Comments | sonious: Healthcare Debate

sonious

Healthcare Debate

Jul 08, 2012 12:27

So while I have made an article on Flayrah dealing with the opinion of readers that politics outside the fandom shouldn't really be discussed in the site as it currently is it has brought up to me the a topic where I do have a bit of back and forth on myself. Since before this year I hadn't had to deal with any medical issues at all I find that as ( Read more... )

Comments 8

kris_schnee July 10 2012, 05:17:03 UTC

Hello. About the Flayrah article -- I wrote the rebuttal piece -- I don't think either my article or the original one (or Rabbit's) belonged. I don't want to see Flayrah become another battleground for increasingly bitter politics. The point of posting was to refuse to let it become one *uncontested*. Hopefully GreenReaper will get the point and leave off in the future.

sonious July 10 2012, 10:31:21 UTC

I do think it did highlight the issue, sure. Yours was as low ranking as his which showed it wasn't a partisan thing (though curiously yours is now at a 2 enough to be shown again). GreenReaper at first thought it was more a confurvative conspiracy to downvote the article. I think after these have all been downvoted, and mine is so highly voted (18 5 stars with 1 1-star) I think it highlights why things happened the way they did.

greenreaper July 12 2012, 07:27:24 UTC

This is not quite correct. I think the commented responses were heavily negative in part because the post on confurvatives gave a specific call for rebuttals.

greenreaper July 12 2012, 07:32:34 UTC

I'm afraid you didn't quite get what you want. I will post what people submit, if I think it will be of interest to our audience, and especially if I believe it is necessary to provide a counterpoint to an already-submitted opinion piece.

Does this mean a large number of political pieces? Probably not. Most furries, including myself, don't really care about politics most of the time.

greenreaper July 12 2012, 08:00:04 UTC

We can't have our cake and eat it too. The law already requires treatment, at least for urgent medical conditions, and there is no significant political will to relinquish that. If we were willing to let people die in the streets it would not be such a problem (though I'd argue that the average person benefits from avoiding this situation ( ... )

sonious July 12 2012, 20:39:00 UTC

That phrase never made any sense to me... if you're going to have a cake what are you going to do with it besides eat it ( ... )

sonious July 12 2012, 20:40:20 UTC

And why LJ put that icon and won't let me change it? Have no idea.

greenreaper July 12 2012, 22:32:51 UTC

The meaning is that you cannot both eat the cake, and then have it afterwards. Eating implies destruction of the cake that you have, and a denial of future cake. (Incidentally, those able to delay eating cake as children for a future benefit tend to do better in life.)

You would have had to pay the fine or obtain insurance. This true in all cases; the only difference is that you were not able to obtain it from an employer because you were contracting (though arguably something that long may really be an employer relationship . . .). By 2014 it should be simpler and [relatively] cheaper to do this on an individual basis through the exchanges, which some states are setting up now that they know the law has passed the Supreme Court ( ... )