April222014
oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]
The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.
Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.
Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.
The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.
Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.
More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.
Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…
"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."
Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.
When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.
Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.
Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.
Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.
Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.
-Lemon

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’

Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?

The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?

And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?

Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.

-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.

Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.

Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.

The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.

Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.

More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.

Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…

"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."

Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.

When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.

Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.

Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.

Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.

Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.

-Lemon

(Source: prolife-ruinslives)

March262014

The Evil That Opposes Obamacare

liberalsarecool:

The real cost of Republican cruelty, however, cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but in people’s lives. Researchers at Harvard and the City University of New York concluded that without the Medicaid expansion, individuals will go without checkups, cancer screenings and treatment for diseases such as diabetes and depression — leading to thousands of premature and preventable deaths.

Voters should never forget Republicans trying to hold back their health care. For the GOP, it’s Party over country. Always.

(Source: Washington Post)

March152014
March12014
January292014
January132014
January52014
December262013

I’m an OBGYN and I practice at a jail, where I take care of incarcerated women.

People often ask me, how did you come to work with incarcerated women? I was in the middle of my first year residency, delivering a baby. Everything was very familiar about the delivery scene; the nervousness, wondering if everything was going to be okay, helping the woman to push. But the one thing that was different is that she was shackled to the bed; she was a prisoner. And that moment troubled me so deeply that I developed an interest in learning more about these women.

Women make up a much smaller proportion of the correctional population than men — about 9% of everyone who is incarcerated. And 62% of [those] women are mothers to children who are less than 18 years old. Because women comprise such a small proportion, their gender-specific needs have been neglected. That’s particularly salient when it comes to their healthcare.

In theory, women do have the choice to have an abortion if they learn they are pregnant when they are in prison. There are constitutional guarantees — the 8th and the 14th amendments — and a number of judicial precedents, so it’s very clear that incarcerated women should have access to abortion. However, in practice, the people who are making the decisions have incredible discretion and many women lack access to abortion if they choose it.

About 1400-2000 births occur every year to women who are behind bars, and what they get for prenatal care is highly variable. There are standards that require prisons to have prenatal care onsite, but on the ground, some women have to be transported offsite and some women don’t even get prenatal care.

In labor, they usually get transported to an outside hospital. They can’t have any family support members in the room, and only 15 states have laws restricting the shackling of women in labor and delivery. A woman in labor, shackled, is what inspired me to work with this population. It’s inhumane and unnecessary, and it poses a lot of medical risks to the mother and the fetus. It also interferes with our ability to do emergent interventions if necessary.

People think prisons and jails are far away and we forget about the people who get locked up inside; we think they have nothing to do with us. So I hope I’ve given you some things to consider about what it’s like to be a woman when you’re in the grip of the prison or jail system.

From Dr. Carolyn Sufrin’s talk on incarcerated women and reproductive healthcare. Filmed at TEDxInnerSunset. 

Watch the full talk here »

(via tedx)

(via browngurlwfro)

December202013
We all have that one relative — we won’t name names — who just loves to argue about politics.It’s like clockwork — every year, the same conversations. And you just know that health care is going to come up this year — this time, make sure you’re ready. There’s a lot of good news on our side.So here’s an extra large serving of truth, in the form of must-read Obamacare success stories from news outlets across the country.Check them out and pass them along:

— Got a relative railing about health care costs? Well, according to The New York Times piece, thanks in part to Obamacare and its cost-control measures, “the slowdown in health care costs has been dramatic.” Not only that — according to the Times, the biggest savings might be yet to come. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)— Here’s a great round-up of a few success stories from the Los Angeles Times your relative probably missed, including this great quote from a new enrollee, “If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all.” (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)— A personal enrollment story featured in The Huffington Post from a self-employed blogger, including how much he loves his new coverage, and what he thinks about the push-back from his conservative friends. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)— A great story from a recent health care enrollee in North Carolina featured in the Raleigh News & Observer — and how easy it was for her to sign up. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)

If you have a good talk about health care this holiday season, be sure to share your story with us — funny, inspiring, or even challenging, we’d love to hear how your conversations are going.Last, but certainly not least — I want to say thank you for being such a champion for health care this year. You’ve been critical in helping get the good word out about Obamacare — and supporters like you will be all I’m talking about with my family this holiday season. You are inspiring. And you’re why I know that no matter what special interests throw at us, they won’t beat what we’ve got.Have a healthy, relaxing holiday — don’t worry, there’s more truth coming soon.ErinErin HanniganHealth Care Campaign ManagerOrganizing for Action

We all have that one relative — we won’t name names — who just loves to argue about politics.

It’s like clockwork — every year, the same conversations. And you just know that health care is going to come up this year — this time, make sure you’re ready. There’s a lot of good news on our side.

So here’s an extra large serving of truth, in the form of must-read Obamacare success stories from news outlets across the country.

Check them out and pass them along:

— Got a relative railing about health care costs? Well, according to The New York Times piece, thanks in part to Obamacare and its cost-control measures, “the slowdown in health care costs has been dramatic.” Not only that — according to the Times, the biggest savings might be yet to come. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)

— Here’s a great round-up of a few success stories from the Los Angeles Times your relative probably missed, including this great quote from a new enrollee, “If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all.” (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)

— A personal enrollment story featured in The Huffington Post from a self-employed blogger, including how much he loves his new coverage, and what he thinks about the push-back from his conservative friends. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)

— A great story from a recent health care enrollee in North Carolina featured in the Raleigh News & Observer — and how easy it was for her to sign up. (Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter)

If you have a good talk about health care this holiday season, be sure to share your story with us — funny, inspiring, or even challenging, we’d love to hear how your conversations are going.

Last, but certainly not least — I want to say thank you for being such a champion for health care this year. You’ve been critical in helping get the good word out about Obamacare — and supporters like you will be all I’m talking about with my family this holiday season. You are inspiring. And you’re why I know that no matter what special interests throw at us, they won’t beat what we’ve got.

Have a healthy, relaxing holiday — don’t worry, there’s more truth coming soon.

Erin

Erin Hannigan
Health Care Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

November32013
← Older entries Page 1 of 17