Being against universal health care is being against humanity

Those with jobs are paying off college loans and the rent or mortgage, but with salaries that have not changed with inflation; 41% of working americans are paying off medical debt or have medical bill issues. Many businesses in America do not provide sufficient health care for their workers. In 2009, the five major for profit health care insurance providers made a “combined profit of 12.2 billion”. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services describes little difference between the cost of health care and it’s quality. Government regulation on health care can aid this. Universal health care in America is not just for the unemployed, but for the workers as well: it is not welfare but a necessity. It is expensive to pay the electric bill and for groceries when having a modest secretarial wage, but they say to be happy to have a job in the first place, even if it doesn’t provide health care. The last thing we should worry about is being able to pay the $200 fee to visit urgent care about a cold when we are expected to put food on the table.

The problem here lies in money. These monetarily based situations can barely be controlled by working a steady job or even earning a degree. Who is to deny anyone the right to lead a healthy life the best way they can? Ultimately, people get sick. When businesses are not providing health care to those who desperately need it, the government must step in. If they can afford more military spending in the Afghan wars, they can at least provide a basis of tax money towards health care. If businesses wish the Health Care and Affordability Act be abolished, they will have to implement changes to their health care packages and provide for their employees or there will be riots, and there are.

Some will pledge allegiance to countries, to party values, to women’s groups, church organizations, you name it. They will find security within these societies based upon the hope for better, but hope all you might, there will be no change without action. That action is standing up for universal values, primarily the right to a health life. To be able to get a cancer screening, to get a cast for a broken bone, or to bring a child to ER when he has a 110 degree fever. It is vital that at least our bodies are in our control.

There are issues that cannot be disagreed upon. Everyone wants to be safe, healthy, fed and loved. Everyone wants the freedom to live at least a basic life. It is up to the human race to try as they may to ensure that those at least in an arms span have the resources they need to survive. If you had the money to live a luxurious  lifestyle, if you did not want to donate money to charity, the least you could do would be to pay your relatively small share of taxes.

Bibliography:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/cf-7mu081908.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699#.UJBmGLT3DL8

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/50-u-s-health-care-statistics-that-will-absolutely-astonish-you

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-belson/how-to-reduce-hospital-he_b_565896.html

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/oct12/1012RA6.htm

 

 

Debate 2012

If you are human, chances are that you tend to be very busy. Here at NotYourCoffeeBitch, we understand that. This is why, during the final eight days before the election, voters need each bit of information that they can get.

In my opinion, the debates act as tie breakers to the undecided voter. You can see their views on important issues, how they carry themselves, and how they handle intense situations. I am fully aware that the debates are over, but that doesn’t mean you can’t re-watch them, or catch up on what you missed (ie. horses and bayonets, and binders full of women).

If you follow this link: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/ you not only have a chance to watch the debates, but you can choose to read the transcripts. Hopefully, this might help out people living in Ohio, Florida. No pressure though.

Photo Credit: CollegeNews.com

Dr. Cinderella

While passing out candy to trick-or-treaters I saw the typical array of costumes, ninjas, zombies, mobsters, and I think I even saw a hipster. Then I saw costumes that made me want to yell at parents. These include, but are not limited to, slutty Alice and Wonderland, bride and princess. My distaste for the Alice costume isn’t slut-bashing by any means. If you are comfortable enough with your body, go out and have fun. But, if you are going door to door trick-or-treating like a child, don’t dress like you are twenty.

As for the bride, I don’t understand why someone would allow their child to dress as one. It is like looking at young girls that are forced into marriage and saying “sorry you are raped and beaten and your childhood was lost. I’m going to glamorize this serious issue and get more candy than you can ever dream of.” Marriage is something between consenting adults, not a Halloween costume for children who don’t understand the basics of a relationship yet.

I don’t blame the girls for this, they are too young to know. I blame Disney and the adults in their lives for brainwashing them. Halloween is supposed to be a time to dress as someone you idolize, or something that you’ve always wanted to be. You could be a superhero, an actress, a doctor, president, seriously, anything you have ever wanted to be you can be. I don’t see why you would want to dress as something that anyone can do, and that most people will do. This most likely stems form my hatred of baby dolls. See my article, “Baby Dolls Kind of Really Piss Me Off” for further understanding.

This brings me to my dislike for the princess costume. The stream of Disney Princesses seemed to never end. It’s not like a Disney Princes ever accomplished anything. They had a problem, were helpless to fix it on their own, had a prince save them and got married. Seriously, nothing too hard there. Obviously Mulan is an exception, because she is the Hillary Clinton grade bad-ass of the cartoon world. But, besides Mulan, Disney teaches girls that it is okay not to help themselves, as long as they are pretty, a man will save them. What happens to the princess when she gets wrinkles and isn’t so pretty. She has no job training and nice try finding a divorce attorney that can beat a prince. She would be lucky if she gets anything from the divorce and no prince is going to want to save her. Then the princes is going to be homeless because she relied on men her entire life. Is this the kind of life that we want for our future generation?

It’s not even like these girls dress like Princes Diana, she was a super hero. She was President of the Royal Marsden Hospital and of the Hospital for Sick Children, and she headed dozens of charities. The awareness that Princes Diana raised for homeless people and people living with HIV/AIDS was priceless. She truly made a difference in the world, with and without her prince.

Like Princess Diana, Pam, from the office, is amazing. She and Jim noticed that their daughter was obsessed with princesses, so in “Here Comes Treble” they decided to turn princesses into positive female role models by creating Dr. Cinderella. They showed their daughter that it is okay to be pretty like a princes, but you also need to be smart and have a career. I say hooray to Dr. Cinderella and I hope to be seeing more of them in the future.

Photo Credit: Calitreview.com

Further Reading on Princes Diana: http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/The%20House%20of%20Windsor%20from%201952/DianaPrincessofWales/CharitiesandPatronage.aspx

Problems with the Electoral College

When heading out to the polls in two weeks, voters will probably be worrying about who they will vote for or who their fellow citizens will give their votes to. What should be on their mind now? The electors. The people who actually give the candidates the numbers of electoral votes that they need to win.

In a flawless electoral system, electors would cast their votes for the candidate that won the largest majority in their state. Americans have come to expect that electors will faithfully translate the popular vote into the electoral vote. Unfortunately there is no certainty that electors will actually choose to vote this way.

In a recent survey conducted by The Associated Press, as many as five republican electors said that they would not vote for Romney even if he won the overall majority in their state. These republicans were unhappy with Romney’s victory in the primary elections and will not work to overcome their disappointment even if Romney is who the citizens want. With an election that’s predicted to be very close, these rogue electors could really make a difference. If one elector chooses not to follow the popular majority, they could cause hundreds of thousands of votes to be worthless.

In 2008 alone, 80% of electors were contacted by lobbying groups with campaign materials, bribes, and even some death threats. About 12% of these electors said that the materials e-mailed to them by these groups did persuade them and make them consider voting against the majority.

These tactics are not new and have been used since the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan sent out personal letters to every republican elector. If candidates and their supporting organisations are thinking about the possibility of rogue electors, why aren’t we? More states should move to pass the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act as soon as possible to ensure that each vote will count and that electors are not able to overlook the majority.

 

Australian Prime Minister’s Speech Heard Around the World

Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, gave a speech to parliament about sexism directed towards her opposition, Tony Abbott. After going through two weeks with sexism and misogyny as the hot topic in the Australian political media, she finally felt the need to address the issue herself.

Tony Abbott began attacking Peter Slipper, the Speaker of the House and demanding that he step down from office. Slipper was accused of sexually harassing an openly gay male staff member in a series of text messages, where he crudely compared the female sex organs to various aquatic animals.  Abbott said that if the Prime Minister Gillard defended Peter Slipper in any way she would be just as sexist as any “gay man that talks shit about vaginas.”

Gillard was very offended by his statements accusing her of being sexist. She attacked him in her rant about sexism in parliament on October 9th. Her voice rose to command everyone’s attention as she proclaimed that she “will not be lectured about misogyny by this man… Not now, not ever.”

Gillard then went on to point out his own hypocrisy by mentioning various campaign slogans that utilize sexist phrases like ‘Ditch the Witch’ and describe her as a man’s bitch. “If [Abbott] wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror.”

Gillard’s speech has now reached fame for her display of passion. As she points directly at Abbott and looks him in the eye, she made a statement. Sexism is a problem in modern day politics, but a worse problem is hypocrisy. It’s safe to say that Abbott’s support rating has plummeted since the “misogyny speech” given by Gillard.

Link to video: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2012/10/10/sot-gillard-sexism-parliament.savo?iref=allsearch

It’s all about likability; Obama and Romney taken for face value

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney at the final presidential debate of 2012 faced the greatest rhetorical situation of the year: How can I persuade America that I am fit for running the country the next four years? With many citizens watching the debate, it is impossible to know the general reaction during the debate, both candidates with fairly vocal supporters. The past couple debates have been fact checked and reviewed by various sources and news reports. All of these opinions have widely differed. Personally, I have viewed the debates objectively, giving each politician a fair say during the debate. I don’t feel persuaded one way by this debate, but the issues presented involving foreign policy are stimulating. To watch a couple men grovel to reach broad conclusions to major issues is ironically entertaining for many. In my opinion, the depths of societal issues have hardly been presented during this debate. Regardless, both candidates provide fluent ideological standpoints to appeal to voting constituents.

At the beginning of the debate, the candidates appear on stage waving at their audiences in contrastingly colored ties. Obama sports blue, a cool color representing likability. Romney is seen wearing a warm color, a red tie with silver stripes, colors psychologically triggering excitement and wisdom respectively. Already, at the opening of the debate, the non-verbal standpoint of the candidates is represented. Obama wishes to be viewed as the likable incumbent and Romney as an invigorating opponent.

Despite being distinguished politicians, Romney and Obama are victims of stuttering, “ums” and “uhs”. These candidates could strengthen their credibility by being more conscious of these speech clutterers  while creating more effective pauses to add emphasis to their points. But, to make up for these verbal slips, both candidates use imagery and personal accounts to create relatable images for the audience. Both express their sympathies through their experiences, establishing their likability and credibility despite their stuttering.

The speech content during debates are always at least slightly skewed to one side over the other because separate party platforms. Romney uses many statistics as well as examples, stories and personal testimony involving his position as Governor of Massachusetts. Obama refutes many of Romney’s statistics, but offers little of his own. Most of his points include personal testimony, based off of his experience in his first term. No visual aids were used on either side, but both used descriptive gestures to give the audience a visual representation of oversea jobs and exports. Both speakers create sound reasoning by establishing credibility and citing their sources. Fallacies of reasoning can easily be fact checked the next day on unbiased sites such as factcheck.org.

The speaking tactics of both candidates is often circular. The speaker takes a stance on an issue, explains the position, provides a story and an actualization statement to connect with listeners, then restates their stance on the issue. Often times, as seen in the nuclear war question, the debate digresses, in this case to the condition of education. Debates, unlike most forms of public speaking, involve the element of surprise because it involves opponents refuting points. The nature of a debate in this sense is unpredictable.

Despite the unpredictable nature of debates, the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates’ presentation have been evident in past public speeches. Obama’s biggest strength was his use of effective pauses and referencing his track record as president. But, because of his pauses, he ran up his speaking time with air instead of support. Romney’s strength lied in his constant references of statistics and hard numbers to support his points, especially involving the state of the economy, while constantly appealing to a dissatisfied public. His weakness was his switching of views involving involvement in Iraq, but this could also be seen as a strength in the eyes of supporters because he was able to appeal to the public.

Both speakers maintained more of a professional stance than the last few debates, remaining seated and keeping bickering to a medium. Being on such a publicized event, the focus of the opponents was to increase their likability in one last debate, in the final cry for the undecided voters. In the above aforementioned points, both candidates appealed to their respective parties effectively. Before watching news coverage of the debate, I assert that independents will be split between the two candidates. Although the outcome of the debate is mixed tonight, its winner will be determined through election results by the end of the year.

Malala

The Blog of The Re-Enlightenment

Treating Malala’s injuries is not enough.  We need to defend freedom of speech and secularism.

View original post 868 more words

Obama pays women less in the Whitehouse

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/obama-touts-fair-pay-for-women-despite-records-showing-women-paid-less-in-his-own-white-house/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/women-pay-house-gop_n_1668688.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war-on-women-white-house-found-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Does this change your vote? We at Bitch are disgusted.

Unbiased Bitch Coverage: Presidential Debate no. 2

Photo Credit: http://www.policymic.com

Debate on higher education:
Both want to make sure that jobs are created for America’s young. Neither pose a straight answer to the question.

Unemployment

Romney: can create jobs

Obama: Romney “has the rich playing by another set of rules”

(again not a straight answer)

Gas Prices

Obama: Alternative energy resources are increasing. Fuel efficiency on the rise. Has allowed us to lower our oil imports and will keep them lower. Romney wants the oil companies to just lower the gas prices, but not with energy efficiency. “We are using oil more efficiently” but we are “drilling more on our lands”. Romney shut down a coal plant but wants to bring one back. Cleaner energy, cheaper energy. Romney wants to use an old plan, need to use alternative energy (wind power in Oregon/Iowa)

Romney: Oil production down because drilling is not coming from federal lands. Coal country, want people to save their jobs. But EPA keeps limits. “Abundant energy” by more drilling. More jobs for middle class. Obama hasn’t
Tax Code

Romney: 1. Want to bring Middle Class taxes down, give them tax break. 2. Bring rates down for everyone, but want high income still paying. 3. Balance budget, reduce middle class taxes. 5 point plan. Poverty increase in the past four years. Credibility: balanced the budget in Massachusetts. The President has doubled the national debt, and he will continue it.
Obama: Middle Class relief. Cut taxes for families “3600 dollars” on average the past few years. Income tax reform for first 25,000 dollars. Romney holding back the bill. Wants the rich to pay more. Brings up Romney’s 60 minutes interview about rich not getting tax breaks fueling out economy. Who is going to pay for the 7-8 trillion dollars of the five points plan?

Women in the work place

Obama: Talks about his mom. Women are becoming the bread winners of the family. Young people need to have an accessible education: poll grants/student loan program so many have been able to afford college, allowing women to compete in the market place. We can not tolerate discrimination, we haven’t. Contraceptive coverage counts economically – includes mammograms and cancer screenings too, which are expensive. Not just women’s issues, family issues. Women need same opportunities as men. Brings in daughters.
Romney: All the men have qualification. Went out to look for women in his cabinet, had more women and seniors in cabinet than any other state. Flexible schedules for women. Women have lost 580,000 jobs in the past four years. Women need a stronger economy. All women should have access of contraception.

Romney being a republican, what is the difference between you and Bush

Romney: 5 point plan much different. Energy security. Trade in China and latin america, adding more free trade. Balance the budget. Championing small business, contrary to party beliefs. Obama care keeps small businesses from hiring more people.

Obama: “digging ourselves out” – 5.2 million jobs created. Romney a pioneer of outsourcing. Signed trade deals already. Leveled playing fields and unfair trade practices by American workers in Bush term. Immigration reform and Planned Parenthood show that Romney more extreme than Bush.

What has Obama done?

Obama: Jobs, End war, Osama Bin Ladin dead, Wall street reforms, 5 million jobs created, saved auto industry, education, reducing deficit, putting people back to work, energy reform. Kept my commitments, not a lack of trying. Romney will keep his too – cut of obama care, education, planned parenthood. Whose promises will help your kids go to college, get you a good paying job?

Romney: These past four years have not been good. We can’t afford it. 9 million American’s still without work. Medicare and Social Security not reformed, no proposals. Immigration same thing. Didn’t cut half the deficit but doubled it. Middle class taxes have gone up. It’s just going to keep going. Middle class is getting crushed because Obama doesn’t understand how to reduce employment. More people on food stamps..how about the growth of the economy? Uses Reagan recession recovery program as the ideal solution. Median incomes down. Who can get the middle class a better economy?
Immigrants

Romney: We welcome legal immigrants. Uses family as an example. We should give green cards to graduates. We need to stop illegal immigration, but put in place a legal work code. Military service to become a citizen. Obama didn’t do anything with a democrat senate/house. Romney admits to liking aspect of the Arizona law that determines whether an immigrant or citizen. Let people make their own choice to go somewhere else, not in favor of rounding up people. Criminals need to be rounded up.

Obama: Everyone wants to come to America. Need to fix the system. Made it easier for people to come and contribute to our country, create jobs. More border control, lower than it’s been in 40 years. Go after criminals, not students or families. Those who live here feel they are citizens, and they should have access to citizenship. Romney wants Arizona law nationwide. Republicans don’t support immigration.

“Mr. President have you looked at your pension?”

“It’s not as big as yours.”
National security/Benghazi

Obama: Close to those overseas, personally. We need to go after people who threaten Americans. Romney making political security an issue in the heat of the moment. Decreasing war, retreat from foreign issues. “I have to greet the coffins when they come home, I mean what I say.” Hilary Clinton works for him. Afterwards, told the American people he was going to figure out exactly what happened, and do what he could. Romney being offensive and insensitive after the attack.

Romney: Obama takes responsibility. There was a terrorist attack in Benghazi, not a demonstration. President flies to Las Vegas day after. Not a spontaneous reaction.
Gun Control

Obama: Our nation believes in the 2nd amendment for sport and protection. But people lose lives because of weapons. Colorado shooting example. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Military weapons don’t belong on the streets. Need an assault weapons reform. Need a comprehensive strategy in communities to catch violent impulses. Romney endorsed by NRA. Skilled worker training. Millions of young people can get education needed before. Teachers will grow our economy.

Romney: Don’t need to make more gun control, but enforce the gun control we have. We need less violence, more education like in Massachusetts. Need family base. “Fast and furious” – weapons given to Mexican drug lords by the government. Massachusetts pro and anti-gun people come together to create gun reform. Need to work on a bipartisan basis.

How to brings jobs back

Romney: Make America a place for entrepreneurs, small businesses. Need fair trade with China who is manipulating currency for profit. On day one, Romney wants to put a bill in place to limit China. Need to be competitive to keep more jobs. Obama care deterring people from being hired.

Obama: Wants to close loopholes to allow businesses to profit offshore. Romney wants to expand tax breaks. Need to change tax code and double exports, on pace. Trade deals make sure that country is getting a good deal. Reporters call Romney’s outsourcing “pioneers of outsourcing”.
Macs and Apple, bring to America

Romney: China is cheating by keeping currency down and stealing technology. Fake Apple in China. “Government doesn’t create jobs.”

Obama: Some jobs will not come back. Low skilled jobs. Need high skilled jobs. Need high science and research in world. Can’t cut funding to research, or we will lose technology race. Those investments will propel us into a better economy.

You as a Man

Romney: Campaigning attacks people. I care about every American. I spent myself in private sector, not in government. I believe in God and we have to care for each other. Pastor, family man, missionary. Schools in Massachusetts number one in the nation. We don’t have to settle for gas prices, food stamps, unemployment, college kids with out work. I will reform, change what Obama didn’t. I have done these things as a governor.

Obama: Free enterprise, self-reliance, individual, risk takers. But, everyone should have a fair shot, everyone should play by rules which created the middle class. Romney a good man. But, country does not view itself as victims. GI bills. Need similar opportunities.
Fact check to come.

Church and State

Paul Ryan, I respect your views on abortion. Surely, not everyone believes in abortion, it is controversial, that is why not everyone gets an abortion. There are other options available to pregnant women, besides abortion. I, as an American, respect your catholic faith.

However, I am not catholic, not all of America is Catholic. Likewise not all Americans are Buddhists, Baptists, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or atheists. That is why the founding fathers made it crystal clear that there is to be a separation of church and state. Also, one of the reasons that colonist came to America was because of zero separation of church and state in England, therefore, a need to practice religion freely and to escape religious persecution.

That is why Paul Ryan is, in my opinion, not fit to hold high office. He is clearly incapable of putting the needs of the people above his own faith. If he is so against abortion, then why doesn’t he put a focus on sexual education in public schools so abortions are not needed?

To take a pro-life stance that is also pro-American, you can not repeal Roe v. Wade. There are other ways of pushing your agenda without taking away a woman’s right to her body. After all, not everyone believes that life begins at conception.

I applaud Biden’s stance during the debate. Even though he has a strong catholic faith, he believes that you can’t take away a women’s right to choose. He understands that there is a separation of church and state. Also, he reminded people that for the same reasoning, you can not force catholic run health intuitions to provide contraceptives and perform abortions.

Can we trust someone who puts their personal beliefs ahead of the needs of the people? I don’t think that we can. We need leaders that govern based on the needs and wants of the people, not the leader. After all, what is right is not always the easiest.

Photo Credit: salon.com