Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
R.J.B. Reed

R.J.B. Reed

My Comments (610 so far…)

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

Those are told at the expense of the listener.

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

No, he made the public announcement because that is the only way to take away the power from a blackmailer.  As for forgiving him, he has done nothing wrong to me.  The only person who may need to forgive him is his wife, depending on the anature of their relationship.  I do not feel that the sexual affairs of people should be something "the country" involves itself in, except to prevent rape and child molestation.

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

There is no topic that is so sacrosanct that it can’t be made fun of.  Lighten up.

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

All humor is at the expense of someone.

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

I oppose cheating.  I have no problem with people who decide to have non-monogamous relationships.  Without further information, I have no idea which category Letterman falls into.

A Stupid Human Trick, by Margo Howard

He only cheated if they defined their relationship as sexually exclusive.  Plenty of people have great relationships that are not exclusive.  Hell, plenty of people have great marriages that aren’t sexually exclusive.  So you can not state without having some very private information, that he absolutely cheated.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

If health care isn’t a right, then life isn’t a right.  This is something more basic than a person’s right to their property, or to marry or even to privacy.  And in point of fact, those of us who are working *can* take care of everyone.  We’d simply prefer to have ipods, laptops, fancy vacations, and eat out thrice a week instead.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

I think I, like every other person in this country, should get a reasonable amount of medical care when I need it. How much I’ve paid into whatever program is completely irrelevant when it comes to this basic human rights issue.  In my opinion, the social contract that is being violated by allowing people to die or become bankrupt is much more basic than whether the amount I get from medicare (or whatever) is fair when compared to the amount I pay.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

If you’ve never seen what I’ve mentioned, you’ve never been poor.  We do a terrible job of taking care of our poor compared to other first world countries.  That’s one of the reasons our life expectancy is lower than, say Sweden’s.

We do not, nor have we ever, spent tax payer money on abortions in other countries.  That is completely erroneous.  What Obama reversed was the bill that said we will not give money to any clinic that also did abortion, leading them to have to decide between gaining enough money to adequately care for people but forcing women to bear the children that will keep them in poverty, or not having enough money to adequately care for people but attempt to help some women out.  In any case, it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Whether money spent in another program should be spent or not is irrelevant.

It certainly is unbecoming for our country to so poorly treat a subset of our citizens.  Our hysteria and emotional appeals to crazy were also unbecoming.    We need to collectively grow up and stop being selfish.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

Yes, it’s terrible when a person’s worth is calculated for determining their health care.  And that is *exactly* the system we have right now.  A poor person or a person with prior conditions is not considered "worth" enough to gain insurance and thus medical coverage.

To me, this "I’ve paid into medicare/Social Security and don’t want any of *my* money going to those poor people." is a perfect example of what is wrong in America today.  What is best for us as a society?  I already know that none of the money I’ve put into Social Security will come to me.  And that’s fine, because I prefer to exist in a society where old people are taken care of.  And I only wish that instead of say, "Gimme!" people would feel the same way.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

And so you’re suggesting that in our xenophobia and in our religous mania, to punish a small portion of people we should let millions of americans go without health care.  I’d prefer to believe that people are stupid, not evil.  In any case, given the statements made at the town hall meeting, there were plenty of seniors who believed in death panels.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

And which questions are these?  The promises that have not been followed up on were naive to begin with.  What matters to me is the job that has been done thus far.  Given the state of the country and economy when he took the reigns from Bush, whom we can all agree has been one of the worst presidents of all time, I think he’s doing a pretty good job.  Especially given that the economic models that have been relied on in the past are breaking down.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

In what way would having a public option available force you to have the government involved in your life?  This makes absolutely no sense.  No one would have been required to be involved.

Certainly insurance reform is important and is part of the solution, but it’s not the entire solution.  The government can not require a person to insure someone.  It can make the insurance companies play nice, but what will end up happening is that the insurance companies will be a little more choose-y about whom they’ll accept.  So this will be no comfort to people who have pre-existing conditions or do not have jobs that allow access to medical insurance.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

Of course senior citizens oppose the plan. First of all, the older a person gets the more likely they are to be afraid of change.  Secondly, a larger percentage of the older folks are unable to do their independent research and thus bought into the whole "death panels!" hysteria.  Thirdly, as senior citizens are able to access Medicare, and thus already have a public option, it is not in their best interest to extend (and in their minds) dilute this option by allowing the working poor and the young with pre-existing conditions in on the deal.  It’s such a shame that this generation has so vehementally opposed something that would help so many people of my generation.

In any case, the polls are irrelevant.  Once the plan is in place and life goes on as usual for the people who already have medical insurance, they’ll get over it.

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

I completely disagree, on many different levels.  First of all, I’ve seen no call to put patriotism behind us.  Only to use patriotism constructively.  The "America, love it or leave it!" people do us no favors by preventing a public discussion on how to improve our country.  Secondly, if you would read the speeches of the modern presidents, you’ll find that the use of "I" is not uncommon.  Memories are always biased.  Thirdly, not only is Obama intellectually superior to our previous president, but if you read what people said about JFK and Eisenhower during their presidencies, you’ll find that they aren’t uniformly worshipped.