|
|
|
answer
|
0 |
Monday, 2:55 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Monday, 2:55 PM EDT
Watch
GOVERNMENT. Since everyone is part of this nation, everyone gets (or should get) an equal say in everything. So when it comes to the health of our people, shouldn't we contribute just as much through our taxes helping actual sick people get better rather then helping the government become more powerful? It's the governments job to look out for its nations people and if they are using tax money on "more important matters" such as new government buildings, higher pay-checks, and more vacation day; rather than spending the money on something useful like MINIMAL insurance for dying people on the street that can't afford health care or are stuck in a cycle of poverty. I don't even think its a matter of paying that much more taxes. It's more of a matter on how wisely our government chooses to spend the money. If this was honestly a democratic-republic nation and we had equal distribution of democracy and a republic in our government, then it should not be up to the government on how it spends OUR tax money. The literal definition of republic is: a form of government in which the government is officially apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter", and the definition of democracy is: form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, which are the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their opinion. So putting these 2 factors together I think that the government should really listen to the people and use the opinion that this country was founded on to make a decision that could lead to the life or death of many Americans, no matter how rich or poor they are. Every citizen deserves an "equal opportunity to express their opinion" on how productively our government should operate.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
Answer in this thread!
(page: 1 2)
|
31 |
Monday, 2:51 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Apr 26 2012, 2:28 PM EDT
Watch
Post
2
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: Answer in this thread!
By: ,
Monday, 2:51 PM EDT
1. What do your parent/s and or legal guardians think is the most important issue with America's health care system today? What is their biggest concern?
"I think that the biggest problem is that if your unemployed and can't afford insurance, or just don't have insurance, that it's really expensive and you can't really pay for the medication or the treatment that they say you need. And the quality of care that people without insurance can afford is very minimal and they'd probably be better off not going to these cheaper places then wasting their money. Also, the insurance companies have way too much power. They shouldn't be able to tell these sick people whats necessary and whats not.
My biggest concern is that the cost of insurance is going to keep going up and that fewer people will be able to afford it, and that the majority of the population will just be sicker people not being able to get the treatment that they need."
2. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, how does your parent and or legal guardian rate America's health care system?
2
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
Answer to Question
|
0 |
May 2 2012, 11:48 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: May 2 2012, 11:48 PM EDT
Watch
GOVERNMENT. Governments are supposed to serve the people of their community. Not making sure everybody gets adequate care means the government is not doing its duty. Everybody should have the right to quick care as much as everybody should have the right to clean water or police protection. though not everybody may 'use' the police, we all still pay taxes for them and there is not much complaining.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
Healthcare
(page: 1 2)
|
34 |
May 1 2012, 10:30 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Apr 27 2012, 11:14 AM EDT
Watch
The movie surprised me in so many words it's crazy first eve immigrants. Dream is to come to the u.s for a better life's and better opputunieties but it turns out to me it is not all that it really surprised me that some ppl couldn't get health care becuz they didn't have enufff money that should b a crime
E if people are in a life or death situation I believe no matter what attention should be needed to the patient another thing that annoyed me is that there was a long list of if u have certain situations u can't get health care and on one of the list was autism and that annoyed me cuz my bro is autistic so does that mean he gets denied? I couldn't even fathom that idea! In addition France and Canada have free healthcare because they have higher taxes but in the end I believe it's worth it especially With all the imebfoingbkn in this world today
0
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: Healthcare
By: ,
May 1 2012, 10:30 PM EDT
The part of the movie that stood out to me the most was the health care people in other countries are getting. they way they treat their patients puts the US in shame. it treats the "evil doers" better that it treats its citizens. Michael Moore tried to prove a point, and he got it across pretty well. he was being a little biased because he only showed the bad side of US health care and only the good side of other countries' health care. I got a little worried about my parents when they get older. and even about myself. even though their insurance is very good, these sneaky in between the lines thing is not fair. if you're sick, you should worry about getting better instead of worrying about the bill.
If the US sees that the system of higher taxes and no insurance is working in other countries, then why doesnt it adapt this system? it should be done one state at a time. After seeing this movie, i wouldnt mind paying higher taxes for "free" health care. then it will be more dependable and everyone would get the kind of treatment to stay healthy. and now it will be fair.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
Sicko Movie Response
|
1 |
May 1 2012, 2:25 PM EDT by
dKAndLepAs |
|
|
Thread started: Apr 30 2012, 11:50 AM EDT
Watch
I think that the part that stood out to me most was how he said that people's life expectancy was greater in Cuba than it is here. I thought this was most surprising because i always thought since we were the MDC's and they are LDC'c, we should have a higher life expectancy but we don't. I think that the movie was bias because he was really sarcastic. Also i think he went over the edge when he was talking to the guards at Guantamino Bay, when he was like he wants the same free health care as the terrorists. I think it is sad because a doctors job is to save people, and cause of insurance they have to be like i can't treat you because ur insurance doesn't pay for it. I think Americians wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it means more poeple's lifes are getting saved. I think people don't care right now because they don't know that stuff like this happens. It's is not just the poor people but it is also for 9/11 helpers and other people that pay their bills and payments but get denied money when they need it.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
Last Reply:
RE: Sicko Movie Response
By: dKAndLepAs,
May 1 2012, 2:25 PM EDT
US, I realized, has a bad healthcare system, and was even behind countries that Americans would not expect to have good healthcare, for example, developing countires. It was biased because he explained how bad America's healthcare system is, for example, when he took a boat to Guantanamo Bay and asked if they could be treated like people of Al Qaeda. A lingering question i have about the movie would be to see how this video has impacted the healthcare system today, if at all. I believe that after watching this video most americans would be happy to relinquish more money towards taxes to ensure their health, safety, and well-being.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, public housing residents are justified!
(page: 1 2)
|
29 |
Apr 29 2012, 8:07 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Apr 13 2012, 11:54 AM EDT
Watch
Post if you feel that public housing residents are justified in their argument against tearing down their community.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: Yes, public housing residents are justified!
By: ,
Apr 29 2012, 8:07 PM EDT
The city does own the housing, and has the authority to take it down. But, it just is not the moral thing to do. The citizens of Cabrini were stripped of their community and way of life when their home was taken down. Also, many of the people could not afford the new homes that were being built. The gentrification pushed out the original inhabitants of Cabrini, and made way for the richer to move in to the new homes, leaving the original Cabrini residents homeless, or in search of a new place they can afford. The city totally disregarded what the people had to say about the demolition of their homes. They did not let the inhabitants of Cabrini have a say in the decision, and forced them to leave their old lives and move to another location. It is not the right way for the city to achieve a mixed income community, and solve the problems of Cabrini, to strip the Cabrini residents of their homes
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
health wiki #1
|
0 |
Apr 26 2012, 5:38 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Apr 26 2012, 5:38 PM EDT
Watch
1. What do your parent/s and or legal guardians think is the most important issue with America's health care system today? What is their biggest concern? MY PARENTS BELIEVE THAT THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS THAT NOT EVERYONE CAN GET HELP AND THAT NOTHING IS GUARANTEED. THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN IS IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL COVER THE COSTS THAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD.
2. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, how does your parent and or legal guardian rate America's health care system? 4
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
|
|
|
No, public housing residents are NOT justified to complain.
|
15 |
Apr 18 2012, 1:46 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Apr 13 2012, 11:56 AM EDT
Watch
Post here if you feel that public housing residents are not justified in their argument against tearing down their community. After all, they don't "own' it. (possible opinion)
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: No, public housing residents are NOT justified to complain.
By: ,
Apr 18 2012, 1:46 PM EDT
I believe that the residents are not justified. It is Government owned that people that cannot afford homes rent. It is the cities property they need to do what they need to do. Yes, it may make some of the poorer people homeless, but the city cannot just leave that land looking like junk. Also, by kicking these people out of their houses it is encouraging them to look for a job, so they can afford a house that them and their family are proud to live in. If people are not leaving there they don’t need to worry about anybody getting hurt because the crime rate used to be high. People are being worried about what’s wrong with their house rather than what is going to happen to the community. It is not the only public housing they can find they are located all over.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
Remember your signed grade sheets!!!!
|
0 |
Feb 18 2012, 6:18 PM EST by
|
|
|
Thread started: Feb 18 2012, 6:18 PM EST
Watch
yes, I did it 6th hour kids. Your welcome.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
YES, travelers must follow Shariah law in visiting countries.
(page: 1 2)
|
20 |
Jan 12 2012, 8:40 PM EST by
|
|
|
Thread started: Jan 11 2012, 3:44 PM EST
Watch
Post
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: YES, travelers must follow Shariah law in visiting countries.
By: ,
Jan 12 2012, 8:40 PM EST
I think that travelers should follow Shariah law because you should follow their laws just like if they come here, they need to follow the laws in the US. It would be disrespectful to them if they allow travelers to come into their country but they don't follow their laws. If travelers don't follow the laws, there will be consequences. Also, if travelers already know what the laws in Saudi Arabia are, they wouldn't go if they don't want to follow them. Not following the laws when entering a different country is disrespectful to everyone in that country
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
NO, travelers should NOT have to follow Shariah law traveling.
(page: 1 2)
|
26 |
Jan 12 2012, 3:37 PM EST by
andreacatalano |
|
|
Thread started: Jan 11 2012, 3:45 PM EST
Watch
Post
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
Last Reply:
RE: NO, travelers should NOT have to follow Shariah law traveling.
By: andreacatalano,
Jan 12 2012, 3:37 PM EST
Travelrs should in no way have to follow shariah law traveling. For one reason, the government is tied in with the religon. If the travelers don't belive and worship in that religion, why should they have to follow or be acountable for the laws? they shouldn't. The laws control every aspect of people exspeacialy womans lives. If a woman is simply travling there, she should get to live the life she wants. Not be forced to worship a certain way or live her life a certain way. In the end. No travelers should not have to follow shariah law.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
shariah law
|
0 |
Jan 12 2012, 1:01 PM EST by
|
|
|
Thread started: Jan 12 2012, 1:01 PM EST
Watch
travlers should respect and have to follloow the shariah law. yes the law is unfair and unjustice but if yourare going to a foreign place then it shoukld be your responsibility to know the rules and practice it. and learn more about the background of that place if you are a travelor before u should go you should ask yourself will i respect the law? if yes then you will do and preactice what they do and if you say no then mosrt likey you shouldent even go there even itf your trying to make a point i doubt you will want to be beheaded in fronty of the public
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
YES, a government SHOULD be able to enforce population controls
(page: 1 2)
|
34 |
Dec 26 2011, 4:58 PM EST by
|
|
|
Thread started: Nov 17 2011, 2:55 PM EST
Watch
Argue
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: YES, a government SHOULD be able to enforce population controls
By: ,
Dec 26 2011, 4:58 PM EST
The government should control the population because we live on a small ECUMENE & as population increases the space will reduce and the resources will deplete due to the large number of people having to use them.This is true in India because farmers have to work extra hard to produce the main crop, rice, for the growing population.As the population grows,the space to live will be reduced forcing people to have to live in slums or unhygienic areas.We see this in Soylent Green too,OVERPOPULATION resulted in a big separation between classes creating social tension for countries that give birth to alot of kids,increasing their population.With families having & increasing number of children,they will not have much money to support all of their children well.Education and healthcare costs will be too expensive for the family to afford for all their children,& not paying for healthcare is fatal.When the country is so overpopulated,& families are running out of hygienic areas to live,not paying for health care leads to INFANT MORTALITY RATES,because little kids would not have access to life saving resources.If the parent does pay for healthcare then probably they can't pay for the education,this is a problem.If a child isn't being educated there is no way that the child can get a job and help aid the economy & create an income so the childs life is useless and ruined.If the parents choose to have more children than they can afford they will unintentionally kill or ruin the Childs life.We know that the government campaigning is getting results also because the article states “According to a World Bank study,the average number of children per woman in the developing world declined by 2.5 children between 1960,when many of the campaigns began in earnest,and 1990,and it has continued to decline.” An average of 2 children per family is a good number to have,the family is a considerable size and it’s is not too difficult to support both children.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
NO, a government SHOULD NOT be able to enforce pop. controls
|
18 |
Nov 28 2011, 11:29 PM EST by
andreacatalano |
|
|
Thread started: Nov 17 2011, 2:55 PM EST
Watch
Post
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: NO, a government SHOULD NOT be able to enforce pop. controls
By: andreacatalano,
Nov 28 2011, 11:29 PM EST
The governmant has no right to put restrictions on how many children a man and woman choose to have and in the end population control. The right for a man and a woman to have a children is there right and the government should not be able to take it away because of how many children the choose to have. " Families that violate this rule face abortion of the living child...it is wrong to kill the innocent." These two quotes show how wrong the government enforcing a child limitation law is. Parents should not be pelalized and punished for having children. It is also not right for the government like in India to choose there populations gender and killing off females. Its not right to kill and innocent life because of there gender. In the end all around No the government should not be able to enforce population controls.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that a Soylent Green future CAN happen in the future
(page: 1 2)
|
29 |
Nov 28 2011, 11:13 PM EST by
andreacatalano |
|
|
Thread started: Nov 9 2011, 3:51 PM EST
Watch
Post
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: I think that a Soylent Green future CAN happen in the future
By: andreacatalano,
Nov 28 2011, 11:13 PM EST
Soylent green : In the movie soylent green, the food we all eat today and take for granted is considered a luxgery. Only the minority, rich people, can afford to eat it. The rest of the population eats soylent product and mostly soylent green. Which we later find out to be made of dead human bodies. Along with the terrible climate, weather, and social standerads the world portrayed in this movie is shocking and seems so unrealistic. But, if we take the time and think about it, could this ever happen? Could our climate make it summer all year long? Could the rich and poor be so segregated? Could woman be treated as furniture? Could the government hide so many things from its people? and in the end could we eat our own? I belive if we continue on the path were on, in time anythings possible. I do, also, belive this movie is taking extreme surcumstances. To get to the point in this movie every known way of life would have to colaps. But this is a way showing people, how off focuse we are when it comes to our world and how a change is very much needed
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
andreacatalano |
|
NO, governmant SHOULD NOT be able to enforce population controls
|
0 |
Nov 17 2011, 7:57 PM EST by
andreacatalano |
|
|
Thread started: Nov 17 2011, 7:57 PM EST
Watch
The government should have no control over populations. I belive how many children and when a couple wants to have children is the couples choice. Nobody elses. I also dont belive the government should be able to penalize people for having more than one child. Or be able to force people to have an abortion. Abortion is 100 percent a personal choice not government choice. Population growth is a natural thing, i belive the world will balance out and it isnt human job to intervine. So in the end, governmant should not be able to enforce population controls.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
There is NO WAY that a Soylent future can happen
|
19 |
Nov 14 2011, 11:02 PM EST by
|
|
|
Thread started: Nov 9 2011, 3:52 PM EST
Watch
Post
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: There is NO WAY that a Soylent future can happen
By: ,
Nov 14 2011, 11:02 PM EST
There is absolutely no way a Soylent Future can occur in reality. With the way our society is shaped today and the way it has developed such a future is impossible. The way we see the world today it is becoming more and more sane as years go by. For example: we went from using slaves and killing people because of their race to ending discrimination. Food is anything but scarce in america. Our agriculture and industries are advanced enough so that such an extreme future is highly unlikely. People eating people is as inhumane as it gets and our country would never let that or anything close to that happen. Each person has value and has their own individual recognition in life. Our morals today have grown from looking back on our mistakes and creating a better environment for people to live in. Our society today does have a growing population but our food production has the potential to match that. If there is signs of food shortages the first step to solving that problem would not be killing humans. It would be something as simple as the killing of more animals for meat or incresing agricultural production across the land. And really a garbage truck picking up people in the streets to turn them into food? As fun as it is to watch, its not worth the production of soylent, id much rather have some graham crackers instead.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
Sserrano |
|
I support, "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? Click me and post!
(page: 1 2)
|
25 |
Oct 27 2011, 8:34 PM EDT by
GeneralCornwallis |
|
|
Thread started: Oct 25 2011, 1:15 PM EDT
Watch
Respond
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
Last Reply:
RE: I support, "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? Click me and post!
By: GeneralCornwallis,
Oct 27 2011, 8:34 PM EDT
I support this article because, it is better to eat something healthy instead of taking the easy way out and eating fast food. It may be cheaper, but it is just as easy to get healtyh food than it is fast food. It may be easy to get in a habit of eating fast food, but it is equally as easy to get in a habit of eating helthy foods. People have the opportunity to cook and eat healthy food, but they give excuses like not having enough time to cook food.. The real reason is, they are lazy, and it is easier to go and eat fast food. These people are just being lazy.The article states, "Taking the long route to putting food on the table may not be easy, but for almost all Americans it remains a choice, and if you can drive to McDonalds you can drive to Safeway." People can afford healthy food, but they, themselves choose not to do it. In the end is their choice, but they often choose fast food over healthy food.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
I support, "Nourishing New York's Low-income Communities" Click me!
(page: 1 2)
|
25 |
Oct 26 2011, 6:58 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Oct 25 2011, 1:16 PM EDT
Watch
Hit post reply to respond!
2
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: I support, "Nourishing New York's Low-income Communities" Click me!
By: ,
Oct 26 2011, 6:58 PM EDT
I support this because i believe that the people in the low income area's have the time to make food they just don't want to. When it states "(people)watched no less than an hour and a half of television per day, the time is there." This shows that the time that people could spend cooking a meal that has proper nutrition they are doing activity that add to obesity. The problem is not that they cant cook or they don't have the time it is that they want to so only what they have to after work. With people in low income areas they feel like they worked a full day and don't want to do more "work" in cooking a healthy meal, as it states "People really are stressed out with all that they have to do, and they don’t want to cook"I believe that people should not see cooking as a chore but a way to better themselves and there children.Therefore i think that it is not the corporations but the fact that the people don't want to use the addaquit resources they have to do what is better for them and there family but to only control what they view as letting people do the work for them.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
I support "Nourishing New York's Low-income Commmunities"
|
0 |
Oct 26 2011, 2:39 PM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Oct 26 2011, 2:39 PM EDT
Watch
I support this article because it prooves that healthy foods arent available to everyone. People in low income areas aren't able to purchase healthier food, since most of it is expensive. It's the companies fault for pricing their food to high, and not distributing it well to everyone. If the food was cheaper and more accessable, perhaps these small communities wouldn't be as obese. There would most likely be a lot more healthy people. Keatley is doing the right thing to give out fresh produce to those who cant afford it. Healthy foods need to be cheaper and easier to get to as a Mcdonalds drive through is. That's the only reason why these people arent able to get the nutrients they need.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Share this
