Sucks to live there..
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
14
Breaking News! Azerbaijan to ban Watchtower Magazines
by raymond frantz inpolice and other security services have been handed a list of banned books that they will seek to remove and destroy in raids planned for the future in azerbaijan.the list mostly contains muslim texts and books such as those by dr. said nursi a muslim theologian.
i addition , this list contains .... .
read the rest of the post here.
-
-
24
Angry Health Care Rant
by ctrwtf infor those of you who live in truly first world countries (uk, australia, canada, etc etc) you can skip this.
for those of us stuck in the usa, not a first world country at all, please feel free to read on.. i've done my best to be fiscally responsible my whole life.
i bought my first house at age 25. and because of having a little loot to protect and not wanting to end up in some overcrowded emergency room waiting hours to be seen by doogie howser, i purchased health insurance.
-
MeanMrMustard
jgnat,
I responded to the video you posted above (vlogbrothers) in a previous thread. I agreed with most of what he said, but I don't see that as an all out reason to go into single payer. Here is what I said in that other thread, since that thread was very long:
Your first video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M&feature=player_embedded) - I did watch it but I did not comment on it. The maker of the video (vlogbrothers) fires off many many points, hard and fast. It makes it tough to respond to everything there. However, since I agree with a lot of what he says, it is somewhat easier. I have no reason to really disagree; he is right, we spend way too much on healthcare. The problem is not over utilization, it is not that we are inherently sicker, and it is not because things just cost a lot here. I keep bringing it up that people aught to ask why it costs so much, not attempt to just pay for it. I also do not think it is because of inelastic demand. It is because we have systematically, over a long time, gone away from the free market and caused all sorts of distortions in the pricing mechanism.
One interesting point - he mentions malpractice insurance somewhere around minute 4. He states that it can't be that either because Texas enacted Tort reform (although I don't know the details, I can assume it was meaningful reform for the sake of the argument) and the cost of healthcare fell only 0.1%. I have no reason to disagree, after all, what is pushing the price down? It is not enough just to remove the barrier for the price to fall, you must also have a meaningful market with competition to push down the prices. That doesn't happen the way we currently do things (employer based insurance or medicare or medicaid).
I think the point I've been trying hard to make is that the way things are now - as messed up as they are - have come about by a process, a process that started with wage controls during WWII, and continued on to today. More and more of the free market was replaced with subsidies, distortions, or special privileges....
MMM
-
24
Angry Health Care Rant
by ctrwtf infor those of you who live in truly first world countries (uk, australia, canada, etc etc) you can skip this.
for those of us stuck in the usa, not a first world country at all, please feel free to read on.. i've done my best to be fiscally responsible my whole life.
i bought my first house at age 25. and because of having a little loot to protect and not wanting to end up in some overcrowded emergency room waiting hours to be seen by doogie howser, i purchased health insurance.
-
MeanMrMustard
@ctrwtf:
I have said it here before, and I still believe: The problem is not the market. A true market would help matters. We spend too little time asking why the cost of health services is so expensive and instead focus on just figuring out a way of paying for it. There are good economic reasons why some (including me) oppose the ACA, as well as single payer programs. It is not just partisan politics. There are also good economic reasons why the consumers must be attached to the cost in some way (see link below).
That's the back story. Now the reason for my rant is that a-hole Republicans still are fuming about so-called Obamacare. I find it ironic that the party that touts personal responsibility doesn't want to part with a nickel to be personally responsible about their own health needs. "I'm young and don't need health insurance." Really? If you get in an accident or need your appendix removed it's going to cost anywhere from 50K to a million bucks. Do you have that cash floating around? "No, but I'll pay it off over time." Guess what Einstein? The hospital is going to send you to collections in three months time then write off the loss and pass the cost on to the next consumer. That said consumer being me, the guy that pays for health insurance at an inflated rate to cover your irresponsibility. Now let me state for the record at this point, I'm not mad about those that because of personal circumstances cannot afford to be responsible for their own needs. I'm mad at people that complain that the govt is forcing them to be responsible. BTW, republicans have yet to forward ANY ideas to solve this enormous issue.
I try to view the issue outside of the Republican/Democrat framework. But I wonder if you are viewing a free market solution as a lack of solution - as if the only valid solutions are in the domain of new government programs? So, when a more conservative Republican tries to speak about returning to a market, you feel he/she would just like to undermine the current law that was, at least, an attempt to fix things. I do agree, we have a messed up healthcare system now, but we are far from a real market.
Personally, I think the best healthcare systems in the world are single payer, govt sponsored. But if you dare to forward that idea, you get the inevitable, "Ya, but people from all over the world come to the USA for advanced medical treatment maaaan." Okay, less than a handful fo people come here every year for some exotic treatment. Meanwhile, life expectancy in every other first world country is surpassing the good ole US of A. They're also spending less per capita on medical treatment.
I don’t give that response normally. We went down this path about 8 months ago. Take a look at this thread, starting on pp. 11. I defend a free market in health care, with much of the same responses.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/current/262749/11/So-are-Republicans-now-openly-terrorists
Incidentally, that thread was also ragging on Republicans. There’s not much difference between the two parties these days.
When consumers are separated from the cost (the price), it means that they aren’t paying attention to the information conveyed within that price. The doctor too doesn’t get a good view of the real demand. It looks inflated because a rich single payer is paying for the increase in care usage. There will be an expansion for sure, and prices will rise. The incentive to expand comes from more money flooding into the system, whereas, if a prices were to fall from a real market, the expansion would come from actual demand (people being able to afford the care). In time, prices will continue to rise - after all, what keeps them from rising? Demand looks off the chart to the providers, and the price will rise. Eventually, it will have to stop. Price fixing (which will cause shortages) or rationing will start to occur.
To be fair to all those people (you make them sound like hippies ... maaan.. :) ) telling these stories of coming to the USA, it makes a lot sense. Once the rationing kicks in, you might find yourself on a waiting list for an important procedure, one that really can’t wait.
I'm not sure if this is the forum for such a secular discussion. But I wiil say that the dubs as a people could care less about being fiscally responsible. Janitors and pioneers don't usually have enough to spend on such things as personal responsibility. Maybe they should purchase some "miracle wheat" to deal with what ails them.
I don’t know about that. I know a lot of currently active JWs that are fiscally responsible, on matters of health care and otherwise. On matters of health care, they too are dealing with the increased cost like everyone else.
MMM
-
36
Do You Believe That Jehovah's Witnesses Should Be Outlawed As They Are In Some Countries?
by minimus inor do you believe they have the right to practice their religion, as they do?.
-
MeanMrMustard
No.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
Band on the Run,
You are right to mention this. This thread started out about Finland, but that not where the thread is now.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
Hi Giordano,
I read the cases you link to. They are not the same. The shunning comes from the currently active members of the WT.
Rebecca Hancock had a case of slander until she went to Fox news and outed herself. She was persuing a relationship with a man out of marriage and her current church didn't like that. She terminated her membership, and the church decided it was going to present her wrongs publically to the congragation (probably read a list off one Sunday or something). As you know, JWs don't do this because it could turn to slander. Her case evaporated when she went to Fox news and confirmed everything was true on national TV. Again, she had the freedom to leave. She did. Good for her.
Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville link: This is a case of a woman, Marian Guinn, who wanted to have a relationship with a man that the church didn't approve of. The church told her no, she quit. Again, freedom of assocation confirmed right there. But here is where it devates drastically from the WT: the church rejected her decision, then excommunicated her, and then went to all the local churches and told them what she had done. This was the problem. The WT is not doing this. They will either terminate their association, or the member will. Their policy of shunning applies to the rest of the currently active members, and they don't go around telling local churches the offenses of the former member, and they don't make the offenses public to the congregation.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
Hi Fraz,
I don't think I am missing the point. I know what you are saying. I just disagree. Take, for example, the right you listed: "If you are so set on what right is being infringed - it is the right not to be subject to psychological abuse."
Can you define "psychological abuse"? Can you guarantee that ambigious phrase won't be used sometime in the future to limit other liberties we might enjoy? You do realize that making a "right" out of that may impose some unintended duties on individuals later on, and I don't just mean the WT - I mean simple people? What about the husband that has a wife and family but decides he doesn't want to be with them anymore. Is he allowed to make that choice? Or is an activist court going to come in later and say, "Well, it seems that his leaving constitutes psychological abuse, even in a small degree, and therefore the wife's human right is violated." Or what if it is decided, by wise politicians of course, that being raised a JW is abuse? Should their children be taken away by force? This is not too far fetched, after all, besty did say that he feels it is abuse to be raised in high control groups. What if you are not in a high control group, but want to home school your children? What if the local public school is horrible (as a lot are in inner cities) and a concerned parent, limited by lack of free choice in schools, wants to home school? Again, this is not far fetched. Simply google “home school abuse”. There are individuals who are of the opinion that home schooling is abuse in and of itself.
What if I decide, for reasons OTHER THAN religion, that I don't want to talk to my mother and father (or children)? Should I be forced because it may be viewed as abuse?
You mentioned bullying. Do you consider name calling “bullying”? When I was growing up, “bullying” was being physically assaulted.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
You're right, the shunning comes from the members.
But how many do you really think would do it if they weren't under threat of shunning (for noncompliance) themselves?
A few, maybe 20%. There is no way to know for sure, but I think it is safe to say it would be some small minority. But I don’t see the point as it relates to human rights. How many people would buy a new car if they weren’t under a budget?
Good for them. If that kind of passive rebellion against the GB's fatwas were more common, things would get really interesting.
I believe it is more common than one might think.
Don't make the mistake of confusing belief with compliance.
Besides, just how much of a "belief" can it really be, if (as a hypothetical scenario) the GB could abandon the WT's shunning policy with a word, and 7 million JWs worldwide suddenly felt free to associate with their DFed friends and relatives?
Let’s say it is 20% belief and 80% compliance, as I guessed in the first answer above. I don’t think it is relevant to the issue of “rights”, and freedom of association. They would feel free to associate with DFed (or DAed) individuals because the organization they are a part of says it is OK, no dispute from me on that. But by having the current policy, what "right" is the WT violating? We all think the WT abuses its authority when it comes to former members. But we give the WT that authority by choice, and we can take it away - and by this I mean the current active members that choose to do the shunning and comply (belief or not) with the WT. The government on the other hand is a different story. If the power is granted to the government to smash the WT in this regard, then fine. But the government still has that power afther the WT bashing is over. It shouldn't have that power at all.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
Vidiot is correct to point out the "coercing" that occurs to those who no longer can support the "error" of the teachings of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
One only has to read and or watch (you tube) to become familiar with this. Add the testimony in the Douglas Walsh trial about supporting error and you can see what Vidiot said is right on the money.
Also, I can tell you personally, that at this moment I know several who are going to meetings only because they have been threatened with loosing their families. Only because they want to save their wife and children. To see people I care for go thru this is my greatest source of anxiety. I can only describe the feeling, as like having a dream where you watch someone drown and you can not do anything about it. Problem is the coercion is real and happening as we speak.
If one wants to go further into research about coercion inside the "organization", read about Manuela Dormain's experience. She was the mother of an abused boy. For years her son had a behavior problem. Only by reading her son's letter to his girl friend did she find out he had a bad thing happen to him when he was young. Manuela was compelled to warn a father about the possibility that his son was also abused. The father turned out to be an elder who knew abuot Compos being an abuser. Not only was Manuela disapointed that this elder did not warn her, but the elder coerced her to not go forward with making known Compos abuse of her son.
What did Manuela do? She and her family did not allow themselves to be coerced. Watchtower settled out of court with a gag order. How much? I do not know. It is not the money. It is that someone faced the threat and came out the better for it.
Watchtower has first amendment rights. Watchtower has a substantial legal team. Watchtower has financial assets.
What Watchtower also has is a record of wrongdoing that the public needs to know about. Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.
If and when something else comes up then: "here I am send me" LOL
Make Lemonade,
Surely you are correct! Shunning does hurt. There are many examples. We could all probably look to the members on this site for more than enough of these - and if not here, then just read through In Search of Christian Freedom by Ray Franz.
But I am not ready to push toward some sort of government involvement - as if that would stop the shunning. JWs went to the gas chambers with Jews for their faith. JWs die of lack of blood transfusions for their faith. As long as the WT says shunning is Biblical, you’ll have shunning. Period. No matter what laws are passed. And the law (like most laws) will have the opposite effect. But in the haste to address the “human rights” tragedy, we loose sight of what a real “right” is. We start to assert all sorts of positive rights that may put duties on others and undermine some liberties you, as an individual, may want to enjoy in the future.
I agree with you when you say this: “Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.” That statement is spot on.
MMM
-
51
BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees
by raymond frantz inthe finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.
finland attacks judicial committees.
please like and share article so more get to see it!.
-
MeanMrMustard
The issue isn't that human rights are potentially violated when someone is expelled from a religious organization...
...it's that human rights are potentially violated when an individual voluntarily leaves a religious organization for personal reasons, and any family members or acquaintences who might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact are, instead, compelled to shun him under direct or indirect threat of expulsion themselves.
Because they are willing members of said religion? So you are also saying that shunning itself violates some human right? What right is it? It can’t be the right to leave a religion, because the DFed individual already has left the religion. Is it a right to join a religion and not abide by the internal rules of the religion/group if you don’t want to? (since we are talking about active members that “might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact”).
I know a bunch of Witnesses now that are in regular contact with DFed friends. They make that choice, and accept the consequences. Most of the time nothing comes of it. But I know a lot of former witnesses that would love to talk to their families - but their families don't want to talk to them. It sucks big time, but they believe it is right.
In addition, this also has the potential effect of making the individual himself feel coerced to remain associated with an organization that he otherwise would not, and what's more, accept and promote an ideology that he can no longer in good faith honestly subscribe to...
...which is also, arguably, a potential violation of human rights.
Why is this a violation of a human right? Because it puts someone in a bad spot? They willingly baptized themselves. Perhaps they were duped - as many of us were. But you do have the right (a true negative right) to leave, knowing what you got yourself into (the shunning doctrine isn’t really kept a secret). What if I “feel” coerced into living in a crappy apartment because I can’t afford a big one? What if a wife “feels” coerced into staying with her husband, when she would rather leave, but stays because she could never achieve the level of income as her husband. Are you saying that the wife’s human rights are violated because circumstances are bad for her?
"Feeling" coerced isn't the same as being coerced. Is is a human right not to "feel coerced"?
MMM