patrick.net

Frankly, the whole thing smacks of Clinton-era cries, where despite getting all they wanted, the Right despised him.

Perhaps this is why there is a lack of specificity to the responses here for AIJ. It's hard to rail against your own policies, hopes and dreams.

leoj707 says

That overwhelming drive

shock therepy.. does wonders.

thomas.wong1986 says

shock therepy.. does wonders.

*ah-hem*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_electrostimulation

Remember the SNL episode where Chris Farley is on a Japanese game show?

EightBall says

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with allowing a conscience exemption.

Because then we would be allowing a religious institution to, on their own free will, enter the commercial sector, and then impose their faith on their employees.

Perhaps you missed CLs post concerning how the supreme court has ruled on this.
CL says

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

EightBall says

The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

In that context "of" and "from" are the same. You can not have freedom of religion without being free from the dictates of other religions.

By your reasoning it would be OK for an islamic mosque to purchase a business and then require all employees to pray to allah 5 times a day. The employees are "free" to practice any religion they want, but on company time they are not free from the dictates of their islamic employers.

EightBall says

Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.

Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.

Hmmm... you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care -- as every other industrialized country does -- then religious employers would never have to worry about any conflicts if interest when providing health coverage.

leoj707 says

you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care

What does "Single Payer" even mean? It's not National healthcare. We need a not for profit, federal controlled, from top to bottom Health Care. Even if it means we paid considerably more in taxes to pay for it. A system where your publicly traded 401K sweet hearts can't participate in. The hospitals would be Government owned, the pupils would be Government trained(a perk for paying the higher taxes) Doctors would be educated on the governments dime, and then have to work in the Federal system for a set amount of years before they can practice in the Private practice. Which there would still and always be a private healthcare, as people that have money are NUTZ and think that unless they pay ungodly thousands for a nose bleed they are somehow getting ripped off or the medical care is inferior somehow.

Like for some stupid reason, India's health care we would call ridiculously inadequate, but yet we fawn all over the Indian Doctors, and pay them more than everyone else, when they come to practice in this country, like they are somehow smarter than everyone else.

We're so full of SHIT I don't even know where to begin sometimes.

I'm not don't subscribe to either party, but my vote would be Ron Paul.

Fiscal policy in this country is the real problem we face, and he has always resisted the road this nation has gone down financially.

Sadly, nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.

George Bush and Barack Obama are both guilty of spending vast amounts of money on wars and bailouts. I voted for Obama, and I'm frankly disappointed that he has continued the fiscal nonsense that had gone on for years before him.

No doubt Mitt Romney will do the same if he's elected.

Nothing will change in this country until people are pushed to the brink and violent revolution occurs.

It's time we stop blaming the 1% or the 99% for our troubles, and realize that the government is the problem.

nw888 says

It's time we stop blaming the 1% or the 99% for our troubles, and realize that the government is the problem.

But is is the 1% who finances the campaigns, gets elected to office, and pays for all the lobbying. If government is doing something that adversely effects the 99% you can be sure that they were directed to do it by the 1%.

nw888 says

Nothing will change in this country until people are pushed to the brink and violent revolution occurs.

I fear that you may be correct.

leoj707 says

1%

If we don't stop with this bogus boogie man the evil "1%" and replace it with Names and facts, then the corruption and fraud will continue.
The problem is not the equality of income, it's the mass conflict of interest going unchallenged on so many corporate and government levels.

I can't for the life of me see how taxing these charlatans more will curb their livelihood, they'll just have to steal more to make up the difference.

I agree with the statements about corruption and lobbying. Our society, though, is confusing the 1% with the .00001%.

I fear that class warfare is brewing, when the real problem is that the government has allowed itself to turn into a fascist regime that works for corporations and not the people, rich or poor.

nw888 says

I agree with the statements about corruption and lobbying. Our society, though, is confusing the 1% with the .00001%.

Yes, I agree that it is not so much the 1% as it is the 0.5% or perhaps the 0.01% that really run things, but 0.00001% is like 30 people and I don't think that all power is concentrated so much. Even in a monarchy the empowered aristocracy is larger than 0.00001%.

However, the entire 1% have been the real benefactors of how things have been run.

nw888 says

I fear that class warfare is brewing, when the real problem is that the government has allowed itself to turn into a fascist regime that works for corporations and not the people, rich or poor.

Class warfare has been going on for a long time, and the bottom 99% have been loosing. One just needs to look at the economic divide over the past 40 years to see the results of the war.

I don't think the government is yet "fascist", but we are well on our way to getting there. It is however a regime that works for corporations. Regardless of what Mitt may think corporations are not people. The people behind the curtain that we are being asked to ignore is the 0.5% to 0.01% -- or perhaps if you are correct they are the 0.00001% -- and they are running things.

leoj707 says

However, the entire 1% have been the real benefactors of how things have been run.

Got any names and just how they benefited?

I bet you are confusing classic Anti trust laws, being committed by living breathing human beings, with a name going unchallenged. Confusing that with this big massive rich man's club that consist of everyone that has over a million or two in the bank, and meets once a week to concoct ways to Fuck the little guy.

leoj707 says

By your reasoning it would be OK for an islamic mosque to purchase a business and then require all employees to pray to allah 5 times a day. The employees are "free" to practice any religion they want, but on company time they are not free from the dictates of their islamic employers.

I see where you are going with this and I agree that simply buying a business and forcing Sharia on someone would be really wrong. A church opening a school with religious instruction (in addition to secular subjects) is a far different matter, don't you think? Besides, in this instance they aren't forcing someone to do something - they are simply not funding something. This is very different than the scenario you propose. In this case they are not forbidding anything - they just don't want to pay for it because it is against their teaching. The government is forcing them to DO something not the other way around.

leoj707 says

Hmmm... you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care -- as every other industrialized country does -- then religious employers would never have to worry about any conflicts if interest when providing health coverage.

Single payer has the same problem that the current law has - the federal government is inserted into your personal life. Isn't this the complaint of the leftwing nutjobs all of the time - that the religious nutjobs are wanting to interfere with personal choices? GUESS WHAT! This is what the government is doing to the religious institutions - exactly what they decry.

If there were single-payer catastrophic coverage I could probably go along with it. No one should go bankrupt because they get seriously ill or injured. I have serious problems with yielding micromanagement of ANYTHING to the federal government - be it education or healthcare.

Here's my rant:

I'm part of the 1%, and I don't have a lobbyist. I pay a lot of taxes each year. From what I can see, I don't have much to thank the government for. They take my tax dollars and spend it on wars and bailing out even richer people than myself, and then they bail out homeowners that made bad bets on their house flipping game.

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible. And it's all my fault because I worked 80 hours a week for years to build a business and provide a financial safety net for myself and my family, while the 99% watched football games and went out drinking with their buddies and sat on the beach every weekend.

But because I've been so "lucky" to give all that up to make money, I'm vilified by the 99%, and I "owe" them more of my money.

(Sigh)

nw888 says

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible. And it's all my fault because I worked 80 hours a week for years to build a business and provide a financial safety net for myself and my family, while the 99% watched football games and went out drinking with their buddies and sat on the beach every weekend.

And there's supposed to be absolutely not a God damn thing wrong with none of that. Kudos to you for all of your hard work, and God bless the folks willing to ride in the back of the landscape truck, instead of driving the truck to the job. The problem is there are real people making real conscious decisions to draw lines in the sand, and are controlling business with the help of our government to give control of whole industries and verticals to a relative few. And they all want you to take the wrap, while they fuck the folks at the ball game on Sunday, in back room deals to screw them over even harder come Monday morning.

If I had to pick names to blame, I would certainly look at this list first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

It's nice to know that there are people like you out there that get it. Thank you. I wish we had more people in this country such as yourself. One day the revolution will come. One day decent hard working people, no matter what % they're in, will come together to stop the oppression of our current political machine.

nw888 says

It's nice to know that there are people like you out there that get it. Thank you. I wish we had more people in this country such as yourself. One day the revolution will come. One day decent hard working people, no matter what % they're in, will come together to stop the oppression of our current political machine.

It's not people like you that are the problem. It's the top 0.1% or 0.01% that have enough money to buy politicians (e.g. the Koch brothers).

Yes that is true. It seems we as people are only blaming the .01%, and no one is noting that the politicians are to blame. They should resist temptation and vow to do what is good for the people they serve, rather than their pockets. I wish we were focused solely on occupying the white house, and not just wall street.

nw888 says

I'm part of the 1%

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical, but often "successful" persons overestimate what % they are in, and how government/tax reforms would effect them.

Joe the plumber is a great example of this.

nw888 says

I pay a lot of taxes each year.

Well, clearly you don't pay Romney's tax rate.

nw888 says

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible...

...But because I've been so "lucky" to give all that up to make money, I'm vilified by the 99%, and I "owe" them more of my money.

The 99% does not "hate" -- or you for that matter -- the 1%, they just want to be given the same level of opportunity that past generations has been given. Social mobility and wealth distribution over the past 40 years clearly shows that opportunity is a thing of the past.

If you are paying so much in taxes it is likely that you are doing productive work. Romney gets his taxes low through rent seeking unproductive activities (numerous other threads discuss this). Any tax reforms are unlikely to affect your income.

Also, people tend to vastly underestimate the level of luck that was required to achieve their financial success. Many people will work 80/hrs a week and do all the "right" things, but success never "clicks" for them.

nw888 says

Yes that is true. It seems we as people are only blaming the .01%, and no one is noting that the politicians are to blame. They should resist temptation and vow to do what is good for the people they serve, rather than their pockets. I wish we were focused solely on occupying the white house, and not just wall street.

Well... the politicians themselves are more often than not in the 0.01%.

But, they are doing what is good for the people they serve. They serve the people who finance their campaigns, pay for SuperPacs and give them jobs after they leave office.

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

That's fine to be skeptical. No worries. What any of us makes doesn't really matter in the overall discussion. I'm technically in the 1%, albeit the bottom.

But who cares. Big deal. My wife still gets mad at me over dumb stuff and I still have to take out the trash once a week.

From what I see in the Occupy movement, people are blaming "rich" people, or people that have more than them. If they want more opportunities, then they need to start protesting solely in front of the White House, because Obama and the presidents before him are slowly eroding the purchasing power of our dollars to the point that one day we will all be in the poor house.

leoj707 says

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

I agree. You're right on.

nw888 says

From what I see in the Occupy movement, people are blaming "rich" people, or people that have more than them. If they want more opportunities, then they need to start protesting solely in front of the White House, because Obama and the presidents before him are slowly eroding the purchasing power of our dollars to the point that one day we will all be in the poor house.

Well... I agree that not all "rich" people, or even all of the 0.01% are too blame, but the "rich" are the ones who have been behind the policy changes for the 40 year that got us to where we are today.

Sure, the politicians should be held to task, but should not also their masters?

I believe that they are protesting on Wall Street as a message that they understand who the politicians bosses are.

Why solely the White House? There should be protests at every senator and congressman's office. Unfortunately the occupy movement does not have the manpower to protest everywhere they should be.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all? You chose to have children. Why should the childless be forced to pay higher premiums to cover your decisions?

And it could be a moral decision--like there are too many F%$^*(*^ people already, consuming too many resources.

In other words, a decision to breed is no different than a decision NOT to.

I'm in full agreement with you. I just hope the rest of the nation is aware of who's to blame.

Interesting view on why they're protesting at Wall Street. I never looked at it like that!

The White House to me is the top of the government food chain, so in protesting the government we should be at the top. I would rather see us protesting the government more, because the government works for all of us, and wall street does not. Wall street can be greedy and try to buy politicians, but ultimately it is the decision by the government to allow itself to be bought that is the problem. Our politicians should have more integrity, and we as people should be demanding it.

It's also just too bad that people end up taking sides, and blaming either Republicans or Democrats.

I want politicians to have integrity and stand behind their word. I want them to start doing their job of serving the masses to create a great place for human beings to exist and thrive. Time will tell!

Good discussion!

Unfortunately, even if one fights the machine, he (or she) is instantly pilloried by the right as antagonistic to business, campaign funding dries up, the media mocks them as loony, etc.

Not to mention all the hyper-power players who will beat any hint of upsetting the apple cart out of you.

And even if you do get through that gauntlet, integrity intact, you still have the prize of a thankless, stupid electorate waiting for you.

@gregfielding

Thank you for your input. I am back in California so I am able to talk to people directly now...

I have actually voted Republican in the past, but not in the last decade...I may never again...

@eightball

>Any answer will have the person drawn and quartered in this forum. You and a slew of others are just waiting to pounce.

Many may pounce but I will at least listen (read) and so will a number of others, if a good argument is made.

American in Japan says

I have actually voted Republican in the past, but not in the last decade...I may never again...

Yeah, I am in the same boat.

CL says

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all? You chose to have children. Why should the childless be forced to pay higher premiums to cover your decisions?

And it could be a moral decision--like there are too many F%$^*(*^ people already, consuming too many resources.

In other words, a decision to breed is no different than a decision NOT to.

If I remember correctly, I had an option to reduce a premium with one company and not receive "birth" coverage (for lack of a better term). That would make sense for someone that 1) can't get pregnant or 2) is male and single or 3) someone makes a decision that they aren't going/make the decision to not get pregnant. Government mandates will do away with this "choice" and place you in the exact situation that you are pondering. Obviously there was a need in the market and the market responded. Getting into the minutia and tinkering with details the government obviates the ability of the market to fulfill this desire.

There is certainly a grey area here but if we error on the side of freedom I'd rather have those warts. Employers more than likely cover a birth and contraception because it is part of a benefit they are providing that they think is mutually beneficial. Once the government comes in and starts taking over it is no longer a benefit - it is a mandate. Basic human nature will drive people/companies to only cover just the minimum which will be defined by an ivory tower type far off in Washington. Whether or not a religious institution is forced to pay for something contrary to their beliefs is a debate that simply magnifies the problem with the federal government governing by fiat - nothing good can come from it.

I do think government being involved in SOME capacity it is good because they are the only entity that has the power to do so. An example of this is an insurance carrier dropping an individual because they get sick which is the whole purpose of the person purchasing or receiving the insurance. It's just plain wrong that someone pays for insurance and the company rolls the dice (they want everyone to be healthy after all and not have to pay out any benefits right?) and renege on their end of the contract. Same thing goes for when people move between jobs and potentially don't get coverage because they already have an ailment. This, however, is more of an issue of regulating and enforcing standards in contracts which the government already does and should do. I think a lot of this could be solved by having coverage follow the individual and not where they work. Single payer achieves this but the federal government has proven time and again that they can't stop sticking their finger in the middle of everything and they are very inefficient to boot. Couple that with what has happened with the HHS mandate and it is a recipe for tyranny and mass corruption.

The current debate is one thing - but what happens when they decide that everyone needs a gym membership or a special interest gets their way for them to mandate coverage for X over Y effectively putting Y out of business? The fact that the law is set up that they CAN do this sort of thing is troubling to me (as demonstrated by their contraception mandate). For me it is beyond just the religious issue. If we WANT socialized medicine and healthcare (which I don't believe is enumerated in the constitution) we need to go ahead and amend it - isn't this exactly the purpose of the amendment process? I'm not saying we SHOULD do that as I obviously disagree with it but that would be the proper way to do it. Ramming it through congress with backroom deals and granting power to unelected bureaucrats just seems un-American.

leoj707 says

What we need is publicly financed campaigns to get the special interests out of politics.

Strongly agree, but wouldn't money still change hands "under the table"? It might be hard to enforce.
McCain-Feingold was supposed to reign in some of the influence of $ on politics. Is it working?

Still, I agree it's worth a try.

kentm says

CL says

I've been thinking about this. Since it is preventable and a decision (usually), then why even have it be covered under insurance at all?

WTF!

At the risk of getting banned by Patrick it's worth it for me to say just this to you, which is the best response I can muster for a statement like that: you're a fucking idiot.

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations. Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

nw888 says

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

I agree.

nw888 says

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations.

True, but even simple preventative medicine can be expensive enough to need insurance in order to cover the "financial emergency".

And, skipping preventative stuff leads to more expensive medical emergencies down the road.

nw888 says

Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

The human condition is such that while for individuals pregnancy can be a choice as a species it is not. We can guarantee that people will get pregnant. As a species we don't need cosmetic surgery, and can get along quite fine without it. Our most base primal drive is that we need to make babies. Just like we need to go outside. We don't have to expose ourselves to the sun, it is very avoidable these days, just as technology makes pregnancy avoidable. We choose to expose ourselves to the sun, and as a result some people get skin cancer.

Pregnancy can actually be very dangerous, and medical coverage helps to prevent complications.

Pregnancy is not as much of a "choice" than some may think.

1. The sexual drive is very strong. We are born with this addiction, and this addiction can often override our "better judgement".

2. Many women around the world -- yes even in the US -- are reliant on their husbands/partners for: food, clothing, and shelter. Skipping sex for these women is not an option.

For all women education and access to contraception makes pregnancy more of a choice. Medical coverage can grant the access to education and contraception.

wthrfrk80 says

McCain-Feingold was supposed to reign in some of the influence of $ on politics. Is it working?

The Citizens United ruling has made it impossible to reign in the influence of $ in politics.

wthrfrk80 says

Strongly agree, but wouldn't money still change hands "under the table"? It might be hard to enforce.

Yes, there will always be some level of crime and corruption, but that does not mean we should give up. Some systems are more prone to corruption than others. Historically the US has been pretty low on the corruption scale, but over the past decades our system has been evolving into one that facilitates/encourages corruption.

wthrfrk80 says

Still, I agree it's worth a try.

Yeah, it has much better promise than the direction we are currently going.

nw888 says

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations.

This type of thinking is one of the reasons health care costs have skyrocketed. Far, far cheaper to prevent and or control many conditions before they reach the emergency stage. An emphasis on preventative care with no co pays is something nearly everyone agrees will both lower costs and lower suffering. The revised Obama reg. now putting the cost of birth control on the insurance companies has gotten no blow back from the insurance companies as it saves them money by preventing pregnancies.

While for many a 20 dollar co pay for a test or 500 a year for birth control may seem a small amount of money for the working poor it is not.

nw888 says

There's no need to be rude. Come on now.

Insurance is supposed to be for emergency situations. Elective surgeries such as cosmetic ones aren't covered, so one can deduce that having a child is usually an elective decision that people make. Therefore it wouldn't be covered by insurance, thus lowering premiums. Makes sense.

And my point was to illustrate how one man's elective is another person's reason for holding the policy. Employers should not dictate the morality of the medical care you need.

(Thanks for the thoughtful and cogent reply, Eightball. I have other comments, but I'll take them to healthcare/insurance now).

Akki,

Are you sure you're not Cloud?

wthrfrk80 says

It's not people like you that are the problem. It's the top 0.1% or 0.01% that have enough money to buy politicians (e.g. the Koch brothers).

OY my Goddamn BALLS!!!

Then nothing will never change, the Voters were told there wouldn't be any Math, just names to pick from.

If you're going to obscure the real problem with a number you folks randomly pulled out of your Ass, then were screwed. How do you quantify the percentage the Koch brothers are in? What did they do? We need some goddamn details, if were going to light this torch puppy and rabble crowd to the court house steps.
That one percent, of one percent of the top one thousandth, will just confuse this lot and send them to the nearest exit.

leoj707 says

The Citizens United ruling has made it impossible to reign in the influence of $ in politics.

True.

I can't believe where this country is headed.

Can we please get a "New Deal" style Democrat to run for office? One that stays away from "social issues"? One that doesn't threaten the Religious Right? The only reason the Republicans win elections is because of the Religious Right. Fear is a powerful motivator. And what drives the Religious Right is the fear that their culture is under attack.

It works wonderfully for the ruling 0.1%.

But of course, the Democrats won't compromise on social issues either. Legal abortion and gay marriage are as sacred to the "New Left" as Christian morality is to the Religious Right.

So the top 0.1% just keep getting more and more powerful.

Eventually, both the New Left and Religious Right will be toiling in the fields and mines together, under the rule of the top 0.1%. Only then will both cultures integrate and possibly unite against their overlords.

wthrfrk80 says

Can we please get a "New Deal" style Democrat to run for office?

I'll settle for a Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.
I'll settle for any party that's the real deal.

wthrfrk80 says

The only reason the Republicans win elections is because of the Religious Right.

Ask any Church goer of any denomination, how's attendance.
Now you suppose that there are so many church going Christians left in this country that can decide the presidential election, then your dreaming the Popes dream.