red poppies in a field

Remember

 

Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 77

Thread: Republican Health Care Plan Could End Insurance Coverage for Abortion

  1. #26
    Herder of Hamsters AW Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Server
    Posts
    12,261
    I'm trying to find out about ACA future coverage for viagra and cialis, but am limited to my cellphone currently, and Google is failing me.

    I did find this Time article about the effects of covering conception control prescription drugs/devices.

  2. #27
    New kid...seven years ago! DancingMaenid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,972
    Quote Originally Posted by MaeZe View Post
    Reframing one's position is not spin, nor is it compromise.
    It is when the framing isn't actually what you believe.

    The abortion vs. adoption debate is a good example. A lot of anti-choice people treat adoption as an easy solution ("Put the baby up for adoption! There are so many loving families who want to adopt!"), and the popular (and true) response to that is that adoption doesn't address issues like health complications from pregnancy and childbirth.

    What fewer people are willing to come out and say is how I feel: for me, having an abortion would feel more ethical than having a baby and putting it up for adoption. Abortion fits with my beliefs better than adoption does (which is not to say I'm entirely anti-adoption--I'm interested in possibly adopting one day, and I don't judge other people for choosing to put babies up for adoption because I'm pro-choice and don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer).

    And again, I think reframing can be fine, but it has limits. At some point, we need to have a response for when no framing will work.
    A writing blog.

  3. #28
    practical experience, FTW MaeZe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by DancingMaenid View Post
    It is when the framing isn't actually what you believe.

    The abortion vs. adoption debate is a good example. A lot of anti-choice people treat adoption as an easy solution ("Put the baby up for adoption! There are so many loving families who want to adopt!"), and the popular (and true) response to that is that adoption doesn't address issues like health complications from pregnancy and childbirth.

    What fewer people are willing to come out and say is how I feel: for me, having an abortion would feel more ethical than having a baby and putting it up for adoption. Abortion fits with my beliefs better than adoption does (which is not to say I'm entirely anti-adoption--I'm interested in possibly adopting one day, and I don't judge other people for choosing to put babies up for adoption because I'm pro-choice and don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer).

    And again, I think reframing can be fine, but it has limits. At some point, we need to have a response for when no framing will work.
    I'm not sure where you are getting that I've suggested re-framing the debate and doing nothing else. Reframing is but one aspect, not intended to take anything else away.

    Let's just take one aspect, do you or do you not want to keep abortion legal?

    Most pro-life folks believe abortion is murder or it's against God or whatever. Stalemate.

    You suggest how one frames the argument won't work. I'm not suggesting any magical solution here, just suggesting one can be pro-life without being pro-legal solution.

    Words shape our thoughts, our perceptions, our POVs. It's not about spin, it's about widening one's views, seeing a bigger picture. It's about adding another way to look at things that one might not have previously thought of. You do that with words, with framing.

    Are they pro-life, or pro-control? The pro-life crowd would like to frame the pro-choice crowd as pro-abortion. No one I know is pro-abortion. Why not use the terminology, 'pro-control' rather than using the term, 'pro-life'?

    I've observed that pro-control crowd are not pro-life first, they are pro-control first with the pro-life goal playing second fiddle to the goal of making abortion illegal. By framing you can open a person's eyes to something they might not have thought about. Do they want to stop abortion or just punish people who have them?

    Not spin, not changing anything but the words we speak, post, write because it shapes how one sees things.
    Last edited by MaeZe; 03-20-2017 at 11:54 PM.

  4. #29
    practical experience, FTW MaeZe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by AW Admin View Post
    I'm trying to find out about ACA future coverage for viagra and cialis, but am limited to my cellphone currently, and Google is failing me.

    I did find this Time article about the effects of covering conception control prescription drugs/devices.
    You won't find the ACA mandating drugs for ED because insurers have never denied coverage for those drugs. Rather, insurers have defined ED as a health problem while birth control has been defined as elective.


    Framing.
    Last edited by MaeZe; 03-20-2017 at 11:52 PM.

  5. #30
    Herder of Hamsters AW Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Server
    Posts
    12,261
    Quote Originally Posted by MaeZe View Post
    You won't find the ACA mandating drugs for ED because insurers have never denied coverage for those drugs. Rather, insurers have defined ED as a health problem while birth control has been defined as elective.
    I'm probably missing something obvious, but if it isn't fair to expect tax payers to assist with conception control in the form of pills, IUDs, etc. why is it fair to expect them to pay for ED medications and procedures?

    I'm not being facetious. I can understand (though I disagree) why strangers might feel that my fertility is my problem.

    Why then is a man's inability to achieve an erection my problem?

  6. #31
    All about that action, boss. ElaineA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Seattle suburbs
    Posts
    4,869
    Women's issue.

    Let's just cut to the heart of it. That's all it is. Condoms, OTC. ED pills, NO PROBLEMO. Let them have sex! Female side of the coin? Birth control, coverage for maternity care, NOT ON MY DIME (say the men making the laws).
    I have two Me's now

    The IRL me:

    Random tweety things @outtamylaine

    And this other me:
    reneedominick.com and @Renee_Dominick on Twitter
    Also, this me is a contributor to kINKED, an Erotic Romance Anthology


  7. #32
    Nasty Woman AW Moderator regdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Resist
    Posts
    50,847
    Also, if an insurance plan classifies ED drugs as elective, so they are not covered, doctors just prescribe them for hypertension and bingo-covered. Unlike say the pill which is used for non birth control reasons.

    Link
    My Blog-Updated on 10/9/14 An Open Letter To Hasbro

    Stop by the Weekend Progress Report to brag about your weekly writing accomplishments

    Help find Tracey Cooeedownunder's sister is missing

  8. #33
    practical experience, FTW MaeZe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by AW Admin View Post
    I'm probably missing something obvious, but if it isn't fair to expect tax payers to assist with conception control in the form of pills, IUDs, etc. why is it fair to expect them to pay for ED medications and procedures?

    I'm not being facetious. I can understand (though I disagree) why strangers might feel that my fertility is my problem.

    Why then is a man's inability to achieve an erection my problem?
    Of course it's not fair. Women have been pointing that out since Viagra first came on the market. Elaine said it better than I.


    Edited to add, just checked on the Reproductive Parity Act in WA State:

    http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?Bi...1647&Year=2015

    I went with a Planned Parenthood group to Olympia to lobby for this bill. It remains stalled in committee even after passing the House.
    Last edited by MaeZe; 03-21-2017 at 12:49 AM.

  9. #34
    Beastly Fido Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    15,188
    Quote Originally Posted by silverrose77 View Post
    Everyone overthinks everything in this day and age. Schools spent too much time making us weigh options and not enough time teaching us to close our eyes and leap.
    Isn't closing one's eyes and leaping one of the reasons unintended pregnancies happen? I'm really not sure how one would teach an academic subject, whether it be science, math, writing, or history from the perspective of "closing one's eyes and leaping" either. I suppose that might work for choosing a project or a course of study, but once you start collecting data or doing a job that requires technical knowledge, analysis and critical thinking are pretty darned important.

    I don't think the government belongs in healthcare the same way I don't think they belong in employment. When you purchase healthcare, the contract is between you and your insurance carrier. If they don't want to provide elective abortions, they shouldn't be forced too. On the same token, they shouldn't be able to deny a medically necessary abortion the same way they can't deny other medically necessary surgeries. (coming from someone who had the D&C procedure after my daughter was born and STILL had to yell at the insurance company. Note for anyone with BCBS - if they deny you, you have to call back 3 times before they finally clear the claim to be paid. PSA).
    The problem is, the free market has been a real failure when it's come to providing affordable, quality healthcare for all. It's also been terrible at keeping costs down. Health care costs are rising everywhere, but they're lower per capita (both in terms of private and public health care expenditures) in other countries than the US.

    And health is something that affects society as a whole, and the failure of some people to purchase insurance or access preventative health care affects everyone else's costs (when those uninsured people end up in the emergency room).

    Cafeteria plan health care is a problem when people have no idea which services they and their family members might need some day. AWaiting to purchase an option until it's needed is a guaranteed way for insurance costs to go up. Spreading costs around is much more efficient, even when most of us end up paying for some services we don't need right now, or will never need, personally.

    With health, it's never just about the individual.

    As for things like contraception or abortion being elective procedures that should only be covered if someone's life is in danger, well, wouldn't that go for almost every other drug, surgery, or treatment as well?

    Say that someone has broken their leg doing some recreational sport or other voluntary activity. Why should an insurer (or the government) be required to pay for an accident that happened because of that person's lifestyle choices. The person can probably live with a badly healed leg. Sure they'll be disabled, in pain, and possibly have future earning potential or prospects diminished, but that's their fault for choosing to engage in a dangerous activity. Same for health issues that are affected by behaviors like unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, smoking etc. Should insurers be allowed to refuse coverage for type-2 diabetes or lung cancer?

    My question is why is female sexuality (and its potential consequences) the one health-related activity that many people in our society think is a "lifestyle choice" that other people (and insurers) shouldn't have to pay for? It's as if they honestly think there are no benefits or legitimate reasons for a woman to be sexually active outside of motherhood, and that pregnancy, childbearing, and being a parent have no effect on a woman's future health or well being.

    Also consider a child, especially one its parents can't support, or one who ends up in the system because she gives it up, will end up costing society far more than contraception or an abortion.
    Last edited by Roxxsmom; 03-21-2017 at 01:10 AM.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  10. #35
    practical experience, FTW
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Who ran amok in Kent
    Posts
    35,014
    Quote Originally Posted by silverrose77 View Post
    I don't think the government belongs in healthcare the same way I don't think they belong in employment.
    It would be a digression to this thread, I suppose, but I'd like to see you elaborate on this. Every government in the history of civilization has "employed" people, for all manner of good reasons. As far as "belonging" in healthcare, would you do away for the CDC? The FDA? OSHA? Where does this "get government out of everything" stop? At . . . everything?

    caw
    Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.

    -- Terry Pratchett

  11. #36
    New kid...seven years ago! DancingMaenid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,972
    Quote Originally Posted by silverrose77 View Post
    I don't think the government belongs in healthcare the same way I don't think they belong in employment.
    The problem, as Roxxsmom pointed out, is that free-market healthcare isn't affordable for many people.

    I used to pay for insurance totally on my own when I was in a job that didn't provide it, and for me (a healthy young adult) it cost around $150 a month for slightly more than bare minimum coverage and a $5,000 deductible. That cost was high for me at the time, and the insurance was essentially good for only two things: very routine care like annual exams and flu shots and dire emergencies. I figured if I was in a car accident or something, it wouldn't matter that I couldn't afford the deductible because I'd need the medical care regardless, and at least the insurance would hopefully put a limit on my debt. But what ended up happening was that I avoided having diagnostic tests done to make sure that a lump I'd found was really benign because chances were good that it was and I couldn't justify going into debt to make sure.

    Having insurance through my employer has been a godsend. When I injured my knee last year, I could actually get it looked at without debating if it was really worth the money!

    For family members of mine who are older or have health problems, the situation is more dire. I have an aunt who's paying close to $1,000 a month on health insurance because she doesn't have it through her job and doesn't qualify for tax credits or Medicaid.

    It would be great if free-market healthcare were a viable option, but there would need to be major changes to how healthcare is priced. I think that's possible to an extent. Sometimes prices really do seem ridiculous. But I think there will always be limits to what consumers can pay for. And government regulations can be used for good as well as ill. One of the major features of the ACA is that preexisting conditions have to be covered, which is major.
    A writing blog.

  12. #37
    Beastly Fido Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    15,188
    Quote Originally Posted by DancingMaenid View Post
    It would be great if free-market healthcare were a viable option, but there would need to be major changes to how healthcare is priced. I think that's possible to an extent. Sometimes prices really do seem ridiculous. But I think there will always be limits to what consumers can pay for. And government regulations can be used for good as well as ill. One of the major features of the ACA is that preexisting conditions have to be covered, which is major.
    The pre-existing condition thing is huge. My brother is an oncologist and a cancer survivor. He's got his own practice, and he couldn't get health insurance for himself before the ACA. Even after decades of being cancer free and in relatively good health, he's considered too risky to cover. He does need routine diagnostic tests most people don't, because there is a small chance of the original cancer recurring, or a new one coming later in life (because the chemo he had increases risk certain health problems later on), so from a pure business standpoint, it's a smart decision for insurers to refuse him.

    This is the problem with the business model for health care.

    The biggest flaw of the ACA, imo, is that it preserved private health insurance as the default. If other countries are anything to go by, it would be far cheaper per person to have a single payer system, and such would result in better health care for Americans overall.

    Yes, it means that some people's tax money might contribute to some treatments or procedures for others they don't personally need or approve of. This happens already with private insurance and with tax dollars. It seems rather suspicious to me that certain services related to women's health care in particular are the ones that always get singled out these days.
    Last edited by Roxxsmom; 03-22-2017 at 12:16 AM.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  13. #38
    down the rabbit hole of research... CWatts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    Yes, it means that some people's tax money might contribute to some treatments or procedures for others they don't personally need or approve of. This happens already with private insurance and with tax dollars. It seems rather suspicious to me that certain services related to women's health care in particular are the ones that always get singled out these days.
    Because it's not like we have our tax dollars already going to things like, oh, bombing people.... /sarcasm

    It's often said the US is the only advanced/developed/"civilized" country that doesn't have some form of socialized healthcare. Maybe if we're always the exception (see also our barely-existent worker protections and horrific murder rate) we're not really part of the club, eh?

  14. #39
    Herder of Hamsters AW Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Server
    Posts
    12,261
    Quote Originally Posted by CWatts View Post
    It's often said the US is the only advanced/developed/"civilized" country that doesn't have some form of socialized healthcare. Maybe if we're always the exception (see also our barely-existent worker protections and horrific murder rate) we're not really part of the club, eh?
    This Forbes article might be of interest: Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Care Coverage

    One of the take aways for me is that we are going backwards, and at best, treading water, in terms of expanding coverage and benefits.

  15. #40
    practical experience, FTW Tazlima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by AW Admin View Post
    This Forbes article might be of interest: Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Care Coverage

    One of the take aways for me is that we are going backwards, and at best, treading water, in terms of expanding coverage and benefits.
    That was a really interesting read. I never thought about it that way before. Thanks for the link!
    "One of the hardest things to do, I think, is learn to trust your own creativity." - Ambrosia

  16. #41
    Beastly Fido Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    15,188
    Quote Originally Posted by AW Admin View Post
    This Forbes article might be of interest: Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Care Coverage

    One of the take aways for me is that we are going backwards, and at best, treading water, in terms of expanding coverage and benefits.
    That looks like a really interesting article, and one I'll need to read in depth after work (bookmarking for later). This quote, in particular, caught my eye.


    When it seems like people are voting against their interests, I have probably failed to understand their interests. We cannot begin to understand Election 2016 until we acknowledge the power and reach of socialism for white people.
    This is in the context of many working-class, white people wanting to go back to the times when the culture of secure jobs with middle-class incomes and good benefits were available to people like them, not just the educated "upper-middle" class professionals.

    However, I'm still wondering why they've turned against labor unions (voting for union busters like Scot Walker, who are turning formerly "blue collar" states into "right to work" states), since powerful unions were integral in getting working-class white people these things. I get there's resentment that public sector employees are almost the only folks with unions anymore, but why do they want to take these things they once had away from other people instead of trying to regain them for themselves?

    Regardless, it would be moot if one didn't have to get health care through one's job or buy it oneself (and even those of us who have jobs or spouses with job-provided insurance, or purchase are paying more and more out of pocket for it too). I wish there were a way to sell single payer to people who still hope for a return to the old days (but without strong unions to negotiate for them).
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  17. #42
    down the rabbit hole of research... CWatts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by AW Admin View Post
    This Forbes article might be of interest: Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Care Coverage

    One of the take aways for me is that we are going backwards, and at best, treading water, in terms of expanding coverage and benefits.
    That was a good read. It's the healthcare/safety net side of the redlining and other banking discrimination Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about in The Case for Reparations.

  18. #43
    Nasty Woman AW Moderator regdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Resist
    Posts
    50,847
    Mike Pence and the GOP want to cut birth control, maternity care and breast cancer screenings. The link I have is to the Twitter picture of of the meeting

    Link
    My Blog-Updated on 10/9/14 An Open Letter To Hasbro

    Stop by the Weekend Progress Report to brag about your weekly writing accomplishments

    Help find Tracey Cooeedownunder's sister is missing

  19. #44
    Livin' la vida biblia ASeiple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    727
    This is goddamn hilarious. Scary, but hilarious. They can't step away from their special interests for a single damned second, and it'll drag them into failure after failure. They're squandering any opportunity to actually do some good for their voters in exchange for moronic floundering and mansplaining.

    Hell, even their own party ain't buying it. Enough of'em know it'd be the death knell to their re-election chances that they don't want to take the risk.

    Buuuuuuuut....

    After last year's upsets, nothing's set in stone. So I'll sit and I'll watch and I'll call a rep and beyond that, I'll hope it collapses like all other efforts have. Because if that 3% chance gets rolled, it's gonna get bad. Really bad.
    My Twitter
    My Blog
    My Facebook Page
    My most recent release:

    Dire: Wars

  20. #45
    practical experience, FTW Twick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    That looks like a really interesting article, and one I'll need to read in depth after work (bookmarking for later). This quote, in particular, caught my eye.



    This is in the context of many working-class, white people wanting to go back to the times when the culture of secure jobs with middle-class incomes and good benefits were available to people like them, not just the educated "upper-middle" class professionals.

    However, I'm still wondering why they've turned against labor unions (voting for union busters like Scot Walker, who are turning formerly "blue collar" states into "right to work" states), since powerful unions were integral in getting working-class white people these things. I get there's resentment that public sector employees are almost the only folks with unions anymore, but why do they want to take these things they once had away from other people instead of trying to regain them for themselves?

    Regardless, it would be moot if one didn't have to get health care through one's job or buy it oneself (and even those of us who have jobs or spouses with job-provided insurance, or purchase are paying more and more out of pocket for it too). I wish there were a way to sell single payer to people who still hope for a return to the old days (but without strong unions to negotiate for them).
    It's peculiar, all right. I suspect part of it is due to long-term anti-union propaganda, and part with the unfortunate dark side of American unions (getting in bed with the mob, sacrificing individual workers for "the good of the union".)

  21. #46
    All about that action, boss. ElaineA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Seattle suburbs
    Posts
    4,869
    A reporter asked Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas (aged 80!) today if he supports scrapping Essential Health Benefits. His snark-edged reply, "I wouldn't want to lose my mammograms."

    The open, hostile misogyny of the "leaders" of this country is stunning. You'd think none of them had a female family member, or any women constituents at all. I hope that statement comes back to bite him...somewhere painful...if he makes it to his 2020 reelection.

    ETA: Apparently he has apologized. Fine, but I still wouldn't trust him on the health care bill one iota.
    Last edited by ElaineA; 03-24-2017 at 02:45 AM.
    I have two Me's now

    The IRL me:

    Random tweety things @outtamylaine

    And this other me:
    reneedominick.com and @Renee_Dominick on Twitter
    Also, this me is a contributor to kINKED, an Erotic Romance Anthology


  22. #47
    Just Another Lazy Perfectionist Brightdreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,702
    Quote Originally Posted by ElaineA View Post
    A reporter asked Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas (aged 80!) today if he supports scrapping Essential Health Benefits. His snark-edged reply, "I wouldn't want to lose my mammograms."

    The open, hostile misogyny of the "leaders" of this country is stunning. You'd think none of them had a female family member, or any women constituents at all. I hope that statement comes back to bite him...somewhere painful...if he makes it to his 2020 reelection.
    Would be nice if it came back to bite the entire party in the rear, but keep in mind who their supporters voted for in November... knowing that man's stance on women...

    The misogyny is nothing new, unfortunately, and it's behind pretty much every issue relating to women. Females are considered lesser beings, dismissible entities, disposable sperm receptacles/fetal incubators (if one gets sick or breaks, just grab a newer model off the shelf), attitudes justified all too often by religion and other unassailable alternative facts - and a disturbing number of women believe it and vote accordingly, too.

    And, IIRC, men can get breast cancer, too...
    - Brightdreamer
    Brightdreamer's Book Reviews

    "Inspiration will strike you, and leave you for dead. The police will do nothing."
    - from The Daily Humorscope

  23. #48
    practical experience, FTW MaeZe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by ElaineA View Post
    A reporter asked Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas (aged 80!) today if he supports scrapping Essential Health Benefits. His snark-edged reply, "I wouldn't want to lose my mammograms."

    The open, hostile misogyny of the "leaders" of this country is stunning. You'd think none of them had a female family member, or any women constituents at all. I hope that statement comes back to bite him...somewhere painful...if he makes it to his 2020 reelection.

    ETA: Apparently he has apologized. Fine, but I still wouldn't trust him on the health care bill one iota.
    Can we eliminate prostate care while we are at it?

  24. #49
    All about that action, boss. ElaineA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Seattle suburbs
    Posts
    4,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Brightdreamer View Post
    and a disturbing number of women believe it and vote accordingly, too.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaeZe View Post
    Can we eliminate prostate care while we are at it?
    Rep. Jackie Speier (CA-14) replied in the same vein: "I don't want to lose my prostate cancer screenings either."
    I have two Me's now

    The IRL me:

    Random tweety things @outtamylaine

    And this other me:
    reneedominick.com and @Renee_Dominick on Twitter
    Also, this me is a contributor to kINKED, an Erotic Romance Anthology


  25. #50
    Beastly Fido Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    15,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Twick View Post
    It's peculiar, all right. I suspect part of it is due to long-term anti-union propaganda, and part with the unfortunate dark side of American unions (getting in bed with the mob, sacrificing individual workers for "the good of the union".)
    There's definitely an issue with the latter, though it didn't seem to bother workers when the unions were successful at getting them a good deal from their employers. So maybe it's a matter of unions being gradually neutered, to the point where they couldn't do as much to make jobs secure and well compensated, and some plants even being closed (there was one Chrysler plant here in CA that was notorious), because things were out of control.

    And unions can't do a darned thing about the two biggest threats to American workers--automation and outsourcing to countries with a lower overall cost of living. Add to that the fact that public sector workers are nearly everyone's favorite peeve (because who hasn't had a bad day at the DMV), and the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater.

    I'm just guessing that this is the reason, though, and I still find it puzzling that workers were so quick to abandon the party that was historically pro labor (and embrace the one that is actively anti labor), when they're so unwilling to give up everything else related to the dream of returning to the days of ample manufacturing jobs with good pay, security, and benefits. The fact is, Trump can't do a darned things about automation or outsourcing either, and of the two, he's only talking about one (by bashing free trade agreements and making a few token gestures to bargain for jobs), while completely ignoring the factor that is possibility much more significant (automation). To be fair, no one is really talking about automation and what it means, not only for former blue-collar workers' job prospects, but for educated professionals.

    More wealth than ever is being generated, but less and less is "trickling down."
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Custom Search