Really?! Good heavens no. :P I really don't think we should indoctrinate children to one religion or another. If they want to follow a religion that should be their choice when they are old enough to make up their minds. I really do not like religion. But that may be a topic for another of my famously controversial threads hahaha
@Nonnahswriter Actually on that note, if I recall our dear PM has both received donations from the church to fund his little campaign and given them preferential treatment now he is the PM. I shall see if I can dig up the article. I really don't like religion being involved in the decision making process. Religion, to my mind is the absence of scientific reason and reality.
Firstly, @booinyoureyes Why isn't Obamacare the same as our Medicare system? Everyone pays a small tax, the poor are exempt, the rich pay slightly more and everyone who doesn't want private health cover just goes to a doctor who bulk bills?
That is as far from Obamacare as possible. There is NO (I repeat NO. ZERO) public option.
In the US we have had Medicaid since the 1960s which is the equivalent of what you call Medicare in Australia. We also have something called Medicare as well for senior citizens.
Unfortunately there are a lot of *very* ignorant people who don't understand the basics of Obamacare on both sides. Whenever I hear a debate on Obamacare I want to slap everyone involved. Its absurd how much people pretend to know.
Hospitals, Doctors and Dentists, Libraries, Roads, Railways were the things that should really belong to the public.
Don't forget schools.
Yes. I'm a fan of public education.
*runs away*
I don't know why you'd run away for saying that in a forum apparently filled to the brim with teachers!
Wanna hear something *truly* controversial?
I believe in school choice and student voucher programs. It is ridiculous for a motivated student to be trapped in a horrible academic environment. The outcome of a student's education is one million times more important than a teacher's job security. If the student wants to find a better school, private OR public, that should be their choice as well as their parents.
That is as far from Obamacare as possible. There is NO (I repeat NO. ZERO) public option.
Explain Obamacare to me Sensei... Why is there a need for it? If you have a public healthcare system that is funded, works and fee that you can use whenever you feel the need why in the hell does it need to be changed?
Here in Australia you can change schools whenever you see fit. Just go in an un-enroll and enroll somewhere else. Be it private or public. Private costs a sizable amount however. Is it different in the states?
On this forum it would be wise to hide So many teachers!!
@CaloNord Here is a really good debate about Obamacare by people who know what they are talking about on both sides. Avik Roy is a member of the Manhattan Institute and works for Forbes magazine. He has also studied molecular biology at the Yale School of medicine and is a health care expert. He is obviously coming from the free market side of the issue. Ezra Klein is mostly known as a columnist for the Washington Post but also makes some appearances on MSNBC and Bloomberg News. He studied political science at UCLA. He is coming from the left side of the issue.
The good part of this is that they both acknowledge the tradeoffs associated with their solutions to a problem. They don't gloss over problems and pretend that their solutions are magic bullets, which is often what happens when polticians and their cheerleaders "supporters" discuss Obamacare.
I highly recommend watching this for anyone who wants to properly understand the problems and benefits of Obamacare and the various proposed alternatives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz3OoKrRnGI
I shall watch that shortly Having done a little reading what I can't understand is the preoccupation with having medical insurance. That's not a thing here. You can have private health care if you want to, most people don't because the public system is already funded, requires no paperwork, no applications, no nothing. You just GO to a doctor or hospital.
"The individual mandate says you have to obtain health coverage by January 2014, get an exemption or pay a fee if you can afford it."
So... if I DON'T want Obamacare I have to pay my way out of it? What? WHAT?!
"Medicaid is expanded using Federal and State funding. Not all State's have to expand Medicaid leaving 5.7 million of our nations poorest without coverage options."
What I don't get, why don't you just spend all this money enhancing and expanding Medicaid? If that system is already in place.
Getting your head around a topic that is so vastly complicated and different from what I'm used to is very tricky. I can't imagine the time when you have to go through so much crap and red tape just to get to a doctor...
That is as far from Obamacare as possible. There is NO (I repeat NO. ZERO) public option.
Explain Obamacare to me Sensei... Why is there a need for it? If you have a public healthcare system that is funded, works and fee that you can use whenever you feel the need why in the hell does it need to be changed?
It is far too late for me to discuss 50 years of public health policies and the ins and outs of a 1,000 page bill. I promise I will do so at another time!
Here in Australia you can change schools whenever you see fit. Just go in an un-enroll and enroll somewhere else. Be it private or public. Private costs a sizable amount however. Is it different in the states?
On this forum it would be wise to hide So many teachers!!
You are not allowed to leave your school "district" in the states. You have a public school in your area, and you are forced to go there or pay for a private school
The proposed solutions by many to the *obvious* problems with such a monolithic system are multiple. One is to create a voucher program. If your kid is at a school in an inner city where fights are common, or at a school that is poorly run by an incompetent faculty, you will be given a voucher to help pay for a private education. So students who could not normally afford a private education will now have access. Another is similar, but allows students to attend other public schools that are not in your district. So if your school sucks, but you are willing to find transportation, you could attend a school in another district. There are other options as well, from home schooling to vocational programs. Teacher's unions have been very resistant to these changes. They are also the fourth biggest donor to campaigns outspending even... Goldman Sachs!
Have you ever heard of the documentary film Waiting for Superman? I highly recommend it. It is a tearjerker that follows students during their quests to change schools. It explores the problems in the American education system and the difficulties people who want to improve it face. John Stossel, when he worked for ABC, did a special related to that documentary called "Stupid in America". You can find that on youtube and it is very interesting, but I highly recommend watching Waiting for Superman.
So... if I DON'T want Obamacare I have to pay my way out of it? What? WHAT?!
"Medicaid is expanded using Federal and State funding. Not all State's have to expand Medicaid leaving 5.7 million of our nations poorest without coverage options."
What I don't get, why don't you just spend all this money enhancing and expanding Medicaid? If that system is already in place.
Amen, brother. Amen
The main problem with most social programs in the United States is that they usually involve universal coverage, which shoots prices through the roof.
For example, all people get medicare, and medicare spending outweights medicaid (health spending for the poor) spending by a hefty margin. So we spend just as much money on people who are middle class and above, especially those who are older and with savings as we do for people who are poorer (aka actually need it). If you are retired in Florida playing golf you get just as much, if not more, than if you are poor and working.
Most of these programs pass the test at the ballot box because middle class people support handouts in which they get stuff rather than creating programs for those in need. It is seen as more "fair" if everyone gets a piece of the pie.
If I had my way medicaid would be prioritized over the far more wasteful medicare. It is more efficient in helping people and more cost-effective, but not nearly as popular at the ballot box.
Is it just me or is the U.S. in a bit of a mess? The whole "American Dream" a little bit broken? Public schools in shambles the health care system a mess, constant wars and gun violence. Gangs drugs and crime... On a side note, what is your position on gun laws? I consider them completely unnecessary for the common people to posses/rent/borrow a military grade assault rifle/sniper rifle/LMG. It's not required.
I'm amused by the whole "WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT INVADES!? THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNS". I live in a country where assault and fully auto weapons are illegal and rifles and pistols are fairly well controlled and Tony Abbott has never come my house and seized my kitchen by force. The sheer amount of gun violence and school shootings is absolute insanity.
Besides, two things. The constitution has been amended before has it not? Why not do so again? Also, the right to bear arms, is that not a left over from when the militias were required to defend the 13 colonies against the native american's and British? I doubt the British are going to invade anytime soon...
I don't know why you'd run away for saying that in a forum apparently filled to the brim with teachers!
Lol, I usually avoid these kinds of topics like the plague. Politics and religion threads are like a guilty pleasure for me. I'm so afraid to wade into the pool, but I can't stop reading them because they're either so interesting or entertaining (or both, in the rarest of moments). So when I decide to post in one of these said threads, my gut-reaction is usually to run away, regardless of what I really say.
I don't do well with confrontation. I intend to remedy this...someday. ^_^;;
As for Obamacare, I don't pretend to know all the technicalities in the system. As long as it keeps giving me free birth control, it's a-okay with me. *shrugs*
As for Obamacare, I don't pretend to know all the technicalities in the system. As long as it keeps giving me free birth control, it's a-okay with me. *shrugs*
...
....
buy your own! >:$
serious side note: my girlfriend actually takes the pill even when she was not active due to irregularities in her menstrual cycle. There are medical uses for it but I still find it ridiculous that such a thing would be publicly financed, and while I am an atheist I find it absolutely abhorrent that people who are pro-life and find birth control to be morally wrong are forced to pay for it with the product of their labor.
As a person who is against most of our wars but is still *forced* to fund them I can completely relate. No one owes you birth control. Besides, it is pretty damn inexpensive. Another problem with publicly owned industries.
Say what now? Obamacare pays for contraception?! Isn't that more of a personal thing? I'm not sure if they are on the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme or PBS we have here, were drugs won't cost more the 6 dollars. The government covers the rest. This covers almost all major and important medications.
@Squire Completely agree. With it all. I find religion to be a violent and outdated bunch of superstitious nonsense. But it is entirely up to the person who believes in it whether or not they want to. But it isn't for me. I believe in what I can see, touch, smell, hear and know to be true. However, I won't discriminate based on religion, I don't think that is fair. That being said, religion is responsible for more persecution, war, death, destruction and division of the human race then anything else we have conceived of. Bar perhaps, money.
Nahh I don't like drama to excess. I don't mind a bit of passion and I like it when people speak their mind but I don't like senseless idiotic flame wars for no reason at all.
I'm thinking of starting a religious thread next week See what everyone thinks on that and have a bit of a chat about it. Or we can follow up Anduin's idea "Can Doctors be trusted, the feel in your country" Hahaha
Ohh that kind of drama! That I don't mind! Flame wars are just not my thing anymore. I'm to old. Haha You may be right there. Politics and religion were once intertwined. Oh good! That's why I start these threads! Air your thoughts and ideas, hear other peoples, hopefully take away from it some knowledge or insight you didn't have before. Or at the very least get it off your chest and know that people read it.
But on topic, the rather brutal federal budget has also decided that teachers and schools, namely high schools can handle a budget cut also, along with massive cuts to almost every other area in existence. So read it and weep teachers. What a great idea. Less money for education means less educated people to question the governments decisions in the future, should they ever win an election again.
I need to find an island with no one on it and start a new country. >.<
Arguably Birth Control is an example of exactly the kind of things governments should be funding @booinyoureyes & @CaloNord. In and of itself it seem like an expenditure and a luxury, but it helps to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion rates and increases the number of women completing educational courses. In the long term it makes the country better educated, more gender equal in the workplace and more competitive by having an educated workforce. It's also so widely prescribed and there are so many competing brands that it's pretty cheap to prescribe.
Plus - more nookie for everyone. Win - Win.
It does have some side-effects and potential adverse reactions, granted, but that's another discussion entirely.
Actually you make a good point there @Corvino. I did some reading and several older versions of "the Pill" are on the PBS here in Australia, which means they will cost you no more then 6 dollars at a time. The rest is paid for by the government.
However, some of the newer ones, the ones with less side-effects like, oh, you know, heart disease are not. For a year's supply you're looking at around 300 AUD.
Having had a chance to read your comments and think about it I'd have to agree it's not entirely a bad idea. My fiancee had to drop her college course because of her pregnancy and we're now pretty flat out most of the time with the child, as well as work and study.
According to what I've read around 1.4 million are on this one type of pill alone, that's a fairly high market share for a country with only 23 million total, a fairly high percentage of them being pensioners.
And yes, more nookie is certainly a win...
(Maybe I should start yet another one after the religious thread next week entitled "Abortion, the pro's the con's the hook! The feel in your country" or is that to much...)
Arguably Birth Control is an example of exactly the kind of things governments should be funding @booinyoureyes & @CaloNord. In and of itself it seem like an expenditure and a luxury, but it helps to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion rates and increases the number of women completing educational courses. In the long term it makes the country better educated, more gender equal in the workplace and more competitive by having an educated workforce. It's also so widely prescribed and there are so many competing brands that it's pretty cheap to prescribe.
Plus - more nookie for everyone. Win - Win.
It does have some side-effects and potential adverse reactions, granted, but that's another discussion entirely.
@Corvino Birth control is readily available to teens in the united states.
What you are referring to about the benefits of women completing educational courses and its control on overpopulation is what has been found in studies of third world countries in which teen pregnancy is common. In many places in Africa birth control is effective since it is not readily available, and there have been movements to expand its use.
However, in the United States it is as cheap as it gets and readily available. Also just because something might prove economically beneficial to the country in general does not make it the right thing to do. I have no qualms with birth control, but as I mentioned there are others who do, and therefore publicly funding it is a bit distasteful in my opinion.
Again to clarify: I am not against birth control and think it should be readily available over-the-counter. I just don't think it should publicly funded for the reasons stated above.
Also just because something might prove economically beneficial to the country in general does not make it the right thing to do.
Does not compute.
Benefit of the entire country > people yelling "I don't wanna pay for it because x!"
X = "It's against my religion," "Women should pay for women problems," "It will encourage teens to have sex earlier."
You're paying the taxes anyway. At least this way, you know you're paying for something that helps everyone. If you're sexually active (which most of the country is), birth control's an essential part of life.
Plus, as a woman, it allows me to gain further control over my body without worrying about the financial constraints. It also lessens the burden on my boyfriend, who spent quite a lot of money just buying condoms. Literally, as Corvino said, everyone wins.
Of course, this is coming from a crazy socialist hippie who wants everything in healthcare to be free for everybody, so poo-poo. :P
There are medical uses for it but I still find it ridiculous that such a thing would be publicly financed, and while I am an atheist I find it absolutely abhorrent that people who are pro-life and find birth control to be morally wrong are forced to pay for it with the product of their labor.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are wrong, does that mean that blood transfusions shouldn't be covered either?
Edit: I think Viagra is covered too, so there goes the argument that birth control shouldn't be covered because it isn't a medical necessity.
Also just because something might prove economically beneficial to the country in general does not make it the right thing to do.
X = "It's against my religion," "Women should pay for women problems," "It will encourage teens to have sex earlier."
You're paying the taxes anyway. At least this way, you know you're paying for something that helps everyone. If you're sexually active (which most of the country is), birth control's an essential part of life.
Using birth control for recreational sex is absolutely *not* a health issue. "You should pay for my shinguards. Because when I play soccer for fun I might get injured." That is nonsense. I pay for my girlfriends birth control, and its not expensive for an individual. It is also my responsibility.
Also saying "I don't know anything about Obamacare but I support it as long as I get what I want for free" is precisely the problem with democracy that I was referring to earlier. There is a lot more to healthcare policy that affects things far, far, far more important than making my recreational sex cheaper. It affects other people in serious ways.
Voter's not only don't have the knowledge on what they are voting for, but often don't care to find it. Even people like yourself who clearly care about the issues (you are here discussing them) have limited time or interest in learning the ins an outs of complex policies. Most people don't even bother with that... at all. Yet their choices can determine the fates of other people
Plus, as a woman, it allows me to gain further control over my body without worrying about the financial constraints.
That is a very nice luxury to have. It is also your choice.
Again, playing soccer is a luxury, but I might get injured too and have some unhappy consequences. Should other people who have nothing to do with my choice to play soccer have to pay *involuntarily* (taxes aren't "just paid anyway" they are forced out of you with threat of jailtime) for my shinguards? I like control over my body without financial constraints too, doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.
My body. My choice. My responsibility.
Now if we are talking about proposed *bans* on birthcontrol we will be 100% on the same side
There are medical uses for it but I still find it ridiculous that such a thing would be publicly financed, and while I am an atheist I find it absolutely abhorrent that people who are pro-life and find birth control to be morally wrong are forced to pay for it with the product of their labor.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are wrong, does that mean that blood transfusions shouldn't be covered either?
Edit: I think Viagra is covered too, so there goes the argument that birth control shouldn't be covered because it isn't a medical necessity.
A. Blood transfusion are *actual* medical issues B. The viagra point means absolutely zero, since that also should *not* be covered. That is a silly argument in this context since I never suggested that viagra should be part of the equation.
Yeah, my bad, what I said regarding Viagra was really badly worded. I should have said I was talking about cases where people have a problem with birth control being covered, but don't seem to have a problem with viagra being covered.
Yeah, my bad, what I said regarding Viagra was really badly worded. I should have said I was talking about cases where people have a problem with birth control being covered, but don't seem to have a problem with viagra being covered.
I have not met someone who thought that, but it would not surprise me (which is sad )
I've never personally met anyone like that either, but I think I remember seeing at least 1 or 2 talking heads on TV say something to that effect in the wake of Sandra Fluke's testimony to congress.
This is always going to be the problem with democracy. You give the power to vote to people who are ignorant of the issues upon which they are voting. They don't know the pro's and con's, they don't care to do any research to find out and when they vote it's because they get something for nothing at the expense of everyone else.
Welcome to the Liberal Government here. You wanted "Change", they promised change, they didn't say exactly what it was but those of us who understood just how right-wing these whack jobs are had an idea. Now here we are protesting against them when they're doing EXACTLY what you wanted when you voted for them, you wanted change? Well here it is.
I'm not saying democracy is a bad idea, it is, for all intents and purposes, the fairest way we can be governed at the moment. What we need is a better and more thorough education and for people to actually CARE what they are voting about and KNOW what it is they are voting about.
WHY THE HELL IS VIAGRA PAID FOR?! *Fuming* Johnny can't get it up?! HOW IS THAT THE STATES PROBLEM?!
Exactly! I mean when it was originally implemented in Athens it was by no means fair, not everyone was allowed to vote, women were certainly not allowed, however Athens had a MUCH smaller population then you're talking about in Democratic countries now. The voice gets fainter and fainter as the population continues to skyrocket upwards.
Exactly! They get stuck in a rut and don't care to change it. My grandparents vote labour (Which is good here, they are the center-left party.) But they don't know WHY. It's just what they have always done and will continue to do. The Labour party here had a few leadership issues, there was infighting and bickering, the Liberals were able to get in on the promise of unity and change however they are just as bad now.
I'm reminded of Blackadder... "We are going to fight this campaign on issues, not personalities." "Why is that?" "Because our candidate doesn't have a personality" "He hasn't said much about the issues either..." "No, he has something wrong with his throat..." We need to do this to more politicians. Immediately.
Firstly, I am really really really sorry about replying so late. I actually have people over this whole weekend, and by the time I got to read everything, I had to go to work. (I sure picked a brilliant time to discuss politics with internet strangers. *headdesk*)
I'll put it in spoilers since it's way too darn long.
Using birth control for recreational sex is absolutely *not* a health issue. "You should pay for my shinguards. Because when I play soccer for fun I might get injured." That is nonsense. I pay for my girlfriends birth control, and its not expensive for an individual. It is also my responsibility.
We just have to agree to disagree here. It absolutely is a health issue.
Controlling when a woman can and cannot become pregnant--controlling her body's state of health--is at its heart a health issue. Some women also suffer from menstrual disorders such as dysmenorrhea (source). I've heard plenty of horror stories of women who pass out from the lack of blood or the pain, or who voluntarily get their reproductive organs removed because their cycles are unbearable. If there's even a chance that birth control can help treat chronic disorders like this, it should be available.
Also saying "I don't know anything about Obamacare but I support it as long as I get what I want for free" is precisely the problem with democracy that I was referring to earlier. There is a lot more to healthcare policy that affects things far, far, far more important than making my recreational sex cheaper. It affects other people in serious ways.
Voter's not only don't have the knowledge on what they are voting for, but often don't care to find it. Even people like yourself who clearly care about the issues (you are here discussing them) have limited time or interest in learning the ins an outs of complex policies. Most people don't even bother with that... at all. Yet their choices can determine the fates of other people.
People say war is economically beneficial and therefore we should do it because it benefits the "whole country"
They are wrong. Value has 100% to do with values.
I suppose this is true, but I wouldn't put war on the same level as this issue. War has been proven to destroy and to kill. It is, by context, a negative thing. Universal birth-control has proven to be beneficial for just about everyone. They're not the same thing. At all.
Plus, as a woman, it allows me to gain further control over my body without worrying about the financial constraints.
That is a very nice luxury to have. It is also your choice.
Again, playing soccer is a luxury, but I might get injured too and have some unhappy consequences. Should other people who have nothing to do with my choice to play soccer have to pay *involuntarily* (taxes aren't "just paid anyway" they are forced out of you with threat of jailtime) for my shinguards? I like control over my body without financial constraints too, doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.
My body. My choice. My responsibility.
Now if we are talking about proposed *bans* on birthcontrol we will be 100% on the same side.
Some choice.
It's true, I could simply choose not to have sex. Then, of course, that would put massive strain on my romantic relationship with my significant other. We could choose to pay for condoms instead of getting free birth control, but those have proven inefficient, and they cost more money to a couple that is struggling just to get out on their own. I know, I know, such a "dilemma."
But here's the thing. For many long, long centuries, women have been unable to control their bodies. We can't control when we have our menstrual cycles. We can't control how severe the symptoms are. We can't control when we get pregnant. We can mitigate, we can guess, but we never have full control. In the oldest of times, women have been forced into marriages for the sake of keeping the family afloat, forced to bear children to men they may or may not even love. Many women have died giving birth, or in the worst of circumstances, killed by abusive boyfriends who don't want the child.
So yes. Birth-control is a luxury. Controlling what my body does, controlling when I can have children, being a part of a healthy relationship with someone, is a life-saving, mind-blowing luxury that should be available to all women who want it at no charge. We have endured way too much to be denied this amazing scientific feat just because of money. And remember, just because you can afford to pay for it (which I think is AWESOME, by the way), doesn't mean everyone else can.
Anyway... That's really all I wanted to say about it. I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, and you're not changing mine, but this is an issue really close to home, so... I felt I should say something more substantial. I owed you and the subject that much. Promise not to derail anymore. >.>;;[/spoiler]
Nooo no no not a derailment at all. It all fall's under the topic as far as I'm concerned. Politics-Obamacare-Birthcontrol.... seems perfectly logical to me. I like that I can bring out so many varied and well expressed opinions from people who are obviously intelligent and have given the matter a lot of thought! It's great to see! Keep it up!
On a side not. This is our immigration minister, the "Honourable" Scott Morrison speaking to asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their home countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER7GoCF31GY&list=PLCpSPp6JZuD_7cU8A-3d3GkXZkCwfJOS8&index=7 Is it just me that finds this absolutely disgusting? They are human beings not god damn animals you can throw in a cage for trying to seek a better life for themselves and their families away from way and tyrannical dictatorships. Even though we seem to have one now... I'm a little sick to be an Australia at the moment. This man's actions will mark us and our children for generations. Disgusting.
Comments
Where I live the catholic schools are publicly funded (so there are regular public schools and catholic public schools).
I really do not like religion.
But that may be a topic for another of my famously controversial threads hahaha
Or at least, they're supposed to... >_>;;
I really don't like religion being involved in the decision making process. Religion, to my mind is the absence of scientific reason and reality.
There is NO (I repeat NO. ZERO) public option.
In the US we have had Medicaid since the 1960s which is the equivalent of what you call Medicare in Australia. We also have something called Medicare as well for senior citizens.
Unfortunately there are a lot of *very* ignorant people who don't understand the basics of Obamacare on both sides. Whenever I hear a debate on Obamacare I want to slap everyone involved. Its absurd how much people pretend to know. I don't know why you'd run away for saying that in a forum apparently filled to the brim with teachers!
Wanna hear something *truly* controversial?
I believe in school choice and student voucher programs. It is ridiculous for a motivated student to be trapped in a horrible academic environment. The outcome of a student's education is one million times more important than a teacher's job security. If the student wants to find a better school, private OR public, that should be their choice as well as their parents.
End academic slavery!
*runs away as fast as he can*
Why is there a need for it?
If you have a public healthcare system that is funded, works and fee that you can use whenever you feel the need why in the hell does it need to be changed?
Here in Australia you can change schools whenever you see fit. Just go in an un-enroll and enroll somewhere else. Be it private or public. Private costs a sizable amount however. Is it different in the states?
On this forum it would be wise to hide
Avik Roy is a member of the Manhattan Institute and works for Forbes magazine. He has also studied molecular biology at the Yale School of medicine and is a health care expert. He is obviously coming from the free market side of the issue.
Ezra Klein is mostly known as a columnist for the Washington Post but also makes some appearances on MSNBC and Bloomberg News. He studied political science at UCLA. He is coming from the left side of the issue.
The good part of this is that they both acknowledge the tradeoffs associated with their solutions to a problem. They don't gloss over problems and pretend that their solutions are magic bullets, which is often what happens when polticians and their cheerleaders "supporters" discuss Obamacare.
I highly recommend watching this for anyone who wants to properly understand the problems and benefits of Obamacare and the various proposed alternatives.
"The individual mandate says you have to obtain health coverage by January 2014, get an exemption or pay a fee if you can afford it."
So... if I DON'T want Obamacare I have to pay my way out of it? What? WHAT?!
"Medicaid is expanded using Federal and State funding. Not all State's have to expand Medicaid leaving 5.7 million of our nations poorest without coverage options."
What I don't get, why don't you just spend all this money enhancing and expanding Medicaid? If that system is already in place.
Getting your head around a topic that is so vastly complicated and different from what I'm used to is very tricky. I can't imagine the time when you have to go through so much crap and red tape just to get to a doctor...
The proposed solutions by many to the *obvious* problems with such a monolithic system are multiple. One is to create a voucher program. If your kid is at a school in an inner city where fights are common, or at a school that is poorly run by an incompetent faculty, you will be given a voucher to help pay for a private education. So students who could not normally afford a private education will now have access.
Another is similar, but allows students to attend other public schools that are not in your district. So if your school sucks, but you are willing to find transportation, you could attend a school in another district.
There are other options as well, from home schooling to vocational programs.
Teacher's unions have been very resistant to these changes. They are also the fourth biggest donor to campaigns outspending even... Goldman Sachs!
Have you ever heard of the documentary film Waiting for Superman? I highly recommend it. It is a tearjerker that follows students during their quests to change schools. It explores the problems in the American education system and the difficulties people who want to improve it face. John Stossel, when he worked for ABC, did a special related to that documentary called "Stupid in America". You can find that on youtube and it is very interesting, but I highly recommend watching Waiting for Superman.
The main problem with most social programs in the United States is that they usually involve universal coverage, which shoots prices through the roof.
For example, all people get medicare, and medicare spending outweights medicaid (health spending for the poor) spending by a hefty margin. So we spend just as much money on people who are middle class and above, especially those who are older and with savings as we do for people who are poorer (aka actually need it). If you are retired in Florida playing golf you get just as much, if not more, than if you are poor and working.
Most of these programs pass the test at the ballot box because middle class people support handouts in which they get stuff rather than creating programs for those in need. It is seen as more "fair" if everyone gets a piece of the pie.
If I had my way medicaid would be prioritized over the far more wasteful medicare. It is more efficient in helping people and more cost-effective, but not nearly as popular at the ballot box.
On a side note, what is your position on gun laws? I consider them completely unnecessary for the common people to posses/rent/borrow a military grade assault rifle/sniper rifle/LMG. It's not required.
I'm amused by the whole "WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT INVADES!? THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNS".
I live in a country where assault and fully auto weapons are illegal and rifles and pistols are fairly well controlled and Tony Abbott has never come my house and seized my kitchen by force.
The sheer amount of gun violence and school shootings is absolute insanity.
Besides, two things. The constitution has been amended before has it not? Why not do so again?
Also, the right to bear arms, is that not a left over from when the militias were required to defend the 13 colonies against the native american's and British?
I doubt the British are going to invade anytime soon...
I don't do well with confrontation. I intend to remedy this...someday. ^_^;;
As for Obamacare, I don't pretend to know all the technicalities in the system. As long as it keeps giving me free birth control, it's a-okay with me. *shrugs*
....
buy your own! >:$
serious side note: my girlfriend actually takes the pill even when she was not active due to irregularities in her menstrual cycle. There are medical uses for it but I still find it ridiculous that such a thing would be publicly financed, and while I am an atheist I find it absolutely abhorrent that people who are pro-life and find birth control to be morally wrong are forced to pay for it with the product of their labor.
As a person who is against most of our wars but is still *forced* to fund them I can completely relate. No one owes you birth control. Besides, it is pretty damn inexpensive. Another problem with publicly owned industries.
@Squire Completely agree. With it all. I find religion to be a violent and outdated bunch of superstitious nonsense. But it is entirely up to the person who believes in it whether or not they want to. But it isn't for me. I believe in what I can see, touch, smell, hear and know to be true. However, I won't discriminate based on religion, I don't think that is fair.
That being said, religion is responsible for more persecution, war, death, destruction and division of the human race then anything else we have conceived of. Bar perhaps, money.
Nahh I don't like drama to excess. I don't mind a bit of passion and I like it when people speak their mind but I don't like senseless idiotic flame wars for no reason at all.
I'm thinking of starting a religious thread next week
Hahaha
You may be right there. Politics and religion were once intertwined. Oh good! That's why I start these threads! Air your thoughts and ideas, hear other peoples, hopefully take away from it some knowledge or insight you didn't have before. Or at the very least get it off your chest and know that people read it.
But on topic, the rather brutal federal budget has also decided that teachers and schools, namely high schools can handle a budget cut also, along with massive cuts to almost every other area in existence. So read it and weep teachers. What a great idea. Less money for education means less educated people to question the governments decisions in the future, should they ever win an election again.
I need to find an island with no one on it and start a new country. >.<
Plus - more nookie for everyone. Win - Win.
It does have some side-effects and potential adverse reactions, granted, but that's another discussion entirely.
However, some of the newer ones, the ones with less side-effects like, oh, you know, heart disease are not. For a year's supply you're looking at around 300 AUD.
Having had a chance to read your comments and think about it I'd have to agree it's not entirely a bad idea. My fiancee had to drop her college course because of her pregnancy and we're now pretty flat out most of the time with the child, as well as work and study.
According to what I've read around 1.4 million are on this one type of pill alone, that's a fairly high market share for a country with only 23 million total, a fairly high percentage of them being pensioners.
And yes, more nookie is certainly a win...
(Maybe I should start yet another one after the religious thread next week entitled "Abortion, the pro's the con's the hook! The feel in your country" or is that to much...)
What you are referring to about the benefits of women completing educational courses and its control on overpopulation is what has been found in studies of third world countries in which teen pregnancy is common. In many places in Africa birth control is effective since it is not readily available, and there have been movements to expand its use.
However, in the United States it is as cheap as it gets and readily available. Also just because something might prove economically beneficial to the country in general does not make it the right thing to do. I have no qualms with birth control, but as I mentioned there are others who do, and therefore publicly funding it is a bit distasteful in my opinion.
Again to clarify: I am not against birth control and think it should be readily available over-the-counter. I just don't think it should publicly funded for the reasons stated above.
However Is a very good point
Benefit of the entire country > people yelling "I don't wanna pay for it because x!"
X = "It's against my religion," "Women should pay for women problems," "It will encourage teens to have sex earlier."
You're paying the taxes anyway. At least this way, you know you're paying for something that helps everyone. If you're sexually active (which most of the country is), birth control's an essential part of life.
Plus, as a woman, it allows me to gain further control over my body without worrying about the financial constraints. It also lessens the burden on my boyfriend, who spent quite a lot of money just buying condoms. Literally, as Corvino said, everyone wins.
Of course, this is coming from a crazy socialist hippie who wants everything in healthcare to be free for everybody, so poo-poo. :P
Edit: I think Viagra is covered too, so there goes the argument that birth control shouldn't be covered because it isn't a medical necessity.
"You should pay for my shinguards. Because when I play soccer for fun I might get injured." That is nonsense. I pay for my girlfriends birth control, and its not expensive for an individual. It is also my responsibility.
Also saying "I don't know anything about Obamacare but I support it as long as I get what I want for free" is precisely the problem with democracy that I was referring to earlier. There is a lot more to healthcare policy that affects things far, far, far more important than making my recreational sex cheaper. It affects other people in serious ways.
Voter's not only don't have the knowledge on what they are voting for, but often don't care to find it. Even people like yourself who clearly care about the issues (you are here discussing them) have limited time or interest in learning the ins an outs of complex policies. Most people don't even bother with that... at all. Yet their choices can determine the fates of other people That is a very nice luxury to have. It is also your choice.
Again, playing soccer is a luxury, but I might get injured too and have some unhappy consequences. Should other people who have nothing to do with my choice to play soccer have to pay *involuntarily* (taxes aren't "just paid anyway" they are forced out of you with threat of jailtime) for my shinguards? I like control over my body without financial constraints too, doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.
My body. My choice. My responsibility.
Now if we are talking about proposed *bans* on birthcontrol we will be 100% on the same side People say war is economically beneficial and therefore we should do it because it benefits the "whole country"
They are wrong. Value has 100% to do with values A. Blood transfusion are *actual* medical issues
B. The viagra point means absolutely zero, since that also should *not* be covered. That is a silly argument in this context since I never suggested that viagra should be part of the equation.
Welcome to the Liberal Government here. You wanted "Change", they promised change, they didn't say exactly what it was but those of us who understood just how right-wing these whack jobs are had an idea. Now here we are protesting against them when they're doing EXACTLY what you wanted when you voted for them, you wanted change? Well here it is.
I'm not saying democracy is a bad idea, it is, for all intents and purposes, the fairest way we can be governed at the moment. What we need is a better and more thorough education and for people to actually CARE what they are voting about and KNOW what it is they are voting about.
WHY THE HELL IS VIAGRA PAID FOR?! *Fuming* Johnny can't get it up?! HOW IS THAT THE STATES PROBLEM?!
Exactly! They get stuck in a rut and don't care to change it. My grandparents vote labour (Which is good here, they are the center-left party.) But they don't know WHY. It's just what they have always done and will continue to do.
The Labour party here had a few leadership issues, there was infighting and bickering, the Liberals were able to get in on the promise of unity and change however they are just as bad now.
I'm reminded of Blackadder... "We are going to fight this campaign on issues, not personalities." "Why is that?" "Because our candidate doesn't have a personality" "He hasn't said much about the issues either..." "No, he has something wrong with his throat..."
We need to do this to more politicians. Immediately.
I'll put it in spoilers since it's way too darn long.
[spoiler] We just have to agree to disagree here. It absolutely is a health issue.
Controlling when a woman can and cannot become pregnant--controlling her body's state of health--is at its heart a health issue. Some women also suffer from menstrual disorders such as dysmenorrhea (source). I've heard plenty of horror stories of women who pass out from the lack of blood or the pain, or who voluntarily get their reproductive organs removed because their cycles are unbearable. If there's even a chance that birth control can help treat chronic disorders like this, it should be available. I agree. This was a foolish thing for me to say. I suppose this is true, but I wouldn't put war on the same level as this issue. War has been proven to destroy and to kill. It is, by context, a negative thing. Universal birth-control has proven to be beneficial for just about everyone. They're not the same thing. At all. Some choice.
It's true, I could simply choose not to have sex. Then, of course, that would put massive strain on my romantic relationship with my significant other. We could choose to pay for condoms instead of getting free birth control, but those have proven inefficient, and they cost more money to a couple that is struggling just to get out on their own. I know, I know, such a "dilemma."
But here's the thing. For many long, long centuries, women have been unable to control their bodies. We can't control when we have our menstrual cycles. We can't control how severe the symptoms are. We can't control when we get pregnant. We can mitigate, we can guess, but we never have full control. In the oldest of times, women have been forced into marriages for the sake of keeping the family afloat, forced to bear children to men they may or may not even love. Many women have died giving birth, or in the worst of circumstances, killed by abusive boyfriends who don't want the child.
So yes. Birth-control is a luxury. Controlling what my body does, controlling when I can have children, being a part of a healthy relationship with someone, is a life-saving, mind-blowing luxury that should be available to all women who want it at no charge. We have endured way too much to be denied this amazing scientific feat just because of money. And remember, just because you can afford to pay for it (which I think is AWESOME, by the way), doesn't mean everyone else can.
Anyway... That's really all I wanted to say about it. I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, and you're not changing mine, but this is an issue really close to home, so... I felt I should say something more substantial. I owed you and the subject that much. Promise not to derail anymore. >.>;;[/spoiler]
Is it just me that finds this absolutely disgusting? They are human beings not god damn animals you can throw in a cage for trying to seek a better life for themselves and their families away from way and tyrannical dictatorships. Even though we seem to have one now...
I'm a little sick to be an Australia at the moment. This man's actions will mark us and our children for generations.
Disgusting.