You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 7:13 PM


Why is it that the liberal folks are all for health issues surrounding things like abortion for keeping everything private but when it comes to making everyone's health records the business of the government and overseen by some sort of czar of sorts, not one peep? Even if the worst fears of those who don't like it that "granny" will be let die because she is too old for treatment to be cost effective, are not true surely there is some kind of privacy issue here. In fairness President Bush was in favor of computerizing health records and don't believe anyone would label him as a liberal. The contention seems to be heightened by something in Tom Daschle 's last book saying that a popular president should slip health care reform into any package they could as it is too complicated to pass on the whole- ie Hillary's plan. Some say the first step was the Child Health Care thing signed by this president rather quickly without much ceremony until after the fact. How could anyone object to a child getting health care? Think there is also in there though about "child" including thirty-year-olds. Not objecting to changes in health care as I have seen it work to keep people trapped in the no-win ADC/Welfare system when if they earned anything they would lose everything including health care. Reform is obviously needed but don't like the feeling when people perhaps try and sneak something past me. Just asking not arguing..... Linda

Garrybl  (Level: 291.5 - Posts: 6769)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 8:43 PM

It's funny how one person's ask is another person's argument isn't it?


Tuzilla  (Level: 144.5 - Posts: 3839)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 10:24 PM

This whole post crashes and burns in the first sentence..."Why is it that the liberal folks are all for..." This type of broad brush painting of those who you deem liberal (a Rush Limbaugh 101 tactic -- rustle papers and hit the table with your hand) is just about as accurate as a Hamas missile. The Ditzoid Heads all wait to lap it up like manna from above, everyone else smells organic fertilizer on the way. And at the end of the day, all that follows it is already lost because people's mind slammed closed after those first 10 words.

How would you react to a post like...Why do conservatives all hyperventilate over personal freedoms and getting government off their backs, but they line up and cheer in unison for gross compromises of our freedoms by the Dept. of Homeland insecurity, and lust over the notion of legislating their version of correctness into people's bedrooms, doctor offices, school rooms?

I know you don't intend to start an argument, but you can't throw stuff like that in people's faces and not expect a reaction.

Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2011)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 10:42 PM

My second husband's name is going to be Steve...that's it...I've decided.

Now what to do with the first one?....hmmmmm....


Tuzilla  (Level: 144.5 - Posts: 3839)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 11:01 PM

Now you went and did it. My wife is already packing my bags.

Garrybl  (Level: 291.5 - Posts: 6769)
Wed, 11th Feb '09 11:13 PM

Look if the New York Yankee pitchers can swap wives (and check out Victor Mollo and Nico Gardiner) then I'm sure two sploofus players can do it too. I'm fairly sure at least one of the non-offending spouses will consider a change is as good as a rest...

Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:10 AM

Linda, we note, is wisely silent.

Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:11 AM

Look at that? Give a liberal a page and it's wife swapping before the ink is dry.

Bbear  (Level: 166.9 - Posts: 2297)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:31 AM

If anyone here is a vet, be aware that you have the best charting system in the world.

After Katrina, the folks that were able to access their records were the vets. From anywhere.

After Katrina, folks who were in the middle of chemo had no record of their what they were taking and in what dose and probably died.

After Katrina, all the folks in this city that when asked who their doctor was, answered "Charity Hospital" had no access to their records, which went under 10 feet of water.

The system is what is is.

Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:45 AM

Okay seriously, maybe, because despite the excellent points made about innocent questions loaded for does sound like an attempt to invite conversation.

My guess is 1. we're drowning in debt and joblessness so what goes into cyberspace just isn't on the radar, 2. we know EVERYthing is going into Google so there's no point choosing that battle, and 3. They've said for years they are computerizing the health care records, heck I think they've been DOING it for at least 2 years,'s s a done deal. 4. We're all fairly oblivious to the violations and lack of safety via computers. We're mass hypnotized, or something. I don't get that. Maybe it's in the water.

As for privacy, our phones are tapped, our email is "captured," our clicks are counted, we're on candid camera, our histories are available to anyone for $26.00, we can be searched and held without representation, and any yahoo can blog anything they like about us, or post photos or lambaste our company, and we have no recourse--so, remind me what privacy violations we're talking about?

The big thing is that insurance and medical companies will use the data to kick off, deny, overcharge and refuse to pay on insurance claims, with authority. They already do this so...all we can hope is some of their ludicrous levels of power is curtailed.

I do know that in Canada --a much smaller population, true--most medical records go from office to office via computer, and so far, that has proved to be fantastic, for those I know. You're standing in the office, sick with whatever, and bing--your MD can get an xray or a test result from across the country or from a year ago, in seconds. It's pretty slick. In addition, recently I have been able to get my OWN test results and xrays provided to me, right on a computer disk. Which gives me access, for the first time, to my own stuff. (The fact that means every smoo in the universe might also obtain my tests on disk, is a thought.)

Maybe we'll stop killing off so many people with drug interactions, because one MD scribes medications counter to another. Since doc's can pull up your med history in a flash. For me, the question of computerized records isn't black and white. Like the internet, it's got potential to be an incredible help. And...potential to be violating and dangerous.

Right now though, I think people are just hanging on, hoping for some change, looking for divisions to heal, seeking some ways to lend support and to feel hope, again. It's not the time to take up this and that battle.

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:52 AM

LOl the reason I didn't answer was because I had gone to bed. Let me be more specific-certainly would not was to be classed with Limbaugh LOL Why does the ACLU support the right of a teens privacy in having an abortion? Since I am old the fear is rather lingering that some czar might determine that my age might determine that an expensive treatment was not cost effective for me and have grave doubts that the ACLU would step in for me. Don't believe anyone is objecting to the computerization( although some question the validity of it being in a bill that is said to create many new jobs immediately-don't know- think-said before even hated Bush wanted that-it is the vague guy who will oversee it all whose position is not clearly defined that makes people nervous. And no one has pointed out that the definition of "child " expanded to age 30 with no mention by anyone unless one looked at what the President signed. Think people are skeptical about this and other things because we are being told that the details will "follow later". Perhaps they will and will be in keeping with my liking but if not it is too late to change a thing. And, Barry, why did I just know you would say that? Linda By the way much to the dismay of many am sure have not been diagnosed as seriously ill. LOL

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 1:00 AM

Godwit and Bbear gave me reasonable answers and something to think about while others chose not to answer and instead attack what I said-Linda

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 1:11 AM

Folks particularly keyed on this because Tom D. made reference to a popular presidents need to slip healthy care reform into other kinds of bills, You remember Tom D. He was the one tax cheater tool big to fail as he was perfect for the job but had to bow out anyway.. Think he was up for Health and Human services or something like that Linda

Luvnmexsun  (Level: 147.4 - Posts: 711)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 1:22 AM

But Linda you are ignoring an important point. It's not WHAT you said, but HOW.

Why be inflammatory? You can still make your point.

Godwit...I so appreciate your thoughts. Indeed, nothing is black and white, except maybe math, except when it comes to quantum physics, maybe.


Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 1:50 AM

Great point about Katrina.
Although I am a vet, and all of my records were stolen when that fool took the entire military data base home on his laptop and it was "lost." I got a letter about a year later saying, "Ah, gosh, well, it's still gone, we're pretty confident it didn't get into any really hostile hands, but um, the records of all veterans for these (50 some? was it?)years, are gone." That was a wake up call, about computerized anything.

Wasn't your point I know. Your point was...I guess that because vets have national records, on computer, they didn't suffer for the lack of medical record, after a disaster.

Here's a funny one. My base mammogram survived Katrina. It was sent to my new town, a year later, where they promptly lost it.

Guess it's a pretty good topic. I know not anything about specifics you are asking about, Linda. Just that once medical records are computerized, no one will be able to swap wive's without the family MD noticing.

Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 2:07 AM

Perception is everything. I read that as veterinarians.

Maybe because I'm reading a book about a guy who went through Katrina with three dogs.

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 2:16 AM

Sorry tend to be combative in my speech. Just a note: Don't you just suppose that Tom D. is really pissed because he paid those taxes now?-although don't believe he paid penalties either like I would have had to do.... Linda

Collioure  (Level: 113.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 4:38 AM

Penalties and interest, Linda.


Collioure  (Level: 113.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 5:04 AM

Linda, I could raise a similar argument about conservatives - always railing about the millions of lives lost to abortion (murdered, they say) or gay marriage.

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 5:32 AM

It's hard to worry about protecting people's privacy when people are now on Facebook or Twitter, telling intimate details about themselves and what they're doing moment to moment. We gave up privacy before anyone took it from us.

And I thought you were talking about animal vets too.

And honestly, the rhetoric is out of control, if not downright lies. This is not the worst economic disaster since the depression. The unemployment rate is not as high as during several other years. It was over 8% in 1975, 1982-83 was over 10%. Interest rates were insane - a mortgage was over 16% interest.

This recession is being talked about as though it is armageddon and it's not. Other recessions have come and gone without spending more money than all the money ever spent by the US put together and putting this on our kids and kids' kids, etc. Or worse.

There's a lot of room between "doing nothing" and spending a trillion $$. But it's an all or nothing proposition they've given us. And it's no longer only fear itself that we have to fear. No one will be allowed to fail. So all will fail down the same drain because it's a debt that cannot be paid.

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 5:36 AM

Oh - forgot.

All US unemployment figures since 1969 are listed here:

And please note - just ONE YEAR AGO the unemployment rate was 4.9%.

Kaufman  (Level: 267.7 - Posts: 3941)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 5:47 AM

Linda, there is no easy answer. I think you got some good points from some of the people here, but it comes down to this: Stereotypically, and I know I'm painting this with a wide brush and there are lots of exceptions both ways, liberals tend to see the glass as half-full and feel that there are places where some government involvement can help things run smoother. Meanwhile, conservatives are often concerned about the abuses that can come up in such, and oftentimes feel that with government out of the way, things can operate better. Who's right? Both and neither, of course.

The ideal, of course is the liberal dream minus the conservative concern, where "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is the truth, without any abuses, and without any cost to the free souls who can make it on their own and live out the conservative dream. But we aren't there, and so it all comes down to which you feel is the lesser evil.

Full disclosure: I work for a government agency that plenty of people don't trust, that plenty of people don't like, and that has access to all sorts of sensitive personal data. But behind the scenes, we have all sorts of checks and balances to ensure only access as needed, and summary dismissal in cases of abuse of privacy (not that you likely hear about those checks). Minus the few bad apples, most of us are trying to be responsible to those we serve. Oh, and don't blame us for the laws on the books; that's Congress' fault

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 7:14 AM

I disagree. I don't want the government in every dollar.

I would like the federal government to stay within the limits imposed by the Constitution and then leave people alone to live their lives. The more government keeps its hands out of people's pockets, the better, IMO. I worked for it, I know how I need to use it. If I want to help people with it, that should be my right - one on one, face to face, without 70% of it taken away from me and from the intended recipient for bureaucracy. Every dollar the government touches loses a huge percentage of its value in bureaucratic red tape.

There are people here in Sploofus that some have helped financially. Don't you feel better that 100% of what you sent went to the person you intended to have it? How would you feel if you had had to mail 70% of it to the federal government, and the intended person got 30%?

If we each didn't pay anything out of our checks to IRS and SS and medicare, but rather we paid it all in one lump sum by April 15 each year, our opinions would be very different. Instead, they siphon it off little by little to the point you don't even consider that you work from January 1 to the end of April just to support the government without a penny going to you or your family. That was at the present rate. And we don't have the least idea where all that money goes. We know some - I know a lot of my tax money goes to pay for things I don't even believe in, and there's not a thing I can do about it.

When will that tax freedom date be when we start paying back on this stimulus bill? Sorry to interject religion, but....God help us all.

Collioure  (Level: 113.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 7:26 AM

Sorry, Ken, more and more nowadays that info gets out now when someone in power wants to abuse it.

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21587)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 8:09 AM

Ken, I believe liberals had a very strident voice a couple of years ago and claimed that the glass was EMPTY. All depends on where you sit-my point. I don't know if what is being done is good or bad but fact is it is DONE. I truly hope that Godwit is not correct and that everyone in power government or business is not corrupt. It just tends to look that way when so much of what they do would put the average person behind bars. Even Michael Steele the new RNC chairman has some kind of rumbling going on about giving campaign funds to his sister or some such thing. I do NOT like double standards and resent it deeply when anyone things me so stupid that they can slip something by me because I won't notice-guessing that is how this mess got started. Have found no proof that Obama is corrupt. He has broken promises like his high standard of ethics and no lobbyists in his administration but as Godwit notes he did not have a savory bunch from which to chose.. Found it interesting that In FT.. Myers he kissed and promised a tearful woman who appealed to him for help since she had no home. Turned out a Republican Congressman's wife gave her a home after Obama promised her help was on the way. I don't believe he is a liar but don't believe he nor his team know what will work or if any amount of tax money is the answer. As Andy noted yesterday, he will most likely be the only one to suffer if it doesn't-everyone seems to be able to turn on a dime. Noted the offensiveness of Barney Frank questioning the bankers who obviously are corrupt. But Barney was among the strongest voices insisting they make home loans to people who could not afford them. When I figure out who the president is, I will have an opinion on him. Linda

Cujgie  (Level: 182.1 - Posts: 754)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:11 PM

Isn't that what Obama wants us to do as we help him rebuild the country -- to be inspired to help others just like that Republican's wife did for that woman? Isn't that what this is all about, helping each other in any way we can? It's not all on Obama's plate -- the responsibility is on each person's plate. We're all in this together.

Cujgie  (Level: 182.1 - Posts: 754)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 12:17 PM

P.S. That's what I heard throughout the campaign and have been hearing since the election -- "what can I do to help?" Okay -- pick up the trash you see lying around as the snow melts and reveals it, hold the door open for someone and give them a cheery hello and a smile, let the struggling young mother go ahead of you in line and tell a story to her two y/o meanwhile so the mom can get her business finished and be on her way home, let the other driver have the space he wants/needs and don't get upset............ I'm sure you can think of a few things to do to make this a better world.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 7:54 PM


Although your comments about the extent of the current fiscal problem are off-point, I feel compelled to respond since they are inaccurate,

1. Unemployment rate is far from the sole determinant of the state of the economy, but in any event, calculation of the unemployment rate has not been constant over the period of time covered by your statistics. There was a major change during the Clinton administration which drove down the official unemployment rate.

2. The unemployment rate is not accurate because it excludes over 4 million Americans who have given up looking for work because it has proven pointless. They are nonetheless unemployed and would like work.

3. From an article by Rebecca Blank entitled "If the economy's so bad, why is the unemployment rate so low?" available on-line at the Economic policy Institute:

"Simply comparing unemployment rates in early 2008 with those in past years can be misleading. Our expectations about labor market measures should change over time, as the overall population ages. An aging population typically means lower aggregate unemployment rates because older workers (that is, persons in their 40s and 50s, not persons in their 60s) tend to be more stably employed. (This is also one reason why current labor force participation rates are high.) Hence, while aggregate unemployment rates are low, unemployment among each age group is higher than it was at the beginning of the 2001 recession.

Lower unemployment rates among younger men are also explained by who we count in the labor force. A growing share of younger men who would have been in the labor force in earlier years is in prison in 2008. This also reduces the overall unemployment rate since these men would have had higher unemployment rates if they were not incarcerated."

4. You state:

"If I want to help people with it, that should be my right - one on one, face to face, without 70% of it taken away from me and from the intended recipient for bureaucracy. Every dollar the government touches loses a huge percentage of its value in bureaucratic red tape."

I'm not sure if you are claiming to pay 70% in taxes -- which is absurd on its face -- since top marginal federal income tax rates are 35% -- and as a school teacher I'm sure you're not paying anywhere close to that rate, but the statement makes no sense in any other context. No federal social services programs of which I am aware come even close to a 70/30 split of administration to benefits. Moreover, what you call "bureaucratic red tape" represent working Americans. Nobody is stopping you from "one on one, face to face", giving such portion of your net income to whatever individuals you want to.

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 12th Feb '09 9:07 PM

My income tax isn't that high - but what I pay out of my paycheck is - when you add in social security and medicare. And so is yours.

And if you have some self-employment tax to pay on other odd jobs you do, that amount skyrockets.

Also add in - property taxes, city / county taxes, sales taxes, the fees you pay for your car tags, fuel, and to have improvements done to your property.

And I'd have a LOT more money to help people one on one, where 100% goes to them, if I wasn't giving it all to the government to give to people who don't work, who aren't even legally in our country, to pay for programs for people who wouldn't need it if their behavior wasn't dangerous, and other programs I don't agree with.

That's like saying parents who want to send their child to a private school shouldn't have a voucher system. Yet, they're paying school taxes to support a school that doesn't work. They should have the choice to use that money to pay a school that DOES work, into the system where their child is.

Collioure  (Level: 113.7 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 13th Feb '09 5:06 AM

Picky, picky, picky, TSK

When layoffs are very substantial and continuing, and the unemployment rate is high and climbing, it's significant and MEANINGFUL.

And when it's below 5%, we have a good economy. Anyone who wants to recognize the criminals in prison is obviously a partisan economist.

Try to quote someone in the center once in a while, please.


Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2017 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus