Please excuse me but I must rant for a moment.
I joined a handful of groups about two months ago. Some just for fun, but in others I was hoping for some intelligent political debates. Now I suppose SG is not the best forum for political debate. But being a political junkie I thought it would be fun. Boy was I WRONG! The SG Politics Group is just completely dead, The SG Military Group is okay, but the most ridiculous is the Geezers Group. Now I thought joining that group I would be getting away from all the kids and maybe find some intellectual folks. WRONG again! I knew going into these groups as a conservative I would be in the minority. That didn't bother me. But trying to talk to some of these folks is just impossible. They seem to be more interested in name calling than actual discussion. I just don't see any fun in playing the "I know you are but what am I" game. I did find what appears to be some intelligent folks in there, but when backed into a corner they start the name calling to avoid discussing the issue. And when you call them on it. They all come out of the woodwork to tell you what a "loser" you are. What the fuck is that all about?
Now the Geezer group remains one of the most active of the groups I belong to, and the group owner is pretty level headed. But some of the members are just plain childish! SG is the only web forum/group that I belong to and therefore I spend a lot of time on this site. And have met some pretty cool people. I guess one of the reasons I haven't just left the site completely is because of some of the PM's that I've gotten from members saying they have experienced some of the same things I have. And I love the girls. The girls on here seem really friendly and a lot of fun. But their not active in a lot of these groups unless their promoting themselves.
A couple people have referred me to the Boards. Which actually look like they could be fun. But I really don't want to get into all the name calling BS again. So I suppose I may just turn into a "lurker" like one fellow member says he has done. And focus primarily on blogs.
One Group that really surprised me is the Sobriety Group. Like I have stated in my first blog. I am a recovering meth junkie. And when I found the Sobriety Group I was all to excited. But I was shocked to find out that they are the most judgmental folks on this entire site! That kind of blew me away. I explained to the group owner when I applied that I still drink wine and smoke pot every now and then and she assured me that was ok. I expected it to be an accepting group. Far from it!
Okay, that's enough bitching for today. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Love you guys!
I joined a handful of groups about two months ago. Some just for fun, but in others I was hoping for some intelligent political debates. Now I suppose SG is not the best forum for political debate. But being a political junkie I thought it would be fun. Boy was I WRONG! The SG Politics Group is just completely dead, The SG Military Group is okay, but the most ridiculous is the Geezers Group. Now I thought joining that group I would be getting away from all the kids and maybe find some intellectual folks. WRONG again! I knew going into these groups as a conservative I would be in the minority. That didn't bother me. But trying to talk to some of these folks is just impossible. They seem to be more interested in name calling than actual discussion. I just don't see any fun in playing the "I know you are but what am I" game. I did find what appears to be some intelligent folks in there, but when backed into a corner they start the name calling to avoid discussing the issue. And when you call them on it. They all come out of the woodwork to tell you what a "loser" you are. What the fuck is that all about?
Now the Geezer group remains one of the most active of the groups I belong to, and the group owner is pretty level headed. But some of the members are just plain childish! SG is the only web forum/group that I belong to and therefore I spend a lot of time on this site. And have met some pretty cool people. I guess one of the reasons I haven't just left the site completely is because of some of the PM's that I've gotten from members saying they have experienced some of the same things I have. And I love the girls. The girls on here seem really friendly and a lot of fun. But their not active in a lot of these groups unless their promoting themselves.
A couple people have referred me to the Boards. Which actually look like they could be fun. But I really don't want to get into all the name calling BS again. So I suppose I may just turn into a "lurker" like one fellow member says he has done. And focus primarily on blogs.
One Group that really surprised me is the Sobriety Group. Like I have stated in my first blog. I am a recovering meth junkie. And when I found the Sobriety Group I was all to excited. But I was shocked to find out that they are the most judgmental folks on this entire site! That kind of blew me away. I explained to the group owner when I applied that I still drink wine and smoke pot every now and then and she assured me that was ok. I expected it to be an accepting group. Far from it!
Okay, that's enough bitching for today. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Love you guys!
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
I want to be clear, I am not advocating for what many call the 'Obama Plan'. I would say that the largest reason for this is that there is no such thing. 'Obama' doesn't HAVE a healthcare plan. He has asked Congress to come up with one, and right now, the house and senate are fighting it out. Obama did set goals forth that I personally cannot take a lot of issue with. Lower costs and broader coverage for more US citizens being the key. I know he has stated he supported a 'public option', a government backed healthplan to compete with the healthplans offered by insurance companies. 1) Competition usually drives overall costs down, 2) I do not believe he has ever advocated that such a plan should replace existing ones, just be an 'option'.
Recently he appears to have backed off the 'public option'. Not that he no longer wants it, but that not having one is not a deal-breaker. Here's one reason I respect that: Obama is showing a rare trait in a politician - refining one's opinion based on new information. Politicians are people too, and they don't have all the answers. But people should be allowed to talk about things, gather more information and make better judgements based on that. Think about all the things that people used to 'know' and that with current information you'd think them morons for hanging onto ('world is flat' is a common example). Many politicians DO change their tunes regularly (flip-floppers which exist on both sides), but they make excuses and they do these for their own or their party's benefit, not for the betterment of the people. As evidence mounts, a 'public option' may not be a good idea right now. MAYBE it will be in the future, MAYBE it won't, but right now it doesn't appear that the US can do it.
I completely agree that those who will benefit most from a new health plan are the ones crying loudest. But, when is this not the case? Not just with a health plan, but with anything? I don't stick my neck out to advocate for a new park in some Utah community. I don't have a lot of energy to complain about the 'Estate tax'. (These issues and many more) Neither effects me now, nor do I perceive they will in the foreseeable future. I do however advocate that the people who those areas will effect, they have the right to fight for them. My guess is a whole bunch of people who used to not care about unemployment payout rates are now taking a very big interest in them. To me, that's human nature, and not the government's fault, not Obama's fault.
I understand your position on Unions, and I can see well how it's been formed by your experiences. Unions were an equalizer so corporations couldn't push their employees around. But like any equalizer, it has to stay equal. A tall order, yes, but unless equality is maintained the side with power seems to invariable push to their own self interest. These cycles are everywhere of course. Human nature again?
For me, I am in healthcare. My wife is in healthcare. We have family in healthcare and social services. We have friends in healthcare and social services. I see and speak with clinicians all the time. I see how ERs are plugged with people, some critical, some just with no alternative. In both critical and no alternative cases, there definitely are some where it is their own doing. But not everyone. Treating the uninsured in an ER is 10x more expensive then treating them in a clinic for the same problem (non-emergency of course). Hospitals are required by law to treat everyone who comes to an emergency room, and if they cannot pay, the government pays it through medicaid/medicare. This is a good thing and a bad thing. A hospital is a business and run as such. Now there are arguments for and against this practice, but I'm avoiding that right now. It is their interest to make money. What you don't want is for you to come in a stretcher, unconscious with no ID, and have the hospital say 'until we know if he can pay, we aren't treating him'. That's why this law exists, to give treatment first ask for money later. Of course, there will be abuses. That pesky human nature again
We've agreed 'something' needs to be done about our healthcare system. I can guarantee whatever it is will benefit a great many people, and piss off a great many people. Ilsa did note that public health care isn't the best answer, but then again what we've got now isn't the best answer either. Perhaps there is no best answer. Just a better or worse answer than what we have and the era in which we have it.
what they think of being "government" workers as opposed to being independent? My guess would be the majority of them don't like it. Hence the reason we have so many foreign doctors in this country.
Actually, public employment is seeked by many people here (here meaning my country and not the whole EU), in fact it's a popular saying that goverment workers live way too well. I mean, why would they dislike it? Nobody is forcing them to work for the goverment if they don't want to. After you take a competitive exam for a position and pass it, you will have that job for life and you have to do something really really bad to ever be unemployed again. While this does not appeal to me, I can see the appeal of it for other people who just want a secure existence with a mortgage, kids and a secure job. Basically, you can't ever be fired, so you can procrastinate or take as many breaks as you want to... they also have paid holidays (teachers get almost 3 months a year!) and pay less taxes than a regular worker. They don't depend on the goverment but from local admistrations and it's allowed to be a public worker and have your private clinic at the same time. The only reason why we have foreign doctors is because some local ones choose, due to the way things are and the salaries being higher in other countries to immigrate to places ike the UK where there was a serious shortgage of nurses a few years ago, for example, and there are also way more opportunities for investigation (they just decreased the budget for investigation a 15% this year...)
In a nutshell, this system is not bad, but it could be better if they had more control over people who abuse it and there wasn't so much bureaucracy in the middle of everything... it'd also be cool if public employees had to pass a test every few years to see if they are still valid for their position.