I posted this a few months ago. People who truely understand religion aren't religious IMO.

various groups are more likely to get disorders and diseases.. nothing newweezyfb

Unless you are speaking economically, that's untrue man. If you removed the impoverished people from the equation, life expectancy and quality of life (healthy-ness) shoot up. The disparities between socio-economic classes is what makes the TC's statement correct.

its all about what we eat. i get up 4am in the morning everyday because im pact full wit beans. hispanics are also big fans of pork so u kno thats not healthy. black people love chicken and that cant be good for the health tho every race is distracted by fast food. white people probably eat healthier than anyone. what do u white people eat anyway? corn potatos and stake? i grew up eating hispanic food and its never been healthy lolplaymynutz

Hey OT you've got to look at the socio-economics of it all.

Specifcally speaking: Do people living near (250%)or below the poverty line have less access to healthcare and are more likely tohave unhealthy habits? Simple answer is yes.

Now what are some demographics surrounding this? 8.6% of all European Americans, 11.8% of all Asian Americans, 23.2% of all Hispanics (of any nationality), 24.2% of all American Indians and Alaska Natives, 24.7% of all African Americans.

The poorer you are the more susceptable to these ailments you are. Nearly a quarter of all Latinos and Blacks in the US are below the poverty line.

It's not rocket science.

Man can you say this is the perfect issue. At Congresswoman-elect's victory speech people broke out in a supportive "Medicare! Medicare! Medicare!" chant.

If Republicans hadn't stupidly voted for the VoucherCare they wouldn't be dealing with the Ryan Curse. Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Budget Plan was so horrid that it is preventing him from running for senate, where really he is the only Republican in the state that would have a chance against Fmr Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) who is likely to take the mantle once again (that is, unless he runs for Governor of Wisconsin :D).

I live here. Some people are already trying to recall the state legislators that voted for that law. Hard to say what is right. I agree with your reservations, but you have to remember a few things about Michigan. A few of our cities were in receivership - completely broke with no way of paying their debts. No easy solution at this point.

sonicare

If the cities were broke the State government SHOULD bail them out (or let the municipality go through the bankruptcy process; there should be some legal jujitsu that allows them to), however with stipulations etc, working with the locally elected officials.

Not that you said anything to this effect, but I don't think that this is a Dem/Rep issue.This is a non-partisan threat to home-rule (again your state's constitution matters here if there are no Home Rule laws...).

Through new laws that allow the MI Governor to just appoint "Emergency Managers" in municipalities who's budgets trigger the law. This, IMO, has just created a unitary form of government on the Michigan State level. I think this shifts so much power AWAY from the people in the municipality and vests it in one person (an ally of the elected governor).

This creates really conspicuous partisan avenues of attack because if the governor's political rivals govern a municipality within the state the governor is empowered to takeover the municipality and seriously weaken that mayor/councilman. Not only that, but given the loose rules for triggering the takeover laws these Emergency Managers can be used politically to damage the credibility apolitician has while they are making a name for themselves.

Thoughts OT?

I for one cannot wait for Google to go down in flames. Like 99% of their revenue is search, just think if suddenly one of their competitors actually got competitive :P

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

Espada12

That's extremely easy. I'd direct you to the myriad of progressive Americans, but simply enough: 1) A woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, even if somebody else thinks it's abhorrent 2) the cost of healthcare goes down when there is no/less profit motive from a middleman (insurers) 3) UHC would make the general population healthier and it would bring the life expectancy of those that aren't making huge salaries up.

I could go on but those are the major bullet points.

But opening up healthcare was to preserve life! Allowing unconditional abortions doesn't do that. It goes against what univeral healthcare stands for!!!

Iam not anti-abortion. You asked how could I be pro-choice and pro-UHC, so I told you.

I don't think that people should be able to just get abortions willy nilly (as in abortion should not be a contraceptive), but I do think that if there was UHC, contraceptive measures (like those hormone implants that prevent pregnancy for years at a time safely)would be widely available and beused before that fateful moment of an unwanted pregnancy. That intelligently reduces abortions without restricting access to them and achieves the goal of UHC.

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

Espada12

That's extremely easy. I'd direct you to the myriad of progressive Americans, but simply enough: 1) A woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, even if somebody else thinks it's abhorrent 2) the cost of healthcare goes down when there is no/less profit motive from a middleman (insurers) 3) UHC would make the general population healthier and it would bring the life expectancy of those that aren't making huge salaries up.

I could go on but those are the major bullet points.