Teabaggers

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline

Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I live in one of those

I live in one of those godless, evil socialist countries where they have nationalised healthcare, so this is too far beyond stupid and weird for me to even comment on.

Love the guy with the cross, though.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I live in

Anonymouse wrote:

I live in one of those godless, evil socialist countries where they have nationalised healthcare, so this is too far beyond stupid and weird for me to even comment on.

Love the guy with the cross, though.

I am sure you have long lines. I am sure your doctors use rusty needles. I am sure you have bureaucrats offing old ladies with a stroke of a pen. I am sure you force people to have abortions too.

MOMMY MOMMY SOMEONE OTHER THAN A WHITE CHRISTIAN IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP US!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Anonymouse

Brian37 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

I live in one of those godless, evil socialist countries where they have nationalised healthcare, so this is too far beyond stupid and weird for me to even comment on.

Love the guy with the cross, though.

I am sure you have long lines. I am sure your doctors use rusty needles. I am sure you have bureaucrats offing old ladies with a stroke of a pen. I am sure you force people to have abortions too.

Oh, it's nothing but waiting in one clean, well-kept room after another, where doctors think about the problem you're having and then try to help you without even doing you the courtesy of handing you endless stacks of forms and getting your credit card information. You just give them your healthcard number.

I mean, they don't even ask you to pay for it right there! You just go into an X-Ray room, where a radiologist just does her job, and there's usually an entire geriatric wing that looks like it wasn't designed to drive someone insane.

It's basically chaos.

Brian37 wrote:
MOMMY MOMMY SOMEONE OTHER THAN A WHITE CHRISTIAN IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP US!

At this point, I think that covers it.

That video was cringe-worthy.

"So what bills do you actually object to?"

"Oh, I can't read."

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3605
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Teabaggers ?  Ha, I

  Teabaggers ?  Ha, I thought this thread was about dangling "nut sacks " for entertainment purposes. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I am sure

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, it's nothing but waiting in one clean, well-kept room after another, where doctors think about the problem you're having and then try to help you without even doing you the courtesy of handing you endless stacks of forms and getting your credit card information. You just give them your healthcard number.

I mean, they don't even ask you to pay for it right there! You just go into an X-Ray room, where a radiologist just does her job, and there's usually an entire geriatric wing that looks like it wasn't designed to drive someone insane.

Great and all this for 50% less than privatized. You're sitting on a gold mine. Why doesn't the Canadian government let US citizens buy into your system? You could eliminate all taxes in Canada and your treasury would still take in more money.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 http://www.christianexodus.com/

 

Teabaggers are moving en-mass to south carolina to found a "christian nation" that will only share their "conservative values"!

 

As the website says, Forsake the Empire, Seek the Kingdom!

 

 

 

Here are the makings of their "Personal Secession"!

 

 

  • Agrarianism   ( 1 Article ) 
    Christian Agrarianism is the practice of family farming for the sake of the comprehensive and spiritually enriching purpose of fostering appreciation for the natural providence of God, and building family and community relationships in a way that is healthy for both body and soul.
  • Intentional Community   ( 1 Article ) 
    Some Christians are choosing to live adjacent to, or share a living space with, others of like mind and circumstance. This provides real practice in loving one's neighbor, and enriches life through shared experiences and more economical living situations.
  • Home Schooling   ( 1 Article ) 
    Christian home schooling is about more than a better quality of education. It strengthens faith and family ties, promotes broad social skills, and fosters competencies suited to each individual.
  • House Churches   ( 1 Article ) 
    Rather than following the Roman Statist pattern for government-registered churches, there is a movement of people returning to the apostolic pattern of small gatherings in the homes of fellow believers, where close company and a full meal are shared, as well as contributions from several members.
  • Unlicensed Ministry   ( 1 Article ) 
    Rather than forming a 501(c)(3) designated corporation, or any other government-registered corporation for Christian ministry efforts, we should stand fast in the separate sphere of authority retained by a free church structure. By this we remain undivided in our subservience to Christ, and independent of the conflicting interests of the civil sphere.
  • Unlicensed Marriage   ( 1 Article ) 
    As the State has lost all moral authority on what they call "marriage", Christians are avoiding entangling themselves through government registration, and getting back to the basics of what God-ordained holy matrimony.
  • Procreation   ( 1 Article ) 
    As many Christians have succumbed to the child-averse mentality of the culture of death, limiting their family size for the sake of selfish considerations, others are changing their lifestyle to welcome children as a sought-after blessing and asset for life.
  • Home Birthing   ( 1 Article ) 
    As corporate profitability and materialistic philosophy have taken over the business of being born, the best interests of mother and child are being marginalized. Some Christians are returning to the Biblical pattern of midwifery, which is a more moral, natural, health-conscious, and cost-effective alternative to hospital birthing.
  • Adoption   ( 1 Article ) 
    While many children are orphaned or neglected, Christians are assuming the sanctified duty of adoption, building their families and the kingdom of God.
  • Legal Mediation   ( 1 Article ) 
    Rather than resorting to a morally bankrupt legal system to settle disputes, we should be attempting to resolve disputes among Christians though private mediation.
  • Health Cost-Sharing   ( 1 Article ) 
    Christian health-care cost-sharing is an alternative to health insurance, which pools select heath-care costs among a broad base of members, reducing individual risk, and fostering a sense of community.
  • Naturopathic Medicine   ( 1 Article ) 
    As the corporate medical establishment tends to put the profits of pharmaceutical companies ahead of the interests of the patient, naturopathic medicine provides alternative treatments that promote the God-given facilities of the body to heal naturally, rather than relying upon proprietary synthetic chemicals.
  • Avoiding Debt   ( 1 Article ) 
    As the American government and society is drowning in debt, Christians are re-discovering the Biblical pattern for avoiding debt, and learning to live freer lives.
  • Avoiding Welfare   ( 1 Article ) 
    As American government seeks to demoralize and enslave everyone through encouraging dependence upon taxpayer-subsidized handouts, Christians are standing with dignity and refusing to line up for a part in the stolen goods.
  • Home Businesses   ( 1 Article ) 
    As career draws men and women out of their home and away from their families, into an often godless workplace environment, there are those who are pulling back- working from home, or starting and working in their own home-based business enterprises.
  • Private Exchange   ( 1 Article ) 
    Private exchange involves negotiated barter transactions for goods and services, without using Federal Reserve Notes or their electronic representation. One of the primary chains of our slavery to illegitimate authority is forged by us whenever we voluntarily accept debt instruments of the Federal Reserve System, rather than the Constitutionally Lawful Money of gold and silver coin, or other mediums of exchange.
  • Private Microfinance   ( 1 Article ) 

    We should have our own community support structures for lending and borrowing that do not depend upon commonly-accepted financial practices which are based upon deception and theft. While we might expect to profit from outsiders, or from business interests, we should not be subjecting brothers to long-term debt.

  • Private Communication   ( 1 Article ) 
    In this information age where it seems that nothing is private anymore, we should make some simple efforts to protect what privacy we can from the real criminals, who are those who violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and their oath to uphold it.
  • Offshore Wealth   ( 1 Article ) 
    In light of the falling American Dollar and domestic economic crisis, those who have some wealth to preserve are moving it offshore, where it can be converted to something with enduring purchasing power, and used to provide for an ex-patriot resettlement.
  • Self-Defense   ( 1 Article ) 
    With freedom comes responsibility. Rather than trusting in government tax-feeders to protect us from harm, (rather than be the cause of it,) we need to be prepared to protect and preserve life at our own expense.
  • Survivalism   ( 1 Article ) 
    Survivalism is about more than stockpiling dry foods and ammunition for some kind of doomsday scenario. It involves incorporating self-sufficient practices into the regular course of life in ways that foster faith and confidence in competencies to protect and preserve life, rather than trusting in government and corporate supply chains to do it for us.
  • Godly Womanhood   ( 1 Article ) 

    As Feminism manifests its iniquitous fruit of Marxist destruction of the family, men, women, and children; there are a few brave women who stand against the onslaught of the culture of death with the one power fit to turn the tide- godly womanhood.

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I for one, fully support this movement.

 

 

I can't think of any reason I would ever need, or want to go to South Carolina. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

 

 

  • Agrarianism   ( 1 Article ) 
    Christian Agrarianism is the practice of family farming for the sake of the comprehensive and spiritually enriching purpose of fostering appreciation for the natural providence of God, and building family and community relationships in a way that is healthy for both body and soul
  • etc....

 

 

Surely that's a hippy commune.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:ClockCat

Anonymouse wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

 

  • Agrarianism   ( 1 Article ) 
    Christian Agrarianism is the practice of family farming for the sake of the comprehensive and spiritually enriching purpose of fostering appreciation for the natural providence of God, and building family and community relationships in a way that is healthy for both body and soul
  • etc....

 

 

Surely that's a hippy commune.

 

Don't spread your marxist, socialist, communist lies here! 

 

 

By the way, I thought about putting a wall up around South Carolina if enough of them went there, but then I realised they would probably have one up first.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3272
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Oh, it's

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, it's nothing but waiting in one clean, well-kept room after another, where doctors think about the problem you're having and then try to help you without even doing you the courtesy of handing you endless stacks of forms and getting your credit card information. You just give them your healthcard number.

I mean, they don't even ask you to pay for it right there! You just go into an X-Ray room, where a radiologist just does her job, and there's usually an entire geriatric wing that looks like it wasn't designed to drive someone insane.

it's almost as good here in slovakia, except the economy isn't up to canada's level so the facilities suffer a bit.  and by that i mean they're not brand spanking new.  the longest i've ever waited for a basic check-up was about two hours, but i was a walk-in.  i'd say the facilities and the waiting are no worse than what most americans deal with, at a fraction of the cost.  when i was legally self-employed, i paid a little over $30 a month.  now i pay nothing.

because every job here has full health benefits.

you heard me.

every single job.

and of course the unemployed have full access too.  the only money i've ever paid here are token copayments or HEAVILY discounted prescription payments (each payment about 5 bucks or less).  i'm allergic to bee stings.  an epipen runs about 50-60 euros.  i paid around 3 euros. 

the ironic thing is, in the US, by the time i found a job with benefits i would typically either a., be making enough money that i could pay for decent coverage myself, or b., be losing a bunch of money in union dues anyway.

it's really a shame to say i would much rather contract a serious illness in a post-communist country than the "greatest nation in the world."   

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I can't

ClockCat wrote:
I can't think of any reason I would ever need, or want to go to South Carolina.

 

You don't want to visit the shrine of the democratic party that is Fort Sumpter?

 

You know the place where you guys were about a day and a half from starving the soldiers out but then got impatient and shelled them into submission despite the fact that they did not have the ammunition or guns needed to fight back.

 

All because of your wacky conspiracy theory that the Northern republicans were going to take away your slaves, despite the fact that Lincoln had already promised not to do that if you would just give back the illegally seized federal property...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
I can't think of any reason I would ever need, or want to go to South Carolina.

 

You don't want to visit the shrine of the democratic party that is Fort Sumpter?

 

You know the place where you guys were about a day and a half from starving the soldiers out but then got impatient and shelled them into submission despite the fact that they did not have the ammunition or guns needed to fight back.

 

All because of your wacky conspiracy theory that the Northern republicans were going to take away your slaves, despite the fact that Lincoln had already promised not to do that if you would just give back the illegally seized federal property...

 

 

 

Democratic party? I think you may be misunderstanding history, as well as politics in the United States.

 

The CONFEDERACY was fighting during the civil war against the UNION. Abraham Lincoln, the president of the Union and a member of the newly started Republican party, had a Democrat vice president (Andrew Johnson).  The Republican party was founded with extremely liberal ideology.

 

Please read a history book. Also, please read up on the civil rights movement, to find out why conservatives left the Democrat party to join the Republican one, and why the liberals left the Republican party to join the Democrat one in this country.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Dude, I am well aware

Dude, I am well aware of all of that. One of the seminal events for the ideology shift had to do with Teddy Roosevelt running for a third term. Still, it is only one of the many ways of needling democrats. Those who are aware of history have to admit that the details are good enough to concede the point.

 

If you want another, pull the electoral maps from the early/mid 60's and a list of those in congress who proposed the various civil rights laws and those opposed to them. Yep, republicans vs. democrats yet again with the democrats on the short end of the stick.

 

No go away or I shall taunt you a third time, silly English K-nig-ht.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Dude, I am well aware of all of that. One of the seminal events for the ideology shift had to do with Teddy Roosevelt running for a third term. Still, it is only one of the many ways of needling democrats. Those who are aware of history have to admit that the details are good enough to concede the point.

 

If you want another, pull the electoral maps from the early/mid 60's and a list of those in congress who proposed the various civil rights laws and those opposed to them. Yep, republicans vs. democrats yet again with the democrats on the short end of the stick.

 

No go away or I shall taunt you a third time, silly English K-nig-ht.

 

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

JFK introduced the civil rights act of 1964 and made a lot of racist conservatives unhappy with the Democrats.

 

 

Yea-Nay format follows, copy pasted from the wikipedia on the act:

 

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of IowaBarry Goldwater of ArizonaEdwin L. Mechem of New MexicoMilward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Its strange they remind me

Its strange they remind me of anarchist marxists. They want the government to play no role (or almost no role) in society. They are advocating for communal health care (isn't that what they hate the most), their society will be based on production (agrarian), there is no mention of hierarchy, they want people to school their children themselves instead of the government doing it... it goes on. This is just from looking at the article categories. Its funny, I wonder how many of them know what they are?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I have to say, I have

I have to say, I have trouble taking any thread that starts off with a derogatory term seriously. Your title for this tread is a term meant to belittle people who protest higher taxes (go to 'tea parties'). "Tea baggers" is a childish sex joke/slur against them. I see this as petty and hard to take seriously as someone making a thread entitled "niggers" or "faggots." The use of a belittling term to slur the group in question would be exactly the same. I don't go on this website calling members by racial or sexual slurs; perhaps you shouldn't refer the Tea Party protestors by a sexual slur.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I don't

Jormungander wrote:

I don't go on this website calling members by racial or sexual slurs; perhaps you shouldn't refer the Tea Party protestors by a sexual slur.

 

I seem to recall

CNN

MSNBC

FOX

Daily show/Colbert report

and even the Teabaggers themselves, refer to, as such.

Still not seeing an issue with it either, "it's just a fucking word, get over it" keeps popping into my head

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Brian37

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

I live in one of those godless, evil socialist countries where they have nationalised healthcare, so this is too far beyond stupid and weird for me to even comment on.

Love the guy with the cross, though.

I am sure you have long lines. I am sure your doctors use rusty needles. I am sure you have bureaucrats offing old ladies with a stroke of a pen. I am sure you force people to have abortions too.

Oh, it's nothing but waiting in one clean, well-kept room after another, where doctors think about the problem you're having and then try to help you without even doing you the courtesy of handing you endless stacks of forms and getting your credit card information. You just give them your healthcard number.

I mean, they don't even ask you to pay for it right there! You just go into an X-Ray room, where a radiologist just does her job, and there's usually an entire geriatric wing that looks like it wasn't designed to drive someone insane.

It's basically chaos.

Brian37 wrote:
MOMMY MOMMY SOMEONE OTHER THAN A WHITE CHRISTIAN IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP US!

At this point, I think that covers it.

That video was cringe-worthy.

"So what bills do you actually object to?"

"Oh, I can't read."

YOU ASSHOLE! HOW DARE YOU RAIN ON THE "POOR PEOPLE ARE OBJECTS BIG BUSINESS HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE LIKE FACTORY PARTS. YOU DONT GET IT, MONEY EQUALS POWER AND MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

And you call yourself compassionate? You know the world would come to an end if a CEO had to bag a lunch instead of eating Beluga Caviar.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I have to

Jormungander wrote:

I have to say, I have trouble taking any thread that starts off with a derogatory term seriously. Your title for this tread is a term meant to belittle people who protest higher taxes (go to 'tea parties'). "Tea baggers" is a childish sex joke/slur against them. I see this as petty and hard to take seriously as someone making a thread entitled "niggers" or "faggots." The use of a belittling term to slur the group in question would be exactly the same. I don't go on this website calling members by racial or sexual slurs; perhaps you shouldn't refer the Tea Party protestors by a sexual slur.

Don't watch South Park then. They have poked fun of everyone, including us atheists. GET A GRIP!

Anyone, on either side of the issue KNOWS the history, or should know the history of the Tea Party, and what it meant in how our Revolution was started.

HOWEVER, the people promoting this are not, for the majority, pluralistic, like the founders were. MOST involved in this movement, not all, are white Christians afraid that their monopoly of power will be reduced to the RIGHTFUL neutrality the founders intended.

If one wants to make the issue about high taxes, or too much government involvement. I AGREE. This is not the case.

But FOX cares nothing about the agenda of their ilk, they only care about making money, and their base is as ignorant as any Muslim who would blow themselves up for Bin Laden.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
o.O

Jormungander wrote:

I have to say, I have trouble taking any thread that starts off with a derogatory term seriously. Your title for this tread is a term meant to belittle people who protest higher taxes (go to 'tea parties'). "Tea baggers" is a childish sex joke/slur against them. I see this as petty and hard to take seriously as someone making a thread entitled "niggers" or "faggots." The use of a belittling term to slur the group in question would be exactly the same. I don't go on this website calling members by racial or sexual slurs; perhaps you shouldn't refer the Tea Party protestors by a sexual slur.

 

 

What? They refer to themselves as teabaggers. o.O

 

It isn't derogatory any more than any other group full of crazies naming themselves something hilarious.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:What? They

ClockCat wrote:

What? They refer to themselves as teabaggers. o.O

 

It isn't derogatory any more than any other group full of crazies naming themselves something hilarious.

I have never heard a tax or healthcare protestor refer to themselves as a 'tea bagger.' I have only heard them call their protests 'tea parties.' I thought that it was clear that 'tea bagger' was a sexual slur used to denegrate these people. I was pretty sure that this was petty name calling used in place of serious political discussion. I see this as being exactly the same as someone always refering the democrats as 'faggots.' If someone made posts about our fag president and those faggots in control of congress, people here would not just shrug and say 'but it's just a word.' You would recognize that as petty name calling meant to slur people by associating them with something sexual.

Perhaps from now on I will refer to all people who disagree with me politically as 'fags', 'faggots' or 'knob-gobblers.' They are just words, and I once heard a gay guy use the word 'fag' so that means I should denigrate my political opponents with the term.

For that matter, some black people refer to one another as 'niggers.' Perhaps when I dislike what Obama is doing I should call him out as being a nigger about this. If anyone complains I will say it is just a word and that if their ears are so sensitive to racial and sexual slurs used to denigrate political opponents, then they should never watch South Park.

I see no difference at all from someone calling Obama a nigger or the democrats a bunch of faggots or tax/healthcare protestors a bunch of tea baggers. Your 'it's just a word, don't be so sensitive about it' attitude would disappear as soon as someone use derogatory terms to refer to your favored political groups and leaders.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Great and all this

EXC wrote:

Great and all this for 50% less than privatized. You're sitting on a gold mine. Why doesn't the Canadian government let US citizens buy into your system? You could eliminate all taxes in Canada and your treasury would still take in more money.

Did you realize that the US spends more money [as a percentage of GDP] on health care than pretty much anyone, and the people paying that money get basically nothing in return? Do you think maybe it could be run better? If we're sticking to the point, that is.

[edit: I said "per capita", when I meant percentage of GDP]

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

What? They refer to themselves as teabaggers. o.O

 

It isn't derogatory any more than any other group full of crazies naming themselves something hilarious.

I have never heard a tax or healthcare protestor refer to themselves as a 'tea bagger.' I have only heard them call their protests 'tea parties.' I thought that it was clear that 'tea bagger' was a sexual slur used to denegrate these people. I was pretty sure that this was petty name calling used in place of serious political discussion. I see this as being exactly the same as someone always refering the democrats as 'faggots.' If someone made posts about our fag president and those faggots in control of congress, people here would not just shrug and say 'but it's just a word.' You would recognize that as petty name calling meant to slur people by associating them with something sexual.

Perhaps from now on I will refer to all people who disagree with me politically as 'fags', 'faggots' or 'knob-gobblers.' They are just words, and I once heard a gay guy use the word 'fag' so that means I should denigrate my political opponents with the term.

For that matter, some black people refer to one another as 'niggers.' Perhaps when I dislike what Obama is doing I should call him out as being a nigger about this. If anyone complains I will say it is just a word and that if their ears are so sensitive to racial and sexual slurs used to denigrate political opponents, then they should never watch South Park.

I see no difference at all from someone calling Obama a nigger or the democrats a bunch of faggots or tax/healthcare protestors a bunch of tea baggers. Your 'it's just a word, don't be so sensitive about it' attitude would disappear as soon as someone use derogatory terms to refer to your favored political groups and leaders.

 

 

I'm not sure why using homophobic slurs is comparable to a word that these people came up with for themselves...but okay. If you don't see a difference between this and racism either, I think you might need to re-evaluate things. People aren't calling them teabaggers because they are trying to degrade them. They are doing that THEMSELVES.

 

 

If you want me to not call these people by what they are CALLING THEMSELVES, and wearing shirts saying it PROUDLY IN PUBLIC PLACES, then I think you just have an issue with reality.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 

 

Nothing here at all referring to teabagging. Nope. Not at all.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

So it is clear, people are not calling them teabaggers because they disagree with them. It is not a word with spite, hate, or even disagreement.

 

 

People are calling them teabaggers because they are calling themselves that, and are identifying with it. If anything the name is comical, in my opinion.

 

 

 

Everything understood now?

 

 

 

 

Also, many of them are not anti-tax at all. A good number are simply wanting a judeo-christian nation, are anti-abortion, and a whole host of other things.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 

 

Oh lol.

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 According to several websites I've looked at of the tea party movement, or the teabaggers as they call themselves...they have nothing to do with taxes. The only thing they have in common is they are "fed up" and are "now seeing the truth" and don't like "politicians". It says they are protesting because they are frustrated about lies, but none of them say what lies. Also, many of them want Glenn Beck to be president.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3605
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Interesting posts CC. 

  Interesting posts CC.  You are slowly transforming into the Margaret Mead of the RRS ( minus her religion ).  Perhaps you could pursue a career in cultural anthropology ?   

   

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I listen to KFI AM640

I listen to KFI AM640 everyday. I listen to right wing talk radio every day. I have never heard 'tea bagger' said on that station. I only hear about 'tea parties.' I have a conservative friend who attends tax protests. He calls those tax protests 'tea parties' and has never used the term 'tea bagger' in my presence. I have only heard that term used to slur people who are protesting taxes or the new healthcare plan. Spending a minute on google, I have found people who seem to see things the way I do on this derogatory sexual term meant to denigrate protesters:

Quote:
Guess where a reporter is coming from if he uses the vulgar and childish term "tea-bagger" when referring to tea party protesters?

Anderson Cooper was among the first journalists who used the "tea bagging" term back in April. Despite his initial glee over injecting "tea bagging" as often as possible into his comments on the tea party protests, Cooper was eventually forced to apologize for his highly unprofessional use of that term.

Quote:
Plenty of BS in there. Starting with the title. Teabagger is a derogatory term.

Quote:
We all know what tea bagger means. It is as offensive to me as the N word. Why do the libs get a free pass to use this offensive, derogatory term?

Quote:
I respectfully again ask people to stop using the phrase "Tea Bagger".

It is a gross sexual reference depicting the act of putting one's balls on the face or in the mouth of another person.

It would be completely inappropriate to refer to people who are gay as faggots or fairies, even though they sometimes do themselves.
It would be completely inappropriate to refer to people who are black as Niggers, even though they sometimes do themselves.
Etc.

The Tea Party movement is the Tea Party Coalition.
http://site.teapartycoalition.org/

We are not "Tea Baggers" and I really do not like constantly having to read that sexual reference whenever discussion aspects of our movement with you.

Furthermore, it needs to be made clear that while Tea Party members generally oppose Obama Care, not all who oppose Obama Care are members of the Tea Party Coalition. Quite a few of them are not. Thus referring to those protesting against Obama Care as Tea Partiers may be factually incorrect.

All of these comments are consisten with what I have seen talking in real life to a tea party protestor and listening to right wing radio. I'm sure that people who don't like these protesters love the term 'teabagger' because it is a means to denigrate the protesters. This is simply a crude sexual denigration of protesters. I still don't see how it is even the tiniest bit different from sluring political opponents using any other sexual term (such as calling them fags) or using derogatory racial terms in the place of meaningful political debate and commentary.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:

I listen to KFI AM640 everyday. I listen to right wing talk radio every day. I have never heard 'tea bagger' said on that station. I only hear about 'tea parties.' I have a conservative friend who attends tax protests. He calls those tax protests 'tea parties' and has never used the term 'tea bagger' in my presence. I have only heard that term used to slur people who are protesting taxes or the new healthcare plan. Spending a minute on google, I have found people who seem to see things the way I do on this derogatory sexual term meant to denigrate protesters:

Quote:
Guess where a reporter is coming from if he uses the vulgar and childish term "tea-bagger" when referring to tea party protesters?

Anderson Cooper was among the first journalists who used the "tea bagging" term back in April. Despite his initial glee over injecting "tea bagging" as often as possible into his comments on the tea party protests, Cooper was eventually forced to apologize for his highly unprofessional use of that term.

Quote:
Plenty of BS in there. Starting with the title. Teabagger is a derogatory term.

Quote:
We all know what tea bagger means. It is as offensive to me as the N word. Why do the libs get a free pass to use this offensive, derogatory term?

Quote:
I respectfully again ask people to stop using the phrase "Tea Bagger".

It is a gross sexual reference depicting the act of putting one's balls on the face or in the mouth of another person.

It would be completely inappropriate to refer to people who are gay as faggots or fairies, even though they sometimes do themselves.
It would be completely inappropriate to refer to people who are black as Niggers, even though they sometimes do themselves.
Etc.

The Tea Party movement is the Tea Party Coalition.
http://site.teapartycoalition.org/

We are not "Tea Baggers" and I really do not like constantly having to read that sexual reference whenever discussion aspects of our movement with you.

Furthermore, it needs to be made clear that while Tea Party members generally oppose Obama Care, not all who oppose Obama Care are members of the Tea Party Coalition. Quite a few of them are not. Thus referring to those protesting against Obama Care as Tea Partiers may be factually incorrect.

All of these comments are consisten with what I have seen talking in real life to a tea party protestor and listening to right wing radio. I'm sure that people who don't like these protesters love the term 'teabagger' because it is a means to denigrate the protesters. This is simply a crude sexual denigration of protesters. I still don't see how it is even the tiniest bit different from sluring political opponents using any other sexual term (such as calling them fags) or using derogatory racial terms in the place of meaningful political debate and commentary.

 

You say you haven't heard them say it on a radio station. Okay. I don't think I've ever listened to radio for anything but music, so I don't know about that.

 

However, if someone claims to be spending their time teabagging someone....then what would that make them?

 

 

Just saying. It doesn't help that I see them wearing shirts and holding signs that say they are teabaggers, or are teabagging someone, or directing others to teabag people.

 

If a viewpoint of frustration (which is the only linking bond behind this group, after looking into it) is the same as a race or sexual preference, you would have a ground to argue from. If "fag" which you so abruptly used was a past tense adjective referring to an act you might, /might/ have grounds to argue from. Neither is true though.

 

 

I'm only looking at what I see on their websites, and what I see of them in their public marches. IF they never refer to themselves as teabaggers in private or on some radio stations, I'm not aware. It would be interesting to find out why they only use that term in public then, on signs and apparel.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

:3


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 The funniest bit is all the old people wearing "proud teabagger" stuff.

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
That picture gives me

That picture gives me unpleasant images. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:That picture

Tapey wrote:

That picture gives me unpleasant images. 

Is this one better?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
If those men like dragging

If those men like dragging their sack across other peoples' faces and putting sack into peoples' mouths, then good for them. Too long have the subtle arts of testicular-facial interplay been held back by society's disapproval.

Hell yeah. That's what I'm talkin' about.

 

But in all seriousness, those men seem to be taking that slur used against them and announcing that they feel no shame bearing that title. The name is used as a slur against them, but they don't care and wear it gladly. I still think that the term is a petty, childish way to avoid serious discussion on this matter by resorting to sex jokes; but those men have risen above this and are taking a sense of pride in it. I have never in real life met a tea party member use 'teabagger' to describe himself and I have read Tea Party Coalition members denounce that term as a smear against them, but you have found a few people on the tubes that don't mind the name.

It is still no different than yelling "Nigger!" to drown out meaningful political discussion on Obama. Even if some rare few black people proudly call them selves that word, it does not make it any less a petty slur against them. Shoud I find videos of blacks calling themselves and other people 'niggers' as a justification for using that word to describe Obama? If some racist went on this forum and used ethnic slurs against Obama, would their posting a few videos of black proudly bearing that title absolve them of racism and transform their petty comments into meaningful political commentary? You can keep posting videos of people calling themselves teabaggers, but this isn't going to convince me that the term isn't derogatory any more than a racist posting videos of black people calling themselves niggers would convince me that the term isn't derogatory.

We seem to have reached the limit of discussion on this matter. You seem perfectly certain that 'teabagger' is the term that Tea Party prosters proudly use to call themselves. You don't care that the Tea Party Coalition has denouced that term. You don't care that I have found comments from people on the internet pointing out that the term is derogatory. In the same sense, I don't care that you found tee-shirts with the term and videos of people proudly claiming the term. We can't find evidence that the other one will accept. My total lack of experience of people on the right using that term is something that you don't care about; you're videos of weirdos wearing the term proudly is something that I don't care about. Oh well, so goes internet arguing.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

But in all seriousness, those men seem to be taking that slur used against them and announcing that they feel no shame bearing that title. The name is used as a slur against them, but they don't care and wear it gladly. I still think that the term is a petty, childish way to avoid serious discussion on this matter by resorting to sex jokes; but those men have risen above this and are taking a sense of pride in it. I have never in real life met a tea party member use 'teabagger' to describe himself and I have read Tea Party Coalition members denounce that term as a smear against them, but you have found a few people on the tubes that don't mind the name.

It is still no different than yelling "Nigger!" to drown out meaningful political discussion on Obama. Even if some rare few black people proudly call them selves that word, it does not make it any less a petty slur against them. Shoud I find videos of blacks calling themselves and other people 'niggers' as a justification for using that word to describe Obama? If some racist went on this forum and used ethnic slurs against Obama, would their posting a few videos of black proudly bearing that title absolve them of racism and transform their petty comments into meaningful political commentary? You can keep posting videos of people calling themselves teabaggers, but this isn't going to convince me that the term isn't derogatory any more than a racist posting videos of black people calling themselves niggers would convince me that the term isn't derogatory.

We seem to have reached the limit of discussion on this matter. You seem perfectly certain that 'teabagger' is the term that Tea Party prosters proudly use to call themselves. You don't care that the Tea Party Coalition has denouced that term. You don't care that I have found comments from people on the internet pointing out that the term is derogatory. In the same sense, I don't care that you found tee-shirts with the term and videos of people proudly claiming the term. We can't find evidence that the other one will accept. My total lack of experience of people on the right using that term is something that you don't care about; you're videos of weirdos wearing the term proudly is something that I don't care about. Oh well, so goes internet arguing.

 

 

I don't understand how you find nobility in them using the name, or find it as a pejorative slur against them.

 

Again, I also don't see how you can compare it to race or sexual preference. I am not aware of anyone being born a teabagger. I could be wrong.

 

I think it is hilarious. I don't know why they want to call themselves that, or have anything to do with tea, or teabagging. Nothing I have found leads me to believe that their protests have anything to do with tea, or their "tea parties" being in a protest over fiscal issues (in reference to the boston tea party, which was over tea tax..a protest that made sense as they did not buy the tea beforehand). What I noticed among the teabaggers:

 

People that don't know why they are there other than Glenn Beck told them apparently to be (I don't know if he did or did not)

People that want Glenn Beck to be president

People that hate abortion and call others murderers

People that say this is a christian nation

People that want sodomites to be purged

People that claim god's wrath is coming, and the end of days is upon us

People that think taxing is slavery somehow

People that think blacks shouldn't be in power (Yes...seriously. Those racial terms you were referencing earlier were used in abundance on signs.)

People that think Obama is from Kenya

People that think Obama is unamerican

People that think Obama is a terrorist

People that think Obama is a muslim

People that say Fox News is patriotic

People that hate the mainstream media

People that like Joe Wilson, and/or want him to be president

People that think Obama wants to kill old people with death panels

People that want the "government to keep their hands off medicare"

People that are afraid Obama wants to take money from medicare to put into "socialized medicine"

People that don't know what czars are and are scared of them

People that are scared and don't know why

People that are there on a church trip

People that hate politicians

People that feel lied to, but don't know what they were lied to about

 

 

 

 

This is what I have gathered. The only linking condition is they are all scared, or frustrated. If you feel there is a REASON behind this movement, please let me know, and explain how all of the signs erected by the protestors fit into this. As far as I can tell it is a collection of crazy people. I know you seem to be linking it to tax protests in some way, but from what I can see that is NOT the majority in every image, and every video, camera recording, etc that I have seen in DC on 9/12. It isn't even what many of the people are saying they are there for.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Interesting posts CC.  You are slowly transforming into the Margaret Mead of the RRS ( minus her religion ).  Perhaps you could pursue a career in cultural anthropology ?   

   

 

Well thank you! I appreciate the compliment. I don't think I am quite stating anything nearly as controversial or groundbreaking as what she did, though.

 

I don't know about a career, but it looks to be a fascinating study. If things move on from there, well...so be it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Did you

HisWillness wrote:

Did you realize that the US spends more money [as a percentage of GDP] on health care than pretty much anyone, and the people paying that money get basically nothing in return? Do you think maybe it could be run better? If we're sticking to the point, that is.

[edit: I said "per capita", when I meant percentage of GDP]

But when you have price controls, it enivitable will lead to shortages: 

Canada's doctor shortage to worsen without changes

Report: Canada faces 60,000-nurse shortage

 

So the laws of supply and demand can't be overridden by nationalizing health care. Maybe we'd pay more but we'd be able to convince more good foreign doctors and nurses to come here and not Canada. And if we keep income and business taxes low, we'll be attract good jobs to pay for it.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:HisWillness

EXC wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Did you realize that the US spends more money [as a percentage of GDP] on health care than pretty much anyone, and the people paying that money get basically nothing in return? Do you think maybe it could be run better? If we're sticking to the point, that is.

[edit: I said "per capita", when I meant percentage of GDP]

But when you have price controls, it enivitable will lead to shortages: 

Canada's doctor shortage to worsen without changes

Report: Canada faces 60,000-nurse shortage

 

So the laws of supply and demand can't be overridden by nationalizing health care. Maybe we'd pay more but we'd be able to convince more good foreign doctors and nurses to come here and not Canada. And if we keep income and business taxes low, we'll be attract good jobs to pay for it.

 

One article cites 2003 numbers (the article on doctors) and the second suggests a shortage of that number by 2022.  It's not 2022 and there isn't a shortage of that sort.  Further, we've addressed the problems with the number of doctors by expanding the type of care, the education and the licensing of nurses.  There's more incentive for people to become nurses and doctors presently.  The state of the number of physicians and the number of nurses is not nearly as dire as you would believe.  Further, the number of Canadians without access to a family doctor is not the same as Americans without access to medical treatment.  Do not confuse the two.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: One article

Thomathy wrote:

 

One article cites 2003 numbers (the article on doctors) and the second suggests a shortage of that number by 2022.  It's not 2022 and there isn't a shortage of that sort.  Further, we've addressed the problems with the number of doctors by expanding the type of care, the education and the licensing of nurses. 

 

But you're limiting the number of people that want to go or stay in profession by having price controls.

Thomathy wrote:

There's more incentive for people to become nurses and doctors presently. The state of the number of physicians and the number of nurses is not nearly as dire as you would believe. 

  

Which takes money that drives up the cost and taxes.

 

Thomathy wrote:
Further, the number of Canadians without access to a family doctor is not the same as Americans without access to medical treatment.  Do not confuse the two.

No one is denied acess to medical treatment. Sure some people don't have a job or income that makes it difficult to buy it or they want to take a chance they won't get sick. But if people can't get a good job or income, shouldn't we first use our limited resources to fix the problems with the education and rehabilitation services? Shouldn't we keep taxes low to attract business and professionals like doctors and nurses from other countries like Canada and Denmark with high income taxes?

You can't outlaw the laws of supply and demand.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

 

One article cites 2003 numbers (the article on doctors) and the second suggests a shortage of that number by 2022.  It's not 2022 and there isn't a shortage of that sort.  Further, we've addressed the problems with the number of doctors by expanding the type of care, the education and the licensing of nurses. 

 

But you're limiting the number of people that want to go or stay in profession by having price controls.

Funny, then, how there's always more nurses and doctors entering the profession.  Most of our numbers problems has to do with the medical staff aging with the rest of the population and the increased burden on the health care by the old.  That'll change in about 10 years.

Thomathy wrote:
Which takes money that drives up the cost and taxes.
Funny, then, how taxes have been decreasing ...

Quote:
No one is denied acess to medical treatment. Sure some people don't have a job or income that makes it difficult to buy it or they want to take a chance they won't get sick. But if people can't get a good job or income, shouldn't we first use our limited resources to fix the problems with the education and rehabilitation services? Shouldn't we keep taxes low to attract business and professionals like doctors and nurses from other countries like Canada and Denmark with high income taxes?

You can't outlaw the laws of supply and demand.

Are you retarded?  I wrote, without access to medical treatment and people are denied access, or have been (even if it's not my point).  And if we're treating societal problems with education and rehabilitation with tax dollars (very expensive programmes, by the way), why not take care of people so that they are healthy enough to join the workforce productively?  Or to keep them in the workforce if they happen to work low income jobs and can't afford preventative medicine?  If those two, why not the other?

You clearly have a very loose grasp on how health care is administered and functions in Canada.  Get a clue.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I wrote,

Thomathy wrote:

 I wrote, without access to medical treatment and people are denied access, or have been (even if it's not my point). 

 

The problem is misrepresenting the problem to try to win your argument. It's like your saying we're taking away their freedom to get health care. No one that can afford health care or insurance is denied. So the problem is either people not making a good income that makes it difficult to afford insurance, or people that can afford it taking the risk so they can save some money. Stop misrepresenting the problem with propaganda characterizing as people being denied.

Thomathy wrote:
And if we're treating societal problems with education and rehabilitation with tax dollars (very expensive programmes, by the way), why not take care of people so that they are healthy enough to join the workforce productively?  Or to keep them in the workforce if they happen to work low income jobs and can't afford preventative medicine?  If those two, why not the other?

 

I agree. I think we can afford limited health care as part of a welfare program for people in rehab programs. But that is very different than making it a human right, making coverage unconditional and unlimited both in cost and time.

Thomathy wrote:

You clearly have a very loose grasp on how health care is administered and functions in Canada.  Get a clue.

 

To you as a user it seems like your getting something for free, great. But in the long run you're really not. 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:To you as a user

EXC wrote:

To you as a user it seems like your getting something for free, great. But in the long run you're really not. 

No, to us paying under a tax model, it seems lke we're paying for something we will actually get. Can't necessarily say the same for those paying under insurance models.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3272
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No, to us

Eloise wrote:

No, to us paying under a tax model, it seems lke we're paying for something we will actually get. Can't necessarily say the same for those paying under insurance models.

here here.  i've lived under both and know a lot of american expats, both here in slovakia and in other european countries, who have as well.  i have yet to meet one who says they really miss american healthcare.

on the contrary, i once knew a lady in the US who was born in canada and had lived there most of her life.  she said she actually had to deal with more waiting in the US.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

 EXC, I do not have insurance right now and I have been denied care at the ER.

 

 

They can't deny you for emergency treatment, but they certainly can deny you medical care. If you have an issue that the ER isn't equipped to handle, you are sent out the doors with a bill and no help.

 

 

 

The thing is, a lot of medical issues are not emergencies, but they are certainly life threatening. Only when it has progressed beyond all hope does it become an emergency, and then you get to go to the ER...only to get a DNR slapped on your board.

 

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy wrote: I

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

 I wrote, without access to medical treatment and people are denied access, or have been (even if it's not my point). 

 

The problem is misrepresenting the problem to try to win your argument. It's like your saying we're taking away their freedom to get health care. No one that can afford health care or insurance is denied. So the problem is either people not making a good income that makes it difficult to afford insurance, or people that can afford it taking the risk so they can save some money. Stop misrepresenting the problem with propaganda characterizing as people being denied.

Misrepresenting?

Thomathy wrote:
The state of the number of physicians and the number of nurses is not nearly as dire as you would believe.  Further, the number of Canadians without access to a family doctor is not the same as Americans without access to medical treatment.  Do not confuse the two.
I have never tried to identify a problem with American health care.  What I wrote is that there is a clear distinction to be made between Canadians without access to family doctors and Americans without access to medical treatment.  You haven't even responded to the point I made.  Don't tell me I'm misrepresenting anything.  There are Americans without access to medical treatment.  It is simply the reality and I was merely making a distinction to clear up your ignorance over the state of Canadian health care (which is a ridiculous thing to talk about, since it's administered by each individual province and should rather be spoken of on a per province basis).

EXC wrote:
I agree. I think we can afford limited health care as part of a welfare program for people in rehab programs. But that is very different than making it a human right, making coverage unconditional and unlimited both in cost and time.
Health care in Canada is neither unconditional nor unlimited in cost and time.  Where do you get that idea?

EXC wrote:
To you as a user it seems like your getting something for free, great. But in the long run you're really not.

I pay for this shit!  Do you think I'm a moron?  I fill out my income tax myself.  In fact I don't actually use the worth of the money I put into the system myself, my partner and I together make FAR too much money for that.  My brother, however, can and does.  My mother as well.  My sister and her child.  The people in my community who suffer from HIV and AIDS or other diseases.  Those who need emergency, life saving or preventative treatment regardless of their level of income or if they're insured.

No one in this country is getting any of their provincial health care for free.  We all pay a premium based on our income, either in income tax or upfront (depending on province).  The cost to each individual is largely minute per year and each province is capable of supporting the medical needs of its citizens.

Whatever, you don't want it for America.  Fine by me.  It's probably in your nation's best interest, but whatever. Why exactly do you bother arguing at all?  Trying to prove it doesn't work?  It works here and elsewhere.  Trying to prove it won't? You haven't made any convincing arguments against it's implementation in your country.

What the heck is so bad about basic, preventative and emergency medical care for everyone?

Oh, right.  You don't like to pay taxes.  I understand that you're not a humanitarian or even socially conscious, but money's that important to you?  That's just sad.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No, to us

Eloise wrote:

No, to us paying under a tax model, it seems lke we're paying for something we will actually get.

But you want health care that is a human right, which means one need never pay any taxes and yet one still gets a benefit. While others could pay massive taxes and get little benefit. Over half the population pay no income tax. The top 5% pay over half the total revenue. This is unsustainable.

Eloise wrote:

Can't necessarily say the same for those paying under insurance models.

Then why not come to America and start a health insurance company? Easiest money there ever was, just collect huge premiums and never provide any coverage. You'd be a multi-billionaire in a few months, then you could use your massive wealth to help people through your own charity.

You don't even believe this left wing propaganda. That's why none of the people spouting this garbage try to start a competing insurance company or health co-op. You don't believe insurance are making tons of easy money, otherwise you'd be doing it too. This leftist propaganda is just like religious indoctrination, when it comes right down to it, you don't really believe it. But you still expect me to believe this propaganda.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:  What I

Thomathy wrote:

  What I wrote is that there is a clear distinction to be made between Canadians without access to family doctors and Americans without access to medical treatment.  You haven't even responded to the point I made. 

 

I have. This is not true. The problem is not that people are denied access. The problem is that some people have a problem coming up with the money to pay for it. You're making shit up.

 

Thomathy wrote:
Health care in Canada is neither unconditional nor unlimited in cost and time.  Where do you get that idea?

I thought health care was a human right. So then you admit your system has rationing? You can't get what you want or need, but a government beaurcrat gets to decide and not the individual. So you're denied acess sometimes, same a private insurance system when you don't buy a good policy.

Thomathy wrote:
Oh, right.  You don't like to pay taxes.  I understand that you're not a humanitarian or even socially conscious, but money's that important to you?  That's just sad.

Well if everyone in Canada is such a great humanitarian, why not just take care of the poor's health care through charity? If you already pay for health care through taxes, there should be no problem with privatizing the system and just pay a preimium. Why must everything be done by force, if it's so great?

And if you do get better health care at 50% savings, why aren't you setting up a Canadian style health care system in the USA? 50% profit margins, you'd be a billionare in a short period of time with those kind of profit margins.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: EXC, I do

ClockCat wrote:

 EXC, I do not have insurance right now and I have been denied care at the ER.

 

Did you not know how crappy this insurance was before you bought it? Why not?

Or was this employer provided? Shouldn't we get rid of this system and let individuals buy their own insurance?

Why wouldn't taxpayers that don't want higher taxes force the politicians to treat you the same way?

 

 I'll ask the same question. Why aren't you starting an insurance company and becoming a billionaire? Or why don't you start a non-profit co-op that does not treat the policy holders this way?

Or do you really want wealth redistribution and health care is just a convenient way to disguise it?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy wrote: 

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

  What I wrote is that there is a clear distinction to be made between Canadians without access to family doctors and Americans without access to medical treatment.  You haven't even responded to the point I made. 

 

I have. This is not true. The problem is not that people are denied access. The problem is that some people have a problem coming up with the money to pay for it. You're making shit up.

...you're serious?

 

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Health care in Canada is neither unconditional nor unlimited in cost and time.  Where do you get that idea?

I thought health care was a human right. So then you admit your system has rationing? You can't get what you want or need, but a government beaurcrat gets to decide and not the individual. So you're denied acess sometimes, same a private insurance system when you don't buy a good policy.

Health care is a right of every Canadian citizen.  Why does that have to mean that it is both unconditional and unlimited in cost and time?  The system does not have rationing.  I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.  No government bureaucrat decides what treatment a person gets.  No one is denied access.  That is an incredible misrepresentation, misinterpretation and extremely thoughtless extrapolation of what I wrote.

There are limits to the type of care given to a person.  For instance, an eye check up for those aged adult and not senior is covered once every two years in Ontario.  That is the medically necessary period between regular eye exams for that age group to detect ocular problems.  It is not unconditional in that way.

The cost and time involved in treatment is similarly not unconditional.

Thomathy wrote:
Oh, right.  You don't like to pay taxes.  I understand that you're not a humanitarian or even socially conscious, but money's that important to you?  That's just sad.

Quote:
Well if everyone in Canada is such a great humanitarian, why not just take care of the poor's health care through charity? If you already pay for health care through taxes, there should be no problem with privatizing the system and just pay a preimium. Why must everything be done by force, if it's so great?
I don't mind paying taxes.  I'm sorry, I'm not you EXC and I don't have a problem paying into a government funded (publicly funded) health care system.  The system is not only for the poor, either.  My personal health insurance covers costs outside of the basic, preventative and emergency medical needs I am guaranteed by my province.  I get scaling done on my teeth twice a year because I can afford to and I buy really expensive frames for my glasses because I can afford to and both are covered by my personal insurance.  I pay above and beyond my basic needs.  A good deal of Americans can't even afford their basic health care needs.

Quote:
And if you do get better health care at 50% savings, why aren't you setting up a Canadian style health care system in the USA? 50% profit margins, you'd be a billionare in a short period of time with those kind of profit margins.
I don't understand this argument.  You REALLY don't understand health care in Canada (and I mean any of it).  The savings are, I believe, compared to what Americans pay into insurance and what health care costs your nation based on your current model.  We get better bang for our dollar here.  That's all.  The 50% savings is in comparison.  It can't be exported or exploited and it's not 50% profit margins.  We get what we pay for and it happens to be more for cheaper than what America as a nation pays.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."