Christy's comments (member since Jul 09, 2008)

Christy's comments from the True North group.

I don't know, I don't think it's so bad for a president to talk to kids in school. The kids are most likely going to just be excited to hear/see the president, who is just a figurehead, really. He's a role model, even if the kids don't know everything he's about. I think it's more likely to make kids think "hey, maybe I could become the president someday" and get them excited about becoming someone important. I know when I was a kid I wouldn't have even been paying much attention to the words coming out of his mouth.

Isn't it equally hypocritical for any democratic politicians (sorry, governors) who criticize republican spending while embracing Obama's economic policies? I suppose it's okay because this money is being spent to help "the people." (not big business, like GM. This money is for you and me. I know I've seen a lot of it)

Okay, so just speaking of governors then. I think it is reasonable to object to spending that you don't approve of. One shouldn't be required to accept all future spending just because they agreed to spending in one area in the past. I can see that it may seem hypocritical, though.

I really can't get into the head of governors, so I don't know why I'm even trying to defend these people, most of whom are probably tools. But I don't think I'm in a position to assume that they rejected the money because they don't want people seeing that Obama is a good guy and "helping them out." I think it's possible there is more logical reasoning behind it, but I suppose we can never know for sure.

Well, are we just talking about politicians or average citizens? If politicians, only governors? Because there are politicians who didn't support the war and don't support the stimulus package. And there are citizens as well (I'm one of them). Unfortunately everyone can't be lumped into one of two categories. Look, you’re right that some people don’t like Obama and object to his economic plan out of spite, but there are others who have good reasons.

There's also the concept of throwing good money after bad. So what if someone didn't object to military spending in the past -- does that mean they can't object to future spending when it is clear we can't afford it?

Nice and vague. I like it. :) (King Dinosaur, that is, not you, Carlie.)

Are they all the same people? I feel like we're making generalizations again.

Some people object to the concept of a stimulus package. Some people don't like Obama for legitimate reasons, not just because they're backwards fear-mongers. I think just saying that Obama is "helping us out" is a gross simplification of what is going on. Did Obama make the stimulus money appear out of thin air? Is he a magician? No, he isn't. We'll pay that money (principal) back later, we'll pay interest on that money, plus we'll pay with inflation. The stimulus package(s) come at a huge cost to everyone.

BunWat is completely right. I suppose I should qualify my statement about there not being money...we need to pull the money out of almost everything else we spend on as a nation and throw it at (the things this group seems to always come back to, and the things we mostly agree on) schools and healthcare. And roads and fire and police. And some (but less) for the military. Then we can divy up whatever is left very carefully on other, less important, projects.

There, I've solved it! It was so easy.

The fear is a monopoly, which I imagine scares the pants off many physicians. Medicare is actually not bad, when they actually pay. But when they're the only game in town, it would get pretty interesting.

A simple doctor visit shouldn't be billed at more than $200-300. Perhaps there were x-rays or other tests? :)

Frankly I would rather see them go all the way with it, and just be done with insurance companies. They need to be driven out. This hybrid system seems like a disaster to me, but I suppose it doesn't matter -- most middle and lower class people will eventually decide to jump ship rather than pay extra for private insurance, our taxes will increase to pay for the extra demand, and it will all balance out. And we'll be on par with the rest of the world.

What you described in your first paragraph doesn’t require a government health plan. That’s what people used to do – they paid their doctor a fee for his or her services. But it doesn’t account for people who have no money, which is why people want a government plan. The problem is that the money that pays insurance premiums now is not in the possession of the government, and is not the same money that will fund the government plan. That money would have to get to them via a tax, which Obama is adamantly opposed to, he says. So, people who want to keep the insurance they have will be asked to pay for themselves and someone else. They will be paying twice.

But actually my real point is that we have no money. We are in debt. The dollar is being devalued every second of every day. The price of gold is skyrocketing. The money really isn’t there. It’s there on paper, barely.

(in response to Jackie) I've long ago given up on the "left/right" paradigm. Both sides are tied up with business and lobbyists and favors. Maybe different businesses, sometimes, but I think the left and the right have a lot more in common than most other people think, from what I’ve gathered.

There is no good solution to the health care crisis at the moment. We don’t have any money. It’s hard to accept the fact that it’s broken but we can’t afford to fix it right now. And I don’t think socialism is evil, but I understand people who are just scratching their heads wondering how the hell we are supposed to fund all of this. The “death panel” nonsense is just that: nonsense, and a distraction from the root of the problem, which is general mismanagement on both “sides.”

People will still get sick, but it’s better to avoid exposing more people, like all the new people you’ll come into contact with who didn’t enjoy the benefit of your company during the few days before you realized you were ill. The goal can’t be to eradicate all illness, but just to minimize it as best we can.

The problem with quarantine is not only monetary but also (if we’re talking involuntary quarantine) an issue of priorities, not to mention civil rights. Quarantine is reserved for extreme cases because it is just such an extreme response. If we quarantined everyone who had a virus…you can imagine what the world would be like. But in a sense staying home when you’re sick is like a voluntary quarantine, and it is quite effective. I think we can all agree that it is also good for the patient, as someone else mentioned.

I don't know, I think RandomAnthony has a valid point. I agree that the accusations or the reasons are different, but aren’t they each just rather partisan attempts to object to anything attempted by the man who so greatly displeases them? It’s a double standard to cry foul when Bush does it but not when Obama does it, and it’s a double standard for people who supported Bush doing it then to object to Obama doing it now. The upshot is they each wanted the same outcome. But of course, we’re not hearing from the same people exactly, we’re just hearing from the latest mouthpiece of their respective political parties. This is why politicians are so frustrating and irritating. It’s all BS, it’s all a show. I think the primary reason I mind is that I think they take us all for idiots.

For the record, I think it’s fine for the president to talk to schoolkids. I really don’t care. They're wasting the money anyway, so it's not a matter of prioritizing funds anymore. They can just borrow/print more money. I think the time for being frugal and responsible with tax dollars has passed. So I guess I'm saying now would be a good time to right the nonsense of the past and get over it and let him meet with the kids without a fuss.

My alma mater! And I was wondering why the English department never got any funding. This is pretty awesome. I’ll have to prepare all my best Terminator quotes.

I think I need to have some children so I have a good excuse to buy crayons and watch Harry Potter movies.

I've always liked school too! But in some ways the anticipation is more fun than the actual schooling. I suppose it depends on what you're studying. Right now I'm discovering that I need to spend 15-20 hours a week translating Latin (or trying to), which for some reason sounded like fun to me as I was gearing up for the new semester. It turns out everyone who said "I don't know why you would want to do that. It sounds awful." was correct. But there's something romantic about it, I guess.

Jackie, I always loved buying school supplies! I think that's the perfect cure. Maybe throw in a new tweed jacket, too. I think I wish I had gone to some old fashioned English boarding school.

Hospital employees have it really bad, because they are (usually) forbidden from coming to work if they are sick yet are penalized for taking too many sick days. And they are, naturally, exposed to more viruses than the average person.

She didn’t give birth in a hospital. I doubt she was taken off of the property during the early years after her abduction, let alone taken to a doctor. I think it is improbable that she had any contact with people besides her captor(s) until years later. Such a sad story, but at least the outcome is better than it might have been.

I don’t know the protocol for dealing with pregnant girls in that age group. I suspect in most hospitals it would be a red flag that would prompt some sort of questioning or getting a social worker involved, but I’m no expert.

Too much wine does bring it back, yes.

It's fun to get riled up occasionally. I should probably make more of an effort to limit the occasions on which it happens, though.