perhaps, but discussion……
4) Steve, I do have a blog of my own, however in the last six weeks or so that I have been reading and commenting here, I haven’t mentioned it, because my purpose here was not to plug my own blog – which I haven’t actually bothered with much since the election ended – but rather to discuss and debate what I consider important issues with what I consider intelligent people. I’m not interested in “measuring my impact on blog readers”, I’m interested in intelligent discussion.
But, since you mentioned the blog, it is http://www.lostiowandiary.blogspot.com
While I could stick to my own blog, or stick to “like-minded” blogs, I doubt any real “progress” is attained by simple issues with people that share your point of view. I do however agree with your comment that “Blogging on someone else’s coin” is anything but conservative. Doing ANYTHING on someone else’s dime is purely a liberal ideal.
5) AWOP Rule #7: “Don’t just say we’re wrong. Prove it. If you can’t, shut up”. Again, not so much. I’m not even to try to prove so much that you’re wrong, but try to discuss what are usually not just black & white issues. I’m not even given a chance to “Prove it” because real debate and discussion is discouraged.
Also, doesn’t this rule work both ways? You can call me wrong, and that’s it? Again, I’m not even looking for “proof”, but something more than a “No you’re not/yes I am” answer would be nice.
6) And Mike, you too (along with the great Wil Robinson), are one that I really enjoy reading, not just you political pieces but your life thoughts on your website. I probably get the most out of our back-and-forths, and have learned a great deal from you in the past, especially in the old Red Hog days. It is because of your disdain for the “sound bite society” we live in that I try to really express and discuss my ideas and ideals fully.
7) As for those of you who really have trouble stomaching my comments, don’t read em. And if those at AWOP decide they want to censor, delete or “disemvowel” (which by the way was hilarious…. hypocritical, but still hilarious) me, there is nothing stopping them from doing so, other than the fact that they lose a bit of the “progress” they desire… Okay, even I realize that sounded like I thought my musings were too grand to be missed, something I am accused of here. What I REALLY meant was, can you really be promoting a progressive society, when you are so intolerant of opinions other than your own?
Look, if I’m being disrespectful, tell me. I don’t think I am being, and if I am it has never been my intention to disrespect anyone at this site. Disagree, yes. Disrespect, no. Snarky? Yeah, sometimes.
In the meantime, I will continue to read, compliment where I can, and disagree when I feel it necessary. Whether I’m allowed to comment is your call. Whether you decide to read or not read those comments, is your call. I am hopeful of some debate and discussion, but even if I don’t get it, I’ll still read the blog, as I appreciate much of the writing and style here. I’ll probably continue to be misrepresented, but that’s okay too…. As long as things don’t get boring.
[Reply]
Wow, Bob, you did it again. Some folks just don’t get it.
I read approximately the first two sentences of your comment before MEGO (“my eyes glazed over”). I, too, like to write; that doesn’t mean the world likes to read what I write in huge quantity, especially on someone else’s site. Inflicting your sententious tomes willy-nilly on the readers of another blog eventually turns you into a troll, however polite you may or may not be.
Bob, if you worry that, without you, we won’t ever be exposed to “conservative” ideas… and I use the word loosely… set your mind at ease. Many hours a day, we are forcibly exposed to your kind of claptrap. Sometimes, we’ve simply had enough of it. Take your “discussion” and go back to your own blog with it.
Aside: I merely skimmed your comment, but it doesn’t appear that you answered the issue of your repeatedly taking someone else’s self-paid bandwidth for your own purposes. That doesn’t count as “dialog”; that counts as theft.
[Reply]
Steve,
It’s hard for me to take your criticisms of me seriously when you admit you “merely skim” my comments. If you don’t like what I have to say, and it appears you don’t, I give you full permission to not read my comments. I think I’ll live.
As for “repeatedly taking someone else’s self-paid bandwidth for your own purposes”, despite the fact that I didn’t see your name on the “Team AWOP” page, I’ll address it. My comments on these pages are not for my own purpose, but rather addressing false comments and misrepresentations (as I see them) of the AWOP writers. I do not comment on an article about healthcare by giving my opinions of the 2nd amendment or the war in Iraq. Given that at the end of each article there is a section for “comments” – and I am actually commenting on something from the article, I feel that I am doing what the author intended.
As for the length of my rants, it would probably be easier for me to limit my words if, when I question a comment or issue, the person responding to me addressed my question, rather than personally attacking me, or turning the discussion on one thing (i.e. health care), into something else (i.e., Sarah Palin, George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc…..).
And while you may be right that “Inflicting your sententious tomes willy-nilly on the readers of another blog eventually turns you into a troll”, posting a feature on a “progressive” website, one that claims to value free speech, and then not only discouraging discussion or debate of those ideas, but heaping additional misrepresentation on top of misrepresentation, is ironic at best, and hypocritical at worst.
[Reply]
Oh, Bob, call the waaaaahmbulance! Your free speech “rights” are being infringed! And they’re being infringed while you’re speaking at great length at someone else’s expense! If this were my blog… no, I wouldn’t ban you, I’d turn everything you write into lorem ipsum. That wouldn’t change its comprehensibility one bit. Give it up, man.
[Reply]
Bob, doubtful this will penetrate your skull either, but since you’re never going to accept ANYTHING not ‘Bob’s Mantra’ such as this comment: “addressing false comments and misrepresentations (as I see them) of the AWOP writers”, I’ve decided to no longer spend my time replying to your diatribes with overly verbose and always futile attempts to apply cogent argument to what you write in future.
Despite what you think, some of us DO read AND comprehend conservative writings. Therein seems to be the difference, we ‘comprehend’ what we read and can actually stand in another’s stead to attempt see from their viewpoint as best we can, and achieve some degree of success doing it. After some time reading your promotion of ‘what Bob believes’ I actually hoped you’d look up a word I carefully chose for one of my latest replies to you, as (to me) it describes your comments when taken as a whole: schizophrenic.
As for this “Al Sharpton, Keith Olbermann, or some random liberal dr. in some other state say or do something idiotic, I don’t ascribe that behavior to the entire left wing”; my only comment is does ‘dr’ imply Phd? As a holder of 2 Doctorates in Engineering Disciplines, who despises being referred to as ‘Dr’ almost as much as I despise ‘Native American’, I guess you’re attempting to denigrate those who have invested the effort to achieve this in ANY Discipline.
Since you can not relate (NO, you REALLY CANNOT!!) to that which doesn’t fit your black or white, hot or cold, this or that, views as evidenced by your own words and your feeble attempts to appear ‘worldly’, you’ll NEVER ‘get’ BEING a minority, BEING actually impoverished, BEING open-minded, EXPERIENCING sharing and accepting knowledge that conflicts with your view of reality. Don’t bother ranting on in reply, as I’ve decided to restrict my information(?) input to only that of those exceeding B. O’Reilly in intelligence, roughly 85% of the world population.
I note that in another mini-rant you’ve taken to Bible phrases, ” why do you see the piece of sawdust in another believer’s eye and not notice the wooden beam in your own eye”. It’s attributed to one of the most liberal beings of all who’ve walked the Earth, Jesus Christ. It’s from Luke 6 and is one of several times it appears in various forms as a parable used by Christ. Always strikes me how those most rabidly ‘Un-Christian’ in their core beliefs & behaviors are almost always in direct conflict with the beliefs attributed to their ‘Savior’. Guess it’s another ’schizophrenic thing’ & I’m incapable of grasping why this should be.
Maybe it’s that the old Goebbels quote (YES, OUT OF CONTEXT for clarity) that speaks so clearly to what the AVERAGE right wing leader subscribes to (Cheney & Bush et al pertain) “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The one thing that ALWAYS amazes me about certain ‘Bobs’ is their absolute certainty in the correctness of what they believe, FACTS, EXPERIENCES of MANY others, and lack of their personal comprehension be damned. YES!! I DO CHANGE MY MIND and quite often, but only when presented with a cogent argument, personal experiences (mine & others) on a large (non-situational or single issue) scale, and those pesky things ultra conservatives and ultra liberals despise: FACTS!!
Bye Bob, it’s been ‘interesting’. Old Injun sincerely appologizes to AWOP Team for using bandwidth for personal ranting. Will go say 5 ‘Hail Marys’, which roughly translates to “Have a good stiff Single-Malt 18 year reserve Scotch” in Passamaquoddy;)
[Reply]
I have an idea Steve. Go back to one of my “rants” – either this post or any other – find a point that I make regarding the post in question, a point that you don’t agree with (that shouldn’t be hard), and debate me on it. Either you are unwilling to do this because you think I’m right (not bloody likely), you think you have nothing to add to the discussion, or the topic at hand doesn’t interest you. If it’s either of the last two, what’s your problem.
Look, apparently I’m some kind of right-wing whack job, incapable of threading two words together let alone a coherent thought, so I should be an easy target, yet you seem to only focus on bandwidth.
And I’ll tell you what, since you’re so worried about bandwidth, I invite you and everyone else at AWOP to visit my site, leave lengthy rants of your own, and I won’t even limit you to discussions about my particular posts. It’s a free-for-all. I also promise that, regardless of what you say or what you call me, there will be zero threat of banishment or “disemvowelment”.
Mike, I’ll keep my responses to you short and sweet, if possible. First, the use of Dr. vs. dr. was merely a mis-punctuation on my part. Amazing that someone could read so much into that, yet I was suppose to ascertain Newts supposed distrust of government itself from your misquote. Talk about schizophrenic.
And Mike, I have been poor, dirt poor. I don’t understand where minorities have the corner on open-mindedness. No, I’ll never know what it’s like to be a minority, and you’ll never know what it’s like to be, what, a “majority”? So. I guess using that argument you’ll need to stop complaining about conservatives, “the rich white man”, or whatever, since you couldn’t possibly no what they’re experiencing.
Oh, and the biblical quote was from Matthew 7, vs 3-5, not Luke 6 (God forbid I get that wrong, given the hatred flung for picking the wrong origin of the Witch Dr. (capital “D”). And the purpose of the quote wasn’t to push a Christian ideal – if you had actually read earlier comments you would know I am agnostic – but that the actual point of the quote fit the situation.
[Reply]
Bob, Bob, Bob, THIS will have to be final. Just once I wish it were in my abilities to see you actually engage your thinking ability free from preconceptions ingrained into you somewhere along the way.
1st) Obviously I was unclear about the dr vs Dr part; I give a rat’s ass about your punctuation, I was offended by the tone in which it was used, which showed your disdain for those of more education than yourself if you don’t like what they say. Jerry Falwell was an ass, but he DID EARN the title.
2nd) “dirt poor’ seems to mean far different circumstances to you; the picture of you living in an uninsulated, dirt floored, drafty, leaky, one small wood stove to heat both rooms where generally upward of 6 people live without running water, outside toilet facilities(unheated), little to no food, money, or hope. To me, THAT’s DIRT POOR. Even that’s good compared to some places I’ve stayed as a guest of those living there.
Bob living that way more than as a token overnight stay is difficult to picture. Bob living with that grinding poverty unimaginable. The 1st place I describe is how many of my relatives lived in the pre-1970s. NOT BY CHOICE either. I was adopted by ‘white, well-to-do’, but not monetarily well off, a situation I remedied through hard work, study, help of others, and a whole lotta luck!! So, YES!! I CAN relate, having lived at the bottom, middle, and higher rungs of prosperity.
Contrary to common belief, “money is the root of all evil” is NOT the original phrase. “love of money is the root of all evil” is a much better translation.
3rd) A self-proclaimed agnostic such as yourself is apparently not required to know that the closest translation to your ‘biblical quote’ can be found in several forms, places (Luke 6 41-42) and ALL vary greatly in different ways from the original language in which written.
4Th) Enlighten yourself, LOOK UP and try to understand Schizophrenia, cogent argument, and spend some time with the writings of those you quote, and please don’t waste time verifying what politicos ‘really said’ as most are speaking as you write, situationally or as a “single issue of the moment” proponent or opponent.
LASTLY: That you answered in the way you did tends to support my observations of my, now no longer, final reply to you.
AWOP TEAM, mea culpa, gomen nasai, my bad (my EGO is more likely ‘it’)!!
[Reply]
“and debate me on it.” – Bob
NO! What’s in that for me? What’s in it for AWOP? What’s in it for anyone who normally visits this site? Bob, you are complete and total waste of time! I’ve met trolls like you before, and they end up absorbing vast amounts of other people’s limited lifespans. How stupid do you think I am, to “debate” someone (i.e., listen to you pontificate) about stuff that gets crammed down my throat daily by people on the so-called liberal media? Not that stupid, I assure you.
Do News Writer and her readers a favor:
fall off the edge of the Earth… I mean,go to Hell… um, take your excess verbiage somewhere else.Enough. I am done with you. Go ahead; have the last
word2000 words.[Reply]
Steve, next time you go to a liberal website and see a post about liberals that is full of lies, or at the very least misconceptions, don’t bother debating it. Accept it. As for “What’s in it for AWOP”, I would think that if someone (AWOP) makes a statement, and someone else challenges it, it would be in their best interest to stand up for themselves. I know when someone challenges me on something I believe to be the truth, I tend to stick up for myself.
I liked the “Go to Hell” and “Fall of the face of the earth” comments – the tolerance of the left just keeps oozing through.
Mike, in no way was I showing disdain for those with advanced degrees in my “random Dr.” comment. I used those words because in the “Funny Stuff” post the author attributed the fact that a Dr. in Florida (I think it was Florida) passed on an offensive e-mail, and she used this as an example that conservatives as a whole hold these opinions. This was not something passed on by Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. My point was that I do not take the words or actions of a random person – and I used the term “random Dr.” because she used a, well, a random Dr.” – as a basis for the way the entire left feels.
And you are right, I shouldn’t have used the term “dirt poor”. No, I have never lived in a house with a dirt poor, but I have lived many years of my life below the federal poverty level. I have also lived above it, and I still don’t understand what someone’s social status has to do with him or her being able to comprehend certain things. By this argument, are you willing to toss aside the opinions of anyone on the left should they have come from well-off beginnings? Of course not.
I’m not sure what the deal about the biblical quote is. I merely remember a quote that I believed to be from the Bible, did a Google search, and found out that it was indeed a quote from Matthew. I was not aware that I was required to further research the quote in terms of other places it could be found in the Bible. Again, it was the quote I was interested in, not the source. I only gave the source of my quote because you gave the source of yours, and I didn’t want to be rude.
As for Schizophrenia, I’ll look into it. Oh, I doubt that I harbor these inclinations, but then again, would a true Schizophrenic know that he or she had Schizophrenia? I doubt it.
I am confused on one comment you made Mike. Was the sentence “please don’t waste time verifying what politicos ‘really said’ as most are speaking as you write, situationally or as a “single issue of the moment” proponent or opponent.” Was this directed at me or the others on this site, as I am sure you could find examples of all of us, yourself included, doing so at one time or another.
Have a great day everyone.
(Sorry Steve, only 535 words)
[Reply]