The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Choop on October 26, 2004, 07:45:47 pm
-
Dunno if/when/how the rest of the country's doing it, but here in Georgia we're allowed to go to the county election office this week and vote early. Basically, I filled out an application for absentee ballot, and they gave me an absentee ballot, which I traded in for an electronic voting machine (EVM?) card.
Now here's hoping Diebold doesn't fuck us all up the ass with a pitchfork.
Anybody else?
-
My office gives us an hour off on election day but I'm considering going in Thursday to beat the crowd then leaving work an hour early Tuesday anyway.
-
Wow, it's frustrating to be observing this with the knowledge that I can't make even the relatively nominal contribution of a vote. (I canvassed during the last Canadian election, which I couldn't vote in either, but that's quite a different game). Things are even noticeably tense around my school, which apparently has vast quantities of Americans.
-
i've had my "i voted" sticker since last week.
let's hear it for still believing in chad technology! let's go west tennessee, let's aim to achieve!
seriously, though, these new-fangled electronic voting machine systems scare the beejeezus outta me.
-
seriously, though, these new-fangled electronic voting machine systems scare the beejeezus outta me.
The worst part for me is that every time I vote they explain to me how a touch screen works, the difference between "OK" and "Cancel" and what the Back button does. It adds like 10 minutes per person to the process every election.
-
I'm a voting official this year. I'll be putting in a 12 hour day at the precinct fire house. I encourage everyone to vote early if you can. It's a lot easier on your county.
Our system is neither computer nor chad. Our ballots have little arrows with the middles missing, if you want to vote for someone, complete her arrow. Machine counting is unbelievably accurate, and the people that do it wrong generally make understandable marks that can be easily hand counted. (They'll circle a candidate or something stupid.)
-
Aw, hey, this is cheating. We're all supposed to go out and vote on the same day like one big happy family.
Really I'm just jealous that I can't do it where I live. What I really miss is when I had an excuse to vote absentee ballot. I always preferred take-home tests.
-
I kinda admire that, Pedro. Here's hoping you get free donuts delivered!
Thanks! They do give us money, but not much. JL has promised to bake cookies. I'm looking forward to it.
-
I'll be voting here at work (right on the Arctic Ocean, some of the farthest north US voters). However, in Oregon, everybody votes by mail. I'm still registered in AK, but that'll change after this one.
-
I was intrigued, I saw that they have blocked access to Bush's site from outside the US. Now, they claim it's for saving money and making sure it stays up, but it does highlight the 'no one else matters' point of view of the Republicans (and Democrats to a large extent).
Best though, is the advert they were trailing on georgewbush.org, which said Kerry is unfit to be President for he is a Jew... Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Zieg fuck*ng heil Mr. Bush, Sir!
I know, I know, but come on, it's just too funny!
Also, this is the website that features this text: An inspiring celebration of America's greatest ever 21st century President.
Ah, I want to live on that site. It is so fine:
"He was sworn into office by the Rehnquist Supreme Court on January 20, 2001, after a campaign in which he unveiled inspiringly unspecific plans to never ejaculate in the Oval Office, transform America's public schools into Protestant madrassas, bestow the budget surplus on our patriotic defense contractors, transform Social Security and Medicare into vague memories, and systematically shatter the wall separating church and state."
-
It's cool to live in a country where the leader is Satan.
-
Two little ranty bits of info:
1. One hundred thousand civilians have died in Iraq due directly to coalition violence according to a survey (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596) that discounted Fallujah (which is nothing but violence right now), and asked two households in every neighborhood for actual death certificates to make sure people weren't just making shit up. One hundred thousand innocent people. That's 9/11 times twenty (to quote Team America.) Guess who I'm blaming when I cast my absentee ballot?
2. Safe Haven Laws - I never knew about this. In North Carolina, like many states, it is legal for the parent of a newborn baby to walk up to a policeman or medical professional, hand off the baby stating that they would like the child to be cared for by a safe haven, and leave. The professional cannot demand their name, and they cannot be prosecuted. This is to prevent children from being abandoned and to prevent unprepared parents from being prosecuted for leaving their child (an irresponsible act) in a responsible manner. I think that's awesome. Why don't more people know about this? We should be making all sorts of public service announcements. How's a law like this going to save babies unless the sixteen year old mothers at the wits' end have heard of it.
-
Ky passed one of these last year. It was an uncharacteristically enlightened thing for our legislature to do.
-
I did my duty yesterday after work. It was a very long line, but it moved fast and I was in and out in about 30 minutes.
I voted my first ever straight Democratic ticket, and I got violently ill yesterday evening. I'm not sure if the two events were related, but I have my suspicions.
-
Ky passed one of these last year. It was an uncharacteristically enlightened thing for our legislature to do.
Yeah, especially since the main thing that pushed me to overnight my Absentee Ballot was the single non-candidate choice on the KY ballot, asking whether or not we should consider a "Protection of Marriage" amendment. But I payed the money (my fault for being the Worlds Laziest Absentee Voter) and sent that baby in. Too bad it's a drop of Kerry-vote going into a massive Bucket of Bushwater.
I formally apologize for that analogy.
-
I did my duty yesterday after work. It was a very long line, but it moved fast and I was in and out in about 30 minutes.
I voted my first ever straight Democratic ticket, and I got violently ill yesterday evening. I'm not sure if the two events were related, but I have my suspicions.
Highly likely. I guarantee that is what would happen to me if I voted a straight Democratic ticket. I voted today - Hawaii has Electronic Voting! and Dick Cheny is coming HERE! This is one F&*^ed up election if Hawaii is in play....
-
One time I voted a straight Republican ticket, and my soul climbed out of my mouth, and said "fuck you, buddy." Then a chasm opened up to Hell and he got sucked into it.
I'm sorry, that did not in fact actually happen.
-
One time I voted a straight Republican ticket, and my soul climbed out of my mouth, and said "fuck you, buddy." Then a chasm opened up to Hell and he got sucked into it.
I'm sorry, that did not in fact actually happen.
Of course it didn't. What happened was your soul left long before you voted a straight Republican ticket. Nobody with a soul can actually do that. It's documented.
What I mean to say of course is that on each ballot there is likely a terrible candidate from each party, and by "soul" I mean that part of oneself which cares about the rest of the people in the ballot's (insert locality and scale here). Straight party tickets are for people who don't care about themselves or the world - educate yourself before you vote. Should I be sorry I ruined that attempt at humor? Maybe. Should I stop now? Yes.
-
What I mean to say of course is that on each ballot there is likely a terrible candidate from each party, and by "soul" I mean that part of oneself which cares about the rest of the people in the ballot's (insert locality and scale here). Straight party tickets are for people who don't care about themselves or the world - educate yourself before you vote. Should I be sorry I ruined that attempt at humor? Maybe. Should I stop now? Yes.
In general I agree, but the moderate wing of the Republican party in Kansas is more or less deceased, so straight ticket Democrat is about our best bet for sanity over here. Hopefully we can get some more moderate Rs on the ballot next time around, but this time they're all running on a "NO GAY MARRIAGE!!!" platform.
On second thought, I actually didn't vote straight this year, I forgot that I voted for the Libertarian for senator since that's the one race on our ballot that was a complete lock for the Republican.
More importantly, I got to vote to lift the ban on Sunday liquor sales in my town. If that measure fails, I am going to be very disappointed in the people of Shawnee, KS.
-
I just try not to vote for people who include hate in their platform. There's a pretty serious hate amendment in Oregon this year.
-
Georgia's hate amendment is unconstitutionally vague on the ballot:
"Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"
while the amendment would actually outlaw any and all civil unions and partnership agreements between members of the same gender. Insurance/retirement benefits? Nope. Hospital visitation rights? Fuck off. I sense a HUGE migration of the gays to Massachussets and Hawaii, at least those who can afford it.
I'm sure, though, that once the amendment passes (and it almost assuredly will, due to its unconstitutional vagueness), it'll be eliminated by challenge to the courts. Did you hear about the lawsuit beforehand? The Georgia Supreme Court said "We can't deny the amendment's position on the ballot, because the courts don't have any right to interfere with the legislative process." Basically, they spelled out how to right the wrong. Hopefully there's a lawyer in the country that's good enough to take the case. It'd be even better if he's gay himself.
-
There's a small movement to defeat Oregon's 'one man one woman' by saying it means that only the first marriage will be recognized. Great, if it works, I guess. I don't think it will. It'd be nice if people would vote it down because this is not bible-land.
No marriage for gays because marriage is for producing kids? Oh, ok, so if you are post-menopausal, or use contraception, or are spayed or neutered you can't get married. God says fags can't marry? What the hell does your God's opinion have to do with it? We will be forced to teach homosexual practices in kindergarten next? I don't remember them teaching heterosexual practices in kindergarten.
Why can't people be sensible? How does homosexual marriage affect anything to do with heterosexual marriage? Why does the radical right-wing always want less government until it comes to telling people what they can do in their own homes and own lives? They don't want the government to lessen how much dioxin or mercury ends up in my bloodstream, but heaven forfend I shack up with someone of my same gender - that might cause all sorts of problems.
News Flash: my behavior will not keep you out of heaven, people!
I misplaced my medication.
-
Georgia's hate amendment is unconstitutionally vague on the ballot:
"Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"
while the amendment would actually outlaw any and all civil unions and partnership agreements between members of the same gender. Insurance/retirement benefits? Nope. Hospital visitation rights? Fuck off. I sense a HUGE migration of the gays to Massachussets and Hawaii, at least those who can afford it.
Hawaii can't help them. It didn't pass here. No domestic benefits either. At best, less people will try to kick your ass if you walk around holding hands. That's about it. I say less because there are still bashings here, too.
I don't think the language is as vague as you think, Choop....I don't see a slam dunk Constitutional case here. Give me more details on the constitutional issue - I'm interested.
-
Georgia's hate amendment is unconstitutionally vague on the ballot:
"Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"
while the amendment would actually outlaw any and all civil unions and partnership agreements between members of the same gender. Insurance/retirement benefits? Nope. Hospital visitation rights? Fuck off. I sense a HUGE migration of the gays to Massachussets and Hawaii, at least those who can afford it.
Hawaii can't help them. It didn't pass here. No domestic benefits either. At best, less people will try to kick your ass if you walk around holding hands. That's about it. I say less because there are still bashings here, too.
I don't think the language is as vague as you think, Choop....I don't see a slam dunk Constitutional case here. Give me more details on the constitutional issue - I'm interested.
so, a constitutional ammendment can be passed without the actual ammendment's words being put on the ballot?
-
Arkabee's really cut through to the point here, AD. I don't remember ever voting on a national/state constitutional amendment before, but if I did and later found out that it had been misrepresented on the ballot, boy would I be pissed.
"Shall the constitution be amended so as to provide that all citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"
Amendment text: All citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms. All citizens who wish to do so must undergo thorough background checks and submit complete personal history to the state, along with an application fee equal to one third of applicant's annual income. Any citizen who fails the background check will be arrested and will serve three to five years in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass Prison."
It's a bad example, and I took it too far, but do you see what I mean?
-
1.5 hour line this morning. There were 3 people handing out democrat ballots around the 40' perimeter but no republicans. I did however learn that if you're over 65 they'll bring a paper ballot right to your car as long as you park withing 150'
-
I had so much fun voting today that I went back an hour later and voted again!
-
I only waited about 40 minutes.
Best thing about voting at an elementary school: Bake sale!
-
I waited nearly two hours to vote in a church basement in Columbus, Ohio. I was 188th in line. We had three machines and zero bake sales.
-
You all have no idea how much I wish I could vote in this election. I mean, Bush's presidency has had such a huge impact on politics and whatnot over here, and the rest of Europe. I know other Europeans who want to be able to vote in this election too.
-
Don't worry Slink, I'll vote once for you, too.
-
You all have no idea how much I wish I could vote in this election. I mean, Bush's presidency has had such a huge impact on politics and whatnot over here, and the rest of Europe. I know other Europeans who want to be able to vote in this election too.
And lots of people here don't vote at all. That's so cool. I've never had to wait more than maybe 2 minutes to cast my vote. I had no idea that people had to wait to vote at all. Then I see on the news that people in Florida are waiting three hours to vote, and I'll be brutally honest, I assumed the GOP was trying to steal the election. Hmmm, who is brainwashed now?
-
We had 4 machines. We also had 4 machines last year when nobody gave a damn and like .1% of people turned out.
I heard on MD they're having problems with the smartcards. I seriously still think that the felt-tip pen system works the best and it's more scalable for big elections like this.
-
I, too, have overheard at least one acquaintance with the "the state is already tied up, so why should I vote?" I'm... yeah, fairly angry about that.
Long story short: due to a bizarre series of snafus with the state of Massachusetts, I am not eligible to vote. I'm fairly ashamed of myself for this -- but at least I attempted to register, even if it went horribly wrong. Choosing not to vote just weirds my shit out, although I can handle it if it's an actual moral/principled choice and not just apathy masquerading as political opinion ("the state's already locked" seems like shorthand for "I totally can't be arsed").
(My one comfort is that my vote was almost certainly not the only thing holding Massachusetts for Kerry, but still.)
-
I had about a 30 second wait at the firehouse. It was pretty busy for us, though. People coming and going. Two precincts vote at the Firehouse and there were two people in front of me. Pouring down rain.
-
I had about a 30 minute wait at the firehouse, which wasn't too bad (although it was long enough that the 80 year old woman behind me had time to decide she needed to pray for my soul). It could have gone faster, as only 1/3 of the voting booths were in use at any given moment, but the poll workers were hella slow. It's just odd to me, because I never had to wait in Seattle.
But at least out here they still use punch cards, so I got to check for chads. Will the excitement never end?
-
The spouse had to wait two hours with all the people who were trying to vote before they went to work. I went at a nice unemployed-person's hour in the early afternoon and it only took 45 minutes but it was very aggravating anyway. Phooey on my fellow citizens. The woman in front of me complained nonstop the whole time, everyone else kept talking so I couldn't read, even though I had thoughtfully chosen to wear my toothpastefordinner shirt that says SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. We also had plenty of voting machines but not enough people to process the people in line, so there were machines standing idle while you're waiting around in line doing nothing.
In short, I find that having more people participate in our democracy isn't as great as it sounds.
Next time I will get an absentee ballot. It's not like there's a Vacation Police who come around to make sure you're really out of town on election day.
-
I know for us they give you a 3 minute course on the machines unless you say "I voted in Arlington last year." So maybe those people were 3 minutes behind because of that. I also paused at one point because the category that I was up to started blinking and I couldn't actually read it until it stopped.
It's times like this that I wish that A) the What the HELL People shirt was done in a respectable font size and B) that I had purchased one.
-
I had to wait about ten seconds to vote. That's the only advantage of living in this backwater 'burb.
I've been voting on behalf of dead people. It's amazing that they:
a) do not ask for ID, even when you tell them you are Sheila Waters,
and
b) do not compare your signature with the one on the voter registration card, even though it is right in front of them.
I may head over to a neighbouring district and vote again, although I'm out of recent dead people now.
Also, I have been trying to convince local slackers that they should write me in rather than vote for Kerry or Bush. I am fairly certain that I've gotten at least four votes, which is a couple more than Nader is likely to get in this state.
The fact that I am not constitutionally eligible to be president until the 2012 election is beside the point.
-
I'm hoping that Jough is joking. But they don't even ask us for a voter registration card - just name, address and birthday. You could definitely vote as all the dead people you wanted.
I don't know what brand of voting machines we had, but it was touchscreen and I think it took me no more than thirty seconds. Admittedly it was a short ballot this time and I skipped some things I wasn't sure of, as usual (I guess I assume they take points off for wrong answers). Insane to have to wait in line that long to do something that took thirty seconds. I wasn't even there long enough to notice if other people were taking longer.
It sure couldn't have been easier - one of those rare instances where the computer really did make life better. Now we just need to figure out a way to replace those people who look up your voter registration - that's what holds the whole thing up. Couldn't we just have automatic retinal scans or something?
-
Arkabee's really cut through to the point here, AD. I don't remember ever voting on a national/state constitutional amendment before, but if I did and later found out that it had been misrepresented on the ballot, boy would I be pissed.
"Shall the constitution be amended so as to provide that all citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms? YES [ ] or NO [ ]"
Amendment text: All citizens shall possess the right to own and bear firearms. All citizens who wish to do so must undergo thorough background checks and submit complete personal history to the state, along with an application fee equal to one third of applicant's annual income. Any citizen who fails the background check will be arrested and will serve three to five years in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass Prison."
It's a bad example, and I took it too far, but do you see what I mean?
You are right, it's a terrible example. Everyone does have the right to bear arms, but it does not excuse people from responsibility to obey the law nor does it restrict the states's interest in protecting the citizenry with responsible legislation around that right. You have a right to drive your car, too, but not when you're blind drunk. You have the right to free expression but you can't threaten or harrass anyone with it.
On the other hand, Defining marriage does not restrict anyone's behavior. It merely sets a standard by which the State will recognize a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals. You can still have your relationship blessed by the clergyman or clergywoman of your choice; you can still put any part of your body into any part of their body in the privacy of your home.
The state has an interest and right to define and regulate the relationships it sanctions and which can effect things the state has an interest in, such as taxes, probate, and commerce.
If enough people agree with you, the measure goes down. If enough people agree with them, the measure goes through. If a lawyer rights the right case, the measure goes down. Your lines of defense are the electorate and checks and balances - you should contribute money, time and talent to the campaign or the lawyers if you don't agree. I think it might just stand for awhile and we'll all learn a lot in the next few years. This issue is definitely not going away.
-
On the other hand, Defining marriage does not restrict anyone's behavior. It merely sets a standard by which the State will recognize a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals. You can still have your relationship blessed by the clergyman or clergywoman of your choice; you can still put any part of your body into any part of their body in the privacy of your home.
The state has an interest and right to define and regulate the relationships it sanctions and which can effect things the state has an interest in, such as taxes, probate, and commerce.
It completely restricts people's behavior. Two adults who love each other and marry share property, inheritance, have hospital visitation, share common custody of children, ability to adopt, share insurance, and other stuff I can't think of of at the moment. So preventing two people from marrying severely effects their behavior and their rights. Especially if they have children.
-
ADawg, do you think there is some benefit to prohibiting marriage between homosexuals?
-
So eliminate federal government from marriage altogether! How's that for a differing viewpoint? True, cribbed from elsewhere (2 points to ye who knows), but somewhat valid: state governments have always been those which administer marriages; the feds jumped on when some candidate for federal office said, "Hey! Don't you want to pay less in taxes when you're married? Huh? Dontcha?" and the masses bit.
Anyway, you're missing my point, and the thread's veering. Back to the topic you've evaded somewhat: The text on the imaginary ballot which I proposed did not represent the amendment in full. My main beef with this? There's plenty of room on the screen/page/paper to print the entire text of the amendment, so why not do it? Toner costs? Oh, please.
-
ADawg, do you think there is some benefit to prohibiting marriage between homosexuals?
I think that Marriage is a sanctioned relationship rooted deeply in the state's interest to ensure stable families, succession of property and knowledge of lineage. Most of these predate modern law and also have persisted beyond their specific usefulness since we have so much law around these issues.
Hospital visitation policies have nothing to do with the law. They are the purview of the hospital. Similarly, property accession through instruments like wills and trusts can be assigned to any individual. The ability to adopt already exists in many places for gay couples. There are few to no examples of this supposed 'benefit' of being married. Mainly, it changes your tax status unfavorably. A link to the 'marriage benefit' would be interesting to me; I've seen both sides of that fence and aside from taxes, things didn't change much.
Additionally, once marriage is altered beyond the traditional meaning, a precedent is created by which any two individuals should be able to sue for marriage. Farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against once marriage is open to definition include brothers and sisters marrying, state-sanctioned polygamy, uncles and nieces, and other less than savory possibilities including individuals 'marrying' animals. All of this sounds silly but once the threshold is broken these challenges will occur. That's just the kind of people we have around this great country of ours and a way to keep those hosss in the barn is important in order to not let the entire institution of marriage - for anyone - become meaningless.
I think that Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Other sorts of couples who seek some kind of relationship that runs contrary to the values of the majority should be protected if that relationship is legal. I have yet to see a list of 'benefits of marriage' that I can agree with aside from health benefits which I think should be allowable in domestic partner benefits. This, though, should also be allowable if I want to cover my mother under my work-based health insurance. As a Christian and a conservative, I draw a distinction around these relationships that does not allow me to use the term marriage. My guess is that my conservative Christian view still sees homosexuality as a state outside of behavior prescribed by God and I probably won't change my mind about that soon.
I love my gay and lesbian friends but I don't think marriage is the correct term for their relationship. And I understand their love for one another and I've witnessed truly beautiful things (including parenthood) between them - I just look for another word to describe it.
I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...
-
Anyway, you're missing my point, and the thread's veering. Back to the topic you've evaded somewhat: The text on the imaginary ballot which I proposed did not represent the amendment in full. My main beef with this? There's plenty of room on the screen/page/paper to print the entire text of the amendment, so why not do it? Toner costs? Oh, please.
-
Choop - in Ohio, Illinois and in Hawaii (the three places I've voted) the ballot would contain some portion of the amendment but also, clearly printed in the voting instructions as well as near the portion of the ballot dedicated to the amendment/initiative/proposition was a statement to the effect that the full text of the ballot item was available from the election officials. If that is not the case in Georgia, it sure should be because otherwise there is no way to make a truly informed decision at the ballot box.
Your indignation is absolutely righteous.
-
In VA the full text did no appear on the ballot but on posters while in line. I'd already read them online but if I hadn't there's no way I would've had time between the time I got close to the poster and the time I'd moved past it. You'd think in a 1.5 hour line there'd be plenty of time to read but there was only one poster (per initiative) up.
I as I said in another thread:
When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt
In other words, respect other's beliefs and practices even if you don't agree with them. That doesn't mean that preaching or converting is wrong, just that one shouldn't blatantly try to block others from practicing their beliefs in the mean-time.
That being said I think the gov't role in marriage (always a small m) is to recognize it and that's it unless it's dangerous or unhealthy. So any marriage between two consenting adults who are not immediate relatives. That covers polygamy and incest. You can even throw a "sentient" or "human" in there if you want. But other than that love is love regardless of gender, color, religion, etc.
My religion techinically says marriage is only between two Catholics but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and make the state or federal gov't outlaw protestant/Jewish/Hindu/&c marriages.
-
That being said I think the gov't role in marriage (always a small m) is to recognize it and that's it unless it's dangerous or unhealthy.
The problem comes not in the religious aspect of marriage and whether two men, or two women should be allowed to be married. I mean, they could call it something else and it would be fine. The issue is in the civil rights - state pension being a particularly difficult example. I mean, I think if you get 'married' to ANYONE, things like state pension should be treated the same as if you were married conventionally, but even a lot of people who support gay marriage have a problem with where lines ought to be drawn.
As far as I'm concerned... What lines?
-
It just seems strange that marriage should remain traditonal so there is no slippery slope to guys marrying dogs, but gays can enter into civil unions. What's to stop guys entering into civil unions with dogs, with the institution of marriage is so tenuous? And why would you deny gays the opportunity to marry just because there might be challenges? I suspect that argument might have been used against interracial marriages, too. I could undertsand if your point was to save money by not clogging the courts up with challenges, but I'm guessing that most judges are not going to allow someone to marry a chicken just because same-sex marriages are ok.
I'm thinking that the basis of traditional marriage being one man/one woman is religious in nature, and I don't think that it is fair to make something with a basis in religion be legally binding over people who do not belong to that particular religion.
-
Hospital visitation policies have nothing to do with the law. They are the purview of the hospital.
are you certain? i was under the, possibly erroneous, impression that (and especially now with further HIIPA (spelling?) enactments) that most hospital polices ARe in fact governed by the , uh, government.
For instance, if i am badly injured and in a car wreck or whatnot, and my girlfriend comes rushing to the emergency room, due to "patient confidentiality" etc things, i was under the impression that she may or may not be allowed visitation as she as not a family member nor any other LEGALLY SANCTIONED entity Sanctioned to interact with or for me when i am not in possession of the facilities to make decisions based on such.
ie, if i'm unconscious, they aren't legally allowed to let random people in and let them make decisions for me while i'm not.
which, incidentally, i'm grateful for. i mean, i don't want some random person coming into the room and saying "i'm so and so, and he always said to pull the plug!!!!".
to be honest, other than marrying her, i'm not sure what i would have to do to give her the rights, privileges, responsibilities etc that would allow her to make those types of decisions for me.
however, i guess that's wha "civil unions" would seem to me to allow.
so, to me, i can understand why, in addition to the social changes that would allow society to be more "Accepting", a gay couple would want to be allowed "Legal Marriage" or "civil unions" etc.
since, i do not know what other recourse they would have to allow their partner to take care of them in times of need.
however, i would guess that things such as "living wills" or "powers of atttourney" would exist to give these types of powers???
sadly, i am incredibly ignorant on the subject.
more sadly, i think that many more people are much more ignorant than i onthe subject.
I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...
i may disagree with your stances (on occassion) sir, but i certainly am in favor of your thought out and rational explanations of your opinions and views.
to veer dangerously to where i didn't quite want to go,
it seems to me as if the issue in "america" isn't quite "no gay marriage" so much as "no gay".
perhaps it is purely "the media" not representing the general views of the populace, but i rarely if ever hear or see actual "reasons" for not recognizing or endorsing gay marriage.
i see a lot of hate, and i see a lot of indignation, and blustering, etc. but i do not see a lot of rational thought nor reasons.
and it makes me sad.
so, mr. alohadawg, thank you for making me happy. because while i may or may not agree with your REASONS, it is certainly nice to hear (see) actual REASONS in regards to this issue. it gives me some hope that there is someone on that side of the issue who is rational and intelligent and etc.
of course, you are kept trapped on a volcanic island by your right-wing masters, which saddens me. (please note this last sentence is humor, albeit not very good.)
-
I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...
Yeah, Dawg - let me also make clear that I'm all for you saying what you believe, and the fact is that I've been trying to find some reasoned defense of the 'defense of marriage' acts for some time. The folks that I work with have basically a few positions, such as:
-I don't want my tax dollars supporting gays,
-Gays can't procreate, and that's what marriage is for,
-God hates fags.
I'm glad to hear some well-thought-out ideas, rather than knee-jerkism (which I get from both sides).
So thank you, Dawg.
-
What arkabee said.
And it's HIPAA. We deal with it a lot at my job and the privacy provisions make our lives quite difficult.
-
HIPAA (at least in the environment in which I work) has a lot to say about the confidentiality of your medical information; what a doctor may or not disclose; to whom they may disclose it. In cases outside the ICU (where medical reasons often preclude indiscriminate visitation) I don't think HIPAA applies. Otherwise nursing homes and other facilities like that would have problems with visitation. As long as the medical information is safe I don't think it addresses the visitation policy. Releasing medical information to a gay domestic partner would be a problem without a legally recognized relationship, signed release, living will, power-or-attorney, etc. though.
Hospitals have to be accredited by JCAHO and this is a huge, systemic process that is meant to assure quality as well as quality improvement. They look at everything in the hospital including policies. This is more likely, to me, to address visitation issues. But I have visited many people in the hospital in various states including near-death, without being related to them in a direct way. So I'm not sure about the relationship between gay marriage/civil unions and hospital visitation but I still suspect that this is an issue of hospital policy more than regulation.
-
Additionally, once marriage is altered beyond the traditional meaning, a precedent is created by which any two individuals should be able to sue for marriage. Farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against once marriage is open to definition include brothers and sisters marrying, state-sanctioned polygamy, uncles and nieces, and other less than savory possibilities including individuals 'marrying' animals.
You know, it's kind of odd - traditionally, marriage means between a man and a woman, so lots of folks want to keep it for men and women, and homosexuals can just have something else. But at one time, traditionally, voting was just for white men, property ownership was the same way - everything was, really. This country opened those rights up to other humans and things worked out pretty well.
It's pretty poor if our country can't extend rights to a group of its citizens because it might lead to 'farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against.'
-
Er, isn't there already legislation against marriages between close blood relatives (and sometimes cousins)? That seems to counterindicate that these would be difficult to legislate against. In fact, most of your cases mentioned can be clarified very simply; legislate that marriage is a bond between two consenting adults who are not within a certain degree of relation to one another. This eliminates all the particularly farcical cases pretty much out of hand.
(Also, provided that the arrangement is between three or more consenting adults who run a harmonious household together, what's so wrong with polyamorous relationships being recognized by the state? I realize that, in practice, such relationships are often unstable, but every kind of life-partnership relationship is unstable.)
-
Yeah, my big thing is, why doesn't the government just say, okay. We will, henceforth, only care about "civil unions." So, if Jack and Jill want to get married, they can go and get married in a church, and the church can send the paperwork to the government, and we'll put that down as a civil union. Jack and Jim can do the exact same thing, but they might have to go to a different church. Basically, let's completely separate the religious significance of marriage from the work-a-day realities of civil unions, because, as it is, it degrades both.
And we'll throw something in there about two humans, not related, as well (although I actually don't see anything massively wrong with polygamy; not my cup of tea, but if Ezekial is willing to put up with the fights, and we can work something out, tax-wise, I don't think I would mind. Except when I get pissed because those Mormon guys are taking all of the good girls.)
EDIT: As they say on Mefi, "On preview...what V-Adore said," for the last part.
-
I believe the farcial situations part was intended to refer to THE COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF THE INSTITUTION OF MATRIMONY, AND THUS, SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!!! that would of course result from said marriages.
-
I'm certainly doing my best to break down society with my marriage. And I'm having pretty promising results, too.
-
(Also, provided that the arrangement is between three or more consenting adults who run a harmonious household together, what's so wrong with polyamorous relationships being recognized by the state? I realize that, in practice, such relationships are often unstable, but every kind of life-partnership relationship is unstable.)
There is no compelling reason to grant a new state-sanctioned, state-defined relationship to a narrow class of people that creates a spectrum of rights or privileges that are already covered in the body of law or can be addressed by non-legal means. You can't compel the state to make a law which then it would be required to spend money to administer and uphold, when the interests that would be served by the law can be served in either the existing body of law or by policies in non-legal areas. Hospital visitation, adoption, property succession, power-of-attorney, living wills, Gay-friendly churches who bless unions, and work benefits are all areas that do not require any or additional legislation and serve virtually every purpose for which altering the definition of marriage would supposedly accomplish.
Also you are making my point; once you begin recognizing every kind of relationship it becomes farcical and indeed destroys marriage as sacred institution. As I have tried to say, call it something besides 'marriage' and define it in legal terms that accord specific rights and responsibilities to the involved parties and you will have a much better chance at seeing this concept supported.
-
There is no compelling reason to grant a new state-sanctioned, state-defined relationship to a narrow class of people that creates a spectrum of rights or privileges that are already covered in the body of law or can be addressed by non-legal means. You can't compel the state to make a law which then it would be required to spend money to administer and uphold, when the interests that would be served by the law can be served in either the existing body of law or by policies in non-legal areas. Hospital visitation, adoption, property succession, power-of-attorney, living wills, Gay-friendly churches who bless unions, and work benefits are all areas that do not require any or additional legislation and serve virtually every purpose for which altering the definition of marriage would supposedly accomplish.
Also you are making my point; once you begin recognizing every kind of relationship it becomes farcical and indeed destroys marriage as sacred institution. As I have tried to say, call it something besides 'marriage' and define it in legal terms that accord specific rights and responsibilities to the involved parties and you will have a much better chance at seeing this concept supported.
Then why do you need a law that specificaly bans that same arrangement?
And the "sacred institution" argument doesn't work because sacred is by its nature a religious term.
-
How does anything I was saying imply that recognizing any kind of relationship somehow destroys marriage as a "sacred institution?" My point was that marriage can be quite safely legally defined in such a way as to avoid your "slippery-slope" argument and that it might be entirely possible to allow that definition to be inclusive of polyamorous groups -- in other words, that a legal definition of "marriage" can be created in such a way as to allow gay couples and other societally-constructive "alternative" life-partnership arrangements without allowing societally-destructive ones (incest, people marrying their dogs, &c.) Presumably marriage as a religious/"sacred" arrangement remains as it is regardless of a definition of which partnerships are eligible for legal rights, and the idea that a theoretical granting of legal rights to non-heterosexual couples somehow erodes that sacred notion totally baffles me.
Also, presuming that all the people involved have a mutually-loving relationship and are prepared to enter into the awesome responsibility of creating a household together, what's farcical about polyamory?
(And with that, I'm bowing out for a while. It's not personal -- I just have a huge lab report due tomorrow and thus have to focus on writing it. I may end up posting anyway, but still...)
-
Also, presuming that all the people involved have a mutually-loving relationship and are prepared to enter into the awesome responsibility of creating a household together, what's farcical about polyamory?
Hear, hear. Thank you, V.
-
It's farcical to call polyamory analogous to marriage. I think you would find little support for such an argument in any state.
I don't think I've argued 'for' banning. I'm definitely against a Federal Ban; I think states have certain latitude to pescribe and proscribe behavior based on the values of their community. I've asserted that all of the rights alleged to come with creating a new protected class of relationships already exists and I've argued that using the term marriage serves to offend a lot of people that you could get to support some fairness measure, if required to remedy a documented disparity, if you remove the cognitive link to a sacred institution. I don't support the creation of a new class of relationship where the supposed advantages are already inherent in law and society. When you strip all of that away, all you have left is a small segment of the society who want their relationship somehow blessed or sanctioned by the state. I think that is unnecessary from a legal standpoint.
-
i agree with whomever put the idea of stopping state-sanctioned marriage all together and outright into my head.
do not allow the state to recognize or not recognize marriage at all, redefine politically/legislatively recognized "marriages" as "social contracts" or some other term that removes ALL religious connotations from the union/contract and let the institution of marriage become a religious rite and/or sacrimant in and of itself.
as i understand the marriage process, it currently exists as such except that the TERM "marriage" is used in the political/legislative process.
you go to the courthouse and get your LICENSE to get married. some people then go to a church to perform a marriage CEREMONY etc.
two distinct processes/concepts with one name.
confusing.
the state can simply say that it will not accept a marriage as legally binding without state mandated licensure/registration (which it currently does) but "simply" rename the lincensure/registration something other than "marriage license".
grandfather in ALL currently at large "marriage licenses" as termed as the new name of the contract.
all current local, state, and federal legislation regulating marriage would strike "marriage" and replace it with the new term, and henceforth "marriage" would fall solely into the religious world, which is where it belongs anyways.
any current issues regarding states' decisions to accept or not to accept other states marriages would now apply to this new term.
this would in no way shape or form affect the "sanctity" of any current or future marriages or marriage license holders.
keep the government out of the people's religions and keep the religions out of the government.
sadly, this would never happen, because people would react negatively to the government no longer referring to the licensure as "marriage", and the cultural phenomenon of "status: married?" etc.
-
It's farcical to call polyamory analogous to marriage. I think you would find little support for such an argument in any state.
Why is it farcical, though, assuming that the people involved take the commitment as seriously as a married couple? What about adding another person to the equation intrinsically makes it a farcical setup?
I'm not saying that you'd get support for legalized polyamory any time soon -- I just have no idea why you're asserting it as a given that it's a farcical setup.
-
I can hang with this as a start. Another idea could be just to register a union between two people and pay a fee. No ceremony required; it would be like registering a business. It would legally note the relationship between these two people for all purposes necessary to the state (taxes, property ownership, probate) while allowing them to exercise their relationship in whatever way that they want.
Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.
The spiritual process of marrying would still be available to those who want it. Divorce would eventually be an option too as would dissolving the corporation, dealing with the assets of the corporation/partnbership, etc. etc.
However, at the bottom line, I still believe that a major factor behind this issue is the yearning of gay people everywhere to have the 'stamp of approval' on their relationship - and your solution would continue the perceived inequity since most churches still won't marry gays. Taking the word 'marriage' out of the government context is probably a good start.
-
I can hang with this as a start. Another idea could be just to register a union between two people and pay a fee. No ceremony required; it would be like registering a business. It would legally note the relationship between these two people for all purposes necessary to the state (taxes, property ownership, probate) while allowing them to exercise their relationship in whatever way that they want.
Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.
The spiritual process of marrying would still be available to those who want it. Divorce would eventually be an option too as would dissolving the corporation, dealing with the assets of the corporation/partnbership, etc. etc.
However, at the bottom line, I still believe that a major factor behind this issue is the yearning of gay people everywhere to have the 'stamp of approval' on their relationship - and your solution would continue the perceived inequity since most churches still won't marry gays. Taking the word 'marriage' out of the government context is probably a good start.
the corporation thing. i was talking to someone today about the whole "don;t call it "marriage"" thing, and they said "isn't that just like giving them power of attourney?
so, i dunno.
i want smaller government, i want less interference in personal life, i want to keep my liberties and freedom.
why am i unable to call myself conservative?
-
i want smaller government, i want less interference in personal life, i want to keep my liberties and freedom.
why am i unable to call myself conservative?
The only reason I can think of is that you feel you are entitled to these things and don't need to work for them.
-
Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.
My wife's mother suggested this to her before we were married. I have to tell you, I wasn't having any.
But I can get behind most of the rest of it. I just feel like homosexuals ought to be able to get married, and call themselves married, if they would like to. Bisexuals can get married if they want to, provided they don't enter into a same-sex marriage, so what the hell.
-
Seeing as how the voting period is over, and this thread is pretty much going nowhere other than the gay-marriage discussion, I'm going to lock it at some point tomorrow. Until then, carry on.
-
I was leaving it since although it had obviously wandered, it had done so into a fairly germane and articulate debate. Split perhaps?
-
These are actually wonderful ideas. My "wedding" is going to be at a courthouse with our parents and possibly grandparents. No gods, no candles, and no pointless pomp.
-
Cort -
Congrats on getting married. Or legally bound. Or joined. Or whatever it is that you are getting once we decide what to call it.
-
I can't remember; did I mention I got married at a donut shop?
-
i want smaller government, i want less interference in personal life, i want to keep my liberties and freedom.
why am i unable to call myself conservative?
The only reason I can think of is that you feel you are entitled to these things and don't need to work for them.
i'm glad i had to run earlier and did not have time to respond immediately, since my initial reaction was righteous indignation.
so in order to call oneself "conservative", one must actively work to keep the liberties and freedoms promised (and dare i say "entitled" to the citizenry?) in the constitution, bill of rights, and subsequent ammendments? i must actively work against a government bent upon making itself larger and more powerful? i must work towards keeping others from choosing which morals i should have?
what do you mean exactly? to dedicate myself to public service and work inside the system to stem it from going in ways i do not wish? to work hard in the community to show others my shining example? work hard and make money to pay my taxes?
rereading this, i might sound snippy, especially if you are coming from a defensive position (which i'm not saying you are, but you seem to be the only "proudly declarative" republican on this board, and there are several threads with you on one side and the rest of the thread on the other).
i am not trying to be snippy, i am trying to engage you in discussion that i might benefit from your perspective, a perspective that appears to be vastly different than mine though both of us might be looking at the same thing.
-
arkabee, you..are..rad
-
I was being sarcastic, because there are those who believe Liberals believe in an entitlement society. Sorry if that was taken seriously. You seem sincere enough and also not the kind to wait for the government to come and take care of you.
I imagine you are probably moderate. I've found, as have many people my age, that as the years have gone by and the responsibilities have piled on, I've become by nature more conservative. I think even people who are exremely or radically liberal in their younger days often move to the right, although not all of them (naturally) make it to the middle or past it. I think that experience shapes our beliefs to a large degree. I'm not presuming that you will become a right-wing conservative but I think you may well become, eventually, more conservative than you are now.
Whatever you believe and whereever you fall, I hope that what you value as a person is reflected in your political beliefs and that you are able to sincerely and without hesitation or self-censoring express them to whoever you want. That is the country I want to live in.
-
But the Republicans aren't even conservative.
-
I can't remember; did I mention I got married at a donut shop?
Now that is a beautiful idea for a wedding.
-
I can't remember; did I mention I got married at a donut shop?
Now that is a beautiful idea for a wedding.
I'm sad because I wanted to include a link to the shop, and their link seems to have disappeared.
-
I was being sarcastic, because there are those who believe Liberals believe in an entitlement society. Sorry if that was taken seriously. You seem sincere enough and also not the kind to wait for the government to come and take care of you.
I imagine you are probably moderate. I've found, as have many people my age, that as the years have gone by and the responsibilities have piled on, I've become by nature more conservative. I think even people who are exremely or radically liberal in their younger days often move to the right, although not all of them (naturally) make it to the middle or past it. I think that experience shapes our beliefs to a large degree. I'm not presuming that you will become a right-wing conservative but I think you may well become, eventually, more conservative than you are now.
Whatever you believe and whereever you fall, I hope that what you value as a person is reflected in your political beliefs and that you are able to sincerely and without hesitation or self-censoring express them to whoever you want. That is the country I want to live in.
i've found that often times there are specific issues that are "hot buttons" for individuals. issues that when brought up in conversation, the person affected by them will immediately JUMP UP and start SHOUTING, usually incoherently.
we are veering into that territory, so i am trying my best NOT to jump up and be any more incoherent than i normally am. so, if i am more incoherent, i apologize.
I do not remember the 2nd half of my senior year of high school. I know that my father was "illegally" fired from his job for firing an employee who was consistantly late and etc. There was no severence pay, there were legal fees. Let me add that his position was in a non-public school.
It was winter in northern wisconsin.
Let me explain winter in northern wisconsin. (incidentally, i have lived in many places, for very short periods of time. i have lived in wisconsin in three distinct and separated periods of time[edit- i guess it was four]). when i was in first grade, i remember there being a layer of SNOW on the inside of the Front Door. The Front Door was not "malfunctioning". There was nothing wrong with the front door. there was not anything wrong with the Storm Door on the outside of the Front Door. There was weather stripping, and it was functional and well maintained. It's just that when there's that much wind, and that much snow, and it's that cold, that the snow just _seeped_ under the door. That's not a complaint, that's just how it is.
So, it was winter in northern wisonsin. my father had lost his job. my mother has had health problems as long as i can remember. regardless of her health problems, she had always tried to work as much and as often as she could. at that point in time, she was working part time as a substitute teacher and as a music teacher / instructor.
Any benefits that my father may have had at the time were lost. my mother, as a part time employee for the public school system was "entitled" to no benefits (which i would absolutely agree with. part time employees of any business are not "entitled" to benefits).
so, ya, "boohoo" times are tough. we "cinched our belt" and carried on. dad was particularly demoralized, it appeared, due to the inequities of the whole system, a system up until then he had Faith in. [edit- not the Governmental system, the specific system he was working for]
regardless, it was our family's duty as good citizens to pick ourselves up and move on.
one thing i remember is when the ambulance came, and that it couldn't back up to the front door, because there was too much snow.
my mother had a blood clot in her leg. she'd had it for some time. the blood clot had become dislodged and was "thrown".
when a blood clot is "thrown", it can go two places, as i understand. somewhere not important, or to the heart where it causes the person to die.
the angels that my mother has Faith in must have been directed by the God that my mother has Faith in, because she survived.
am i proud of the fact that as a minor i subsisted on Food Stamps for a period of time? am i proud that the "State" paid for _some_ of the medical treatment that KEPT MY MOTHER ALIVE?
YES I AM PROUD! i am Absolutely Proud that the Greatest Nation of the World in all of History has safety nets in place such that its citizenry can rely upon The State for support in times of Dire Need. I am Proud that The State will not let Mothers die and Children Starve.
When someone talks about "Entitlement", i feel a rage build up, an IRRATIONAL reaction. I irrationally "hear" them say "blah blah entitlement blah blah YOUR MOTHER SHOULD BE DEAD" and i want to IRRATIONALLY grab them by the throat acnd scream "FUCK YOU! YOU fuck*ng DIE!".
i know that such a reaction is irrational.
Rationally, i believe that i am blessed to live in the Greatest Nation of history. There are wealth and resources present in this country that do not exist in other times or other places. I feel that it is MORALLY WRONG and Unjust for there to be hungry children in this Nation.
I feel that it is Morally Wrong and Unjust for The State to let those who give their life to making the State Stronger and more Prosperous die.
Did I or my family "wait for the government to take care of [us]"? NO! I continued to work at my after school job, and was FORTUNATE enough to have an employer who as Able and Willing to give me more hours. My Father made every effort to find work in a community that Actively Shunned Him due to Unsolvable Social Injustice.
My Father was FORTUNATE enough to find a job late that winter, in Southern Missouri. My Mother was BLESSED to have recovered, and as soons as she was able, she went back to working for the Public School system, regardless of the constant harrassment by Petty Minded individuals in order to give me the Opportunity to finish High School.
The entirety of my Father's career has been spent in Education or Public Health or Religious Pursuit. He talked a man off of a bridge. He counselled Adolescents and children, Alcoholics, and the Mentally Ill. He has taught or worked in Elementary, Middle, and High School. He is teaching, again, at a College Level. My Mother has taught, been a substitute teacher, worked in Church Administration, and followed Religious Pursuits.
I had the opportunity for a "free ride" through college paid for by the State (secifically a "state" and not federal, but regardless) and chose NOT to take it. I worked for a temporary agency as a City Garbageman. I worked during college (as most do). I took private scholarship and Federal Loans, and ultimately did not finish my Bachelor's career because i could not afford to continue at the Institution i had dreamt of attending since i first wished to attend College.
Until 1 year ago, I had been working at a local Small Business with No Healthcare. A majority of what i did was for local municipalities, counties, and police forces as well as for local medical facilities. The other signifigant part of what i did was to help people who had no idea how to use a computer, the self-proclaimed "computer illiterate", connect to the internet so that they could access the wealth of information and knowledge and communcation potential available. [edit 1- see footnote]
during that time, i paid my incredibly low monthly fee to the state (not federal) healthcare program. I used the benefits of that Program for Two Issues. The first, which required local outpatient surgery, my doctor declared "how the hell did you go this long with this?" when i finally came in. the second required surgery at a hospital when i was unable to walk without the pain causing negative affects to my work performance.
now i guess it's _my_ turn to be sarcastic:
ya, it would seem that Me and My Family sure do feel ENTITLED to benefits from the government and are Unwilling to work for them.
[edit]- made some typo fixes, and this:
[1] i do not imply that my customers, whom i supported, were ignorant or less intelligent or anything. there is a large base of people who ARE self-proclaimed "computer-illiterate". i make a point to take time to explain to these people that the fact that they do not know how to do something does not make anyone better than them.
-
Arkabee, to be honest I don't think it's at all irrational, but then I am one to get angry easily at the state of the world.
I don't know, when it gets to this I find it difficult, since...
Well, essentially a similar situation in many ways.
For a long time my mother didn't work, and then my father got ill, when I was very young, with chronic fatigue syndrome, which has never improved. This means he lost his job as an educational psychologist. Fortunately my mother had started work due to the Lockerbie disaster, and moved onto a job she is now happy with too, but it doesn't exactly rake the cash in. They are just about comfortable though, and the long fight for the inheritance that was left to her has helped greatly.
But that aside, without national health care and the benefits my father was entitled to, I hate to think how things would have turned out.
That's not where it ends, but I don't feel like getting into the rest of it, as, well, it's in progress and rather personal... But, basically, yea, I know some of how you feel. I can't believe that people don't think it's a good idea to support people. It's like y'all were saying about how in some states you can give your baby to a cop and know they'll be fine... There is NO GOOD REASON why anyone should die from malnutrition or illness when the corporate fucks who are in charge have more than enough money as is, and they're just ensuring they can take more.
I really need to stop thinking about this shit, it's starting to make me feel sick...
-
I really need to stop thinking about this shit, it's starting to make me feel sick...
which was not my point at all, nor was my point to garner sympathy for "a hard life". my feelings are that just about everyone in life has had "a hard life" in some aspect, and that i really shouldn't try to judge other's lives as compared to my own.
my point was that individuals and families that recieve assistance from their government do not necessarily feel entitled to be given an entitlement or dole from the government, and that i feel it is immoral for a government as strong as mine to not help those who need help, be it that they've lost their job due to Unjustness, lost their Homes due to Hurricanes, or lost their Families due to War or Terrorist Attack. If it is in this Nation's Power to help those who need help and who dedicate their lives to investing into this Nation's Power, to turn its collective back upon those people is evil.
-
Ark -
Your family DID work for them. And you rejected free college because you had a different vision for yourself. That takes some strength of conviction.
Your parents are strong people and I imagine you are too. I agree completely with the idea that the State maintain safety nets for people with specific needs.
I disagree with the notion that the third generation of people on general relief deserves continued support - although they should be empowered to earn what they need. That's the kind of 'entitlement' I'm talking about. There is a vast difference between being 'entitled' to something and 'deserving' or 'needing' something. I think your family both deserved and needed the assistance you got; I think that what your family got was the temporary help you needed due to a circumstance which you overcame.
Also, on a personal note, I think it's awesome that you can dig down and share some intensely personal stuff. I'm sorry that my somewhat sarcastic statement touched a nerve with you; I distinguish your situation sharply from the mentality of entitlement and certainly would not make a statement intended to belittle your experience or be hurtful.
-
which was not my point at all
Well, I just think that, while a system where anyone is entitled to assistance is prone to abuse, it is wrong to have any other system, as then it just causes people to go without healthcare, food or housing.
I don't want to be angered by the situation, I'd rather be motivated to go out and help, but it's not the case when things are so far gone. For me at any rate.
It's not helped by the fact that I am trying to sort shit out as is (since I am not entitled to any assistance other than health care, which hasn't gotten me anywhere with my illness), and I live somewhere where there are few, if no people to assist anyway.
-
which was not my point at all
Well, I just think that, while a system where anyone is entitled to assistance is prone to abuse, it is wrong to have any other system, as then it just causes people to go without healthcare, food or housing.
I don't want to be angered by the situation, I'd rather be motivated to go out and help, but it's not the case when things are so far gone. For me at any rate.
It's not helped by the fact that I am trying to sort shit out as is (since I am not entitled to any assistance other than health care, which hasn't gotten me anywhere with my illness), and I live somewhere where there are few, if no people to assist anyway.
slink,
i must apologize and clarify. it was not my point to post something that would end up making you sick to your stomach nor unsettle you etc.
as for "trying to sort shit out", you certainly have my sympathies and commiseration on that issue in general.
i think you bring up an excellent point, which (if i may) i will attempt to reiterate: even a messed up system, that can and is abused, that exists to help people is better than no system at all.
i agree with that statement, to a point. i do not know how to clarify where that point is, other than to say that at some point the abuses to the system may cause more "evil" than the benefits of the system may cause "good". at that point i would think that the system is not better than no system at all, and that point the system should be overhauled or scrapped and recreated with checks built-in to halt the abuses which experience has shown have happened.
and i feel that many of the people, whom i have spoken with, who cry out against the abuses of the system feel that that point has been met and crossed.
which is why i feel it necessary to speak of my first hand experiences, to show that yes while the system is being abused and causing "evil" the system DOES still cause "good".
i do not know how to fix the system, but i truly fear that if nothing is done rationally that an irrational reactive (rather than proactive) backlash against the abuses of the system will cause the system to be dismantled to such a point that the "good" that it does cause will be lost and that the "evil" that it does cause will never be redressed nor corrected.
perhaps that is what is meant by "pluck the eye to spite the face".
-
Don't worry about it. Nothing you said made me feel sick, it's just how I keep feeling when I think about it all, and well, what with the events currently it's all on my mind a lot anyway.
I certainly agree with you on that. I certainly don't feel the line has been crossed yet, but I guess mainly because I feel the people in charge have too much money for their own goods as is, and so something needs to be done tax-wise to redress the system. Damn fat-cats!
I spent years watching my parents struggle through taxes, and council tax which we pay the same as in a city - despite the fact the only amenity we get that that pays for is waste disposal - they refuse to even resurface our road which is causing damage to people's vehicles, because not enough people use it - despite the fact we have paid and not seen the use of more council tax than would be needed to do so... But that's kind of irrelevant.
Meh!
No, I'm just angry at the system, none of you guys!!
-
I think that's an important point: if some people need a new house, burning down the one they live in and making them wait in the cold for you to build the new one is a pretty crappy way to go about meeting their need.
One problem I have with a single-source national health care system in the US is that I am afraid that such a system would spin down to the average. I think some 'competition' in terms of providing excellent and innovative services with market controls on cost is important.
I wish pharmaceuticals worked this way and I don't 100% understand why they don't except to assume that one basic problem is that they are publicly held and the need to answer to stockholders outweighs any potential for minimizing the social cost. That's one area where my pro-business views break down significantly.
I know that JLD also related a personal family anecodote about health care - the two of you also have stories to tell and I know families with no insurance. I think that there should in every state be a Federally supported insurance program that gives people the opportunity to have health coverage equal to the average coverage where they live. I would pay some additional taxes for this because the social benefit is massive (and because I work in public health). This must be independent of medicare and medicaid, though - this would be primarily to cover families for preventive services, chronic diseases and acute injuries. Things covered by non-profits or public health clinics should be excluded because those services are already paid for. Emergency rooom care should always be available to everyone regardless of ability to pay. I would fund this through HRSA and build more health centers, especially in rural areas and inner cities. The money should go to the states to administer the plans themselves or to pay for coverage from area insurance carriers.
This is a safety net that is meant to fill gaps - I still don't believe a national health care plan/system is viable in the US.
-
I think it's probably (ok, fairly definitely!) true that switching the US over to an NHS style system wouldn't work. I guess I don't tend to consider that the population is well, pretty vast. I mean, the population of Britain equals those who voted for Bush, and we can just about get by with the NHS. As it is, things need doing to address that setup! Waiting times for surgery is a big issue at the moment.
But like you say, there certainly needs to be something there. Part of it is that I don't know much about Medicare and Medicaid, and what their roles are. I'll have to go and look into that some, as I hear a lot of talk of them, but going into depth would take time.
I sometimes feel guilty for spending so much time researching and thinking about US politics, since there is so much at home to be thought about, but, well, I'm not entirely sure why it is. Everything British just seems too quaint to me! Plus, while I doubt now I will ever move to the US, I would still like to leave the UK, as there are far too many things I am unhappy about here.
-
We should trade homes for a month. My family would love to ride around on trains in the UK, go see castles, and I'd like another chance to try to uinderstand this old man from Aberdeen who was trying to talk to me the last time I was in Scotland. I have no earthly clue if he was talking or having a tuberculous phlegm attack. And you could hang out on a beach where the sun shines and it's warm. Hawaii is nominally in the US - but it's not like the mainland. It would be a good place to start before going to, say, LA or New York though.