Author Topic: Women's Issues (Read 392167 times)

mrssherlock · « **Reply #1400 on:** June 30, 2014, 12:00:27 PM »

It seems as if there is a conspiracy (

) that aims to protect the status quo for it has been so good for that mythical 1%. Reports that the gulf between them and us is vast and growing.

Watched a story on CNBC about Jeff Bezos/Amazon. Followed by a similar look at Costco, whose mission statement seems to put the customer first. Amazon is aiming to take over the retail world is the not so hidden agenda.

Will future historians see this era as a rerun of the Robber Barons?

Forgive me for lumping these threads together, its a flaw of my sociology studies.

MaryPage · « **Reply #1401 on:** June 30, 2014, 02:42:12 PM »

I am just sick about the birth control thing.

The war against women just goes on and on and on. And the worst thing is, THE WOMEN themselves, our sex, do not feel threatened! Why NOT???!!!

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1402 on:** June 30, 2014, 02:56:02 PM »

All I know is I want a list of every company, especially retail that will abide as Hobby Lobby will to reduce women's choice - at this point we have to make our economic power lead because we have little else left - personally I have never had to make the difficult choice of an abortion however, values and religious views are not tools of power over others - if God can give us free will than why should men go over the head of God as they freely go over the head of God to protect the amount of land they control...

CallieOK · « **Reply #1403 on:** June 30, 2014, 03:07:57 PM »

As you all know, Hobby Lobby is an Oklahoma corporation - wholly owned by the Green family (no other investors).

If I understand the local news stories correctly, the family objects to two kinds of contraceptive devices- the IUD and the "Morning After" pill. They consider each of these "a form of early abortion".

I have neither read nor heard that they object to contraceptive devices that block fertilization. Neither have I read that they plan to insure - or not insure - these.

Just FYI. I agree with your opinions on women's choices.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #1404 on:** June 30, 2014, 03:40:00 PM »

Callie: That is an important clarification.

See Justice Ginsberg's 35-page dissent discussed here

http://news.yahoo.com/read-justice-ginsburgs-passionate-35-page-dissent-hobby-152626544.html

marjifay · « **Reply #1405 on:** July 01, 2014, 09:53:54 AM »

You will notice that the justices who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby had one thing in common -- they were all men!

Hillary Clinton was quoted by Yahoo News in an interview in Aspen, Colorado:

"The decision means that thousands of the company’s female employees will not have access through their insurance to intrauterine devices and other forms of contraception their bosses object to. The case is the first to uphold a religious freedom right of a for-profit corporation.

"It's troubling a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception — which is pretty expensive — is not going to get that service through her employer's health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception," Clinton said.

The former secretary of state predicted that as a result of the decision, "many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some may be sincere, some may not."

I have a question. Is it just the "morning-after pill" that Hobby Lobby wants to prevent their insurance from paying? Since they consider life begins with conception, they call it an abortion pill. Or will they prevent their insurance from paying for any pregnancy prevention care or medication as well?

Marj

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1406 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:03:13 AM »

marjifay it is all up in the air - there was a great article I read yesterday evening - there are already I think the number is 91 companies that are going to opt out as a result of this ruling - the small family owned is an illusion - some are quite large but because of ownership fall into the bracket - but greater is the wording - I need to find the article because in order for the legal move to NOT say because of religious ideology and that is not the word either but that was the meaning, anyhow Alito uses another word that really messes things up so that it leaves the door open to any disagreement with any aspect of life that we try to contain considering all the differences in the US - the law leaves the door open for instance to making it legal for a company owned by Muslims to expect all the women to follow their traditions.

I thought it would be easy to simply not purchase goods from any company that opts out paying for women's health needs (while having no difficulty paying for men's sex needs) however, many of the companies listed were making parts that are part of another device like parts for an auto or mechanical health devices. Of course lots of religious schools and whole parishes - one of the Democratic Congressmen from this area blames it all on the recent change that companies, corporations are individual people with in some cases more rights than an individual.

Let me see if I can find that article.

Steph · « **Reply #1407 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:14:26 AM »

Scalise...hmm, it occurs to me that if you are a devout catholic, maybe you could recuse yourself from issues like this.

MaryPage · « **Reply #1408 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:16:03 AM »

I think maybe you hit on a fact that I have never considered as a factor, namely that MOST of us have never been faced with having to get an abortion. Having known first hand girls and women who DID, and having been raised to be a raging feminist by my suffragette great grandmother, I have always been avid for a woman's right to choose. But you have a point which, as I say, I have never considered: that most women have not had to think about the problem and therefore do not identify with it and just flat out don't give it much thought.

Hmmm.

I've been wondering where the outrage was. I have read that it did not exist in Ireland until that young wife and mother had to have an abortion immediately or die, and the State refused permission, and she died. Remember? A year or two or so ago. Some kind of something occurring and happening fast that the doctors said they had to remove the fetus or both mother and fetus were gonners. And the State, infused with the church beliefs, said no way. So both mother and fetus died, she begging the doctors to save her! Now there are women organizing in Ireland, up in arms. When, oh when are we going to win this battle? The pessimist in me answers wearily: when men can get pregnant.

MaryPage · « **Reply #1409 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:25:14 AM »

Have you ever noticed the HUGE irony, if you can dignify it by calling it that, that the same armies of men who oppose birth control are the same identical regiments of men who want to bar all of the hundreds of thousands of children from Central and South America who were born to overpopulated countries due to church-driven lack of contraception from entrance to this country, where they might at least have a chance to eat!

OMG, they have to be born! God WILLS them to be born! And it is the call to duty for these men to see to it that every conceived fetus IS born! But then, let them starve! Their mothers had the sex, so by golly they better have the babies. Then it is those same over sexed women who have to find a means to feed them!

Men? Oh, they have no responsibility beyond seeing that there are no doctors performing abortions. Doctors will be shot dead or lose their licenses to practice, if they do. But men are not the over sexed ones! Good grief, No! Perish the thought!

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1410 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:51:08 AM »

Problem Steph 5 of them are Practicing Catholics - all sorts of stats that show 90 -95% of all Catholic Women in the US use birth control -

This says it all you just have to get past the ad - no way to get rid of them on youtube anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&list=RDfUspLVStPbk#t=0

maryz · « **Reply #1411 on:** July 01, 2014, 12:32:18 PM »

I saw this this morning. My husband and I, our four daughters and two granddaughters are speechless.... (emphasis is mine)

True statement made by Justice Alito yesterday. Just read it. And weep.

By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito wrote, “It is the duty of this Court, whenever it sees that the rights of people are being threatened, to do our best to safeguard those rights. In this case, it is clear that people’s rights were being threatened by women.”

Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.”

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1412 on:** July 01, 2014, 12:57:45 PM »

OK....

jane · « **Reply #1413 on:** July 01, 2014, 01:19:05 PM »

Marjifay...The TV News said Hobby Lobby owners object to the "morning after" pill and to interuterine devices. That's all I've heard on that issue of what. I know I will not spend a single penny in any HobbyLobby from this day forward.

Mary...

Quote

By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito wrote, “It is the duty of this Court, whenever it sees that the rights of people are being threatened, to do our best to safeguard those rights. In this case, it is clear that people’s rights were being threatened by women.”

Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.”

I am speechless!!

mrssherlock · « **Reply #1414 on:** July 01, 2014, 03:44:22 PM »

Further proof that we are not equal and I suspect that we never will be. Women's rights vs. people's rights. I'm convinced that the root is economic, i.e. power. CEO behavior in many instances is downright psychopathic (http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/), extrapolating typical male traits to an extreme in my view. Early mankind learned the necessity for group action for survival of the species. The western world was Catholic for centuries, leadership fostering paternalism,until Martin Luther pointed the way for the individual to act in in his own interests and reap the resulting rewards, known now as the Protestant Ethic. Basically, self-interest whatever the cost, is rewarded-wealth, prestige, power over lessers .

Sorry, that soapbox is too tempting. I'll put it away for now.

MaryPage · « **Reply #1415 on:** July 01, 2014, 04:08:54 PM »

Well, I would like to point out that regardless of the flavor of the religion, be it Christian or Jewish or Islamic or Buddhist or Hindi or whatever, the founders and the conveyers of the "Word of God" have always been males. Always. It is now as it ever has been with our species, only World With End, males cannot exist without the adrenaline rush of having power over females.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1416 on:** July 01, 2014, 04:52:39 PM »

why this is so demeaning is it allows men to continue to see women as less than - yes, there are other issues at stake here - she is black and he believes he is above the law much less above human dignity as does his supervisors - but this is the kind of treatment that goes hand and glove with this basic disrespect for women.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/cops-find-elliot-rodger-polite-body-slam-black-woman-professor-jay-walking-stop?akid=11975.271994.Hvsucq&rd=1&src=newsletter1008624&t=11

ginny · « **Reply #1417 on:** July 01, 2014, 05:37:38 PM »

You know, I watched this from the beginning, not the cut off bit here, which is after the struggle had begun, but the raw footage when it came in, and I don't think that this is an example of wrongdoing on the part of the police. He asked her repeatedly to give her ID, she was found wandering in the middle of the street at night, and she escalated it way out of line, in my opinion, beginning to shout and resisting and struggling and protesting, and carrying on. Isn't that called resisting arrest? You can definitely hear his and her comments. Then she kicked him in the shin, because her attorney says she thought he was reaching for her. I don't see that on the film. I see her kicking him and his surprise.

I think this one is blown way out of proportion by the press and the editing and the woman herself and the pundits. There was nothing remotely cooperative about her in this incident.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1418 on:** July 01, 2014, 06:16:06 PM »

from the article I read her skirt went up and she felt humiliated - I do think there was a less confrontational way of handling this regardless her status as a professor - I can only see it was a power over moment that too many women experience. There was no protection of her dignity - if he was really concerned for her safety and to teach a lesson he would have taken her by the arm and crossed her over to the sidewalk and then given her the lecture so she could hear rather than be humiliated - but to do that means the policemen would have to be about law and order, protection and teaching rather than power over treating every misdemeanor like a major crime.

This appeared to escalated when she responded that he really did not want to do this - and for sure he wanted to make a point of doing this - since when in the US did we become like many countries pre WWII where we had to identify ourselves with proof on public streets or expect to be manhandled. This is the kind of disrespect that comes when there is a national disrespect for women who are denied services, advancement opportunities, equal pay, health care on the same level as a man.

Yes, like a petulant child she kicked him - what would any of do in a situation where we were publicly humiliated - after years of doing what it takes to be good enough and then treated like that exposing our undergarment in the process - would we be more comfortable if she meekly became the docile criminal the officer would have preferred.

ginny · « **Reply #1419 on:** July 01, 2014, 06:39:50 PM »

Again, I'm sorry, I disagree. He asked her politely for her ID. Over and over and over, addressing her as "ma'am, telling her why, telling her the law. But no, she began to thrash around and carry on. How on earth does anybody expect the police to protect us, when some of us seem to think that we are above the law?

I think she panicked and did not want to show her ID because she was embarrassed at her own situation. I thought at the time she was D&D and maybe that's the case too. It will be interesting to see what the truth was about her behavior and how this plays out with her college.

There isn't one set of rules for some people and others for others. I can't imagine why she could not have engaged in civil conversation with him and shown him her ID, which he requested many times. He knew it was being filmed. Maybe she did not.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1420 on:** July 01, 2014, 06:44:56 PM »

OK we do disagree - here is a paper that goes to my view of things.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1759&context=faculty_scholarship

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1421 on:** July 01, 2014, 06:48:02 PM »

Yes it talks specifically about the workplace but then for a police officer his workplace is the streets of his city.

mabel1015j · « **Reply #1422 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:10:18 PM »

As for the SCOTUS decisions, As for the SCOTUS decisions,

This is very weird - it will only post that first phrase of my reply..........let me try ne more time. It shows all three paragraphs in the "reply" box.

mabel1015j · « **Reply #1423 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:19:01 PM »

As for the SCOTUS decisions, I haven't been this angry, depressed and hopeless about the attitudes toward women since 1976 when NJ voted down a referendum for a state ERA. A graduate school professor who knew i was workng in the campaign tp pass it had said to me the night before in class "how can anyone vote against an Equal Rights Amendment!?!"

Alice Paul is turning over in her grave. When she went to her grave in 1977 the national ERA had been passed out of cngress and radified immediately by 20 states and the SCOTUS had decided Roe v Wade. BUT, in 1970, conservatives Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Buchanan, Wolfiwitz, etc had coalesced in the Nixon administration and then came the Reagan administration. What happened to all the moderate Republicans?!? Who are they voting for? What are they thinking?

I saw a poster that said "Be Honest: if the shoe was on the other foot! IF the owner of Hobby Lobby was a devout Muslim instead of a devout Christian; IF these open-carry advocates gathering en masse w/ large guns in public places had darker skins; IF undocumented migrants were flowing over our northern border rather than our southern one!?!"

I'll add: WHAT IF five women jurists said insurance companies cannot pay for viagra type meds, or prostate surgery?

Would the conservative position be reversed?

Throwing my hands up, shaking my head!!!

mabel1015j · « **Reply #1424 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:19:56 PM »

O.K.!!!

maryz · « **Reply #1425 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:25:14 PM »

My comment exactly, Jean!

mabel1015j · « **Reply #1426 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:26:41 PM »

On top of all that, i just heard some R congressman say "these women are NOT DEPENDING ON THEIR HUSBANDS to get their insurance!!! Meaning that they should be married and dependent! OMG it's getting crazier and crazier.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1427 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:43:48 PM »

This has gradually been getting worse in the last 4 or 5 years - its like Shiraz law US style. Taking the individual nature of a women to have an independent mind and be treated as an independent person limited to her anatomy and its functions. - this control over women is many spheres of life is really painful - well most of the lawyers I know and there are many have been saying for years as they became disillusioned - that there is no justice in law. This lack of justice in the law is now even the feature of shows from Masterpiece Theater like the recent show starring David Tennant. I am having a difficult time with this round to respond with my usual tongue and cheek statements - this is beyond being sublet - I gotta stay off the internet for awhile - I need to balance myself - I am pacing instead of getting anything done.

mogamom · « **Reply #1428 on:** July 01, 2014, 07:47:31 PM »

An interesting insight on the SCOTUS decision by a liberal:

http://theweek.com/article/index/264029/why-liberals-should-cheer-the-hobby-lobby-decision

What makes me depressed is how this is being used politically. When I first heard that this fight was a political ploy by dems for fund-raising - to continue their mantra about the GOP's 'war on women' - I could not believe this! The world is becoming an ever more dangerous place; I don't believe women are single-issue voters obsessed with their own sexuality, but apparently my own Senator does! There are many inexpensive and free methods of getting access to the 4 types of contraception (out of 20 mandated) that will not be offered; employees of Hobby Lobby themselves make twice the minimum wage and enjoy sharing in the company's profits.

I also keep in mind that the law being discussed here is the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act - a law introduced by NY's other senator (Schumer) signed by Bill Clinton with a near unanimous vote of the democrats. It is hard to listen to Hillary Clinton's 'outrage' here. It's the law.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #1429 on:** July 01, 2014, 08:12:35 PM »

What if the confrontation had been between Officer Doe and a white, professional man?

Who wouldn't feel threatened by the police demand for my ID when I was simply crossing the street?

nlhome · « **Reply #1430 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:00:51 PM »

Interesting article in The Week, a different perspective. The author suggests this would not be an issue if we had single payer in this country. I wonder.

Also, I had not heard that the case was a "political ploy by dems" - where is that from?

MaryPage · « **Reply #1431 on:** July 02, 2014, 09:09:12 AM »

I have always been all for a single payer plan. Most Democrats have been. But the country just would not adopt the idea.

This morning, The Washington Post has an article saying the contraception/Hobby Lobby thing is not Alito's fault, but the fault of the Congress who passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. The religious conservatives who pushed through the RFRA had first in their minds getting rid of women's rights.

When you think on it, it is almost as though religions have been invented for the primary purpose of keeping women in their place, for that is where ALL the rules about our attire and behavior have originated! Not to mention those regulating our sex lives!

Steph · « **Reply #1432 on:** July 02, 2014, 09:14:04 AM »

I am simply at this point keeping a list of any company that opts out.. If they in any way are retail or you can buy their product, I wont and I will write them a letter to assure they understand and ask about Viagra and how in heavens name they can pay for something simply for pleasure.. It is so sad.

ginny · « **Reply #1433 on:** July 02, 2014, 09:18:13 AM »

Again, not to belabor the point here, I think there is more to this than a simple jaywalking issue, and really I want to wait and see how it plays out. There's no point in my discussing it further, so these are my last thoughts on it: she brought it, in my opinion, on herself. And her history seems a bit spotted for erratic behavior.

Apparently her current employer, Arizona State, has reviewed the tapes and decided to support the police in this issue, and they've called in an independent set of experts to also review the incident (the entire tapes) and be sure. That is not good news for her.

I think there's more to this issue. But if a man or woman of any color or sex or age were found walking in the middle of a dark public street, was nearly hit by a car and thus stopped by the police and asked to get on the sidewalk for their own safety and that of the motorists trying to drive in the road, and the walker then refused, repeatedly, then I don't see any surprise when identification is asked for. That's normally the first thing any policeman does, isn't it? The state of Arizona, in addition, in a widely published controversial decision a year or so ago, does allow ID to be checked. It's the law. Everybody in the country knows that, including those who move to Arizona. She repeatedly complained he wasn't showing "respect," but he showed a lot more than she did.

I think when she was uncooperative and belligerent about being asked to step out of traffic on a dark street she brought it on herself. And trying to wrestle with the police? That's a smart move. You can hear him saying stop fighting me.

I looked her up to see what there might be about her on the internet, because something appears wrong with this picture, and it appears in her former employment she had some very strange evaluations. I've actually never seen any as bad as hers, and it appears she was terminated, (of course somebody had put in the token anonymous perfect stellar ones, too, to try to raise the rating) but when you have somebody teaching who does not show up for class when they feel like it, and provides incomprehensible lectures and sometimes says things which don't make sense, and gets SUCH poor ratings, such as I can't believe she is teaching here.... something else is going on.

As far as humiliation, I think her behavior humiliated herself. If you don't want, any of us, to wrestle with the police which can only have one end, then don't initiate it yourself. Man or woman, old or young, of color or not.

In my opinion, and I could be, and often am, wrong, she now is seeking a public campaign to raise the legal fees necessary, having been charged with 4 counts, to defend herself and play the race/sex/ harassment card, because otherwise I can't imagine who would hire her ever again. Her entire career is now on the line.

She's done this to herself, in my opinion, with poor judgment, and we all have that from time to time, myself included. This may BE one of those times I'm off base. We'll see. (And just to be perfectly clear, I don't think the professor is in any way the "victim" in this case.)

mrssherlock · « **Reply #1434 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:18:30 PM »

This reminds me to check the facts before forming an opinion. Perhaps I am too quick to see parallels were the facts do not support that conclusion. Thank you, Ginny, for your wisdom and non-judgmental discussion. Next time I will pay more attention when I find myself taking a position on the other side of an issue than yours.

mogamom · « **Reply #1435 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:32:20 PM »

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. The religious conservatives who pushed through the RFRA had first in their minds getting rid of women's rights.

All but a couple of Dems signed on to this law - they voted FOR it - it was initiated by Schumer - a big Dem from NY, more liberal you could not be! - and it was signed into law by Bill Clinton! who is hardly a 'religious conservative'? Really?

The same ruling pointed out that HHS already has set in place FREE coverage for contraceptives (insurance companies will 'swallow' the cost) for non-profit religious institutions that have been allowed to opt out of the mandate. No one is hurt. No one is being slighted. I don't understand the source of all this angst?

There are people in the world - male and female, people of faith and people of no faith - who are opposed to abortion. They view it as murder. Here, they believe that the unborn child is an American citizen and deserves the same protection of the law that you receive. That is their opinion. They aren't forcing it on you - they are simply not wanting to be forced to be complicit in the practice. How is using the law to force others to comply to your point of view somehow superior to using religion?

mogamom · « **Reply #1436 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:44:19 PM »

For those who are considering the merits of single payer:

Please carefully follow the VA stories.

Imagine the reaction of the woman a few days ago who opened her husband's letter from the VA to read that the agency, in trying to comply with requests for service in a timely manner, was asking her husband to please call for an appointment now as there was an opening. Her husband had died two years before - of a brain tumor.

Be very careful what you wish for!

MaryPage · « **Reply #1437 on:** July 02, 2014, 12:48:54 PM »

In expressing my point of view, I believe I am engaging in a dialogue with persons of other views. There would obviously be no point in having an opinion if absolutely everyone were in agreement. Aso, in expressing my own views and beliefs, I do not make any attempt whatsoever to force them upon anyone else. By posting my thoughts in here, I mean to share, and not to forcefeed any other woman on this planet.
I am well aware of other opinions. I do not share the opinion that abortion is murder, but I respect those who do. And yes, it is my strong opinion, based upon 85 years of watching and listening and studying history, that men have historically controlled women through religion. Yes, I believe that. That does not mean that I do not appreciate the strong spirituality of many folk, both male and female. I have gone through my own periods of deep faith. I see it as a beautiful thing, and as a downright necessity in order for whole multitudes to get through their lives of endless struggle. But I also have a strong impulse to state the facts regarding the organizational environment of our human species AS I SEE THEM before leaving this life, which I expect to do sooner rather than later.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #1438 on:** July 02, 2014, 01:02:42 PM »

I think when she was uncooperative and belligerent about being asked to step out of traffic on a dark street she brought it on herself.

Ouch brought it on herself - oh oh oh - sounds too much like those who justify battering a wife in their home for an infraction .

And trying to wrestle with the police? Suggesting to me me that the attempt to manhandle her was appropriate and like someone battering their wife they are supposed to submit to this - i know you do not like the article but humiliation is the word that to me says it - he is stronger and did not have to treat her like an enemy and could have said 'I know this is upsetting but I need to do my job let's go to the sidewalk so that we can finish this out of harms way' but instead, he continues to wrestle with her in the middle of the very traffic he was saying was a danger to her.

That's a smart move. When you are confronted by a force using a power over attitude your thinking is blurred and you revert to fight flee freeze. It appears he was not going to handle anything except to treat her as a criminal.

You can hear him saying stop fighting me. Again, he expected a docile response to his authority and the power he assumes that goes with that authority.

To me this was no different than the many who come to the battered women's center with similar stories of not answering promptly or properly - clearly he has more strength and power and therefore has the obligation to level the playing field rather than to use that strength and power to body slam a woman to the ground - I only know that behavior as battering and we have centers for women who finally have the courage to leave men who batter - it makes no sense to me to create safe houses for folks who are physically attacked because they did not answer or follow the rules at home and a women can be treated in public in the same manner without any escape - to add insult to this battering she can be made libel - sorry this just goes against any grain of my ability to accept this as humane treatment - this behavioral response says if you are breaking a law no matter how minor you can be treated as if you are a dangerous armed terrorist or as if you were at home and not answering the way a batterer expects to be answered.

Yep, we do see this differently - obviously there is more behind how we see what is driving both of our reactions - I am saddened that this kind of power behavior is justified but then I have read so much in history how power is misused just because it can be - the rational that is driving our differences is probably something I cannot imagine and so peace - for me it will be a conundrum and there are many I have had to learn to live with - values and beliefs that others hold dear that I cannot wrap my head around - so we go on - peace and good will.

nlhome · « **Reply #1439 on:** July 02, 2014, 04:51:06 PM »

Single payer is like original Medicare. Providers are independent.

The VA is more like socialized medicine in that the providers are government employees as are the facilities.

My best friend received a letter addressed to her deceased husband, a year after his death, asking him to review his insurance. She'd provided proof of death to cancel policies right after he died. That letter was an error, just as the VA letter was an error - horrible to the recipient, but typical of any large agency using computers that are not always coordinated. That problem is not limited to government.

News:

Author Topic: Women's Issues (Read 392167 times)