As for comparing us with other countries, I choose not to. I believe that if we are to subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism then we must set ourselves to a higher standard.
Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-03-2012 at 09:29 PM.
Finally, YOU may not want to fight for women's rights but that does not make the cause any less important to many others.
We do hold ourselves to a higher standard. But it takes time to reach that. America is a relatively young country. We have evolved as a culture, especially with civil rights. Are things perfect? Not even close. But blacks and especially women have more opportunities here than they would in many others countries.
I am reading a lot of people calling for "tort reform". What exactly does this mean to those who are for it?
from what I understand states that have passed tort reform don't seem to have lowered the cost of malpractice insurance. I also don't see the reasoning in taking power away from the court system and putting it in the hands of legislators.
Just curious what "tort reform" means to those advocating for it to make sure I am not misinterpreting what to meaning behind that is.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...rpc=22&sp=trueWASHINGTON | Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:14pm EDT
(Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.
"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.
Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.
An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.
Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.
Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.
"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.
The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.
The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.
Major cop out. "I am being the best patriot I can by drinking 2 sixpacks a day. Look at the commerce I am creating".
EVERYONE should be a good parent. That goes without saying.
Everyone should do the best they can at their job. Honest work for your pay.
It's all about something EXTRA.
You want women's right? Fine. I am not AGAINST women. Should they get preferential treatment? NO. Womren who wat to do well are just fine thank you. A bunch of sharp female CEOs out there.
Would I fight and die so a woman can get free birth control? Are you kidding me?
You do not need to pick up a rifle to serve your country. The idea that you can't serve your country by the work you do is simply incorrect. Everyone can do that something EXTRA at work or volunteering.
And being a great parent is one of the best ways to serve your country. It does not go without saying; just take a long look around.
It may have a beneficial effect of some tiny form, but the items you list are all clearly motivated first and foremost, and benefit first and foremost, you and your own.
Now, you've mentioned you are a Teacher. That IS Public Service, and IS serving your local community. It's also a job, and done out of self-interest (if they stopped paying you, you'd stop teaching, and save any laughable denials of that fact). But despite that, it IS a job as a public servant (even though many of our teachers forget that fact), and that would qualify of service.
But most of what you've listed as "service" is, frankly, a laughable idea. I doubt you'd agree if Romney claimed his work with Bain was "serving his country" either, rightfully so.
Serving your country means exactly whats on the tin. Service to the Country, via the Millitary first and foremost, or the Civil/L.E. Public Service for our Federal Government. Anything else, including state and local public service, is not "serving yoru country", it's serving your community.
Again, it takes a massive (ill)logical leap to equate serving in Afghanistan with "raising good kids" as equivalent Service to you Country.
IMO, it stems from the Anti-Millitary, Anti-Nationalism of liberalism, and their at-times strong stink of inferiority complex that they feel they must somehow equate their own personal contributions and actions with true service.
For the record, I have never served. And I am a lesser man than those who did, period.
How many soldiers would volunteer for service if they were told they would not get paid at all, not get any benefits including college tuition should they agree to join? How many join because they want to escape their home situations or get a fresh start? The reality is a good deal of the people would think twice not because they don't love their country but because they want to make smart decisions. To some degree and level, self interest plays a role. Would I still teach if I did not get paid? Of course not. I may volunteer to tutor friends and family on the side but I need to provide for my family.
I believe you serve your country in the pay it forward mode. We live in a wonderful country with a lot of opportunities, you serve your country by doing the extra acts above and beyond. And your community is part of your country. Your deeds and actions, positive or negative, reverberate throughout.
Suffice to say your earlier claims of what constitutes "Serving your country" remains, in my view, a laughably self-serving screed designed to make you look better for doing what is basic-level direct-self-interest activity, and not look bad and lesser for not actually serving, thus avoiding the "well, did you serve" argument to which you rightfully have no actual response to.
A basic false equaivalency. You did not and do not serve your country.
Nor did (or do) I.
The difference is I don't need to change the terms meaning to suit my politics, or inflate my own service to make myself feel better for choosing not to serve my countries in their armed or civil services.
As to the topic at hand, there is a simple question that can help solve this debate; what does it mean to serve your country? I am sure we will end in agreeing to disagree.
If anything, if hightens it, as verification and consequences are impossible.
As for your question, I believe I have already answered it earlier, but I'm happy to do so again. Serving your Country is serving, directly, in the Countries Armed Services (first) or it's Civil/L.E. Services or it's Political Leadership/Elected Office.
Some might add working in our Media.......frankly, I no longer would agree with that position, but at least that one is debatable.
Anything beyond that and you are not "Serving your Country". You may be doing something that has an exceptionally small positive effect on your country (as well as a bigger effect on yourself), but that is not service.
Again, I feel we have an issue of changing definitions to suit. Serving Yoru Country has had a generally agreed upon meaning for quite some time. To attempt to modify that meaning to include "raising good kids" is just not something I can find any form of agreement with, and I maintain the main reason to attempt such change is to diminish those who have actually served, and to bolster those who have not via a false equivalency.
Then EVERYBODY is serving their country. Even the prison population by providing jobs for guards. Enough already.
A job is not enough. It's what you do extra. Do you do volunteer work? Work with kids? Coach a youth athletic team?
Giving $10 to United Way ( a corrupt organizatio) is also not enough.