dagblog - Comments for "Why Do we Plebians keep blaming the Super-rich? Because, Dammit, They're to Blame"

Are you saying that if there

Lurker — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:17:46 +0000

Are you saying that if there is a felon named Jose Sanchez, all people with that name are struck off the voters list? It doesn't have to be that way: that's not the way it happens in other countries. Why don't you lobby to change the system?

Thank you for taking the

Lurker — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:09:17 +0000

In reply to Ugh, that is right you don't

Thank you for taking the trouble to supply this information.

Since no one else has

Verified Atheist — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:13:44 +0000

In reply to I don't know enough about the

Since no one else has bothered to address this: the methods used to eliminate voting by convicted felons and illegal aliens happen to also suppress votes by people with the same name. So, if all instances of Jose Sanchez (for example) are struck from the list of registered voters, do you think that affects all ethnic groups equally? The instances of actual voter fraud that have been stopped by GOP, if any, are greatly outnumbered by instances of voter suppression, which has been documented in numerous places as a quick Google search will demonstrate. Most of us strongly suspect that the latter is the actual intent of the GOP as indicated not just by their actions (and inactions), but also by their words.

Thank you, Tmac. We must

Ramona — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:41:29 +0000

In reply to Ugh, that is right you don't

Thank you, Tmac. We must have been writing at the same time!

Not the content of your

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:34:32 +0000

In reply to I'm glad that you are at

Not the content of your character Lurker, I'm judging you by your right-wing nonsensical talking points.

I don't see Obamacare as

Ramona — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:34:29 +0000

In reply to Thank you, Ramona, for the

I don't see Obamacare as government intervention into the doctor/patient relationship as much as intervention into the provider/patient relationship. The insurance companies have given up any pretense that they're there to actually help ease health care burdens. They dictate who gets help and who doesn't, and they dictate what rates we pay for increasingly inadequate care.

Our rates aren't this high because of the government, they're high because the government turned its back on patients, allowing for-profit health care costs to skyrocket and insurance costs to follow suit.

But on to your other issue: If a doctor performing an abortion sees a need for an ultrasound, that's a private decision between the doctor and the patient. What we're looking at with mandatory vaginal probes and ultrasounds is slut-shaming. Punishment. No other justification makes sense.

Ugh, that is right you don't

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:32:25 +0000

In reply to Thank you, Ramona, for the

Ugh, that is right you don't know anything about, since you are man and not a woman, you don't even know there is a difference between a pelvic and transvaginal ultrasound. A pelvic ultrasound is used when a woman is pregnant. A transvaginal ultrasound is used to see organs like the vagina, ovaries and pelvic wall. It is unusual that any physician would order a transvaginal ultrasound over a pelvic ultrasound when a woman is pregnant, unless there are other medical complications. Here are the cases where a physician would order a transvaginal ultrasound:

an abnormal physical exam
to check for cysts or fibroids
Unexplained vaginal bleeding
pelvic pain
an ectopic pregnancy

If you are pregnant a physician might order a transvaginal ultrasound for a few reason, but not for simply dating and measuring the fetus.

to monitor the heartbeat of the fetus, if medically necessary
to observe the cervix for changes in order to prevent a miscarriage
examine the placenta for bleeding
diagnose a possible miscarriage

For legislators to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for what reason, for no other reason than to make a woman uncomfortable enough to not have an abortion. Well guess what, abortion is simply none of yours or anyone else's business. It isn't the states business, the federal governments business, nor it is the general publics business. This should be between a woman and her physician. Everyone else needs to STFU about it already.

And as to your last BS line about the government being involved in the doctor/patient relationship, also ugh, I'm sure Sarah Palin misses you on her facebook page peddling BS about ACA. I'm not even going to bother with you on that one, because fighting off right wing talking points is a waste of my fucking time.

Thank you, Ramona, for the

Lurker — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:26:52 +0000

In reply to Yes, I am unaware of

Thank you, Ramona, for the links. The second one didn't seem to have any relevance, but the first was useful.

I'm sure you know more about this than me, but I thought ultrasound was the accepted method for determining the size and location (and even existence) of the foetus, which any responsible abortionist would need to know. The alternatives, (e.g. x-rays), are more dangerous.

It seems odd that there should need to be government intervention to force a procedure that would be used anyway. Maybe you're right that anti-abortionists are trying to add stress to an already stressful situation. I guess abortion is so sensitive an area that the government can't resist putting in its two cents' worth.

Isn't government intervention into the doctor/patient relationship the whole point of Obamacare?

I'm glad that you are at

Lurker — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:25:04 +0000

In reply to The 'authorities involved' in

I'm glad that you are at least judging me by the content of my character.

It was the Deming Police Department, not nearby Hidalgo, according to my link. But that's not important; every crime has to be committed somewhere.

I thought Narcotics enforcement was supervised by the federal government, and that local police had to follow the guidelines of the Drug Enforcement Authority. If I was wrong about that, then I take back what I said about Obama in this case.

Was this a case of a rogue sheriff overstepping the guidelines? If so, why hasn't he been arrested? Or, at least, why hasn't he been repudiated by the DEA?

Can local law enforcement agencies just make up the rules as they go along? Do anything to anybody? If they are not under federal supervision, then whose supervision are they under?

An aspect you might consider

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:30:08 +0000

In reply to The 'authorities involved' in

An aspect you might consider is how much the federal government has militarized local police forces in the last 10 years for SWAT activity, war on drugs, terror, etc. There's much more fed cooperation with locals, for example joint raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, etc. Quite frankly a pig could be president and these trends would continue, including the hostile tase-first, ask later confrontational approach to policing. Our legislators from both parties dont seem thrilled with protecting personal rights vs freaking out on danger. Diane Feinstein was this week's star at emptyWheel for lies and obfuscation.