Recent posts by Pleasedonot5 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / What are bad situations in your life right now?

Unsure of where to take my career, returning home to unsatisfying home life soon. my job is overbearing and sucks; because of these things my social skills are declining; making it all the more possible that I will mess things up with my love. I really hope that doesn’t happen — this anxiety sucks.

Thanks for the venue, I needed to say something.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The truth on President Obama and the recent elections.

@karmakoolkid:

Saying “my black friend” isn’t inherently microaggressive, as long as the person, in the same context, would say “my white friend.” It’s all about intent — if used for communicative purposes, it shouldn’t be taken offensively. Now, if the person was saying “my black friend (grouping all black people together, implying that they all have the same qualities about them)”, that’s microaggressive.

That said, there are plenty of female privileges that exist that go under the radar. A few off of the top of my head in the U.S.:

1) Women get maternity leave; men do not get paternity leave.

2) Women are not forced to register with Selective Service (for the draft); men are.

3) Women are far less likely to be accused of being the aggressor in a non-consensual sexual interaction, even if both parties were of equal influence or power.

4) A man accused of rape ruins his reputation (gets one kicked off of NCAA sports teams too, believe it or not (just the accusation)) regardless of whether the crime was committed or not; I have not heard of this happening to women, but in plenty of cases to men.

5) Women are less likely to be faulted in cases of statutory rape.

6) Women are far more likely to win court custody battles of children.

7) Women are favored in the educational setting; more women are now attending college and excelling than men; a couple teachers in my past have stated this proudly without thought to how this may be reflecting bias in the classrooms.

8) The average child support payment due from women is half the amount due from men

You also say that women are less likely to be harassed sexually at work; whereas that may be true, I have been harassed in the same way numerous times by women (grabbing my ass in public without my consent, "cat"calls even though I have informed them that this makes me uncomfortable, etc.). So it definitely still happens on both sides, man.

Although you may argue that your list is far longer, take a look at the severity of mine compared to yours; these are big issues (not that women’s aren’t). War, rape, child custody… There are unfair privileges that need attention in both the two main genders, men and women, so let’s not ignore both sides of the issue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Girls need more freedom.

“No one should hit anyone”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

@insanesniper1:

I read your reply to me, and I send you a shout on your profile asking the question I was confused with; figured that might work easier since we’re now on a different page in this thread. However, feel free to answer it on here.

My question was, who exactly falls under the parameters of the ACA (I may have been misunderstanding the extent to which people are covered)? As in, who qualifies for more affordable health care coverage and who does not (thus causing their private health care plans to increase)?

@jhco50:

Why yes I do Karma. It is a program started by liberals to have those who work pay for those who wish to not work get free healthcare. Kinda like getting those who work to pay for some dudes drug habit because he can’t afford his drugs. You know, like you want a new tv and can’t afford one but joe next door is working and you feel he owes you a new tv. Does that sum it up for you?

I am a full-time college student (18 credits) on full scholarship, working 2 paid jobs and yet I still cannot afford private healthcare. The ACA covers me; what am I to you, another lazy liberal? What of other hard-working people like me who cannot afford private health insurance?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / What kind of people annoy you IRL

People who openly gossip about other people when they are not around. Them, and those who absolutely cannot be assertive and stand up for themselves if their lives depended on it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Millennial Boomerangs

I personally value independence. I moved out of my parents’ house last year and am now successfully paying my way through college on my own, despite their attempts and offers.

However, it would be wrong of me to expect everyone to be able to do the same. Different circumstances, such as grades and ACT score affect scholarships; luckily I have plenty of fluid intelligence and was able to get a 31 on the ACT, and luck out with my assertiveness and with my teachers — my GPA was 3.97 in high school because of this. I thus was able to obtain a full-tuition scholarship from my university. I have since obtained 3 jobs which have helped me save up and pay for housing; last year I moved out (meaning I started to support myself almost completely on my own) of my parents’ house completely after a nasty dispute with my father.

In contrast, not everyone is as assertive, has teachers that give out great GPAs for equally great work, or is as intelligent and charming to employers. Sure, I believe some of these things can be improved through hard work, but it is much more difficult for one who is not naturally skilled in the aforementioned areas. Because of all of the skills and opportunities that I have had, I thus far have been able to pay for college without debt. Not everyone has these skills or opportunities, and has to take out loans.

It’s very easy for you to say “just be independent” because you, I am assuming, did not have to pay off $85,000 of student debt (if paying tuition and living on campus) after receiving your degree; tuition costs even at my more “affordable” university are still on the rise, and would be hell to pay off if I was supporting myself. Here, after 4 years (and not everyone graduates in 4 years) it’s an estimated $45,000 for living at home and just paying tuition, and an estimated $85,000 for living on/off campus for 4 years. That’s a hella large increase, man.

And you wonder why students elect to stay at home with mom and dad, who are offering to help out, lol.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

@insanesniper1:

Then again the costs are going up yet again, so this might not be feasible for them. The part of the law that ALWAYS bothered them is the fact you are forced to buy something – even if you do not want it. Sure, you can opt out, but if you make the cost too high for people to afford you are abusing the intent of opting out in the first place.

Isn’t it hypocritical and nonsensical for them to opt out of more affordable health care coverage, and then complain that their health care coverage is less affordable?

One of my primary fields of study is psychology, yet I still have a hard time understanding some people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Teacher Unions Dump $80 million Into 2014 Midterms: Result is an F+

@karmakoolkid:

I appreciate your kind words, and I acknowledge the poor state of being that the educational system in this nation is facing — low wages, teachers being maltreated, all of these totalitarian plans on how to teach our students with lack of electives (common core). Because of these things, I am only considering entering the educational field, which reflects a sad situation. Teaching is in my blood — my mom’s side of the family has produced teachers for generations. Sure, many teachers are excellent in the knowledge of their fields; however, not all are even proficient at relaying the information in a way the students can understand — that, or they fail to see and adapt to the students’ confused faces, and fail to realize that there are many ways to explain a problem (some better than others) — I tend to excel in both areas and hence am a natural teacher — I shouldn’t feel like I shouldn’t follow my passions because an important market like education is a hell-hole.

Why did it become a hell-hole?

I would argue because of the teacher labor unions, but that is because of the malpractice of the teacher unions in my state (MI). Teachers who would consistently not produce results because “the students couldn’t learn the difficult material” or some other BS excuse were a large part of the problem. Additionally, the amount of teacher strikes in Detroit and elsewhere throughout the state was ridiculous and an impediment to educational success — the unions got carried away. Although organizing is a beneficial thing that allows workers to unite and keeps wages and conditions high, in this case the unions got carried away — people (including myself) started viewing the unions and teachers as crazy and in their jobs through tenure and not merit, and they unions became so powerful that although one evil was suppressed (the companies/school administrations’ ability to maltreat employees) another evil was established (the inability of companies/school administrations’ to ensure the competence of their employees); now teachers are not taken seriously. Hopefully, the right to organize in this state, but not the forced unionizing (like the situation presented by the right to work law now taking effect in Michigan) will balance the two opposing evils into a middle ground of positiveness. Then, the next step is ensuring the competence of the teachers through standardized testing, while allowing teachers to achieve these goals through their own means. Those that perform and excel should stay and obtain raises, and those that do not should receive demerits and be fired. It is my belief that this system would reverse the perceived laziness/craziness of teachers in this state, and instead restore the honor of the profession. Natural teachers like myself should be at the forefront, not teachers who drag their feet every day to lecture monotonously at their students.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Teacher Unions Dump $80 million Into 2014 Midterms: Result is an F+

As someone who intends to become a public school secondary education teacher, I agree with most of the points of the article and its overall message. You earn what you work for.

I live in Michigan, where recently Governor Rick Snyder signed a “right to work” bill into law which made all of my Democratic public school teacher friends very enraged. This bill, accordingly, made it so that when joining the work force, one was not forced into joining a teacher union. That’s how it should be — one should not be forced into organizing and paying union dues if they do not want to; however, workers still retain the right to organize and strike, etc. This bill was made even more essential in educational health for our state, because one, the strikes that the unions were forcing were so detrimental to the education of Michigan students (in Detroit especially), and two, teachers that were absolute garbage at teaching students were retaining their jobs even though their students were struggling. Because of the unions, the schools could not fire crappy teachers. Now that the unions are weaker, thank God, the schools still are suffering from this underlying problem — a way to ensure that the students are actually learning the important information from their courses and that only the highest quality teachers are retained.

Now, how do we evaluate that? Grades (G.P.A.) are subjective, depending on teacher, school, district, etc., so they are a no-go. However, standardized tests are a great way to determine where the best and worst teachers are. I am a proponent of state/district committees designing exams that measure students’ knowledge of the subject and, and of legislation that allows teachers their own methods of getting students to pass these standardized tests.

Now sure, following this method’s proposal, one may raise the concern the teachers now going to be mainly focused on having their students pass the standardized tests. Of course they would be to achieve higher pay and retain their jobs, but in the process the students will be learning the pertinent and important material to pass the examinations. The standardized testing with flexible teaching model is similar to how Advanced Placement examinations work — they are standardized across the globe (different every year, but standardized nonetheless), but the teacher is able to determine how to best prepare their students for these exams. As someone who passed 9 A.P. exams and earned the highest A.P. honor, the “National A.P. Scholar Award,” and as someone who is still excelling in these subjects at his university, I can tell you that curriculums designed towards having the students passing these examinations with teaching flexibility helps the students learn that subject — the exams in this case actually reflect what students need to know for a given course.

What isn’t beneficial about the proposed common core curriculum is that teachers are given less flexibility in teaching the material. Teachers are considered experts in their fields as well as experts in teaching the information to students — let them do what they do best. Introducing inflexibility limits evolution and innovation; one teacher might excel at teaching method A, another at teaching method B. And if everyone is taught inflexibility (just method A) in thinking, are we really helping them to develop critical thinking skills? How are we promoting diversity in thinking? If everyone approaches a problem traditionally and it doesn’t work, what are they going to do? Slight discrepancies in teaching are to be promoted to encourage this creativity in thinking; if the end result is all/most students passing the exam; the teacher has done their job.

As someone who would like to become a secondary education teacher, I would be comfortable, and would rather have it that my staff and I earn the pay that we receive. I would be confident that I could produce consistent results in my field(s) of study. Because otherwise, since education is so important in prepping the next generation for the workforce, how are we to measure the success of our system of education? What should happen is that at the end of the day, the more students that pass the aforementioned standardized tests (that are A.P.-esque exams), the higher pay the teacher receives, and the greater chance that they are retained for the next years. If all of a teacher’s students fail, then they should be let go.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

The fastest recorded mile to date is in the 3:40s; if this person could do that, they’d surely be world famous and super-human… Most likely the distance measured was off.

That said, we both agree on their badassery regardless haha.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

A 3:07.5 mile is impossible by human standards — I think you mean their per mile pace :)

As a former college D1 track athlete, I know I can do that pace per mile and faster ;)

But, arrogance aside, they are badasses: the holding breath along with their immense physical, mental, and emotional strength, is beyond extraordinary, so we would be good to be afraid if there were to be an overthrow. However, I don’t think the American military is corrupt to the extent that steelwoman makes them out to be, even if her 5 sons, their platoon, or even one division of the military was revolutionary, those loyal to the country could and most likely would stop them… but you have to ask yourself when it comes to these conspiracy theories: does the military really have an intense want or need to do overthrow the government? What would they gain, would it go well? Not much except power (even though they already have representation — a voice), and not really: citizens like you and me would rebel, hopefully, to restore democracy and liberty. Because of this I do not believe we will see a military overthrow anytime soon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

My apologies — sometimes I see hope in people where others do not. Maybe that is my fatal flaw :)

I do not believe she is trolling either, but if so, she’s doing brilliantly hah.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What the hell is wrong with the country?

Do not worry brashhamster, that is not the entirety of this generation’s workforce. :)

Although I believe adamantly I should get the treatment I deserve (aka no micromanagement, zero-tolerance for workplace bullying, honest communication from bosses) I would never as a 19 year-old college student with 2-3 jobs even consider throwing a tantrum in the workplace, or asking for a raise in two weeks. I hope that you never have to experience anyone with that kind of entitled attitude ever again. One earns what one works for.

The thing that I find concerning in your posts, however, is your willingness to work around anti-discriminatory laws. Yes, it is your business, but you still have to abide by the anti-discriminatory laws. Sure there are ways around them — but come on. Are you seriously wanting to be an ageist, sexist, heterosexist, or a racist? I would hope not.

My advice, given to you with the credibility of having observed my mother’s awesome management style (she is a high-up district manager in a well-known national corporation, operating only a level or two down from the VP and CEO), is that it is important to communicate everything you expect from your employees, as well as praise them when they do well. I would take this as far as some of the others suggested in making it clear in the interview your management style (if there is a problem, communicate it, etc.) and asking if that works for the interviewee. Additionally, make sure you treat everyone who works for you with respect and praise when they do the right thing. Although it seems silly that someone couldn’t read a road map (I can easily and I am even younger than that employee you describe), not everyone has the same skill-set as you so it is important that you inform all of your future employees the skills that the job requires before you hire them.

Current explanations I can provide that could explain the pattern of behavior you describe:
1) Coincidence
2) You are selecting youth with the same temperaments — hire different types of young people.
3) You aren’t being clear with your expectations.

Through this I do not mean to accuse you of anything — I simply offer suggestions as to what it could be.

I hope this helps!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

@steelwoman:

Originally posted by steelwoman:

I have felt all my life that unless we develop and force cures on the mentally ill that they should just be executed because they are a danger to society.

Yes, we should force cures on the mentally ill. They are mentally ill and their own brains are damaged, they cannot make their own choices unless cured. The fact that we allow these damaged people to live is beyond cruel as we have no way to cure them right now.

For someone who hates when the government forces things on them, you sure like forcing things on other people.

What is your criteria for mental illness? Where do you draw the line, God? Down syndrome, autism, depression, anxiety? Misophonia? Not having blonde hair or blue eyes?

Did you ever stop and ask a mentally ill person if they enjoy their lives? You haven’t. Want to know how I know? Because then you wouldn’t think that they cannot live their lives to the fullest. I have a roommate with light autism, and a successful classmate with a moderate autism, and they are very happy despite their conditions. There are people I know who have anxiety but still want to live without medication, and can enjoy happiness in their days despite easily brought-on anxiety. My late grandpa suffered from a debilitating disease called progressive supra-nuclear palsy — research it; it’s beyond terrible. He still wanted to live and derived much happiness from seeing and being around his family and grandchildren up until the disease took his life.

You have absolutely no right to decide who lives and who dies — they can enjoy life in their own ways. Get off your fucking high-horse, Hitler.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

@steelwoman:

And you are going to lose it in 2016 when we get the mandate in the Oval Office, Senate, and House.

You act like you derive pleasure from this :)

Like I said, enjoy it while you can, this is a war between people like you who expect a free ride and people like myself who value hard work and earning healthcare. There is no gray zone, you are my enemy.

I do not expect a free ride; I work and earn what I get. The difference here is: these are human lives and human suffering we are talking about. For this next thought experiment, I challenge you to think hypothetically.

Your beloved mother is now in the hospital, very ill and requiring some pain medication. She is in a state of constant pain, and terminally ill. The hospital has saved her life, which has racked up a bill for her family to pay, but at least she is alive. The doctors say she probably has a week left, and she has elected to no longer be resuscitated if she flat-lines. She is suffering without pain medication, that privately, your family cannot afford (you are uninsured). You beg the doctors to do something, and out of the corner of your eye, you see a cabinet stocked to the brim with all sorts of pain medication. They refuse to help, kindly though, because you cannot pay the bill that they would generate.

Your mother suffers for a week of excruciating pain, and then dies.

Awful situation right? I would not wish that upon anyone, ever. However, this kind of thing happens everyday, and is cruel. For the people who cannot afford health care insurance (especially stanwise on here, whom has said that he was being charged $900 upwards a month by private insurance companies, who half the time would not cover his proper medications), this fear is sometimes a reality (sometimes not this bad, sometimes worse than this situation). Put yourself in someone else’s shoes, and feel empathy. Wouldn’t it suck to be in the above situation, be helpless, knowing that you cannot do anything to reduce the suffering of your dying mother? I cringe at the thought, and feel empathy for those around me going through that.

I am constantly surrounded by people who are full-time students, maintaining an awesome GPA, while working 2 jobs and an internship (people like myself); some are on family insurance plans, some do not have insurance at all; but very rarely will you find a student on a private health insurance (non-ACA-contingent) plan by their lonesome — there is a reason for this — the private market has allowed it to become too expensive, and hence the government has stepped in to reduce this burden on populations like college students (and definitely others, including under-privileged minority populations, the elderly, veterans, etc).

The above is why, although I am conservative by nature (as you’d expect most college-level, successful student-athletes to be), in this case we as a civilized society should work together to provide those suffering some support. I can show you economic reasons, ethical reasons, and Constitutional reasons to prove why nationalized health care is a great thing, if you wish for these explanations. If not, then you are not listening, and we do not have a debate less a rant on both sides.

What is your goal of this discussion? To find the best thing for America, to scare others into submission, or to just blatantly shout your points at the other side? If it’s anything less than the first, then you are on here for the wrong reasons.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The People Spoke

@steelwoman:

First off, why are you addressing me in your post: “if YOU keep doing this/that”? I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal. Your research on me (attacks at my credibility due to my relative youth), fear tactics, and no real sustenance in your arguments lead me to believe that you have no real ground to stand upon and you’re reiterating propaganda fed to you by your parents way back when or the Republican party (that said, the Democratic party dishes out propaganda in the same way). Your previous post was full of emotional charge, actuation, and assertions, but with no real value — the assertions you gave you did not explain; they were just baseless assertions, followed by “and this is how we’re going to take over.” Looks convincing to the normal viewer, sure, but it’s easy to identify it as reiterated rhetoric/propaganda upon review.

Secondly, I think you are being a bit over-dramatic. If there is a Spain-esque military uprising here, I will be on the side of the government — things aren’t that bad here to require military action. Your scare-tactics fall upon deaf ears. I don’t give two shits if you are powerful, or you think the Republican party is powerful or about what you could do — I support what is right (whether that be Republican/Democrat, conservative or liberal; I support my Republican governor here because of his credentials and results). Even when Bush Jr. was in office, things still weren’t that bad here to require a military overthrow; I would have been on the side of the government if there was a military uprising then, too. Don’t like a candidate? Vote in someone else democratically next time.

Why don’t we start here, so I can better understand the reasoning for your claims:

1) Why do you think the lights will go off in our homes?
2) Where do you think the Obama administration is pushing you to the point of you wanting bloodshed?

And by the way, no offense, but you are not any more credible in my eyes, just because you claim to have 40 years of political experience. I don’t know you, and I don’t base the change of my viewpoints on these sites through claimed credibility or emotion alone — appeal to me with logic and reasoning for your claims instead and it may yield better results.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

@jhco50:

Pleasedonot5, Health care is not a right. Doctors and the medical community spend thousands of dollars of their money to go to school and learn their craft. They don’t owe you what they paid for and deserve to make back their investment. Before Obamacare and HMO’s we had the best medical services in the world. Those with money came from all over the world to use our system because we offered the best. At this point we are losing our doctors, our nurses, and in some cases our hospitals because the costs involved are being undercut to the point they can’t keep their doors open anymore. These medical personal don’t owe you anything. They offer what they paid for and learned and ask for reparations for their costs to gain the knowledge you want for free.

I agree with you on all that you say except for that health care is not a right of the people, and I understand your viewpoint; thanks for expressing it in an informational and moderate way.

What is essential to understand, however, is that there are many ways that the health care professionals can be paid: privately, through government subsidies, etc. As a matter of fact, the only thing we are really debating here is the method of which these health care professionals should be compensated for the skilled work that they do. Whereas you say privately, I say publicly. Why? Because there are more societal benefits that come from making this a publicly based market, even though in most markets this is not the case. I argue that preventing the suffering, poverty, and loss of human life that comes from the third-party payer system takes higher precedence than a raise in the cost of private insurance plans. I see what you are saying and agree with you that publicly subsidized health care carries negative consequences, such as a raise in costs and/or taxes which is a burden on individuals/families, however, it is less of a burden than the burden on those who cannot access health care and who suffer, become impoverished, and die as a result of the third-party payer system. In fact, I will go as far as to argue that the poverty and suffering that result from the third-party payer system places a larger burden on society and the economy — those who cannot work, cannot consume, and are useless in societal contribution lower the aggregate productivity of society’s workers, restrain the GDP, and limit growth, which is what we all want, right? Sure, a raise in costs of private insurance, and/or the implementation of a tax will lower consumption, but, limited to one market, this lowering in consumption will not limit worker productivity significantly, but will still lower GDP. Economically both suck, however I will admit that it’s not certain which one sucks in a monetary sense in the long-term more (It seems that, after thinking about it, there is either an indeterminate change in long-term aggregate GDP, or a long-term increase which would be slow to form, but admittedly I don’t know, although in the short-term subsidized health care will most likely lower GDP). However, in an all-encompassing economic sense, the quality of the welfare (in this economic sense, well-being) in this country, will increase due to subsidized health care. That is what is most important, I argue. The aggregate (societal) well-being of all of the citizens takes precedence over the convenience of the privileged majority. Please let me know if you require further explanation, or need me to clarify on any of the economic standpoints.

So basically I’m saying:

1) Societal gain is important (composed of components like welfare of people, monetary gain, etc.)
2) Well-being of society is more important than just monetary gain (which may be lost in the short term due to health care), and this well-being is gained in short- and long-term due to subsidized health care.
3) Subsidized health care thus increases long-term societal gain (and monetary gain is indeterminate or disputable in the long-term).

America is the property of the people, not government. We pay taxes “mandated” by a greedy government that has taken powers away from the states and the people. They have done this by usurping the Constitution. The feds mandating is basically usurping the powers of the state and the people. So paying and extra tax (taking income from the working) is basically stealing from the people, taking money from those who work to keep a roof over their families head and food in their bellies to re-disperse that needed income to those who would rather sit on their ass and do nothing.

I feel you are aligning yourself with the view that the proponents of the Articles of Confederation advocated. We know that the Articles of Confederation-based government was a complete and utter failure; an established central government is what works in this country, otherwise we are left with 50 different nations, and I’m assuming you want the USA to stay together. The national government, in the Constitution, is given the authority to establish taxes (in the Articles, they weren’t allowed). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Power_to_tax

What you consider materialism, especially under this administration, are the basic necessities to survive. The median income for the average family is falling. An example of this is my wife and myself buying groceries. What used to cost us a little over $100 not costs between $200 and up. Yet our income is fixed. Btw, inflation will be rearing it’s ugly head in the next year and cost will go up even more. We are steadily losing our standards of living. The well you wish to draw on to finance your desires is going dry.

Not to be annoying, but do you have a source on this? Inflation is definitely happening, but without a matched increase in income? I disagree, but I am open to being shown otherwise.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The People Spoke

You will keep it by force? That’s a frightening viewpoint. Maybe you belong in Spain, not America, with its history of levantamientos (military uprisings)?

(Note that I am not for or against either party; I’m an independent).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

@steelwoman:

HEALTH CARE IS A BUSINESS, NOT A CHARITY. If you cannot pay, why do you expect to get treatment? Would you go into a store and walk out with items, not expecting to pay? Would you go to dinner and walk out and not pay? No. You would never do that, but it’s all OK to expect Doctors and Nurses and Surgeons to offer totally free services, expensive services to you? Are you delusional? The only reason you can “Afford” any health care is because people like me are getting the shaft and are MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE you cannot afford.

This is where we disagree. Health care is a right; neither a charity nor a business. I feel you misunderstand the ACA. The doctors and surgeons are still getting paid (from the insurance plans that are cheaper to purchase due to government subsidizing which, ultimately, yes, comes from tax dollars). Why become a doctor if not for the desire to save lives? If one desires to become a health care professional and refuse service because one cannot afford a simple, yet multi-thousand dollar treatment, then they should not be allowed to become a health care professional, because that view is twisted and greedy.

I am a very conservative and hard-working individual; I believe that you earn what you get. My only liberal viewpoints when it comes to the economy are health care and education. Both, when privately run, are disasters and make the nation way worse off. Why? Because they both leave people in an insurmountable amount of debt that is terrible for the economy and cause poverty. Not only that, but if people are left untreated, they suffer for presumably long periods of time before treatment. Why should a hospital be a business and let people suffer? I am astounded that you hold this ultraconservative view, perhaps you have always had the money? You have never been at a point in your life where you work 2-3 jobs, are a full-time college student, and are paying your way through college (without mommy’s and daddy’s help?) and still cannot afford health care (rhetorical question, you do not have to answer)? I’m not here for pity; I’m doing very well and hold pretty prestigious positions at my university, and am on full-academic scholarship and am in a nationally broadcast commercial; I’ve earned my way and success here through my intelligence and athleticism, but not every individual can do this.

You speak of morals, who’s morals, and who’s standards? I find it very immoral to steal my money to pay for the healthcare of others. I worked hard for that money, I do not want to pay for healthcare for other people. You even admit it drives up costs, but do not care at all. You speak of YOUR morals and assume they trump mine. They don’t.

You live on America’s land and thus are required to pay taxes as mandated by the federal government. It is not stealing to require an additional tax. The government of a people should be concerned with increasing the total welfare of their citizens — it is their drive to do so (as a government run by the people for the people, you would agree that we want our people to be better off, no?). Let’s put it this way; if the federal government mandated that you give an additional penny every day to stop a genocide, then the government is morally justified, no? How about a hundred dollars? Still justified, because the suffering of human lives takes precedent over your money, which you have earned on AMERICAN soil, thanks to the American government allowing you to live, own land, and prosper here. Because of this, you pay taxes, and it is not “stealing” your money to require and additional tax (especially, in this case, for a morally justified purpose of reducing immense amounts of suffering in hospitals). It is arrogant to assume you could have the same wealth if you did not live in a consolidated democracy like America — you are unconciously taking that for granted.

And that is what you have see in this recent election. I strongly suggest you take advantage of the healthcare you have now, because I assure you you are going to lose it when we get the full mandate in 2016. Do you really think the anger went away after being forced to take Obamacare? Nope. We just waited.

I don’t have personal access to it now; my parents have to drive all the way up to my university so that I can access it (which took a lot of time in my personal health care experience). Ironically, after the full implementation of the ACA, I will be able to afford health care for about as much as a cell-phone plan per month. So it will be affordable for me and most of the rest of the country. (Hence why it’s called the Affordable Care Act).

You also mention people don’t have time in their day to research health care, or educate themselves on health care plans. Or they won’t be bothered. Why should people like that be given health care at all, paid for off the backs of others! They won’t even take the time to research plans on their own! If it’s important YOU MAKE THE TIME.

What I said was merely an example. The bill was a thousand pages. Have you read it? No (props if you have). It’s difficult to research when you have more important studies to attend to, jobs to work, families to provide for, etc. I am on your side here in criticizing the administration — such low turn-out was due to the obscurity of how to obtain the ACA-contingent health care plans. I researched the ACA and went as far as getting a quote, but I didn’t really know where to go next, how to mediate this with my family (who is unwilling to remove me from their crappy insurance plan to date), and I didn’t have enough time (a couple of weeks after finding out about the health cafe benefits?) to get anything accomplished. I imagine this was the case for many Americans, and hence the inadequate turn-out. For such a monumental change in one’s life, one requires more time and information.

The reality is my bill after being stable for 12 years SHOT UP $900 a month, and I lost my doctor. I had a very high quality, all inclusive plan, because I often go on international travel. Oh, and here is a tip. College students are supposed to be poor. It’s the entire idea. They learn values and work ethic, and see the results of their hard work.
This line is very troubling for me:
" Whereas something may be awful for the economy in a monetary sense, it may be right morally, and that often times carries a tremendous importance." “The economy” is not some mystical idea, it’s people like myself. WE are the economy. Would you enjoy getting a bill increase of $900 suddenly, losing your doctor? I suspect you would not, and I hope that you never get screwed over like millions of Americans are due to Obamacare. Imagine how your world would fall apart if your cell phone plan shot up from say, 100 bucks to 900 bucks and you cannot do anything about it.

1) If you think that materialism goes above morality, then this discussion is over and you are lost in greed.

2) I understand what you say in the second part. I see that as concerning too, but did your health care insurance plan really shoot up by a factor of 9? Was this due to some treatment you received that jacked up the rates, due to the ACA, or due to some other unforeseen circumstance? It seems probable that you have a private insurance plan, and because of the ACA, it became more expensive (costly) for that plan to compete with the government plans, and hence costs for the consumer (producer income) went up — you have several options: 1) continue with your privately-run insurance plan despite the rise in cost, 2) choose another private plan or 3) choose an ACA-contingent plan. If what you said is true and your insurance plan shot up by a factor of 9, do you qualify for ACA-contingent health care plans? Because if so, the ACA would cover you for a low, affordable price per month if you are willing (if you are not willing, then isn’t that kind of hypocritical of you?) Because if you were willing, then you would, through your taxes, be paying through taxes what would ultimately go back to you in the form of inexpensive health care. Does that make sense? Please let me know if I am being unclear and I will explain this economically.

I also see the sense of entitlement that your generation seems to come with by default. You sat in the ER for a reason, they did not know if you could pay the bill you were about to generate. When someone came who could pay the bill, the mother, they helped you. That is how it’s supposed to work. Even the entitled generation would raise hell if they were expected to work without getting paid.

Entitlement = “I am suffering, please help; you could so easily do so” (they could have even sat there with me to comfort me but they retreated to their desk and did nothing instead). This view of yours is misguided — whereas people should have to work for what they receive (I strongly agree with this statement, as successful as I am already), all individuals (including yourself) should have access to health care treatment as a right; it is wrong to let people who do not have access to insurance to suffer. This is the main point of my argument.

Do you think that you are morally obliged, if you could swim and you knew beyond reasonable doubt that you could save a person who is drowning in a shallow pool 20 meters away from you and calling out for help, to save that person? (please answer this question, it is crucial for the debate).

To digress though and perhaps better achieve understanding with you: my view on car insurance is different and aligns with your view on health care; it operates the same way as the ACA, in Michigan (forced to pay for car insurance, when really we can just pay for the damage or lose our car; it would be a cheaper method for most everyone), but it is based on a material thing. Health care is based on human suffering and human lives (here it is either you get health insurance, and you pay for the damage or suffer/lose your life). Humans =/= cars, even though I would agree with your reasoning on insurance if this were a discussion about cars.

I respect your passion and drive towards your viewpoint, however, and I hope that we may reach a mutual understanding through discussion and be respectful towards each other. I want what is best for the nation, and I know you do too. I hope you can see that, and I hope this post helps!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

@steelwoman:

It must feel good to know if you injure yourself when running, you can run to the ER and have someone else pay for the health care treatment. It ends in 2016, enjoy it while you can.

Come again? I think you may have posted in the wrong thread buddy.

I’ll give you this though: I can’t do anything without insurance in a hospital unless my injury is “potentially fatal,” as I posted in a different thread; I’ll not be treated until I have my own insurance, which will be more affordable come 2015 (approximately when purchasing period opens up again) due to the Affordable Care Act.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Individuality - What makes you so special?

People whom are happy with themselves because of who they are and what they have done are admirable, and we should try to align ourselves with them — they have achieved somehow what we ultimately seek after.

In the end, happiness and life satisfaction matter most. Although societal contribution is important and arguably even more admirable, it is very important to keep self-satisfaction in mind in this regard.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The truth on President Obama and the recent elections.

OP, I feel you treat the Affordable Care Act as a small deal and a failure when it, now that it has been passed, will allow me, as a “poor college student,” to purchase my own health care at a rate comparable to my current cell phone plan. Why haven’t I gotten it yet? Well, I am still on my parents’ crappy third-party payer plan, which I plan on giving up when one is able to purchase ACA-contingent health care come Nov 2015.

I think a large part of the health care implementation failure has to do with improper information given to American citizens. Some people simply don’t have the time to actively research an obscure new system change (uninsured American families probably have to work hard and constantly; they tend to not have the same level of income as other families, and hence they are uninsured). I, especially being with 2-3 jobs, paying my way through college, and being a full time student with a myriad of degree requirements, personally and also do not have the time for that (except for maybe hours on Saturday to give myself a much needed break). That, on top of the short amount of time to purchase the ACA-contingent health care plan (the first purchasing period ended in Nov 2013), due to some nation-wide insurance companies agreement I know little about, added to people’s lack of decision to purchase plans contingent with the ACA. Put yourselves in other people’s shoes. Not many are going to feel bothered, or are going to have excessive time in their day, to actively research plans they know little about. Because of the lack of effective and provided information, implementation so far has been inadequate. Here’s to hoping others and myself will be able to purchase great plans as soon as the next open purchasing period ensues.

In spite of this implementation failure, however, instituting affordable health care for people who cannot afford private insurance is a big deal. OP, you say that economically, the plan drives up nation-wide costs. As someone almost done with an undergraduate economics degree from my university, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, in some of the first-year economics textbooks I have read, there is a disclaimer given by the authors that monetary costs and benefits are not everything. Whereas something may be awful for the economy in a monetary sense, it may be right morally, and that often times carries a tremendous importance. I’ll put it into perspective:

Last year, being a Division 1 Cross Country and Track and Field runner for my university and not having any major health concerns/conditions (I mean to say I was in great health and not expecting to show up afflicted in a hospital), I was one day suddenly stricken with a bad case of influenza (it seemed to come out of nowhere), and I had been experiencing family-related stresses throughout the day. I had also taken some prescription pain medication that made my skin a little hotter because of side-effects which amplified the chills I would experience. Because of the chills that resulted that felt so awful, I took a hot shower which helped, but the steam in co-ordinance with the influenza triggered asthma (which I had had in childhood but long since grew out of. I couldn’t breathe and had my second-ever asthma attack. I started freaking out and also had an anxiety attack, and everything made everything worse. It was decided that I should go to the hospital after I could no longer move my legs (due to the lack of oxygen and build-up of bicarbonate in my legs). I was driven to the hospital and upon arrival (still freaking out, barely able to breathe) I was asked if I had insurance and while I gasped out, “yes, my family has it” I was taken to a room by a nurse and then left alone for 20-30 minutes (seemed like an eternity) until my mom arrived and brought the insurance information — meanwhile the nurses were sitting at the desk with no others in the emergency room at this time to attend to. They did not act, or even sit there with me to help, and did busy-work (presumably) instead. After my mother arrived with insurance, they happily gave me Valium which started to take effect within a short time and gradually helped me to calm down and feel better. Now, if I was going to die, I know they would be obliged to help, but that’s not the point. The situation above reflects the third-party payer health care system in America and is atrocious — hospitals run by the promise of money? Not attending to suffering patients or at least being there with them until they know they are to be paid?

The Affordable Care Act is a good thing — it helps and will help others to insure themselves so they do not have to go through what I did, or worse. Think about it, my situation in perspective was not really that terrible — it could have been much worse and I cringe at the thought of what others have to go through if uninsured and facing a more serious, yet non-fatal emergency. It drives up taxes and other costs, sure, but it leaves people able to insure themselves, and avoid immoral hospital behavior — abandonment on a non-busy night — like the kind I experienced.

Through this I mean to make the argument that the ACA was not a small deal. That’s 1 million American lives that are changed because of the system, and 1 million less people that have to go through health care related suffering and instead have an almost immediate fix to their ailments. I’d say, following utilitarianism here, the ACA will leave America as a whole, better off if given adequate time to develop. Such a significant change, I argue, cannot take place over night, or even in a few months.

Thank you Obama, and “Dimocrats,” for allowing me the opportunity to purchase affordable health care, and avoid situations like the one I described above from occurring in the future.

I hope this helps to provide a different perspective. Take it as you will. Thoughts, questions, and concerns are welcomed :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

@ImplosionOfDoom:

Because I can’t”) particularly if the person didn’t grow up around racists. In which case a simple correction like “Um do you realize that phrase is ___”? should suffice, and hopefully the person will apologize (expect it to be an awkward {facepalm} moment). If the person does not apologize, well at least then you know for sure that they ‘intended to be asshole" and you’ve pointed that out to everyone else in the room by asking.

Sometimes the intent of a person is not what you assume it be, and the whole thing might be some sort of misunderstanding. Sometimes it’s just better to give the benefit of the doubt and clarify all intents and purposes. Generally I try consciously to avoid making too many assumptions, at least until I get a chance to talk to the person, but alas human nature is not an easy thing to fight and it has a habit of creeping up on everybody every now and again.

Right, and this is good, healthy, and assertive communication. Although it is important for the speaker, especially in a formal, professional environment, to keep in mind that not everyone is socially or culturally assertive like that, it is important for the audience not to assume that say, a white/black/Asian speaker has prejudices against other cultures (because in my case, I see people on an individual basis; it’s absurd to not do that).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

@stanwise:

Assuming that he must be from a difficult culture because of his skin color is already something you’ve done that’s racist, and you haven’t even opened your mouth yet.

Nope, I merely said “Indian-toned skin,” you could have substituted “brown skin features which resembles the typical person from India.” In the example, I was reflecting the persona of someone who was actually committing a microaggression, not myself holding the view of the speaker asking, “what other country are you from?”

So in other words, I don’t believe it is true that someone is necessarily from a different culture because of their skin color… and if one does, to outright ask them that without being told what culture they are from (note that such is considered “rude” in normal social circumstances anyway) is wrong. I actually acknowledged that that was a microaggression to set up a contrast.

@karmakoolkid:

OP, you appear to be confused about a few things.
You were representing the university as an orientation leader.
THEY had the right to dictate the manner in which you engaged the newbies.
They are fully aware of how innocent “microaggression” can be;
yet can have serious impacts.

I completely understand and agree, actually. Avoiding certain statements as an employee that may cause tension, even if they are not racist at all, is something that is essential for customer satisfaction. We should be taught this; my argument is not on the validity of the orientation program, but more towards statements like this as a whole. Does that make sense? I know I used my orientation diversity training to set up a base of reference, but I was applying the very idea of microaggressions to society as a whole to demonstrate the fear of political correctness.

I doubt the university made any micro’s against you for being “born into white skin”.

Well, you’re wrong haha. They made general blanket statements against their white clients (including me) that labeled us as usually the bad guys, even though most people commit microaggressions regardless of skin color. By that I mean, it’s more based on the individual than skin color.
___________
As for your other points, I believe I have addressed them already. I am using my work example and applying it to society as a whole. To provide insight, the presentation was geared at how to live, not merely just how to live at work. I also don’t believe your sexual harassment comment is comparable to microaggression; the committing of microaggressions is irrelevant to whether or not someone can escape the situation.

@Popperian:

The main point you are missing is this one: microaggressions simply aren’t the same thing when it’s done against those on the top, when the aggressions aren’t part of a larger aggressive cultural environment towards a certain ethnicity, gender, or orientation.

Why? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is wrong to assume that I am American or British when I am white, like someone did above; but it is not wrong to say I look Polish (or politically correctly saying I have characteristics that are shared with the majority of the Polish population, which is more difficult to understand). Now sure, granted, it may happen more to minorities, causing significant psychological harm to people of these cultures or skin colors, but that does not mean that the “majority” culture is immune from that. I fit the description of a few minority groups, and a few majority groups, but am not immune from feeling offended and hurt when one commits significant microaggressions towards me (like in example set 1 above), but there are some, I argue, like asking someone’s culture out of curiosity in a colloquial setting, in which not being able to ask that is getting in the way of communication and understanding.

The very fact that we’re having this conversation right now, probably has a few others and myself feeling a little tense, but it is not wrong to have this conversation; it is crucial for learning and understanding others’ views on my part. THAT’S the point I’m trying to make.

I also don’t see how you demonstrated that they are barriers of communication. All you’ve shown is that assuming a Indian-looking guy must be from another country is OK and non-racist (which I disagree)

Either I am not being clear or people are making assumptions based on my point of view and not reading between the lines. Note that it is not okay to assume that someone is from Indian culture because of features generally representing the population of India, but it is not a microaggression to say that someone has brown skin, or has “Indian-looking skin,” that they have black skin, white skin, dark skin, red skin; saying that someone looks Asian, African, etc. is all for communicative purposes. How are you going to get a valid idea of how someone is if I do not describe them to you in understandable terms?

Either “a tall black guy in the marketplace” / “a tall white guy in the marketplace” “the tall Indian-looking guy in the marketplace”

(NOTE: I am not saying he is Indian or from that culture)

or

I mean what else would you say, assuming correct identification amid the crowd is crucial in this scenario?

Wait until he feels comfortable to talk about it.

I wholeheartedly agree in that if the person in question is not comfortable with talking about themselves, then they should not have to and have the right not to be harassed. But the simple point is, why taboo the question? “I noticed your last name, is that Irish?” or if the person is openly from India, asking about the culture there, I argue is not wrong. One would not normally ask me in a face to face interaction, “Are you from Poland?” without me having significant signs of me having come from Poland. Just like someone is not going to ask me my age if I appear older than youthful. It’s disrespectful already in my mind, so on my part perhaps I’m assuming that others are as socially tamed as I am, which may be an incorrect assumption.

But if one asked me where I am from, I would happily reply X! If someone with an accent or of Indian-looking skin color was asked that question, I would feel like in the correct social context, it would be wrong to assume that the person thought that the subject was from foreign country Y (i.e. “where in Y are you from?”), but if asked where they were from, the “X-ian” Indian-looking person could reply X happily as well, to which no harm is done.

(BTW, I do appreciate your input, everybody, even if it seems like a tense conversation (it is)!)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

Hello SDers, I recently posted about this in another thread, but it wasn’t addressed and I felt it had more discussion value, especially among SDers!

So… political correctness is a thing. It exists to prevent offense in communications with those of varying backgrounds; although it seems that this would be effective, there are many times, I argue, where political correctness exists merely as a barrier to communication, learning, and understanding.

An actual example of “political correctness” going too far can be shown through my experiences as an Orientation Leader this summer at my university. We were required to go through “diversity training” in order to be qualified to work our job. I believe in equality for all, and against stereotyping different races (everyone is an individual, although there are tendencies). The diversity instructors focused mainly on the idea of avoiding “microaggressions.”

They said a microaggression is committed when one says something offensive under the guise of it being an innocent or simple comment like:

Example set 1) “Gay people are so fun (implying that gay people can all be grouped together, are all the same)” or “she (an assertive woman) is a bitch (implying that she is a woman and should be passive)”

EDIT: I acknowledge these as valid microaggressions

In this presentation, the two presenters made repeated comments that “whites usually commit these microaggressions against people of other races, including blacks” and general blanket statements of the sort were made which were actually microaggressions themselves, and I, being someone born into white skin, did not feel like I deserved to be treated like the bad guy for something I did not do. But, because of microaggression committed against me. I could see how microaggressions could be the cause of many tensions across different types of people. So some of the arguments were hypocritical, but the idea expressed in watching out for some of the microaggressions was a good one, especially those in example set 1 above. However, sometimes it can be taken too far in terms of political correctness. There were some statements like:

Example set 2) “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” “where are you from,” and “in your culture…”

…that were considered microaggressions.

These seem to be political correctness “rules” that are nothing more than barriers to communication and that contrast from those in example set 1. Of course, there are situations in which these statements may seem bold and rude, and those are to be avoided such as “(sees Indian skin-toned person, without introducing self) what other country are you from??” which is rude, but given an introduction, a friendship, or being on that topic, it is not rude to ask someone of a darker skin tone what nationality they are, or what nationality their name is, and then to talk about said culture. At least it is not in my mind, especially if done for a pure, innocent, and educational purpose. Learning about another culture and their language, customs, etc. is one of my favorite things (I am a Psychology and Spanish K-12 education double-major at my university) and I understand that understanding other cultures prevents miscommunication and conflict: for example the “deuces” sign in America is considered a fairly common and colloquial gesture/pose, whereas in Britain it is equivalent to the American middle finger. Understanding this cultural difference removes the tension experienced by viewing a Facebook photo of one’s American counterparts and finding them disrespectful — simple example, but it applies across more serious cultural rifts. In the same way I recently experienced the misunderstanding in which people were associating fundamental and extremist Islam for the beliefs of all of the Muslim population: people were cheering on a store owner who refused to sell their products to American Muslims because of their religion and its unjust association with violence; an understanding of the American Muslim culture would have prevented these views and actual macro aggressions (i.e., racism, discrimination).

In summary, cultural misunderstandings can cause tensions logical/educational conversation can fix if both parties are willing to learn, such as in my second set of examples of “microaggressions” above. Setting up the inquiry of how someone’s culture works as politically incorrect and then discouraging conversations about culture, gender, etc. is a barrier to communication and ironically concludes with misunderstanding, bigotry, and thus macro aggressions.

TL;DR Political correctness can be a barrier to communication, causing more bigotry to result, when actually the desired result was removing this bigotry…

What do you all think? Opinions? Where should we draw the line? How much caution is too much?