ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Bocefish]

You don't know anything about me, what I've seen or done, who I think is poor or any of the other bullshit you're spewing, so kindly stfu about what I know or don't know. Medicaid is available for single parents, but not every single parent qualifies. However, after looking at the eligibility requirements, she would probably qualify. You can take your holier than thou attitude and stick it!

I am an atheist, so I am as unholy as you can get. What I am is compassionate to those less fortunate than me. You know you are in the wrong, and nothing you say is going to change that. This is just like that homophobic bullshit you spewed in that other thread. People have an unalienable right to life, and the government is charged with securing it for us. Ensuring healthcare is well within the responsibilities of a government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

The rest of the information you conveniently opted not include in your previous little quote about Medicaid:

Beginning in the 1990s, many states received waivers from the federal government to create Medicaid managed care programs. Under managed care, Medicaid recipients are enrolled in a private health plan, which receives a fixed monthly premium from the state. The health plan is then responsible for providing for all or most of the recipient's healthcare needs. Today, all but a few states use managed care to provide coverage to a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollees. Nationwide, roughly 60% of enrollees are enrolled in managed care plans.[2] Core eligibility groups of poor children and parents are most likely to be enrolled in managed care, while the aged and disabled eligibility groups more often remain in traditional "fee for service" Medicaid.

I don't give a shit if you believe in Barney as the savior. Your attitude is that of thinking you are better than anyone else with a different opinion or viewpoint.

What am I so in the wrong about and what is this homophobic BS you accuse me of?

Gotta go for now, but will be back later, much later.

 

[Shaun__]

The rest of the information you conveniently opted not include in your previous little quote about Medicaid:

Beginning in the 1990s, many states received waivers from the federal government to create Medicaid managed care programs. Under managed care, Medicaid recipients are enrolled in a private health plan, which receives a fixed monthly premium from the state. The health plan is then responsible for providing for all or most of the recipient's healthcare needs. Today, all but a few states use managed care to provide coverage to a significant proportion of Medicaid enrollees. Nationwide, roughly 60% of enrollees are enrolled in managed care plans.[2] Core eligibility groups of poor children and parents are most likely to be enrolled in managed care, while the aged and disabled eligibility groups more often remain in traditional "fee for service" Medicaid.

I don't give a shit if you believe in Barney as the savior. Your attitude is that of thinking you are better than anyone else with a different opinion.

You can not be that stupid, are you drinking? Not everybody is old or has children. Those people need healthcare too.

What am I so in the wrong about and what is this homophobic BS you accuse me of?

 

[sweetiebatman]

To be fair, being against gay marriage is not really homophobic, In my opinion of course

 

[Shaun__]

To be fair, being against gay marriage is not really homophobic, In my opinion of course

Denying rights to gay people is a very homophobic thing to do.

 

[ScarletVixen]

I'm curious about this one...I've heard several people say that they are against gay 'marriage', but believe civil unions between homosexual people should have all the same rights as traditional marriage. Is the only difference honestly just the NAME/TITLE that you use for it? what's the point in that case? I know this is a sensitive topic to some, so I'm not trying to cause a defensive reaction, I just don't understand the viewpoint and have always wondered about it.

 

[Shaun__]

I'm curious about this one...I've heard several people say that they are against gay 'marriage', but believe civil unions between homosexual people should have all the same rights as traditional marriage. Is the only difference honestly just the NAME/TITLE that you use for it? what's the point in that case? I know this is a sensitive topic to some, so I'm not trying to cause a defensive reaction, I just don't understand the viewpoint and have always wondered about it.

The people saying that are the same as the separate but equal people during segregation. The more intelligent ones also know that the huge number of laws that would have to be changed to grant those rights means it would be almost impossible to ever happen.

 

[sweetiebatman]

I'm curious about this one...I've heard several people say that they are against gay 'marriage', but believe civil unions between homosexual people should have all the same rights as traditional marriage. Is the only difference honestly just the NAME/TITLE that you use for it? what's the point in that case? I know this is a sensitive topic to some, so I'm not trying to cause a defensive reaction, I just don't understand the viewpoint and have always wondered about it.

This is a can of worms i think is better left on the shelf, never mind opened.

My thoughts on the issue are that people have a myriad of opinions, there are extremes and PC bullshit opinions both for and against and they should be discounted but it would be moronic, not to mention immature for anyone to immediately discount someone's well articulated opinion even if they don't immediately agree. Something I think we all lose sight of on the internetz

 

[jackie_O]

I'm curious about this one...I've heard several people say that they are against gay 'marriage', but believe civil unions between homosexual people should have all the same rights as traditional marriage. Is the only difference honestly just the NAME/TITLE that you use for it? what's the point in that case? I know this is a sensitive topic to some, so I'm not trying to cause a defensive reaction, I just don't understand the viewpoint and have always wondered about it.

The people saying that are the same as the separate but equal people during segregation. The more intelligent ones also know that the huge number of laws that would have to be changed to grant those rights means it would be almost impossible to ever happen.

That is exactly what it is, separate but equal. Didn't we all move past that a few decades ago?

 

[Kradek]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

 

[Nordling]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

Because Marriage is also a legal contract with legal meaning, unrelated to any religious connection. Government has to be involved anytime a contract is in the picture. Whether you get married in a church or have a judge marry you, the priest, pastor, judge or ship's captain is acting as an agent for the state.

 

[Kradek]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

Because Marriage is also a legal contract with legal meaning, unrelated to any religious connection. Government has to be involved anytime a contract is in the picture. Whether you get married in a church or have a judge marry you, the priest, pastor, judge or ship's captain is acting as an agent for the state.

My point being, it shouldn't be a legal contract, period. It's a religious construct. Admittedly, a much bigger can of worms to unravel.

 

[Nordling]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

Because Marriage is also a legal contract with legal meaning, unrelated to any religious connection. Government has to be involved anytime a contract is in the picture. Whether you get married in a church or have a judge marry you, the priest, pastor, judge or ship's captain is acting as an agent for the state.

My point being, it shouldn't be a legal contract, period. It's a religious construct. Admittedly, a much bigger can of worms to unravel.

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand why you're saying it. Why shouldn't marriage be a legal contract? Especially since it's not limited to believers, and as far as I know, in this country it never was. The legal construct is necessary because legal matters are involved--children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, a whole host of stuff.

 

[Nordling]

Dictionaries don't prescribe, but they do report how words are used. The first definition in the American Heritage dictionary is:

mar·riage (m#rZ2j) n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Yeah, I know...it needs to be updated to account for "same sex marriage." But that's not part of this discussion.

 

[JickyJuly]

I feel like we spent a few pages discussing civil unions in this thread a few weeks ago. :lol:

A friend of mine in Ontario had to wait almost a year for knee surgery. She now has back problems from waiting so long and can't afford the co-pay for physical therapy. Now she has another 6 months wait to see a specialist about her back. Great system, eh.

If you think government run health care won't spiral out of control with corruptness and exploding prices/fees, then you're a fool. The quality of care will go way down while wait times go way up. It may look and sound good now, but that's the proverbial dangling carrot selling point before it falls to shit with increased fees, wait times and lower quality care.

Your friend can not afford the co-pay for therapy, so how the hell would your friend have done in America with no insurance? She would not have been able to even have knee surgery at all, but maybe she would have gone to the emergency room and been able to get free samples of pain killers from a sympathetic doctor if she was lucky. Is that what you want for people in our country? I assume you have insurance, and you do not give a damn about the millions of people who do not.

Ever heard of Medicaid?

Thanks to Obama, 6.4 million more people are in poverty.

Medicaid is pretty hard to qualify for, and they have so many weird stipulations/so few decent doctors. My husband is disabled, receives Medicare (thankfully), gets less than $700 a month from SS and didn't qualify for extra Medicaid help in 2 or the 3 states we've lived in. Maybe there's a fringe group that it's set up to benefit? I don't know.

 

[Nordling]

I feel like we spent a few pages discussing civil unions in this thread a few weeks ago. :lol:

:lol: We did...almost endlessly. But I didn't want to be "dismissive" out of fear that I'd be attacked by the board's self-proclaimed moderator.

 

[Kradek]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

Because Marriage is also a legal contract with legal meaning, unrelated to any religious connection. Government has to be involved anytime a contract is in the picture. Whether you get married in a church or have a judge marry you, the priest, pastor, judge or ship's captain is acting as an agent for the state.

My point being, it shouldn't be a legal contract, period. It's a religious construct. Admittedly, a much bigger can of worms to unravel.

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand why you're saying it. Why shouldn't marriage be a legal contract? Especially since it's not limited to believers, and as far as I know, in this country it never was. The legal construct is necessary because legal matters are involved--children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, a whole host of stuff.

I'll retract. A few minutes of thought and I can see through my initially linking the word marriage and religion.

 

[Nordling]

The real question is why government, laws, or tax codes have anything to do with respect to marriage whatsoever, regardless of orientation. Marriage is a religious institution.

Because Marriage is also a legal contract with legal meaning, unrelated to any religious connection. Government has to be involved anytime a contract is in the picture. Whether you get married in a church or have a judge marry you, the priest, pastor, judge or ship's captain is acting as an agent for the state.

My point being, it shouldn't be a legal contract, period. It's a religious construct. Admittedly, a much bigger can of worms to unravel.

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand why you're saying it. Why shouldn't marriage be a legal contract? Especially since it's not limited to believers, and as far as I know, in this country it never was. The legal construct is necessary because legal matters are involved--children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, a whole host of stuff.

I'll retract. A few minutes of thought and I can see through my initially linking the word marriage and religion.

I don't think it's an error so much as that a common, long-held belief that the word "marriage" is limited to only one usage or meaning. Truth is, there's marriage, the legal, state regulated meaning and "holy matrimony," the religious meaning. Both are valid, and there's no reason they should conflict with each other.

 

[Mirra]

Forgive me, everyone, but I want to go back to that Forbes article Bocefish posted.

I read through it and it sounds like a lot of the current problems that doctors are afraid will expand aren't a problem with (near) universal healthcare so much as with crooked insurance agencies. It seems these insurance companies are, in fact, deciding what they will pay for based purely on their bottom line rather than on the welfare of the patient. These are the very agencies PPACA detractors seem to think are doing an adequate job since there was such a huge push for privatized healthcare over government run options... so what benefit does private healthcare really provide?

In my opinion, the current steps in PPACA should act as a catalyst for transforming Medicare and Medicaid towards a future where government healthcare is an option for anyone (though perhaps slightly higher taxes for those who opt in to it instead of private healthcare?) Ideally it can increase efficiency in approving procedures and medications, but also maintain or increase cost effectiveness. I think having a larger pool of 'clients' could help with that.

On a side note, it seems clear to me that certain areas need additional family practice doctors already so that is a valid concern... but hey it sounds like a good way to increase employment with quality jobs... unfortunately it takes quite a lot of years to train doctors.

 

[Nordling]

As I understand it, another way the ACA saves money for both patients, doctors and hospitals is that it requires that insurance companies MUST use most of what they take in for actual health care, in lieu of CEO's bonuses and other things that drive up our costs.

 

[Jupiter551]

Maybe they should just change all references to 'marriage' in any government document to 'civil union'. Theoretically that would assauge the religious nutbags who claim marriage is a "sacred institution", but of course we know much of the objection to calling gay union "marriage" is in fact splitting hairs in order to discriminate.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The Republicans in my state are already trying to implement vouchers for those who want to send their children to private schools with the money for the program coming out of the pockets of public schools. Public schools in this state have already been slashed and cut down putting our school system in shambles in all but the wealthiest parts of the wealthiest counties.

I really don't understand the objection to vouchers. In most cases voucher will result in more money per student not less.

Let's say your school districts receives in $10,000/year (roughly right) in funding from state and local source for each child in your school district. Currently there are 10,000 students in the district at $10K student that gives the school district a budget of $100 million. Now you happen to live in area in that is experiencing population growth so in a two year the number of students is expected to hit 11,000. The school district new budget will be $110 million. Now the district could hire more teacher, add more schools, administrators to accommodate the growth or it could hand out voucher. A typical voucher will provide $5,000 to a low or middle income family toward tuition toward a private or parochial school. Let say 1,000 student take advantage of the voucher. The school district will spend $5,000 x1000 = $ 5 million. Subtracting the 5 million from 110 million budget leaves the school district 105 million and since enrollment remains at 10,000 they don't have to hire new teachers or build news schools. So now the district can spend an average of $10,500/pupil.

1. Private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools in regards to teacher qualifications, curriculum, and use of funds.
2. Those who can afford private schools and want to send their children to private schools largely do so already. Those who would switch to private schools with the voucher would be those who could afford it already or could nearly afford it and are excited to reap the benefits of their new tax credit.
3. Your numbers would have to be different for every state and school district in the country so they are not a very good representation. The implementation of the voucher program as you've explained it is also only one of a few variations with various dollar amounts associated with it so it is not a very reliable representation of what may or may not be implemented for each state.

Some of the biggest supporter of the voucher system are not rich Republican but rather poor families trapped in failing schools looking for away out.

Go on... pull the other one. :icon-lol:

Many of the poorest areas with the worst schools in South Carolina (where I have lived my entire life) don't have private school systems. Most of the private schools also don't have transportation available for students whose parents cannot arranged to take them to school every day which is especially true in the poorest areas where parents often work multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

Most private schools get accreditation and in order to qualify for getting a voucher need to pass state/school district standards. We have a least a decade worth of educational data that shows that students who go to private schools do at least as well and in many studies (like SAT scores) exceed the performance of students in public schools. Even after adjusting for family socioeconomic factors.
Since most voucher are limited to lower and middle class families, I have not seen any data to back up your claim that it benefits people wealthy people. Link please.
Agreed I was making up data to illustrate the principal, the finances are more complicated. But logically if the cost of the vouchers is less than average cost of educating student in a district, than some of cost of educating students is transferred from the public to the parents, or the supportors of the private school (lots offer scholarships).

Well it doesn't make sense to offer vouchers for a place with out private school system. Most of the emphasis is on in urban areas in particular inner city.

Rather than spending time debating this, I'd recommend watching Waiting for Superman. It is a Sundance winning documentary that follows families hoping to get into charter/private schools. It is really good movie and very educational. To me the most interesting thing is it that was directed not by some right wing guy, but by Davis Guggenheim, who directed Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

 

[Nordling]

Maybe they should just change all references to 'marriage' in any government document to 'civil union'. Theoretically that would assauge the religious nutbags who claim marriage is a "sacred institution", but of course we know much of the objection to calling gay union "marriage" is in fact splitting hairs in order to discriminate.

The problem with that, and I've seen that idea offered dozens of times in chat rooms, forums, blogs and even on the media, is that people that aren't necessarily religious or whose religion doesn't hold marriage to be a sacred ceremony, would be really pissed off. The word marriage holds a certain "magic" to it, that goes beyond just religion. Atheists don't want a dull-sounding "civil union," they want to be married.

Semantic? Linguistic? Bias? Dumb? Maybe but very human.

 

[Bocefish]

OK, I'm back

What am I so in the wrong about and what is this homophobic BS you accuse me of?

How is that homophobic? A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred towards something or somebody, of which neither are true in my case. You say denying homosexuals rights is homophobic. Apparently you can't read either because your own so-called proof of my homophobia states I believe gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I'll also add that I'm really getting tired of wasting my time arguing with someone who admits that

Only reason I hang out in this thread is to force you to defend things that you should be opposing based on things you said in other threads. I admit it is a simple thing, but I enjoy it.

Not to mention someone that is ignorant enough to believe Fox news is really one huge conspiracy because they really do secretly support Obama's beliefs.

Fox is where you get all your balanced reporting, and I thought you would want to know who they truly support in the election. That stuff they say on air is just to separate suckers from their money.

So, I will no longer be wasting my time with your bovine excrement, holier than thou attitude, immature name calling and idiotic assumptions. Have a nice day! :hello2:

 

[Nordling]

HiGirlsRHot wrote:

Rather than spending time debating this, I'd recommend watching Waiting for Superman. It is a Sundance winning documentary that follows families hoping to get into charter/private schools. It is really good movie and very educational. To me the most interesting thing is it that was directed not by some right wing guy, but by Davis Guggenheim, who directed Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

You might want to watch "The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman," which gives a critique of the first film.

 

[Jupiter551]

Maybe they should just change all references to 'marriage' in any government document to 'civil union'. Theoretically that would assauge the religious nutbags who claim marriage is a "sacred institution", but of course we know much of the objection to calling gay union "marriage" is in fact splitting hairs in order to discriminate.

The problem with that, and I've seen that idea offered dozens of times in chat rooms, forums, blogs and even on the media, is that people that aren't necessarily religious or whose religion doesn't hold marriage to be a sacred ceremony, would be really pissed off. The word marriage holds a certain "magic" to it, that goes beyond just religion. Atheists don't want a dull-sounding "civil union," they want to be married.

Semantic? Linguistic? Bias? Dumb? Maybe but very human.

Yeah you're right and I think that's where part of the problem lies, until gay couples can be 'married', those who oppose gay marriage will always feel like they still have SOMETHING over them, something to tell themselves they're somehow more legitimate. Although let's face it, it's no picnic even to get civil unions legal everywhere.

It would be a start, I think if nothing else traditional 'attitudes' about the word marriage will slowly disintegrate over time if nothing else.

Btw I went to a private school all my school life, it's not all it's cracked up to be. The work is harder, there's plenty of bullying, stereotypical and dumbass attitudes...etc. A good student can make it in any school, a bad student can't make it in any school.

 

[Mirra]

Rather than spending time debating this, I'd recommend watching Waiting for Superman. It is a Sundance winning documentary that follows families hoping to get into charter/private schools. It is really good movie and very educational. To me the most interesting thing is it that was directed not by some right wing guy, but by Davis Guggenheim, who directed Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

Oh man... he sounds totally unbiased and reputable... is he friends with the guy who directed Obama's America 2016? :lol:

 

[Shaun__]

How is that homophobic? A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred towards something or somebody, of which neither are true in my case. You say denying homosexuals rights is homophobic. Apparently you can't read either because your own so-called proof of my homophobia states I believe gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Except for the right to be married, but you seem to have run away from me meaning I am wasting my time replying. Still I am going to call this a win.

 

[bud9752]

I'll just throw this out there. Since we "had to pass it to find out whats in it" (Obamacare) has anyone really found out what all is in the bill called "Obamacare" ? and how much it will really cost every citizen who is deemed to have the ability to afford medical care/insurance and choose not to and how many citizens will be exempt from the :tax/penalty" because they are deemed too poor to afford/pay for a policy to cover their medical costs, but are going to be covered "fully" under "Obamacare? In the 3 years since "Obamacare" was pushed through Congress by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid where is the full explanation of what exactly is in the bill? I personally believe that the passing of "Obamacare" was a fraud perpetrated against the citizens of the U.S. by a couple of "power hungry" politicians who acted like school children with an attitude of "we won" so FUCK YOU America. and President Obama rubber stamped what ever these 2 put before him without consideration of what was good for the country. $5 Trillion in new DEBT since Jan of 2009. This from politicians who think they are above the people they were elected to represent and continually vote/don't vote(a non vote that lets these increases automatically pass) for perks for themselves while catering to groups that are only out for themselves. All politicians need to be required to live by the LAWS/RULES they pass and apply to the rest of us. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT and be required to DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. If they don't do the job they shouldn't get paid, NO BUDGET for the last 3+ years. Congress is a DISGRACE. :twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

We need a deja vu emote.

 

[curvyredhead]

Originally Ron Paul
Now Gary Johnson