|
Fried Chicken posted:Eat poo poo. I've argued for universal health care in plenty of threads including this one pages back. The fact that I don't feel the need to reiterate it every post and go full LF in calling for medieval torture of the guy in question does not mean I'm defending what happened. I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to PTD. You seem angry today!
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Hey cool more strawmen! This all got started with a strawman attack on me because I dared repeat what was happening at a press conference and didn't go apeshit in the properly approve way, so feel free to kiss my rear end when it comes to complaining about it now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That's literally how we got all our social programs. New Deal, GI Bill, Great Society, they all started with heavy race and gender restrictions that let them give their benefits to privileged people. They were all expanded after the fact. What was the race and gender restrictions in the Great Society program that were later expanded after the fact?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to PTD. You seem angry today! I'm sorry for disappointing you and white knighting a pregnant woman in her third trimester. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to PTD. You seem angry today! I was "the poster in question" you quoted at the start here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I'm sorry for disappointing you and white knighting a pregnant woman in her third trimester. I'm sorry. It's OK. I'm still a bit confused that you haven't brought up the child's eligibility for student loans - will her father's conviction affect that? That's the important thing, why aren't we talking about THAT? Why are you so against higher education? And why aren't you advocating for their mortgage to be forgiven, too? Why, everyone with a murdered breadwinner should have that. Fried Chicken posted:I was "the poster in question" you quoted at the start here. You didn't start the derail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
So I see we're Crab Bucketing out of control today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this thread is a bucket and we're all crabs stuck in it
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:This all got started with a strawman attack on me because I dared repeat what was happening at a press conference and didn't go apeshit in the properly approve way, so feel free to kiss my rear end when it comes to complaining about it now. Ah, the "someone did it first so I can do it now" response. How very adult of you. I'm just glad that cops out there know that if they happen to gun down a person in broad daylight with absolutely no cause, then tamper with evidence to frame the corpse for assault, and it happens to miraculously get caught on video and released to the public, the police department will still grant you the benefits you aren't legally entitled to because no man left behind or thin blue line or some poo poo. This will undoubtedly convince other cops they should probably gun down innocent people less often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What was the race and gender restrictions in the Great Society program that were later expanded after the fact? Housing programs got covered by the fair housing act later on, the programs all got expanded to native Americans, revisions to the federal education funding acts expanded them beyond their GI Bill roots, various flavors of Medicare and Medicaid have expanded it to cover more people and industries it initially didn't, contraception coverage was expanded in 1967, service contract act expanded the Davis bacon act to cover industries previously left out because they were dominated by women and minorities, affirmative action programs expanded the office of economic opportunities. Probably more, but that's just off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
It's ok to be mad at a police man for murdering a guy but there's no socially progressive way to frame your outrage in a fashion which makes it OK for you to punish the dude's wife also. We don't know why the boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
You know what, I agree. I am being a crab in a bucket. I think we should start a goon project to ensure that people fired for murdering others get to have their families stay on their insurance. Who's volunteering?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Ah, the "someone did it first so I can do it now" response. How very adult of you. Would you say we need some kind of reform for these benefits the police believe they are entitled to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
I don't see how this is hard to process. 1.) The wife should have access to healthcare because everyone should have access to healthcare. 2.) If you don't believe that everyone should have access to healthcare then you should be saying that this woman does not deserve healthcare. If you aren't, you're essentially saying that certain people are more deserving of healthcare than others (if I was a barista and I killed someone, I doubt you'd be calling for Stabucks to hold off firing me until my wife gave birth?). As described this is not due process, this is an organization bending the rules for the wife's benefit (though probably in their mind's for their colleagues' benefit). If you think this, that makes you a lovely human being. 3.) It is 100% OK and appropriate to call out people who do not want universal healthcare but are OK with this particular arrangement, and doing so does not mean that you yourself want people to not have healthcare. In fact, what you are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are against universal healthcare but want to make special exceptions like this for the "good sort" of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
You say "punish", I say "withhold un-entitled privileges". This isn't about making someone suffer, it's about equal application of standards.paranoid randroid posted:Would you say we need some kind of reform for these benefits the police believe they are entitled to? I'm not saying it's wrong to extend the benefit in a vacuum. I'm just highlighting the fact that the actual murder victim, if his situation were identical and he worked at Home Depot, would have his family told to quietly go gently caress themselves. The person in a position of power (in this case the policeman) is having his existing power entrenched even further by being granted privileges that even his victim will almost surely not receive. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:3.) It is 100% OK and appropriate to call out people who do not want universal healthcare but are OK with this particular arrangement, and doing so does not mean that you yourself want people to not have healthcare. In fact, what you are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are against universal healthcare but want to make special exceptions like this for the "good sort" of people. Well loving said. I am 100% for UHC myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's ok to be mad at a police man for murdering a guy but there's no socially progressive way to frame your outrage in a fashion which makes it OK for you to punish the dude's wife also. Yeah there is never a justification for visiting the sins of the parent, or parents, on the child.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Hasters posted:Yeah there is never a justification for visiting the sins of the parent, or parents, on the child. Of course she'd just be able to go on Medicaid, so this isn't even relevant. It's not like the child would die if the state wasn't paying for whatever luxury suite police healthcare gets you, she'd have to live with what every other murderer's family gets. Nobody but nobody gets to keep employer paid health insurance when they're no longer employed (COBRA excepted).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's ok to be mad at a police man for murdering a guy but there's no socially progressive way to frame your outrage in a fashion which makes it OK for you to punish the dude's wife also. Iirc the chief literally said they weren't revoking the insurance yet. It's still stupid and I'm not excusing anyone, however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You know what, I agree. I am being a crab in a bucket. I think we should start a goon project to ensure that people fired for murdering others get to have their families stay on their insurance. Who's volunteering? I'll make the wiki
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
And this is supposed to be the jenius of the Republican field:quote:[Q]: A third Texas president, L.B.J., created Medicare in the mid-'60s. Your hero Ronald Reagan campaigned vigorously against that, saying it would lead to socialized medicine, would end liberty in the United States. Who was right: L.B.J. or Reagan?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:No, but the judge wrote me a recommendation letter to university for it. That was pretty cool. He was kind of mad he had to let me off but I guess he respected my effort. Isn't that the plot of "My Cousin Vinnie"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
i think the doctor should punch the cop baby when its born and be like "nice dad you got, fucker"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I'm not saying it's wrong to extend the benefit in a vacuum. I'm just highlighting the fact that the actual murder victim, if his situation were identical and he worked at Home Depot, would have his family told to quietly go gently caress themselves. The people in a position of power (in this case the policeman) is having their existing power entrenched even further by being granted privileges that even his victim will almost surely not receive. Yes, this is an entrenchment of power and not at all empathy for a woman put under stress because her husband lost his job because he murdered someone. If we cannot be empathetic to everyone, it is only fair to be empathetic to no one. As liberals, this is our creed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
The juvenile strawmen hurt the conversation, just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
The mother would have health insurance through Medicaid if she were dropped from her husband's health plan, so it's a non-issue regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:You say "punish", I say "withhold un-entitled privileges". This isn't about making someone suffer, it's about equal application of standards.[ This has no real impact on how other police will react in these situations. That will be determined by how the officer is sentenced. I doubt there are any police officers who are so overtly racist that they would murder a black man in cold blood knowing that they will get life in prison, but the only thing holding them back is their wife's loss of medical insurance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The mother would have health insurance through Medicaid if she were dropped from her husband's health plan, so it's a non-issue regardless. PTD won't address this because it completely obliterates any point he or she has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The mother would have health insurance through Medicaid if she were dropped from her husband's health plan, so it's a non-issue regardless. Right. It's not like the mother immediately becomes a hobo selling her body. She'd still receive care every other person can get. But that's somehow a lack of empathy or something, I don't know. Karnegal posted:This has no real impact on how other police will react in these situations. That will be determined by how the officer is sentenced. I doubt there are any police officers who are so overtly racist that they would murder a black man in cold blood knowing that they will get life in prison, but the only thing holding them back is their wife's loss of medical insurance. Sure, it's not the only or even a significant issue. But you can't honestly argue that continued support/benefits for the officer have no effect on the public perception of this whole incident. E: Would those supporting the extension of coverage also be ok with college tuition for the kid paid for by the state? Why is the extension of insurance a sufficient gesture? Surely this family will have future needs with the father in prison. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:The mother would have health insurance through Medicaid if she were dropped from her husband's health plan, so it's a non-issue regardless. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get medicaid coverage? The kid would be talking before the paperwork got processed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:PTD won't address this because it completely obliterates any point he or she has. My point is that it's possible to have a human emotion called "sympathy" and "compassion" without tacitly approving of white cops shooting black men. You also accused me of being against UHC because I haven't been vocally supportive of it in the last few days so really all I can do is just passively troll you for my own amusement as you try to justify why it is in fact a good thing to stick a pregnant woman with multiple thousands of dollars in healthcare expenses while her husband is awaiting trial for murder. It's also possible that she doesn't qualify for Medicaid if she's on leave of absence from a salaried job. For people who stridently advocate for the poor you don't seem to know a lot about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Do you have any idea how long it takes to get medicaid coverage? The kid would be talking before the paperwork got processed. Nope, it's completely retroactive for three months: http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Eligibility.html Popular Thug Drink posted:why it is in fact a good thing to stick a pregnant woman with multiple thousands of dollars in healthcare expenses while her husband is awaiting trial for murder. She. Would. Be. Eligible. For. Medicaid. Attention PTD, please read the previous six words and, as necessary, tattoo them in reverse on your forehead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Do you have any idea how long it takes to get medicaid coverage? The kid would be talking before the paperwork got processed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:She. Would. Be. Eligible. For. Medicaid. You have no idea if she qualifies or not, but you don't seem to have any other problems making unsupported assumptions so that you can win an inexplicable slapfight so go nuts man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Someone start her a gofundme campaign. Will probably do as well as Memories Pizza.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:
It strikes me more as a minor footnote in terms of the discussion of how the police don't have to the same justice system as everyone else. Like in terms of the issues that we need to reform, this is so far down on the list that it's more of a distraction than an actual issue in terms of curtailing police abuse of power or dealing with systemic racism. I don't see how punishing the wife from benefiting from an unfair system is ethical since she is innocent. Is she privileged? Sure. But potentially ruining her life financially to prove a point isn't ethical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You have no idea if she qualifies or not, but you don't seem to have any other problems making unsupported assumptions so that you can win an inexplicable slapfight so go nuts man. The only reason she wouldn't be eligible is if they were making too much money - which seems unlikely due to the fact that her husband was recently fired. Either that or she has her own health insurance from HER employer, in which case it's not an issue. Regardless, Medicaid is fully retroactive, so the paperwork angle don't play, either. You're right I got worked up about this - but only because believing that former cops' families are entitled to better medical care than anyone else in a difficult situation (Medicaid) is a tough pill of poo poo for me to swallow. It legitimately makes no sense. Karnegal posted:But potentially ruining her life financially to prove a point isn't ethical. See above. There's literally no way this would have "ruine[d] her life".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The only reason she wouldn't be eligible is if they were making too much money - which seems unlikely due to the fact that her husband was recently fired. Either that or she has her own health insurance from HER employer, in which case it's not an issue. I've only ever said that it's a bad thing and the opposite of socially progressive to punish a wife for the crimes of the husband. It's not my responsibility to make sure that you don't take those statements and construe them as a defense of the status quo. Calm yourself, friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:See above. There's literally no way this would have "ruine[d] her life". lol are you privy to their finances now
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:And this is supposed to be the jenius of the Republican field: Link?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:12
|
|