http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28342935&nid=757&title=the-truth-behind-obamacare-6-million-insured-figure&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-11
This article is pretty much saying that the 6 million have been enrolled in marketplace or medicare is a pretty "mushy" number, since it includes some people were just renewing, and it goes on to pretty much say that nobody knows exactly how many are really getting it new.
It seems to me that everything about Obamacare is mushy. So many people post on facebook articles about how horrible it is, and how this and that person totally got screwed by it, but then so many other people also post on facebook other articles showing how much it has helped this or that person, and that it really is working. Wow, I hope that last sentence made sense. Not to mention the business with the website being screwy for a while. Because I don't pay for my health insurance, I really don't know how it has impacted my family. I was and still am pretty doubtful about how well it works, but I feel like I just want facts on how many people have gotten it, how many peoples insurance has gone up or down, etc that aren't tainted by bias, but that is never going to happen. I give up on politics.
Monday, January 13, 2014
First Lady
Article:
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/michelle-obama-no-ones-feminist-nightmare
This article is a response to another article that calls Michelle Obama a "feminist nightmare" and bashes on the first lady for saying that being a mom is her first priority, and says she is playing it safe with the childhood obesity thing. The response to the article goes on to say that undermining women because they are mothers is the real nightmare, and goes on to defend Michelle Obama's position as well as her stances on things such as childhood obesity.
I pretty much agree with this article. I think it is great that Mrs. Obama is "embracing her role as mom in chief" and showing that her family comes first. I don't necessarily agree with some of her views or like some of her programs, but I think she is trying to do what she feels is best. The biggest problem I have with feminism is when it is taken too far. I get the whole equal pay in the workplace thing, but when it starts to place full time mothers in a lower position than working moms or women, that is where I have a problem. This article said something I really liked: "If feminism isn't for mothers, then who is it for?" Most women turn out to be mothers, and I think that when feminists cross that line, they have gone too far.
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/michelle-obama-no-ones-feminist-nightmare
This article is a response to another article that calls Michelle Obama a "feminist nightmare" and bashes on the first lady for saying that being a mom is her first priority, and says she is playing it safe with the childhood obesity thing. The response to the article goes on to say that undermining women because they are mothers is the real nightmare, and goes on to defend Michelle Obama's position as well as her stances on things such as childhood obesity.
I pretty much agree with this article. I think it is great that Mrs. Obama is "embracing her role as mom in chief" and showing that her family comes first. I don't necessarily agree with some of her views or like some of her programs, but I think she is trying to do what she feels is best. The biggest problem I have with feminism is when it is taken too far. I get the whole equal pay in the workplace thing, but when it starts to place full time mothers in a lower position than working moms or women, that is where I have a problem. This article said something I really liked: "If feminism isn't for mothers, then who is it for?" Most women turn out to be mothers, and I think that when feminists cross that line, they have gone too far.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Voting information
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593952/Lawmakers-want-to-change-way-voter-information-is-sold.html
This article is about how two UT lawmakers are trying to get a law passed that will make voter information (such as addresses, phone numbers and birthdays) only available for "Political, Scholarly, Journalistic, or Governmental purposes." for a fee. Right now, there is a site operated by a man in New Hampshire that has all the information for free. The article explains that the man has websites for some other states, and says he is "making an honest dollar by getting public information that people are selling for a fee and making it available for free." Because he is not currently breaking a law, this proposed one would hopefully close that loop.
When I read the first paragraph of this I was like "What? they shouldn't sell our info!" but then I read the rest and I figured out they were trying to make the info harder to get, and would only sell it for certain purposes. I am still not sure they should be making that info available at all, but I guess it is a step in the right direction. I personally don't see how that guy thinks it is OK to put it on his site. A lot of comments were pretty mad and said things like 'I am never voting again unless they change it!". I don't know if I wouldn't vote, but I would be pretty mad.
This article is about how two UT lawmakers are trying to get a law passed that will make voter information (such as addresses, phone numbers and birthdays) only available for "Political, Scholarly, Journalistic, or Governmental purposes." for a fee. Right now, there is a site operated by a man in New Hampshire that has all the information for free. The article explains that the man has websites for some other states, and says he is "making an honest dollar by getting public information that people are selling for a fee and making it available for free." Because he is not currently breaking a law, this proposed one would hopefully close that loop.
When I read the first paragraph of this I was like "What? they shouldn't sell our info!" but then I read the rest and I figured out they were trying to make the info harder to get, and would only sell it for certain purposes. I am still not sure they should be making that info available at all, but I guess it is a step in the right direction. I personally don't see how that guy thinks it is OK to put it on his site. A lot of comments were pretty mad and said things like 'I am never voting again unless they change it!". I don't know if I wouldn't vote, but I would be pretty mad.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Gay Marriage in Utah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriages-in-utah-pending-appeal/2014/01/06/b1af9794-76e9-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html
This article is about gay marriage in Utah. Since everyone seems pretty well informed on the matter, I won't go into detail, but apparently the same sex marriages have been halted in Utah as of today. It said that the supreme court didn't give reasons, dissenting opinions, or hints as to how this will turn out in the long run for Utah, but as of now, a stay has been granted. The article said:
The state said each marriage was an "affront" to its ability to define marriage as between only a man and a woman, as well as to the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of whether state bans violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection.
Then it talked about how Shelby and the Court of appeals denied a stay, and then it talked about the opinion of those opposing a stay:
James E Magelby...said the Supreme Court's stay "is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over...every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."
Then it talked about the role of DOMA in this mess, and how it is unknown how those already married will be dealt with, and ultimately ended with a feeling of "who knows what will happen?"
Wow. Utah. Who woulda thunk? Well where should I start? I guess I will say that I agree with Mrs. McMurray about how the court's job is to make sure that the laws follow the constitution, not just the majority opinion. I do think it is fair to put a stay on the decision though, and bring it to a higher court rather than listen only to the opinion of this court on a matter this impactful. As far as the actual issue being decided here, I am not against giving gay couples all or at least some of the benefits given to married couples. I won't stop them from living their life how they see fit, even if I disagree, but to me personally, the institution of "marriage" is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If it is not that, it isn't marriage. It is a union or partnership or whatever. I think those partnerships can be recognized by the state, but to me they still aren't "marriages". Just my two cents.
This article is about gay marriage in Utah. Since everyone seems pretty well informed on the matter, I won't go into detail, but apparently the same sex marriages have been halted in Utah as of today. It said that the supreme court didn't give reasons, dissenting opinions, or hints as to how this will turn out in the long run for Utah, but as of now, a stay has been granted. The article said:
The state said each marriage was an "affront" to its ability to define marriage as between only a man and a woman, as well as to the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of whether state bans violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection.
Then it talked about how Shelby and the Court of appeals denied a stay, and then it talked about the opinion of those opposing a stay:
James E Magelby...said the Supreme Court's stay "is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over...every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."
Then it talked about the role of DOMA in this mess, and how it is unknown how those already married will be dealt with, and ultimately ended with a feeling of "who knows what will happen?"
Wow. Utah. Who woulda thunk? Well where should I start? I guess I will say that I agree with Mrs. McMurray about how the court's job is to make sure that the laws follow the constitution, not just the majority opinion. I do think it is fair to put a stay on the decision though, and bring it to a higher court rather than listen only to the opinion of this court on a matter this impactful. As far as the actual issue being decided here, I am not against giving gay couples all or at least some of the benefits given to married couples. I won't stop them from living their life how they see fit, even if I disagree, but to me personally, the institution of "marriage" is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If it is not that, it isn't marriage. It is a union or partnership or whatever. I think those partnerships can be recognized by the state, but to me they still aren't "marriages". Just my two cents.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Ohio killer to get 2-drug injection untried in US
article found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/01/ohio-killer-to-get-2-drug-injection-untried-in-us/?intcmp=latestnews
This article explains that in trying to put Dennis McGuire to death for raping and killing a pregnant woman, Ohio was unable to get their usual death penalty drug, pentoarbital, Instead they are going to use two drugs in combination (a sedative and a painkiller) that have not been tried together before in the US. They tried to use this method on another man before, but he "won a reprieve from Gov. John Kasich while the prisons agency studies the feasibility of his desire to donate a kidney to his mother and his heart to his sister after his death." The article then goes into a little more detail about his crime, but if you wanna read it go look at the link. It talks about other state's drugs used for the death penalty, then it says that McGuires lawyers say that the court didn't get to hear all of the abuse and suffering of his childhood, while the prosecution said that he should be put to death because of the nature of his crime.
I do not really want to open this can of worms, but oh well. As far as the death penalty goes, I think it should be used in some situations. There are some crimes that are just so horrible that the criminal should be put to death to prevent future problems. I don't have enough info to know if it should be used in this case, however. As far as the main point of this article, the whole untried-2-drug thing, I am not sure. Is is cruel and unusual punishment? A painkiller and a sedative sure doesn't sound cruel, but it is untried so who knows? I am thinking that they should get his consent to do it that way, and if he says no, they need to find a different way.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/01/ohio-killer-to-get-2-drug-injection-untried-in-us/?intcmp=latestnews
This article explains that in trying to put Dennis McGuire to death for raping and killing a pregnant woman, Ohio was unable to get their usual death penalty drug, pentoarbital, Instead they are going to use two drugs in combination (a sedative and a painkiller) that have not been tried together before in the US. They tried to use this method on another man before, but he "won a reprieve from Gov. John Kasich while the prisons agency studies the feasibility of his desire to donate a kidney to his mother and his heart to his sister after his death." The article then goes into a little more detail about his crime, but if you wanna read it go look at the link. It talks about other state's drugs used for the death penalty, then it says that McGuires lawyers say that the court didn't get to hear all of the abuse and suffering of his childhood, while the prosecution said that he should be put to death because of the nature of his crime.
I do not really want to open this can of worms, but oh well. As far as the death penalty goes, I think it should be used in some situations. There are some crimes that are just so horrible that the criminal should be put to death to prevent future problems. I don't have enough info to know if it should be used in this case, however. As far as the main point of this article, the whole untried-2-drug thing, I am not sure. Is is cruel and unusual punishment? A painkiller and a sedative sure doesn't sound cruel, but it is untried so who knows? I am thinking that they should get his consent to do it that way, and if he says no, they need to find a different way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)