USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Why, are you going to be needing a tutor??
Don't Ask, Don't TELL
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
Why, are you going to be needing a tutor??
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
If it's recognized as a common law marriage, then it's no longer a "significant other"; you emo-tard.
If anyone needs to support gay marriage, it should be you; seeing as how it's probably your only chance at being with anyone.
ah...now the dishonesty kicks in, you replied to this about states and domestic partners:
now you realize you screwed up about states and domestic partners, so change your stance
btw...married, so no idea why you fantasize about my personal life, can't you just discuss the topic?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
link to one homophobic post of immie's....
Immanuel
Junior Member
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Trying to get more people to support your class action suit, HUH!!
apple0154
MEOW
Are you implying the US can not look after it's ill citizens?
The cost for health care will decrease just like it has for every other country that has government involvement in health care.
Social programs are not a drain on government. Smaller, less wealthy countries cope quite well.
Two points. First, health professionals do not become employees of the government, in all circumstances. Some countries with a universal plan treat them as independent contractors.
Second, no one is obliged to contract for the government.
This is currently being debated in Canada. Some health professionals want to start their own business, charge whatever they want for fees. THEN, when times are slow, they want the option to be employed by the government. Sort of a cake and eat it, too, scenario. Obviously, one can see the conflict of interest.
Let's say a patient sees a doctor who is contracting to the government. There is a wait time for a medical procedure. The doctor tells the patient that if they come to his private clinic and pay extra they will not have to wait. The word "scam" is written all over it.
Other countries show that government health care can and does work. The proof is the fact not one notable politician or political party is campaigning on reverting to a "pay or suffer" system. The French, the British, Canadians, Australians, Italians, Germans, Swedes....the list goes on and on. It's absurd for people to assert the US can not implement a government plan or a plan would be worse than the current "pay or suffer" money-grabbing system.
A noble sentiment, however, the past 100 years have shown not enough people feel that way. Any and every program to help the poor has been fought against, tooth and nail, not to mention the hoops people have to jump through and the rules/regulations to qualify.
The problem with government programs designed to help the "needy" is one has to lose everything, including their self-respect, before being considered "needy". We look at welfare recipients, people who have been financially beaten into the ground before help arrived, then wonder why they're not jumping out of bed Monday morning job hunting. We don't consider they haven't eaten properly for months, don't have decent clothes to wear, have stressed and worried just to pay the rent.....
To witness this occurring in the richest country in the world is an abomination.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
apple0154
MEOW
No doubt some will flaunt it but, as I mentioned before, as long as being gay could justify dismissal from the service the rule had to be changed. It was always something one could hold over others.
In today's world we can't count on people being "fair".
Immanuel
Junior Member
I am stating that right now we are strapped. Unless we are willing to cut spending we are jeopardizing this nation's economic future. UHC will add to our deficit and further add to our deficit woes.
Do you have any proof of that? Who's cost is going to be reduced? Let me put it this way, a medical professional's income will be reduced. They will no longer work for themselves, but rather they will work for the U.S. Government. The government pays them... that will be who they work for. That does not mean that our costs will be reduced. This will be funded with tax dollars either by taxing employers or individuals but most likely by taxing both. Taxes have that unique quality that lets them go up whenever politicians think they can get away with raising them. There will be no control over the costs once they end up in the hands of Congress.
Do I really want a heart surgeon who is making $60,000 a year giving me a transplant? Would I actually be able to find a qualified heart surgeon after Congress cuts their salaries? How about hospitals? They too will be run by the government. Will they begin skimping on cleanliness because their revenues are reduced so much?
You place a hell of a lot of trust in the men and women that supposedly run this country. About all they seem capable of running is this country into the ground.
Right, and Social Security brings in more than enough taxes so that we do not really need to worry about the eventual running out of funds. Both parties tell us that Social Security is in serious trouble. So, why do you think America's Universal Health Care will be any different?
Social programs are a drain on society and what other countries do or have done is immaterial. We are so much larger than those other countries that there is no comparison.
Call them what you want, they are still slaves of the government working for whatever minimal subsistence the government deems them worthy. If the government pays them, then they work for the government not the patient.
True, they can give up their medical training and go work for McDonald's.
First, that would be a scam. It is also very wrong and should not be allowed. Nor do I believe it would be allowed here in the USA. Thus the way I foresee America's health care future would be that medical professionals would either be required to work at the minimal subsistence payments the government deems them worthy of, or they will have to become black market providers. There will be no "private practices". I hate to say this, actually I do not but that is just a figure of speech, but America is a capitalistic society and we have always believed in allowing business people to set their own rates within reason. I do not believe Medical Professionals should be the first to lose that right.
Here in the U.S.A. we don't have a problem with wait times... unless you consider having to wait three hours in an emergency room to have a sore throat looked at to be a problem. Why do you want to change that?
Why shouldn't a health care professional be allowed to run his own business? When America's universal health care system takes hold they will not be able to own their own practices because all payments will be required to come out of the U.S. Government. That means that the government will tell them what they are allowed to charge and will pay them what the government says they are eligible to make. At least under our current policy they can negotiate their fees with insurance companies or they do not have to accept an insurance companies customers as patients. When the government is the only health insurance company, there will be no negotiating, no choice for the medical professional. It will mean accepting the government's offer or not practice at all.
Will their income be salary based or will it be based on services provided? If it is based upon services provided there may very well be so much more fraud because of the low pay offered that many of our health professionals may end up being criminals rather than providers.
Unless, of course, you are stating that doctors will be allowed to only offer their services to the rich and should they choose not to take the minimal governmental subsistence payments they will be allowed to open their own practices. Which would mean that the good doctors will no long offer services to the middle class because the middle class would never be able to afford their services because most of the middle class would need to use their insurance which is run by the government and those doctors would not be allowed to accept payments from the government because they chose not to. How is that beneficial to us?
We are not other countries. Washington is flooded with corrupt individuals who are only in their line of work for their own benefit. The fact that they pushed HCR through Congress without knowing what the hell it even said is proof of that.
To put it bluntly, I do not trust Congress to do it right. You may feel great about a half-assed attempt at it. I do not. I would not be opposed to Universal Health Care if it were done right. Heck, I grew up under Kaiser Permanente Hospital care and if UHC could be run as well as they ran their hospitals, I would be knocking on the doors of Congress asking them to institute UHC. I am, however, 100% opposed to the scum in Congress deciding my health care.
Could the U.S. do it? Yes. Can we do it with the people in Congress setting it up? Hell no. There would be so many loopholes that it would make the tax code look water tight. So yes, I am saying that the U.S. can not care for its ill citizens at least not in the proposed manner.
The Health Insurance Reform bill that passed earlier this year will provide a very large influx of tax revenue to the U.S. Government that will end up in the general fund for purposes of pork expenditures and the cost of our health care will be added to the U.S. debt for our great, great, great grandchildren to pay off just as has happened with Social Security funds. This will be in the form of T-bills as are Social Security funds. That is U.S. debt and we have too much of it as it is. That is not fiscally responsible spending.
Immie
Immanuel
Junior Member
Like I said, for the vast majority of service personnel, gay and straight, life will go on without any change. Most homosexuals in the service will not suddenly "come out of the closet" and most straights won't care either way. I have no problem with that. It is the activists that I have problems with.
And you are right, it is wrong to have that kind of a threat over the head of anyone. That is probably the best response from the "other side" that I have heard yet.
Immie
U
USFREEDUMB911
Guest
I am a big gay emotard named Freedumb.
I confess that Yurt is much smarter than me, and I deserve to be spanked for my ignorance.
I confess that Yurt is much smarter than me, and I deserve to be spanked for my ignorance.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I think life will change for all gays in the military. I think having the fear of being discharged if they slip up is real.
The activists may not be to your liking. But they accomplished something that needed doing. The gov't would have been content to let this continue. Bureaucrats need to be pressured.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I meant in regards to their public persona. Most of them are not going to go out and run across base shouting "I'm gay and I'm proud". Most will simply go on living their lives as they have all along.
Immie
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Oh, I agree completely. Which is why I see this as a positive thing. They will not have the fear held over their head, we will not lose good people, and thing will not change for most people.
Win/Win situation.
Immanuel
Junior Member
The fact that they will not have that threat held over their heads is a good thing. Also, the fact that an accusation true or not cannot be used against someone to ruin their careers is also a good thing.
Immie
Good Luck
New member
Having 40 years in the service, one aspect of this decision has been passed over, ignored, or maybe people are not aware of it. That is the reaction of service members themselves when gays are exposed, but will now remain in their units.
Most (I surely hope most) will not make any deal out of it. But there ARE a significant number of anti-gay people in the military, from those that "just feel uncomfortable with it" to outright full-blown homophobes. The military is going to have to deal with this situation, just as the military had to take a strong official stand against racism when we integrated the military racially.
From the point the military was racially integrated the official position of the military was a zero tolerance of overt signs of racism. But, when I first joined, this official position was not very strongly enforced - there was a lot of side-winks between racist leadership to racist soldiers and recruits. Today, it is genuinely not tolerated. A person who cannot get over their racist tendencies - and there are those out there of all races - will end up with an other-than-honorable discharge. But the problem I see coming is it took a long time for us to get from an official anti-racism stance to a genuine anti-racism stance.
There IS a lot of anti-gay sentiment out there, and I would estimate that, unfortunately, there is a significantly higher percentage of anti-gay people in the military than we'd find in the general population. As such, there are going to be problems getting the military at the same level with respect to sexual preference as we are now with respect to racism. That was the advantage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - we in the military did not have to take on the inevitable interpersonal tensions that will occur when serving gays are "exposed" (for lack of a better term).
Of course, avoiding the issue by discharging what were often excellent soldiers isn't a good answer either. OTOH, wartime is not a good time to give the military a big personnel headache to contend with. And that was the BAD part of DADT. When DADT was instituted we were in the middle of one of the longest periods of relative peacetime in our entire history. Gulf I was such a flash in the pan, it hardly even counts in the broad picture as a time of conflict. THAT would have been the time to grasp the nettle firmly and move to integrate gays into the military.
To be honest, though, had full gay integration been proposed at that time, I would have been dead set against it. I am not proud of that, but I must be honest with myself. One grows and learns over time - at least one should. Perhaps there was enough strong resistance from those of us in the military at that time that Clinton et al figured they could not succeed pushing it on us, and thus DADT was their compromise answer. But like individuals, societies must progress - and gay integration in the military is an issue that must SOMETIME be addressed. Now, being in a significant military conflict is not the best of times, but who knows when a "good" time will ever come for it?
Most (I surely hope most) will not make any deal out of it. But there ARE a significant number of anti-gay people in the military, from those that "just feel uncomfortable with it" to outright full-blown homophobes. The military is going to have to deal with this situation, just as the military had to take a strong official stand against racism when we integrated the military racially.
From the point the military was racially integrated the official position of the military was a zero tolerance of overt signs of racism. But, when I first joined, this official position was not very strongly enforced - there was a lot of side-winks between racist leadership to racist soldiers and recruits. Today, it is genuinely not tolerated. A person who cannot get over their racist tendencies - and there are those out there of all races - will end up with an other-than-honorable discharge. But the problem I see coming is it took a long time for us to get from an official anti-racism stance to a genuine anti-racism stance.
There IS a lot of anti-gay sentiment out there, and I would estimate that, unfortunately, there is a significantly higher percentage of anti-gay people in the military than we'd find in the general population. As such, there are going to be problems getting the military at the same level with respect to sexual preference as we are now with respect to racism. That was the advantage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - we in the military did not have to take on the inevitable interpersonal tensions that will occur when serving gays are "exposed" (for lack of a better term).
Of course, avoiding the issue by discharging what were often excellent soldiers isn't a good answer either. OTOH, wartime is not a good time to give the military a big personnel headache to contend with. And that was the BAD part of DADT. When DADT was instituted we were in the middle of one of the longest periods of relative peacetime in our entire history. Gulf I was such a flash in the pan, it hardly even counts in the broad picture as a time of conflict. THAT would have been the time to grasp the nettle firmly and move to integrate gays into the military.
To be honest, though, had full gay integration been proposed at that time, I would have been dead set against it. I am not proud of that, but I must be honest with myself. One grows and learns over time - at least one should. Perhaps there was enough strong resistance from those of us in the military at that time that Clinton et al figured they could not succeed pushing it on us, and thus DADT was their compromise answer. But like individuals, societies must progress - and gay integration in the military is an issue that must SOMETIME be addressed. Now, being in a significant military conflict is not the best of times, but who knows when a "good" time will ever come for it?
Last edited:
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Good post, but I especially admire the comment I put in bold. I respect someone who admits to past errors. And I have even more respect for one who changes and grows.
There is no rule that says they have to now expose they are gay, they can continue to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, most will want to do this. It is no one's business, it is private, but now they do not have to live in fear if their sexual preference is exposed by someone else or if they do tell another that they are gay, they don't have to worry about it!
The military will handle their discipline problems as they have in the past, be it racism or sexism, they will deal with it!
One guy they interviewed said he was bullied more for being Asian than being gay!
The military will handle their discipline problems as they have in the past, be it racism or sexism, they will deal with it!
One guy they interviewed said he was bullied more for being Asian than being gay!