Forum Post: Just like any movement that gains traction, its goals and leaders can be manipulated
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 11:34 p.m. EST by jackmi
(6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
To see people stand up and finally fight against everything that has gone wrong with our country the past 40 years is a great thing.
Yet like any system, movement, foreign government, or power... Occupy Wall Street can be manipulated by the people you fight against. The rich want to stay rich and get richer. They can use their money to manipulate the movement, dissolve it, or in the worst of cases 'remove' key players.
Its happened for hundreds of years, the ones in power want to stay in power. PLEASE take action against this happening. Occupy wall street is not organized which is a great thing.. people are merely supporting a great cause, but it makes this vulnerable.
Dont let this amazing opportunity fade... Demand our politicians no longer be allowed to accept bribery (lobbyists), demand our healthcare system become non-profit, demand new representation and remove the corruption the rich and their corporations have had on our country and the world. Demand action to reform capitalism. Demand separation of government and business. Demand all patents purpose's be released so corporations cannot hide new energy sources and technologies. Demand change in our system!
Give ROCK SOLID demands so the ongoing fight is not dissolved and manipulated.
Agreed, though be prepared to offer up ideas for how to implement such changes or else we might find ourselves in a worse position that we started...
A lack of central leadership means there's no central leadership that can be targeted. Not an ideal structure, granted, but one that has more strengths than weaknesses in the current scenario.
How can healthcare become non-profit? Would you enslave those who happen to have the skills needed to heal? Healthcare workers have a right to a fair wage for their services. Doctors are probably the some of most indebted with student loans of us. Relative to what they owe they don't make much money as it stands. How do you propose to inspire innovation in medicine without profit to motivate and fund research and development of new technologies or drugs? Making healthcare affordable again is a must but I don't think making it a non-profit industry is the answer.
Somehow volunteer firefighters and animal shelter staffers manage to survive while providing skilled labor as part of a non-profit orginization. I'm sure that doctors (being quite bright, after all) are capable of figuring something out. Hint: Doctors Without Borders.org
Oh absolutely. Doctors and nurses providing free or low cost services out of a sense of civic duty or just the goodness of their hearts is great and that is part of the greatness of our society. I'm all for that. I just don't want to see government force applied to anyone to make something like that happen.
But forcing people to be decent to one another is the entire basis for civilization. Without government force, being black and/or a woman would be a permanent social handicap, as segregation and subjugation would still exist. In other words, "When the chips are down, these, uh… these civilized people, they'll eat each other."
I don't see that as true at all. Case in point I just read that OWS is getting donated meals and blankets and all other kinds of things. People are much more charitable than they are given credit for. I have a hard time insulting people with a statement like if you are free to do as you please you won't do the right thing. Have people done wrong in the past yes but I believe that people, especially in this country, tend to do the right thing for their neighbors more often than not. Government force is never the right thing. Force is never the right thing. When you resort to using force you become as bad as what you are fighting against. Especially when there is another alternative.
The way I understand it, the proposal is not to convert healthcare to a non-profit, but to include a non-profit alternative in the healthcare system, providing people freedom to opt for private or non-profit providers.
The way the system works today primarily benefits the paper handlers (insurance companies among other intermediaries). As these companies consolidate and become more powerful, the doctors and technologies you talk about will suffer, not to mention us, by receiving expensive bad quality service.
This smartest thing to do is have a not for profit minimal care program that covers stuff like annual medical exams, twice a year dentist, eye doctor, etc.
Leave out abortion and birth control (half of us consider it being forced to fund murder), experimental procedures, etc.
Abortion is a multifaceted issue, and those who are anti-choice have obviously never been presented with a "Sophie's Choice" scenario of choosing between the life of your unborn child and your own life.
Saying that a woman shouldn't have the right to end a pregnancy that will kill her is inhumane, and calling her a murderer for choosing not to die is simply cruel.
If it isn't too much trouble you could take the time to read what I wrote.
Don't make those of us who feel that it is murder pay for it.
I read and understood what you wrote, but maybe I didn't explain my point of view clearly enough.
Saying that no abortions, ever, should be paid for by taxpayers is like saying that no emergency tracheotomy should ever be paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes it's a matter of life and death for the mother, and in those situations, her health care should be provided. No person should die giving birth to a still born baby just because of someone's "black and white" moral code.
That being said, no person should pay for someone else to have a baby's brain scrambled and it's body dissected just because one individual forgot to take (or couldn't afford) her birth control, and then couldn't be bothered (or couldn't afford) to pick up plan B, and THEN didn't go to get (or couldn't afford) an abortion until 6 months in.
As I said in my original response... multifaceted.
I consider abortion to be murder so when I say I shouldn't have to fund abortion, ever, it is like saying I don't support murder.
Obviously we feel differently. But I guess you are not interested in stuff 99% can agree on, or even 50%.
Did you even bother to read my reply? I'm sorry if that comes across as hostile, but it seems like you just read the first sentence and typed out your reply.
I'm not saying that abortion is inherently right or wrong, but that the morality surrounding it is situational. That's the world we live in. It's not okay to eat people... unless there's no other food source available, and the person is already dead. It's okay to make a profit... as long as you're not using slave labor to do it. Understand?
So, simply put, if you don't support an emergency surgery to remove a dead baby from a woman that is dying as a result of carrying a decaying corpse inside of her womb, then you do support murder. Multifaceted... situational... shades of gray... the world is a complicated place full of complicated situations. Judge not yadda yadda yadda...
Additionally, the point I'm making is that 99% of people DON'T agree that abortion is murder, or that funding abortion is funding murder. If that were the case, abortion would be illegal, and it's not. Your original suggestion of free but limited health care is a good one, and I can see how not having money in any proposed form of this program would increase it's chances of being greenlit... but that does not mean that it's ok that abortion is completely excluded. Optional abortions, yes, by all means, don't fund it... pay for your own mistake... but critical, life saving abortions should be funded in all forms of health coverage.
The problem with the pro-life, pro-choice debate is that it's a debate being argued on two different planes... pro-lifers 'feel' like it's murder and pro-choicers 'think' that it's not. I can appeal to your logic all day, but if your feelings cloud your judgment, I might as well try to dig to the center of the earth by spitting on bullfrogs...
I read your entire response. You claim that the "morality surrounding it is situational" in response and something similar before. I simply do not agree. As far as removing a dead baby goes, obviously that is not abortion so I am not sure what your point is. Maybe we have a different definition of abortion? I consider it to be any medical procedure which terminates a viable pregnancy.
The dead baby example is an actual thing that happened. I'd have to dig around for the source, but I remember reading sometime last year that a woman was carrying a still born baby, she and her doctor knew it was dead, and she died either while giving birth to it or while it was inside her... I can't remember the specifics, but the point is that they knew it was dead, but couldn't help her, because terminating the pregnancy is considered abortion. Abortion is much more than "Whoops, I got knocked up. Better go get this perfectly healthy pregnancy terminated for no reason at all."
Ok, well, I don't consider removing a dead baby to be abortion. That's a-ok in my book. I gave you my definition of abortion so I am not sure why we are even discussing something that I clearly don't consider to be abortion.
And seeing as abortion is legal in all 50 states via Supreme Court, I assume this is something that happened in another country? Which makes it all the more irrelevant.
The baby didn't die until 6 months in... it was illegal under that late-term abortion law.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
I'm sorry, but you are living in an alternate reality. According to this September 2011 poll provided by CNN only 37% agree that abortion should be legal in all or most cases while 62% say in only a few or no cases should abortion be legal.
edit: apologies, the first link is gallop 2009
here you go:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/15/rel15e.pdf
Those numbers are far from 99%. And based on that second link (the most recent data, [your first link is 2 years old]) 78% believe that abortion should be legal under any (25%) or certain (53%[12% under most, 41% under few]) circumstances! The very "proof" you've provided to back up your argument actually disproves it!
You have serious problems with reading comprehension. I never said 99% are against abortion. I said supporting abortion is a non-starter for building a 99% platform. 21% are completely against it (even in cases of rape, etc.) and another 41% say few circumstances which I think means rape/incest to most of them. I'd say you're looking at 50-55% or so that disapprove exempting cases of rape and incest and the other 6%-11% of the 41% that support "few" exceptions are a bit more liberal than that.
"But I guess you are not interested in stuff 99% can agree on, or even 50%." Your exact words, just a few inches up the screen. There's nothing in there about a "99% platform". I'm replying to your response, not your original post.
In response to your 50%-55% argument, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition of the word "choice", I suppose. If someone is ok with abortion, even if it's only in the case of incest or rape, then they believe the woman should have a choice to end the pregnancy.
Agree
I agree. I think the market needs to be freed up so that more competition in the industry can drive down costs and provide more choices to the consumer. I also think that there should be more options in the insurance packages offered to include more things like catastrophic policies that only cover big problems and anything else is an out of pocket expense. I have noticed that when paying in cash at the doctors office I end up paying about 1/3 of what they bill the insurance companies.
The best way to compensate innovators is to pay them well and to pay them a flat salary
stability in life allows the mind to wonder on other things
that would be dependable income not prospecting
a flat fee would be good for an innovator to have a clear mind unworried by profit
Then what would be that innovator's incentive to further innovate? How would that innovator expand on his or her own innovation without the capitol needed for research or development? Why can't the market (consumer) reward someone that innovates something that we (the market) like by buying more of it and allowing them to enjoy the reward of what they have given us which we obviously enjoy? The market is not evil the market is us. The freer the market the freer we are to vote with our dollar. The market (us) is not stupid we will eliminate what we don't like and those who try to take advantage of us. But that does not happen when government enables those players in the market to continue doing business because they are too big to fail or because they donated generously to their campaigns or because lobbyists have paid them off to pass their regulatory and favorable regulations.
the human mind looks for problem
it's a clever survival trait
the reward for an innovator is solving that problem
please edit and organize your paragraph
I apologize for the lack of organization. My replies are stream of consciousness not formatted essays. Solving problems is nice but being able to use your talent to provide for your living is nicer. Your talent is not the property of anyone else but yourself and you are entitled to just compensation for the improvement of someone else's life through your talent.