Conservative Majority Vote in the Supreme Court

M1L35 M4R54L15

New Member
So my concerns for "resistance" are this - payers that are for profit, insurance companies, have enormous resistance. As a worker in the healthcare industry, the insurance industry as a whole, including Medicare/caid, is the worst. They literally make healthcare decisions for people as a superior authority over doctors, which is the real kicker. The idea that a doctor can think you need one thing, and the bean counters saying, depending on how much they wish to profit, that you need less. I have never worked in single payer and while I'm sure they don't just float blank checks to anybody with an MD after their name, I imagine the not-interested-in-profits aspect really helps out tremendously. I'm not anti-capitalist for things like electronics, cars, furniture, kitchen sinks, trading cards, or.. many things. But not having a fancy set of silverware won't outright kill you unlike a lack of healthcare (or poor quality healthcare.)

So I guess the question becomes how does any proposed system help the worst person among us. Unemployed, disabled, no-skilled human. Homeless guy on the sidewalk. What can they do when they need care?
First off, thank you for your service in that sector.

I think homeless deserve access to care as well. Ideally, what would happen under a revamped ACA system is that when someone who is homeless or has no permanent address is admitted to the hospital, a social worker at the hospital would help to connect with outside local social workers who help get that person into Medicaid as well as other social services so they when that person leaves the hospital, they can collectively assist them in gaining employment and an place to live not in the shelter system.

About the resistance, remember that a lot of disinformation to about ACA made people extremely resistant to it and it actually cost Obama his Democratic majority in Congress. I'm concerned history could repeat if a single payer system is pursed now.

Improving the ACA is less risky.

 

Tamara

Member
From my understanding, the law bans the wearing of a variety of facial coverings, which can be problematic for those who wear niqabs and burqas. While I have deep reservations about household that may force women to wear such garb in the home, the dress laws also confine such women to the home, where they are less likely to be able to access services that could help them.

As for here, I agree that religious freedom tends to favor Christianity, whether it be Catholicism or Protestantism. Furthermore though we espouse a separation of church and state, there are those conservatives who betray the spirit of our own laws and try to enforce their beliefs on others. I do agree with you there.
From my point of view, there isn't any real separation of church and state in the USA: after all, the President is sworn in on the bible, and every dollar bill is adorned with the sentence 'in god we trust'. Not to mention all the debates on 'religious freedom' and the vast number of people invoking their religion as a reason to not obey the laws, whether they are private citizens of government officials. From my point of view, for all intents and purposes, the separation exists only in words in the USA, not in reality.

Here in France, the law is clear and anyone trying to use religion as an excuse to not serve someone would get kicked out of government service or loose their job on the spot with no compensation, and we have a lot of laws protecting workers and making it difficult to kick them out with no compensation. Private religious beliefs have no say in what a government official is doing, the rule is the same for everyone, whether they like it or not, and they cannot refuse service on basis of faith, same with workers in private companies. That county clerk who refused to deliver a marriage license to a gay couple when the law passed would have been kicked out on the spot, and the baker who refused to make a wedding cake to another gay couple who have had a lawsuit on his head and would have lost it, no question asked.

-

About facial coverings: there's been a lot of noise around the specifics for burqa and niqabs, but, actually, it's not specifically aimed at those. It's more complex than that. I'll try to explain.

From what I know, US citizens are not required to have an ID on them at all time, French citizens do. Police can stop you at any time to control your ID and make sure that you are who you say you are, plus in many acts of every day life, you are required to show an ID. There are very specific rules that cover what kind of picture can be put on your ID card, but it all boils down to: you have to be easily recognizable. That means nothing on your head, no glasses, no jewelry, have a neatly trimmed beard, it has to be the very basic you as a human being.

Obviously, burqas and niqabs conflict with this. How can you check the identity if the person's face or entire body is covered in such a way that you have no idea who is under it? And it's not just for the police: I used to work at a phone store, and had the problem happen once: a lady in a niqab came to the shop to get a phone plan, she handed me her ID but since I couldn't see her face, I couldn't check that it was her ID and not someone else's. We were lucky to have a muslim girl working at the shop at the time, who took lady to the side to check her face, else I'd have had to refuse service. Add to that the constant scare about terrorism, and you can also understand why authorities were very wary about people walking in the streets wearing such coverings, there were rumors that some people were planning an attack and wanted to disguise themselves using burqas and niqabs to be unrecognizable and smuggle weapons underneath.

Last thing, as many people pointed at the time that it is part of the requirements of the religion, the fact is that France is a secular state, and state laws always prevail over whatever your religion requires you to do. Not to mention that there has been a lot of conflicting information as to whether they are really a requirement or a quite radical/extremist interpretation of stuff said in the holy book.

-

As someone who lives in a country that works with a single payer healthcare system, I can say that, while it also has flaws, I was able to get access to healthcare that I would'nt not have been to pay for by myself, not with a basic living wage, and no one has to ration their life-saving drugs because they cannot afford it. While getting a doctor's appointment can take a bit (from days to weeks or months depending on what kind of doctor you need to see and where you live), I only pay a few Euros from my own pocket for basic healthcare like GP, check-up at the dentists and such, and most basic drugs cost little as well, allowing people to treat minor illness and often avoid them getting worst and sending them to the hospital.

Healthcare is, in my opinion, one of the things that should never be subjected to capitalist views and never be left in the hands of private companies. You don't make profit off of other's sufferings, and certainly not by letting them suffer because it's more profitable for your company. That's inhumane.

 
  • Love
Reactions: M1L35 M4R54L15
From my point of view, there isn't any real separation of church and state in the USA: after all, the President is sworn in on the bible, and every dollar bill is adorned with the sentence 'in god we trust'. Not to mention all the debates on 'religious freedom' and the vast number of people invoking their religion as a reason to not obey the laws, whether they are private citizens of government officials. From my point of view, for all intents and purposes, the separation exists only in words in the USA, not in reality.
It comes from what type of separation the founding fathers aimed for. The separation was simply to protect religious leaders/groups from the government, as colonies were known to persecute minority religions (like Massachusetts Bay Colony persecuting Quakers, same reason why Pennsylvania was set up by its namesake William Penn as a safe haven for Quakers, and how Maryland was set as a safe haven for Catholics). It merely was to prevent the government from interfering with citizens on basis of religion - they never intended to require officials to be secular too, as they envisioned the nation to be a Christian nation led by Christians, but naturally

- Xi Yao

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Tamara

Shagoli

🦖
Staff Team
While not necessarily bad, the current conversation in here has strayed from the supreme court and how it may affect things going forward; @TaytoSeal, since this is your thread, would you prefer that the discussion be moved elsewhere? I will split the topic and move the posts if so, no worries.

 

TaytoSeal

Member
While not necessarily bad, the current conversation in here has strayed from the supreme court and how it may affect things going forward; @TaytoSeal, since this is your thread, would you prefer that the discussion be moved elsewhere? I will split the topic and move the posts if so, no worries.
Nah this is fine.

 

M1L35 M4R54L15

New Member
From my point of view, there isn't any real separation of church and state in the USA: after all, the President is sworn in on the bible, and every dollar bill is adorned with the sentence 'in god we trust'. Not to mention all the debates on 'religious freedom' and the vast number of people invoking their religion as a reason to not obey the laws, whether they are private citizens of government officials. From my point of view, for all intents and purposes, the separation exists only in words in the USA, not in reality.

Here in France, the law is clear and anyone trying to use religion as an excuse to not serve someone would get kicked out of government service or loose their job on the spot with no compensation, and we have a lot of laws protecting workers and making it difficult to kick them out with no compensation. Private religious beliefs have no say in what a government official is doing, the rule is the same for everyone, whether they like it or not, and they cannot refuse service on basis of faith, same with workers in private companies. That county clerk who refused to deliver a marriage license to a gay couple when the law passed would have been kicked out on the spot, and the baker who refused to make a wedding cake to another gay couple who have had a lawsuit on his head and would have lost it, no question asked.

-

About facial coverings: there's been a lot of noise around the specifics for burqa and niqabs, but, actually, it's not specifically aimed at those. It's more complex than that. I'll try to explain.

From what I know, US citizens are not required to have an ID on them at all time, French citizens do. Police can stop you at any time to control your ID and make sure that you are who you say you are, plus in many acts of every day life, you are required to show an ID. There are very specific rules that cover what kind of picture can be put on your ID card, but it all boils down to: you have to be easily recognizable. That means nothing on your head, no glasses, no jewelry, have a neatly trimmed beard, it has to be the very basic you as a human being.

Obviously, burqas and niqabs conflict with this. How can you check the identity if the person's face or entire body is covered in such a way that you have no idea who is under it? And it's not just for the police: I used to work at a phone store, and had the problem happen once: a lady in a niqab came to the shop to get a phone plan, she handed me her ID but since I couldn't see her face, I couldn't check that it was her ID and not someone else's. We were lucky to have a muslim girl working at the shop at the time, who took lady to the side to check her face, else I'd have had to refuse service. Add to that the constant scare about terrorism, and you can also understand why authorities were very wary about people walking in the streets wearing such coverings, there were rumors that some people were planning an attack and wanted to disguise themselves using burqas and niqabs to be unrecognizable and smuggle weapons underneath.

Last thing, as many people pointed at the time that it is part of the requirements of the religion, the fact is that France is a secular state, and state laws always prevail over whatever your religion requires you to do. Not to mention that there has been a lot of conflicting information as to whether they are really a requirement or a quite radical/extremist interpretation of stuff said in the holy book.

-

As someone who lives in a country that works with a single payer healthcare system, I can say that, while it also has flaws, I was able to get access to healthcare that I would'nt not have been to pay for by myself, not with a basic living wage, and no one has to ration their life-saving drugs because they cannot afford it. While getting a doctor's appointment can take a bit (from days to weeks or months depending on what kind of doctor you need to see and where you live), I only pay a few Euros from my own pocket for basic healthcare like GP, check-up at the dentists and such, and most basic drugs cost little as well, allowing people to treat minor illness and often avoid them getting worst and sending them to the hospital.

Healthcare is, in my opinion, one of the things that should never be subjected to capitalist views and never be left in the hands of private companies. You don't make profit off of other's sufferings, and certainly not by letting them suffer because it's more profitable for your company. That's inhumane.
I broadly agree with most of what you said, though I feel someone should be able to walk the streets dressed as they want, they shouldn't need to have identification on them if they are a citizen, and my objection to the single payer system is voter resistance to it a la Obamacare.

Pardon the late reply; work has been busy due to the election.

 

TaytoSeal

Member
I broadly agree with most of what you said, though I feel someone should be able to walk the streets dressed as they want, they shouldn't need to have identification on them if they are a citizen, and my objection to the single payer system is voter resistance to it a la Obamacare.

Pardon the late reply; work has been busy due to the election.
Hey I'm gonna take a moment to say this cuz I was thinking about our interaction before.

Acting high and mighty because of where you put your donations and saying that your activism is performative was way out of line. I apologize for my behavior.

 
  • Love
Reactions: M1L35 M4R54L15

M1L35 M4R54L15

New Member
Hey I'm gonna take a moment to say this cuz I was thinking about our interaction before.

Acting high and mighty because of where you put your donations and saying that your activism is performative was way out of line. I apologize for my behavior.
Hey, no worries. Like I said before, your experiences with conservative on this forum and in this fandom may have not been the best, so I get being defensive. There are many bad actors on my nominal side of aisle at the moment and they're causing a whole lot of pain a damage across the country at the moment, possibly well into the future if I'm cynical yet honest. There is even good debate over whether the majority of Republican Party has lost its way, in my opinion.

I think some suspicion is healthy under those circumstances.

That being said, maybe I can make a better impression on you and others over time. I'd like to be given the opportunity to do that.