Remember Allena Hansen?

User avatar
by
Published on June 18th, 2009, 10:51 am
Rift: News
  
She's the woman who fought off a black bear, which tore off her face, ran 10 minutes over rough terrain to her car, and drove four miles to the nearest fire station.

bear_attack.jpg


Unfortunately that was the start of her troubles, not the end:

Last summer, while working on my ranch in the Southern Sierra mountains, I was attacked and badly mauled by a predatory black bear. Although my face was ripped off, and I was blinded, I was able to make my way back to my vehicle and drive myself down a rutted mountain road to a fire station for help. From there I was airlifted to UCLA Medical Center where a team of nearly a hundred people put me back together in a grueling seven-hour emergency surgery.

That was the easy part...

Although I’ve maintained a private individual health insurance policy with Blue Cross of California for thirty (30) years, they have, at every turn of my ordeal, tried to waffle, obfuscate, or outright deny me benefits for medical care. Because my injuries were mostly to my eyes, my facial structure (including my nose and most of my teeth,) and obviously, cosmetic appearance, my policy “does not cover services,” for putting me back together, and demands 30% co-pays before they will pay for the hugely expensive ($300,000 and counting,) reconstructive surgeries I need to regain a degree of functionality.
I am, not surprisingly, disabled and unable to work. My assets and savings were exhausted long ago, (their deductable and co-pays reset every calendar year and my reassembly is a multi-year project.)

I always thought having a "good" insurance policy was not only my civic responsibility, but would cover my medical expenses should I ever face a catastrophic illness. But it turns out that Blue Cross's $2,500 deductable is actually more in the order of an $11,500 deductable before they kick in for 100% of what they deem "reasonable and customary" care. Even that determination is subjective and skewered in their favor.

All this is on top of Blue Cross's insanely expensive monthly premiums -a difficult proposition for me given that SSI disability only pays me $654-oops, just reduced to $625-- a month on which to live.

Twice in the last month, Blue Cross denied payment for ophthalmologic consults I had arranged to see if some of my eyesight can be retained. Then there is the $600+ per month Blue Cross doesn’t cover in specialized prescription eyedrops I need to save what is left. My other medications are similarly extortionate and not covered.

MediCal, for which I now qualify, does not have any participating ophthalmo-plastic, maxilla-facial, periodontic, or reconstructive surgeons here in Kern Kounty who are qualified to do these surgeries. Nor will they or Blue Cross pay for anesthesia if I DO find someone willing to do them! (There’s nothing like having an acute PTSD episode when you’re trying to lie very still for a delicate bone or tissue graft.)

On the plus side, I DID fight off a bear attack and survive to tell the tale.

I am also the daughter, sister, mother, sister-in-law, niece, and former wife of physicians–and spent my 20’s working in the medical malpractice insurance industry–so I do know the ins and outs of the system in detail. Medical insurance is a license to print money...by the industry's own admission.

If anyone is interested in using me as a "spokesvictim," I’ve documented my injuries and recovery in both journalistic and photographic detail and have a complete record of my insurance travails.

I am in an unique position to advocate for getting the insurance industry out of the medical care system–and am more than willing to offer up my privacy and dignity in order to do so. I am free to travel and testify, am articulate and funny, and have had highly positive responses to my public appearances thus far. (If you Google me, many of these are posted. I also have DVD’s of most of them.)

Allena Hansen

Via
Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false, and by politicians as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65CE
June 18th, 2009, 10:51 am
 
Makes me disgusted.... really does...

Seriously... Obama needs to stop swatting flies and get his butt in gear.... or I will not vote for him again.
May the fetus you save be gay.
June 18th, 2009, 10:54 am
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
Liv wrote:Makes me disgusted.... really does...

Seriously... Obama needs to stop swatting flies and get his butt in gear.... or I will not vote for him again.

Really. You'd not vote for the man because he's not perfect? And take the risk of letting America elect Sarah? :roll:
June 18th, 2009, 12:14 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
That is the problem with a binary system. It encourages absolutist positions.

So far we haven't seen anyone who looks capable of leading the GOP. I think they're going to need defeats in 2010 and 2012 before they get their act together, eject the idelogically pure and decide to appeal to the mainstream. So Obama will win by default. But there's still time.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false, and by politicians as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65CE
June 18th, 2009, 2:31 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8548
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
It seems to me that Obama is walking the world's most narrow tightrope. He may not get to all the goals that everyone wants, but his job is far more difficult than anything any president since FDR has faced. Give him credit for the successes he does get to, but don't condemn him for not delivering 100%
June 18th, 2009, 2:44 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Liv wrote:Makes me disgusted.... really does...

Seriously... Obama needs to stop swatting flies and get his butt in gear.... or I will not vote for him again.


People need to get really active politically if they care about universal health coverage. This story is not just horrifying for the sake of the woman who was so badly injured, it should scare everybody else in the country. A lot of Americans have the odd notion that anybody in that kind of situation would automatically get the care s/he needs. After all, she had insurance and that should have protected her, right? Wrong! And there is NOBODY in this country (excepting presidents and national legislators/ex-presidents and ex-legislators) who can be positive they will not ever face a comparable situation.

The forces fighting universal care are the same ones who won the battle against Hillary Clinton's plan back in the 1993. They will win this time too if the American people do not rise up in rage and demand that not only is there reform, but a national option such as Medicare for anyone who wishes to sign up for it--is part of the reform. The reason the insurance companies and some doctors are fighting reform so hard is, of course, the money they make under the current system. Please be aware that many physicians are in support of universal coverage. However, they know that the payment rates of Medicaid and Medicare are too low to keep them in business. So they are extremely worried that there is the potential that a bad reform bill could end up driving many doctors out of business at the very time that more doctors will be needed. However, they understand that the current system is being bled dry by the insurance companies and others who profit from the system but don't provide one second of care to anybody. This is just not sustainable. So, write and phone your senators and congressmen and tell them that your future votes are dependent upon this issue. Tell them you demand that the reform be passed NOW and that it includes an option for Medicare for all.

By the way, there is a rally in Washington on June 25th for national health care. Anyone who cares deeply about this might want to go if at all possible for them.
June 18th, 2009, 3:21 pm
Questioner
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Really. You'd not vote for the man because he's not perfect? And take the risk of letting America elect Sarah? :roll:


Mark my words... if health care and Doma are not taken care of he will not get my vote.... Bottom line...

I'm not saying I'll vote retardican, but he won't get my vote.... and that's about all I have.... is my vote....

I swore if McCain won, I'd leave the U.S..... and now I'm giving Obama a chance....

More people need to stand up and give the ultimatum.... that Obama has 3.5 years to figure it out... that's plenty of wiggling room at this point....
May the fetus you save be gay.
June 18th, 2009, 3:47 pm
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:It seems to me that Obama is walking the world's most narrow tightrope. He may not get to all the goals that everyone wants, but his job is far more difficult than anything any president since FDR has faced. Give him credit for the successes he does get to, but don't condemn him for not delivering 100%


I'd agree - except that in the administration's DOMA defense, they went in all guns blazing attacking the idea with all the Bush era buttons- gay marriage is like pedophilia or incestuous marriages and completely different from miscegenation. It's not that it was ignored while they went after bigger things - they took the time to bludgeon the corpse.

He failed on the torture issue and chose to ignore the crime. He wants to maintain the Bush position on extraordinary rendition. Ditto on warrantless wiretapping. He even wants to extend the Bush secrecy on White House visitors.

If he lets the health care plan get derailed into a compromise to satisfy the big insurance companies then his policies will be eerily familiar.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false, and by politicians as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65CE
June 18th, 2009, 4:45 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8548
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
Image

Perhaps there's some truth to this... :shhh:
June 19th, 2009, 6:07 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Liv wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Really. You'd not vote for the man because he's not perfect? And take the risk of letting America elect Sarah? :roll:


Mark my words... if health care and Doma are not taken care of he will not get my vote.... Bottom line...

I'm not saying I'll vote retardican, but he won't get my vote.... and that's about all I have.... is my vote....


I'm sorry, Liv, but this just seems incredibly absolutist and narrow-viewed, IMO. And let me ask you, if he tries to get Health Care done and is unable to due to obstinate opposition from the other side of the aisle (people, as they are wont to do, putting fingers in their ears and going, "lalalalala, I'm not listening! Lalalalala!"), will you still not vote for him?

I'll admit, the DoMA issue is a sticking point, but it seems that he's trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach by asking for a review of DoMA and at the same time signing a bill that gives some rights of married couples to homosexual partners in government employment. Didn't we elect him to govern from the middle?

This whole "he needs to get his butt in gear" attitude just doesn't seem to make sense when my perception at least is he's working as fast as he can (with the exception of Friday night dates) on the plethora of issues facing the nation.

Edit: Besides, you have pointed out, he has 3.5 years left. That means he's been in for (less than) half a year. If health care reform hasn't gotten done since Clinton, do you really think he can get it all done in just a couple of months? Give the man some time...
June 19th, 2009, 9:40 am
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
Posts: 383
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 9:22 am
HOPOMaster wrote:
Liv wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Really. You'd not vote for the man because he's not perfect? And take the risk of letting America elect Sarah? :roll:


Mark my words... if health care and Doma are not taken care of he will not get my vote.... Bottom line...

I'm not saying I'll vote retardican, but he won't get my vote.... and that's about all I have.... is my vote....



I'll admit, the DoMA issue is a sticking point, but it seems that he's trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach by asking for a review of DoMA and at the same time signing a bill that gives some rights of married couples to homosexual partners in government employment. Didn't we elect him to govern from the middle?


Okay, about 2% of Americans have federal jobs, so perhaps 10% of that 2% can take advantage of the so-called opportunities offered by the bill.
There are NO health care benefits, no tax breaks as married couples get, neither pension nor survivor's benefits and the pittance offered by the bill runs out when it expires. it's not a permanent law.
STILL think it was a good deal and Liv should shut up? Then please explain. If you get a government job and marry that girlfriend of yours - AND all you get benefits-wise, is what the same-sex couples get, will YOU be satisfied?
If your answer is anything less than an emphatic " yes", explain why YOUR heterosexual relationship should entitle you to more.

Reading assignment for you- check the brief against repeal of DOMA filed by the DOJ and defend your statement that it is a good example of "governing from the middle."
An essay of 100 words or less in its defense will suffice.

It's more right-wing than things done or imagined to do to the gay community than the Bush reichstag ever came up with.

He needs to get his butt in gear- gays, lesbians, and transgender folk, and their allies ( like me) are tired of being thrown under the bus by Mr " God is in the mix" ( for which he should be stripped of any further opportunity to teach constitutional law again.) Between having Donnie McClurkin as his spokesUncleTom during the South Carolina primary to letting the incredibly offensive Rick Warren enjoy a bully pulpit at his inauguration, many of us " Just Aren't That Into Him" anymore, and if Obama and the DNC want to count on further financial aid and other campaign support, they'd better wake up fast.
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
June 19th, 2009, 10:33 am
User avatar
C. Alice
 
Posts: 813
Joined: September 8th, 2007, 6:48 pm
Regarding DOMA, I saw the story regarding the brief defending it, and thought, "Yep -- that's a bone-head move." And I found the changes in direction regarding the Abu Ghraib photos, unconstitutional wiretaps and so forth sad to see. All these apparent instances of back-tracking and following the bush path could be buckling to political pressure in hopes of making advances elsewhere. I'd be rather disappointed if that were the case, but I could understand it.

There are deep wounds in the American political process, ones that have either been deepened or at least allowed to fester for many years. There is still some reason to hope for progress, I think. Obama tossed the gay community a bone with the federal employee benefit change -- but that is at least one bone more than they ever got from bush.

He's not perfect, and he obviously has a lot to learn over the coming years. I hope that he will learn and improve. In the meantime, I'm still grateful that there is a lot of improvement in Washington. I hope that it will keep moving the correct direction.
June 19th, 2009, 11:16 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Looks like health care industry lobbyists are figuring in on this process. Which should surprise no one. As Questioner says, nothing good will come of this if people don't express their views to those in power. LOUDLY.
June 19th, 2009, 11:50 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
C. Alice wrote:
HOPOMaster wrote:I'll admit, the DoMA issue is a sticking point, but it seems that he's trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach by asking for a review of DoMA and at the same time signing a bill that gives some rights of married couples to homosexual partners in government employment. Didn't we elect him to govern from the middle?


Okay, about 2% of Americans have federal jobs, so perhaps 10% of that 2% can take advantage of the so-called opportunities offered by the bill.
There are NO health care benefits, no tax breaks as married couples get, neither pension nor survivor's benefits and the pittance offered by the bill runs out when it expires. it's not a permanent law.


Did I ever say it was the do-all-end-all? Did I ever say it was completely effective and meant to please everyone? No. My point is that it shows intent on the one hand. I think it shows that he would prefer to lead private employers by example. Is it going to make a difference in the lives of a large number of people like removing DOMA would? Very likely not. But at least it would make a difference to freakin' somebody. And I should hope that with time he'll come around and work on the issue in a more serious way than he has so far.

STILL think it was a good deal and Liv should shut up?


I never once told Liv to shut up, and I'd hope that you would choose your words a little bit more kindly when you're talking to a friend. :-(

I merely was trying to make the point that she's making herself into a single-issue voter by implying that Obama would not get her vote, even if he was running against the worst republican possible. My view on the DOMA issue is that he made a mistake in calling for its review and not its removal. However, saying that he's doing a (expletive) job and that he doesn't deserve your vote when he has given mixed signals on this issue seems a little bit hard to one side.

Then please explain. If you get a government job and marry that girlfriend of yours - AND all you get benefits-wise, is what the same-sex couples get, will YOU be satisfied?
If your answer is anything less than an emphatic " yes", explain why YOUR heterosexual relationship should entitle you to more.


Actually, I would say that it's pitiful that homosexuals are receiving no consideration at the current time, as I feel that their relationship and their love is every bit as valid as the love and the relationship that I'm in. Are you confusing me for a homophobic bigot who doesn't care about the lives of homosexual people?

Reading assignment for you- check the brief against repeal of DOMA filed by the DOJ and defend your statement that it is a good example of "governing from the middle."
An essay of 100 words or less in its defense will suffice.


Actually, I'd prefer not to, because I know that it's wrong thinking and doesn't advance the cause of homosexuals in the least. I'm personally still supporting him because I know that
June 19th, 2009, 2:06 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
Posts: 383
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 9:22 am
[quote="HOPOMaster"


Did I ever say it was the do-all-end-all? Did I ever say it was completely effective and meant to please everyone? No. My point is that it shows intent on the one hand. I think it shows that he would prefer to lead private employers by example.


My feeling is that it shows merely the intent to throw a bone- one with its meat stripped and marrow removed- to the LGBT community as a way to say " shut up."

Many private employers are WAY ahead of the government on offering benefits- but benefits they give to employees with same-sex partners are STILL taxable. On top of that, there are NO employment protections available to LGBT employees in the majority of US States- meaning, merely being perceived to be L, G, B or T is enough to get a person fired.


Is it going to make a difference in the lives of a large number of people like removing DOMA would? Very likely not. But at least it would make a difference to freakin' somebody. And I should hope that with time he'll come around and work on the issue in a more serious way than he has so far.

STILL think it was a good deal and Liv should shut up?


I never once told Liv to shut up, and I'd hope that you would choose your words a little bit more kindly when you're talking to a friend. :-(

I merely was trying to make the point that she's making herself into a single-issue voter by implying that Obama would not get her vote, even if he was running against the worst republican possible. My view on the DOMA issue is that he made a mistake in calling for its review and not its removal. However, saying that he's doing a (expletive) job and that he doesn't deserve your vote when he has given mixed signals on this issue seems a little bit hard to one side.

Then please explain. If you get a government job and marry that girlfriend of yours - AND all you get benefits-wise, is what the same-sex couples get, will YOU be satisfied?
If your answer is anything less than an emphatic " yes", explain why YOUR heterosexual relationship should entitle you to more.


Actually, I would say that it's pitiful that homosexuals are receiving no consideration at the current time, as I feel that their relationship and their love is every bit as valid as the love and the relationship that I'm in. Are you confusing me for a homophobic bigot who doesn't care about the lives of homosexual people?


Sorry to be so blunt, but your dogged use and repetition of the word " homosexual" makes me question if you believe what you are writing- or if you are just trapped in a seriously scary time warp. If you were speaking your words instead of typing them, I would wonder if I were in the presence of a Falwell/Robertson type, who was being all " hate the sin, love the sinner."
Do you not realize your word choice is offensive to many?

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/5949/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay ... the-n-word

http://www.apstylebook.com/?do=view_recent_ask

http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=305

http://www.aglbical.org/2LANGUAGE.htm
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
June 19th, 2009, 6:52 pm
User avatar
C. Alice
 
Posts: 813
Joined: September 8th, 2007, 6:48 pm
C. Alice wrote:
Sorry to be so blunt, but your dogged use and repetition of the word " homosexual" makes me question if you believe what you are writing- or if you are just trapped in a seriously scary time warp. If you were speaking your words instead of typing them, I would wonder if I were in the presence of a Falwell/Robertson type, who was being all " hate the sin, love the sinner."
Do you not realize your word choice is offensive to many?

Alice, is there some reason you're jumping all over HOPO... just because of his choice of words? Do you parse the words all your friends use that closely? We agree with you that it was wrong for the administration to do what it did regarding gay marriage. Are you trying to get us to admit that we're unorthodox in some way on this matter? :?
June 19th, 2009, 7:24 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
C. Alice wrote:
Sorry to be so blunt, but your dogged use and repetition of the word " homosexual" makes me question if you believe what you are writing- or if you are just trapped in a seriously scary time warp. If you were speaking your words instead of typing them, I would wonder if I were in the presence of a Falwell/Robertson type, who was being all " hate the sin, love the sinner."
Do you not realize your word choice is offensive to many?

Alice, is there some reason you're jumping all over HOPO... just because of his choice of words? Do you parse the words all your friends use that closely? We agree with you that it was wrong for the administration to do what it did regarding gay marriage. Are you trying to get us to admit that we're unorthodox in some way on this matter? :?


I DO parse the words of people when they repeatedly use certain " code words" - even when I know and otherwise like the person. If someone kept referring to people of a race different from his as, say, " Negroes" or "Nigras", I would wonder if he was a racist (or truly clueless) even if he was someone who was nice to me and others.

HopoMaster's terminology, and repeated use of that particular word IS offensive.
It's NOT unorthodox if he ( or you) were a member of some right-wing, anti gay church or group- it would be expected from someone of that ilk.

Please read a few of the I provided and perhaps you (and he) might see why his use- and constant repetition- of that word- is offensive.
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
June 19th, 2009, 10:07 pm
User avatar
C. Alice
 
Posts: 813
Joined: September 8th, 2007, 6:48 pm
C-Alice,

Speaking as someone who prefers to use correct English terminology - including homosexual and negro, I caution you that your careless assumptions will lead you to some wrong conclusions.

I'm not aware that homosexual is considered offensive to homosexuals. If true then it's one of the dumber things I 've heard.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false, and by politicians as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65CE
June 19th, 2009, 10:15 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8548
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
A Person wrote:C-Alice,

Speaking as someone who prefers to use correct English terminology - including homosexual and negro, I caution you that your careless assumptions will lead you to some wrong conclusions.

I'm not aware that homosexual is considered offensive to homosexuals. If true then it's one of the dumber things I 've heard.


Perhaps the offensiveness of referring to lesbians and gays as
"homosexuals" seems dumb to you because you are neither part of the LGBT community nor an ally thereof and somehow you are unaware of its use as a ' code word'
by those who wish to denigrate and demonize.

Check the AP Style Guide or NYT Style Guide to bring yourself current.

Check the writings of rightwingers who also doggedly insist on the use that word ...
ttp://www.onenewsnow.com/Missions/Default.aspx?id=

and see if you like using that word so much that you wish to be lumped in with them and the Phelps crowd and others like them...
There's a good comment to that article which might help to clarify this alleged "dumbness" for you:

"Part of the reason churches haven't had much success preaching to gay people is because churches don't generally consider gay people as, well, people. This article is an example of that. Most gay people find being called a "homosexual" insulting and demeaning since it likens them to a clinical diagnosis. "
Meaning the wingers use the word to pathologize the LGBT community, NOT as people who "who prefer to use correct English terminology."


And seriously, you use the word "negro" out loud and out in public to describe people ? Day-ummm - unless you're a Klan member using that archaic term at a white-sheet wingding, that word choice would get you tagged in the US as either elderly and senile or a mega-racist - or both ( like Jesse Helms before he crawled off to die. ) Do you also call women of color " negresses??
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
June 19th, 2009, 11:47 pm
User avatar
C. Alice
 
Posts: 813
Joined: September 8th, 2007, 6:48 pm
C. Alice wrote:I DO parse the words of people when they repeatedly use certain " code words" - even when I know and otherwise like the person.

I'll keep that in mind in the future. I don't know about HOPO's particular view on terminology here, but I personally simply find the phrase "gay and lesbian" awkward, and often simply use "homosexual" in its place. I'm not really affected by the issue that religious nuts are trying to make the term a curse word or some sort of negative epithet. I certainly don't think that "homosexual" comes anywhere near the negative connotation that "nigger" does. After all, if someone uses "fag" or "queer," I'm right there with you.

I'd like to know what some gay people think on this matter themselves. I mean, religious nuts are keen on making "atheist" a curse word, and some have tried using "bright" in response -- I'm not happy with that mission either.

I'm simply sorry to hear that you are so upset by this. Just please keep in mind -- we are not your or Liv's or anyone else's "enemy." I'd count it as a favor if you'd stop treating us that way. :?
June 20th, 2009, 2:47 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Posts: 8566
Joined: August 8th, 2006, 11:54 am
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
C. Alice wrote:Perhaps the offensiveness of referring to lesbians and gays as
"homosexuals" seems dumb to you because you are neither part of the LGBT community nor an ally thereof


Now you are just being silly. You do read my posts?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false, and by politicians as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65CE
June 20th, 2009, 8:59 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Posts: 8548
Joined: November 25th, 2006, 2:30 pm
HOPOMaster wrote:Edit: Besides, you have pointed out, he has 3.5 years left. That means he's been in for (less than) half a year. If health care reform hasn't gotten done since Clinton, do you really think he can get it all done in just a couple of months? Give the man some time...


I'm giving him 3.5 years.... That's plenty of time. I thought Bill Maher made a proper quote on this.... If the Democrats weren't the "New" Republicans, and actually were the party of "Change" then this would have no problem passing. As he said [paraphrasing]: America is comprised of a party of loons and a party of conservative democrats that fit the definition of republicans.

[youtubevideo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrCR8TndvYk#t=3m00s[/youtubevideo]

He pretty much sums up my views... If Obama doesn't "change" things as he promised, then he is no better then the rest of the politicians out there.... I didn't vote Obama because I wanted another politician, I voted for him, like so many, because we wanted something else...
May the fetus you save be gay.
June 20th, 2009, 9:27 am
User avatar
Liv
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: October 5th, 2005, 1:59 pm
Location: Right here, waiting for you.

  Follow Me
C. Alice wrote:HopoMaster's terminology, and repeated use of that particular word IS offensive.
It's NOT unorthodox if he ( or you) were a member of some right-wing, anti gay church or group- it would be expected from someone of that ilk.

Please read a few of the I provided and perhaps you (and he) might see why his use- and constant repetition- of that word- is offensive.


C. Alice, are you saying the word, "homosexual" when used by people who are respectful and loving towards their GLBT brothers and sisters is offensive? I'm not challenging you here. I'm really trying to learn if that word is something that gays/lesbians would prefer people stop using. And if so, is this a personal issue with you or is it generally becoming an offensive word?
June 21st, 2009, 8:53 pm
Questioner
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: December 30th, 2006, 7:59 pm
Location: Colorado
I think that the term fag or queer would be offensive. But homosexual? Perhaps Alice is still trying to decide what gender HE is.
Ignore List: Nfidel; Pitbullferlucifer; C. Alice

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

"Why am I such a stupid atheist?" - C. Alice
June 21st, 2009, 9:14 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
Posts: 5040
Joined: August 27th, 2006, 7:15 pm
Questioner wrote:
C. Alice wrote:HopoMaster's terminology, and repeated use of that particular word IS offensive.
It's NOT unorthodox if he ( or you) were a member of some right-wing, anti gay church or group- it would be expected from someone of that ilk.

Please read a few of the I provided and perhaps you (and he) might see why his use- and constant repetition- of that word- is offensive.


C. Alice, are you saying the word, "homosexual" when used by people who are respectful and loving towards their GLBT brothers and sisters is offensive? I'm not challenging you here. I'm really trying to learn if that word is something that gays/lesbians would prefer people stop using. And if so, is this a personal issue with you or is it generally becoming an offensive word?


One again: I provided a number of links which should readily answer your questions- some are from journalistic style guides; others are from gay and lesbian commentators and LGBT-themed blogs.

I also mentioned that word has been co-opted as a code-word/ " dog whistle expression" by creepy right-wing religious groups- from roman catholic to evangelical snakehandler to low-IQ BHL-types in order to separate, pathologize and denigrate the LGBT community. That alone should give you pause and perhaps encourage you to check the information in the links.

As a physician, you should be particularly aware of how to respectfully and appropriately address those to whom you provide care. The APA even has a " style guide" which is recommended for all professionals. I believe I also provided a link to that.
But if I neglected to, I will do so now.http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
June 21st, 2009, 10:55 pm
User avatar
C. Alice
 
Posts: 813
Joined: September 8th, 2007, 6:48 pm

Return to News