"Taliswoman"...

[Motor Daddy]

That may fall under healthcare and long term disability though, which can be part of a government healthcare program.

I find that for many, unless something afflicts them personally, they don’t see it as “their problem.”

FREE government health care? Who ever heard of such a thing?

I'm retired Army and even I pay for health care. They promised free healthcare when I joined, and now I am PAYING. Whodathunk??

When you deal with politicians you should always assume they are lying unless proven otherwise.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

FREE government health care? Who ever heard of such a thing?

the lie if saying health care services is free
is a lie

They promised free healthcare when I joined

USA private health industry is one of the biggest profit machines in the USA

the American people are held hostage by the USA private health system which is backed up by the government medic aid co-pays and non deductibles & pre existing condition exclusions

its all designed to give more power to private health business profit.

they wont convert the system into universal health care because too many of their voters make their wages and profit margins from private health care or government insurance administration systems which cost massive amounts of money

soo ... once you understand the USA private health industry and its basic economics and how politicians and people in general work and feel , you can see its not going to be changed until they are forced to change.

try and imagine how much cheaper universal health care would be knowing all those thousands of expensive employees doing 5 duplicated administration processes for 1 single procedure.

each 1 of those 5 duplicates charges a profit margin on top of cost

as long as your rich, the system works;
so the rich don't want it to change & the rich are the ones in power.
you need to be rich to be given a leadership job in USA, that is how USA works.

the trap of the psychopath money ladder

people want to get off the bottom to be rich
once they start to get 1 leg up on the money ladder, they never want the money ladder to be turned into an escalator because they have 1 leg above others

and they are raised to only realize their need to be above others as a personal value

so its a trap of the darker side of human nature

psychology
sociology
economics

 

[Motor Daddy]

you need to be rich to be given a leadership job in USA, that is how USA works.

Which is why I am a nobody, retired, and don't participate in the health system. If I get sick or injured then I will just die. Oh well, I would rather live a healthcare free life then go through unbelievable stress from healthcare bills, time spent waiting, travel, and dealing with a bunch of ripoff Quacks that get rich by keeping people coming back for more and more.

It's like taking your car to a mechanic to get fixed, and them ripping you off, not fixing the problem, and tell you to come back in a few days and they will get another look at it. You return, they screw it up more, charge you more, and tell you to return in a few more days. They screw it up even more, so you have to bring it back, and they find you need a new engine and transmission, and they just happen to be able to get one by tomorrow! LOL

 

[RainbowSingularity]

and they just happen to be able to get one by tomorrow! LOL

why do you think they normalise being fat and on endless medications

because being fat is one of their biggest earners
leads to diabetes which is life time medications

"fat normalization culture"

universal health care is the only sane option

but people with insurance policy's and wage level deductible ranges
have 1 foot on the ladder
and one foot in the bear trap
they cant afford to take 1 foot out of either position
and thats the way its designed

so you then have all the die hard right wing anti socialist social engineering to wage war against universal health care on an economic ideological base using social compliance by threatening to call someone a socialist and excommunicating them from church

which is why the bible goes hand in hand with the lies
which is why fascist bible preachers are soo popular in the usa

 

[Motor Daddy]

which is why the bible goes hand in hand with the lies
which is why fascist bible preachers are soo popular in the usa

Don't get me started. The Supreme Court decides the law of the land. They aren't political, they are just appointed by politicians, and they aren't religious, except Kavanaugh is IN! I watched the entire proceedings on TV and what a JOKE!

ALL that crap, and McConnell says "he isn't there to be fair."

That's some sorry individuals! ALL of them!

Same with the impeachment hearings. I thought the Dems did a great job. All for not!

 

[Michael 345]

The reason it won't go away is because every one of these people have unique histories that led them to where they are.[/QUOTE

Which is why I also added

IF the CONDITIONS which lead to homelessness persists however.....

 

[DaveC426913]

IF the CONDITIONS which lead to homelessness persists however.....

The conditions will exist as long as humans exist:

"... there are myriad co-determinants in health and well-being of every citizen - mental health, physical health, debt, income, economy, discrimination - and a host of other factors that are in-play."

We can hope to mitigate some of them unilaterally, but the behavior and state of humans will always fall on a bell curve so that a not insignificant portion of them will always fall outside the reach of large scale fixes. They will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. It will always be this way with humans.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

#1 cause of home foreclosures ?
medical bills ?

so the #1 cause of homelessness is, the USA private health care system & obviously all the crime that goes with it.

 

[Sarkus]

Any idea what any of this has to do with "Talisman"?
Not sure this thread should be derailed into the politics of healthcare systems, as it was raised as a linguistic matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

Any idea what any of this has to do with "Talisman"?

The turning point was post #8 where 'Taliswoman' and 'people experiencing homelessness' were grouped under the umbrella of political-correctness.

Not sure this thread should be derailed into the politics of healthcare systems, as it was raised as a linguistic matter.

Mea Culpa.

 

[sideshowbob]

The stress must be put on humanity. That's the priority.

That attitude is why nothing is being done about homelessness.

There are many, many other tools to help marginalized people.

And we can't use those tools without naming the problem that they're supposed to solve.

"A rights-based approach to homelessness prevention means changing the way policy decisions and investments are made and ensures that a policy and funding framework is in place to hold all orders of government responsible for addressing their role in preventing people from becoming homeless, including health, child protection, justice, and others."
-homelesshub.ca

Indeed. And they didn't mention changing the vocabulary. No "people experiencing homelessness", no "people experiencing sickness", etc. In your world, is it still okay to talk about "sick people"?

 

[sideshowbob]

They have the same needs as everyone else.

They need to cross the street in heavy traffic.

They need special help to get across the street.

They need to get to their third floor apartment.

They need special help to get to the third floor.

They need a job to put a roof over their heads.

They need special help to find a special job. Anybody can apply to be a bus driver but blind people can only do certain jobs.

That many of us have it easy is not their problem.

It really is, though. Society can opt to participate in solving their problem - or not.

We don't cater merely to the abilities of the many; we cater to all citizens according to their rights. And we all have the same rights.

That's wishful thinking.

 

[sideshowbob]

The government is there to ensure I can get into my house - regardless of how complex it might be or how much it might cost.

Only in Utopia.

In the real world, governments have limited funds. They have to pick and choose what needs they can afford to fulfil. They can't provide a car for everybody who needs one - plus a chauffeur for everybody who is experiencing sightlessness.

And I'm not saying that governments shouldn't help the homeless or the disabled. I'm saying that they have to treat them as special.

 

[sideshowbob]

If what you are saying were true, then the problem would literally go away by building hundreds of walls with roofs and walking away.

But that does not, did not, and will not make the problem go away.

Which is the excuse for doing nothing.

 

[sideshowbob]

Here in the rest of the world, we recognize that homelessness is a symptom, not an identity.

And it's a problem, not just an "experience".

And only certain people have that problem. They are not as wonderfully "equal" as you pretend, regardless of what rights they may hypothetically have. They have a special problem which needs special treatment. By emphasizing that they're "just like everybody else", you're disrespecting their problem.

 

[sideshowbob]

Any idea what any of this has to do with "Talisman"?

Both are about politically-correct terminology. I brought up an example and I honestly didn't think anybody would be silly enough to disagree with it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know how to have a meaningful discussion with Americans about an expected standard of living for all its citizens.

"Why should I pay for my neighbour to have a ramp or crosswalk audio prompts? I don't need them."
"Why should I pay for my neighbour to have glasses? I don't need them."

From the outside, it seems like Americans consider any citizen who is not of flawless Aryan blood to require a "special needs" label.

Up here, we have voters/taxpayers who are sighted and we have voters/taxpayers who are visually impaired and we have voters/taxpayers who have a physical disability. We have a mandate and a moral obligation to provide equitable access to all citizens as a part of a standard of living. One is not "normal" and another "special", We don't believe in first- versus second- class citizens. Rather, citizens simply come in a variety of flavours, none of which entitles them to less than any other.


And, because nationality is a choice you make, and I make, there's no objectively right or wrong answer. For that reason, I must withdraw from what is a pointless argument.

 

[Sarkus]

Both are about politically-correct terminology. I brought up an example and I honestly didn't think anybody would be silly enough to disagree with it.

Sure, but let's stick to the linguistic side of the discussion. Politics has its own forum.

 

[Sarkus]

And it's a problem, not just an "experience".

Sure, homelessness is a problem.
So is hepatitis, so is asthma, so is epilepsy, so is a noisy neighbour. Do I need to highlight that epilepsy is a problem when seeing someone experiencing it, or should we all already be aware that it is a problem?

And only certain people have that problem.

Sure, and only certain people have hepatitis, asthma, epilepsy, noisy neighbours etc.

They are not as wonderfully "equal" as you pretend, regardless of what rights they may hypothetically have.

??? Seriously? You think they are, what, sub-human? Not deserving of all the rights and privileges that society otherwise affords all people? Which rights would you take away from them?

They have a special problem which needs special treatment.

So do people with hepatitis, asthma, epilepsy, a noisy neighbour etc.

By emphasizing that they're "just like everybody else", you're disrespecting their problem.

I would instead say that you are highlighting that it is a problem, but not disrespecting them by equating their problem with who they are: they are a person (respecting) with/experiencing a problem (highlighting), they are not "the problem".

Maybe there are better phrases than "person experiencing homelessness", such as "person with no home", or some such, but the point is that the phrase used should not describe the person as their problem, any more than we should describe people by any other problem they may have. E.g. better to say "people with blindness" rather than call them "the blind". The former stresses that they are a person with a particular disability, rather than labelling them as their disability.

 

[sideshowbob]

Do I need to highlight that epilepsy is a problem when seeing someone experiencing it, or should we all already be aware that it is a problem?

That's my point. Do you need to highlight that it's a human experiencing epilepsy? Or do you just need to recognize the problem?

You think they are, what, sub-human? Not deserving of all the rights and privileges that society otherwise affords all people?

"Deserving of rights" doesn't mean they have those rights.

Which rights would you take away from them?

You're being dishonest. I have never suggested taking away anybody's rights.

Maybe there are better phrases than "person experiencing homelessness", such as "person with no home"

And how is "homeless person" different than that?

better to say "people with blindness" rather than call them "the blind"

Why?

The former stresses that they are a person with a particular disability, rather than labelling them as their disability.

But it doesn't label them "as" their disability. It doesn't matter where in the phrase the word "person" comes.