Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (183368)	2/2/2006 8:12:57 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Re: Go to a socialist country sometime, and you'll be surprised at the higher level of focus they have on women gender medical issues. Have you checked the unemployment rates in many of these socialist countries? Double digit.....surely that cannot be good for women's health. You always sing their praises but lack the necessary counterbalancing criticism of them which is required if we are to take your soab-box rants seriously. I am now stepping off of mine;-) Regards, Brian

To: Amy J who wrote (183368)	2/2/2006 11:16:08 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

Amy, You are seriously confused if you dismiss "Equality Medical Issues" as a "political" Social Agenda. We all have social agendas, don't we? To say mine is valid and yours is "partisan politics" would be arrogant of me, wouldn't it? If you were president and you were asked to spend money on a something that didn't agree with YOUR social agenda, would you do it? Obviously not. Yet Lizzie says, "My point is that if something is against his [Bush's] social agenda he won't spend a dime." Well duh. Tenchusatsu

To: Amy J who wrote (183368)	2/2/2006 7:29:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 186894

OT The discrimination mentioned below should be illegal: So are you proposing that courts review budgets to see that they meet someone's measure of gender equity??? Talk about an enormous can of worms... not allowing women to breast pump I am unaware of any federal law against using breast pumps. - not paying for a women to re-enter the hospital after childbirth So not only do you think the budget should create a subsidy for longer hospital stays (or entering the hospital again after checking out) after child birth, but that not having such an item in the budget should be illegal? What a crazy idea. Its one thing to have the feds fund longer hospital stays, its another to make it a specific legal requirement. What would the punishment be if some year down the road congress doesn't add it to the budget or if the president vetoes it? - not paying for research to determine the more proper dosage amounts for epi for women (this is the stuff dentists too often give that can make small-framed people's heart speed up if given the dose of a 250 lb man. More study for people of different sexes, weights, ages ect. might make sense, but once again where does the "should be illegal" come in to it, and how could you implement and enforce such a law? expect nearly ZERO funding towards female medical issues. What a silly idea. Breast cancer gets a lot more funds and attention than prostate cancer (yes breast cancer can effect men as well but it is primarily a woman's issue). You might argue that there is some overall disparity, but even if there is there is hardly "nearly ZERO funding towards female medical issues". Tim