General discussion


Vote to end discrimination coming

By jdclyde ·
Language of the ballot proposal:

"A proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit The Universisty of Michgan, and other State Universities, The State, and all other state entities from descrimination or granting preferential treatment based on Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin."

This was put on the ballot by the MCRI, Michigan Civil Rights Inititive. Required to get it on the ballot is 350,000 valid signitures. Over 500,000 signitures have been submitted and over 400,000 of them have been verified.

Controversy. The activits group BAMN, "By Any Means Necessary" is claiming fraud and misrepresentation, dispite having shown no proof of this.

Part of the claim is that people were confused by the "Civil rights" in the MCRI name to mean something that it isn't. MCRI is for Civil Rights for ALL citizens of Michigan.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has forwarded the unfounded complaint on to the "Michigan Civil Rights Commission" for review dispite the fact that this board has been an outspoken opposition to the MCRI. She had also admitted in an interview that she didn't think there was anything the MCRC could do about this, as far as removing this proposal from the ballot.

Is this good legislation? After what point is reverse discrimination not a good thing anymore for a civilization? Because of past discriminations, how long should future discrimination continue?

When did "Civil rights" not apply to everybody equally, and when should it start?

NOTE: This does not remove anti-discrimination from the books, it just will make it apply to everyone INdiscriminately so NO ONE could be discriminated against based on WHAT they are.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

88 total posts (Page 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by jdclyde In reply to Apples and Oranges

I often hear that people in inner cities like Detroit do not recieve as good of an education as people in places like Grosse Point, or other affluent cities. If this is the case (and I would believe it) then wouldn't EVERYONE that goes to that school have that disadvantage, not just the "minorityes"?

If you are "economically disadvantaged" there should be grants to help based on this income, but NOT on the gender or the color of your skin.

As for giving things away, the reason medical costs have shot up out of control is because of people that don't pay directly out of their pockets don't CARE how much something costs and have no way to comparison shop and no reason to either. (thi is insured and medicade people alike)

With the government and insurance companies controlling price, doctors do not compete like other professions do.

as for medical for the poor, that is just another myth that is used to get votes. If you are dead broke and something happens to you, you will be treated and the debt is "forgiven" and written off as a bad debt that will be covered by the other patients that DO pay for their services.

There is not some new crisis of people not having medical.

I don't want to have the same limits imposed on ME that you do for my medical. It is part of a benifits package I get from my employer. I can get into a doctor by just walking in the door. I have a very wide choice about who I see and when.

While your medical is better than what our uninsured have, it most definiately is not better than our insured medical. I will not sacrifice mine and my families medical for anyone else.

As for tutors, they CAN be made available again based on income and remove the race/gender as that isn't what MAKES you need the help.

The only justification of going off of race was if there is an arguement for one race being inferior to another and genetically not able to cope. I think that is stupid, but would be the only way I could see never-ending-affirmative-action going on.

Collapse -

for what it's worth

by faradhi In reply to Demographics

The poor can obtain emergency medical. However, they have none or little access to minor medical. Therefore, until they are seriously ill they receive no care. So a minor sinus infection becomes pneumonia. Additionally, hospitals are only under the obligation to stabilize. So the hospitals ensure that the person is not going to die immediately and then let them go.

That being said, Socialized medicine is not the answer for all the problems we all know about.

The goal should be to ensure adequate health care is affordable for the working and accessible for the poor. The Health Care industry's profits are in the Billions (not revenue which is in the 10s of billions). I think that we should require Health Care companies to be Not-for-Profit, including Insurance and Pharmaceuticals. Therefore, there is billions in the health care system to pay for research, the poor, the salary's of health care workers, and probably have money left to reduce costs.

I know there would be a lot to work out and no I do not have all the answers. But I think this is the middle ground. It is not completely Pinko and has a lot of capitalist ideals as well.

Collapse -

For all intents and purposes

by JamesRL In reply to for what it's worth

Thats what we have in Canada. Hospitals and doctors are not owned by the government, they are only funded (and only partially) by the government.

Employers pay the government a health care tax per employee - we even used to call it health insurance. The government/insurer pays the bills. Despite what some would say, it isn't socialized like you would see in a communist country. Doctors don't earn government salaries, many are very well paid - they are paid by the visit/procedure. Hospital administrators get paid far more than the prime minister.

I wouldn't go as far as you on pharmaseuticals. I think pharma companies need to be profit making, but i don't mind what we have which is free drugs for poor and seniors (the rest of us pay or have insurance through our employers).


Collapse -

Especially for pharmaceutical companies

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to create a cure. They have plenty incentives to create treatments. Create a treatment and The sick will keep paying or die. Create a cure and the sick only pay once. WHich is more profitable?

Collapse -

Big Pharma

by JamesRL In reply to for what it's worth

While I do think that Big pharma spends a lot of money on advertising and marketing to doctors (trips etc) that should be spent on research, I can't see the efficiencies in making them non-profit.

Typically doctors in universities and research hospitals come up with the ideas, and Big Pharma develops and tests them to bring them to market. I am not so cynical to think they don't want to cure cancer - they could charge $1000 a pill if they do. But I think they spend a lot of time of ED drugs etc.


Collapse -

Pharmacuticals do research

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

Further, they also provide money in the form of grants to universities.

However, they provide less that 20% of their Gross Revenue to research. Additionally, the industry PROFITS are in the BILLIONS. Yet, they charge $30 A PILL for some medicines that have been out for several years. Call me senical but that does not instill in me a trust that they will do what is not in the best interest to their bottom line.

Collapse -

double edged sword

by jdclyde In reply to for what it's worth

if there is a desease that needs a cute, do you thing someone that will make a profit will find the cure or someone living off of a grant?

Like in all other aspects of life, inavations come when there is a vested interest in doing so.

making a profit is not a dirty thing. It gets fuzzy when people try to say things about how much someone else should make for doing something.

Just like about a year ago, so people were stupid enough to suggest that there should be a limit on how much money Bill Gates should be able to make.

Collapse -

I do not think making profits are dirty

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

Nor do I think anyone should regulate how much a for-profit company should make. I believe that all medical companies should be non-profit. This would still allow for competition and ensure that the money that goes into medical goes to improving the care given and not the living of corporate investors. (No I do not have a problem with corporate investors either.)

A treatment has the potential of longer sustained profits than a cure. Thereby, removing the vested interest for a for-profit business to create a cure.

I am not naive enough to believe that if given the option to make 100 million off a cure or 1 billion off a treatment that the pharmaceutical companies are not going to select the treatment.

Collapse -

Not for profit health care companies?

by Montgomery Gator In reply to for what it's worth

If we make health care companies not for profit, then there will be no incentive to develop new medical advances, and competition would be eliminated, reducing medical choice. Whenever competition is eliminated, a monopoly situation occurs, and prices go up and/or quality goes down. One good example I can give is the state of public education. Since free public education is a monopoly in most areas in the USA, they have no incentive to improve quality and lower costs, since the taxpayers pay for it all.

However, a voucher system to pay for private schools would increase competition, improve educational quality, and lower costs. A good example is how the parochial school system sponsored by the Roman Catholic church in many cities do a better job of educating the students for approximately half the cost per student that the taxpayers are paying for public education.

If we are to have a system of government paid health care, a voucher system that pays for private medical insurance competing on the open market, with the current system of health care and pharmaceutical corporations competing in the free enterprise system would be much better than government control and/or non-profits. The economic incentives in the free market system with competition and consumer choice would result in lower costs and higher quality.

However, I am not necessarily advocating that the government should be involved in health care at all. I would rather the government get out of the way. Before government sponsored health care, charities and church sponsored hospitals took care of those in need.

Collapse -

non profit companies are very competitive

by faradhi In reply to for what it's worth

I disagree that non profit companies remove completion. You have obviously not worked for or with a non profit company. They are very competitive. You see it especially in hospitals. Many are non profit and kicking butt over some of the for profit companies. A good example of this is St. Jude Children's Hospitals. They are the world leaders in medical advances for childhood illnesses and cancer treatments. Further they are NONPROFIT.

Oh, and catholic schools have always been superior to public schools. Catholic Schools are again another example of competitive nonprofit institutions.

A little history here. Catholic Schools are the second largest school system in the nation. (Public schools are the largest of course.) Catholic Schools came into existence because when the Irish came to the states, they were often prohibited from attending public schools. That is why in the northeast, the schools have remained affordable. This is not in the case of the South where many of the schools were started by more affluent parishes.

Back to Community Forum
88 total posts (Page 4 of 9)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums