Orwellian politics

[hadit]

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Indeed, a single payer system with competitive bidding by the health industry will produce a variety of packages for a la carte shopping. Prices will go down because of competition while availability of service increases.

 

[bendog]

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Indeed, a single payer system with competitive bidding by the health industry will produce a variety of packages for a la carte shopping. Prices will go down because of competition while availability of service increases.

In a sense it'd be HillarycareII. One idea for cost containment was to assign a numerical value to each treatment for each condition that scored the treatment's potential to "cure" whatever the condition was. It might sound scary but the sad truth is we spend so much on HC now pretty much anything you could survive would be covered. Aside for alternative med.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Nobody buys basic policies. All of our health care is covered except elective surgery (read: cosmetic surgery). That's what single payer means.

There is no such thing as a "pre-existing condition". Everyone pays through their taxes. Clinics, hospitals, and labs may be publicly owned or privately owned. But everyone bills the Provincial Health plan for the services provided.

My doctor in the village I retired to, is employed by the County, but all of my doctors in Toronto were in private practice. Our daughter's paediatrician was a co-owner in a neighbourhood after hours clinic, so if we had an emergency, we would take her there rather than the hospital because if he saw us come in, he'd say "This is one of mine", and he would see her.

Americans are afraid of letting the government come between them and their private insurance company.

My government had not once denied or delayed any treatment required for me or any member of my family.

I was recently called to the beside of my dying brother. When I arrived, I discovered that my brother had been brought in by his roommates and left there and they had no information on him. I was the first family member they'd seen. And they couldn't turn off the machines which kept him breathing, until a family member with the authority, gave approval.

I was able to provide them with names and phone numbers, but here was a man who was in isolation, and receiving around the clock private care in ICU for a week, because he had an OHIP card.

 

[dblack]

Dragonlady - what would you say "access" to health care means? Does it mean anything different than being able to afford health care? If someone can't afford something, does that mean they are being "denied access"?

 

[dblack]

The same sort of games swirl around the use of "War on ..." (War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on <insert social problem of the week>). And once again, it's more than just engaging metaphor. The term "war" evokes emergency measures that would be blatantly unconstitutional in peacetime. By inject into a slogan (that is repeated ad nauseum by a complicit press, they can slide in the implication that their cause justifies such measures, without actually debating it.

 

[dblack]

My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.

Is your employer forcing you to buy the insurance they offer? I bet you can refuse and buy your own, right?

 

[bendog]

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Nobody buys basic policies. All of our health care is covered except elective surgery (read: cosmetic surgery). That's what single payer means.

There is no such thing as a "pre-existing condition". Everyone pays through their taxes. Clinics, hospitals, and labs may be publicly owned or privately owned. But everyone bills the Provincial Health plan for the services provided.

My doctor in the village I retired to, is employed by the County, but all of my doctors in Toronto were in private practice. Our daughter's paediatrician was a co-owner in a neighbourhood after hours clinic, so if we had an emergency, we would take her there rather than the hospital because if he saw us come in, he'd say "This is one of mine", and he would see her.

Americans are afraid of letting the government come between them and their private insurance company.

My government had not once denied or delayed any treatment required for me or any member of my family.

I was recently called to the beside of my dying brother. When I arrived, I discovered that my brother had been brought in by his roommates and left there and they had no information on him. I was the first family member they'd seen. And they couldn't turn off the machines which kept him breathing, until a family member with the authority, gave approval.

I was able to provide them with names and phone numbers, but here was a man who was in isolation, and receiving around the clock private care in ICU for a week, because he had an OHIP card.

One advantage of single payer could be that the amount paid for coverage could be assigned per patient rather than per procedure. There would have to be patient protections to let patients timely challenge denials of services.

 

[dblack]

The Left is expert at the use of Orwellian wordsmithing, but the right does it too.

How about the use of the words "defending our freedom?" The media, politicians, and others love to proclaim American soldiers who die in some shit hole half way around the world, did so to protect our freedom. What a bunch of statist BS.

Yeah. Iraq - we protected the shit out of their freedom, didn't we?

 

[gipper]

The Left is expert at the use of Orwellian wordsmithing, but the right does it too.

How about the use of the words "defending our freedom?" The media, politicians, and others love to proclaim American soldiers who die in some shit hole half way around the world, did so to protect our freedom. What a bunch of statist BS.

Yeah. Iraq - we protected the shit out of their freedom, didn't we?

The US government killed Iraqis to give them freedom. Makes sense to those who benefit from continuous military interventions.

 

[dblack]

The Left is expert at the use of Orwellian wordsmithing, but the right does it too.

How about the use of the words "defending our freedom?" The media, politicians, and others love to proclaim American soldiers who die in some shit hole half way around the world, did so to protect our freedom. What a bunch of statist BS.

Yeah. Iraq - we protected the shit out of their freedom, didn't we?

The US government killed Iraqis to give them freedom. Makes sense to those who benefit from continuous military interventions.

Maybe they're referring to spiritual freedom - freed from this mortal coil?

 

[gipper]

The Left is expert at the use of Orwellian wordsmithing, but the right does it too.

How about the use of the words "defending our freedom?" The media, politicians, and others love to proclaim American soldiers who die in some shit hole half way around the world, did so to protect our freedom. What a bunch of statist BS.

Yeah. Iraq - we protected the shit out of their freedom, didn't we?

The US government killed Iraqis to give them freedom. Makes sense to those who benefit from continuous military interventions.

Maybe they're referring to spiritual freedom - freed from this mortal coil?

Yeah...they were freed from living.

 

[dblack]

And the government agency that spies on you while you're sleeping (to see if you've been naughty or nice) is called the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Crixus]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

If someone can't afford something, especially the necessities of life, they are certainly denied access to it. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

They invented a thing that makes something out of nothing. It's called work. If more people would do that, then less people would be denied access less and we would all happy . No one is denied shit in this country, the are just to lazy to get up and get it.

 

[dblack]

If someone can't afford something, especially the necessities of life, they are certainly denied access to it. You're trying to make something out of nothing.

I don't think so. There's a reason why the use "denied access to ..." rather than "couldn't afford ...". First off, making the actor in question the person selling the goods and services in question, rather than the person buying them, it shifts responsibility. If someone can't afford to feed their family, for example, it's not that they are too broke to buy food - they're being "denied access" to a healthy diet. It's also an attempt to equate the situation to institutional discrimination. Being "denied access" evokes images of blacks not being allowed to use public water fountains. It's not that some people can't afford health care, it's that they're being discriminated against because of their economic status.

"Denied access" is the kind of phrase we use to describe an injustice. We use it for situations where someone is blocked from utilizing something that is theirs by right (like equal access to public facilities). The services of a nurse or doctor are not theirs by right, and a doctor or a nurse isn't denying them access when they charge for their services, nor when they refuse to serve when those charges aren't met.

 

[hadit]

The Left is expert at the use of Orwellian wordsmithing, but the right does it too.

How about the use of the words "defending our freedom?" The media, politicians, and others love to proclaim American soldiers who die in some shit hole half way around the world, did so to protect our freedom. What a bunch of statist BS.

Yeah. Iraq - we protected the shit out of their freedom, didn't we?

At least we didn't tamper with their election, that would have gotten us in real trouble. Oh wait, we did.

 

[Redfish]

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Nobody buys basic policies. All of our health care is covered except elective surgery (read: cosmetic surgery). That's what single payer means.

There is no such thing as a "pre-existing condition". Everyone pays through their taxes. Clinics, hospitals, and labs may be publicly owned or privately owned. But everyone bills the Provincial Health plan for the services provided.

My doctor in the village I retired to, is employed by the County, but all of my doctors in Toronto were in private practice. Our daughter's paediatrician was a co-owner in a neighbourhood after hours clinic, so if we had an emergency, we would take her there rather than the hospital because if he saw us come in, he'd say "This is one of mine", and he would see her.

Americans are afraid of letting the government come between them and their private insurance company.

My government had not once denied or delayed any treatment required for me or any member of my family.

I was recently called to the beside of my dying brother. When I arrived, I discovered that my brother had been brought in by his roommates and left there and they had no information on him. I was the first family member they'd seen. And they couldn't turn off the machines which kept him breathing, until a family member with the authority, gave approval.

I was able to provide them with names and phone numbers, but here was a man who was in isolation, and receiving around the clock private care in ICU for a week, because he had an OHIP card.

One advantage of single payer could be that the amount paid for coverage could be assigned per patient rather than per procedure. There would have to be patient protections to let patients timely challenge denials of services.

kinda like the VA? yeah that works so wonderfully well.

 

[Redfish]

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the PERFECT example of language being twisted by the right.

Women didn't want "society" to pay for their birth control. They wanted their HEALTH INSURANCE, which is part of their employer package, or their tuition package, to pay for their birth control JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I hasten to point out that health insurance pays for Viagara, so that men get their reproductive health paid for, but not women.

The Catholic College students were paying $9,000 a year per student for their health insurance which did not cover their birth control.

I would also point out to you that in Canada, the Catholic Church payroll taxes pay for birth control and free abortions to anyone who asks for one, and they don't get to opt out of such programs.

But Rush portrayed this as sluts having sex irresponsibly, instead of women asking for equal treatment with men.

When you control the language of the debate, you control its direction.

If you want a medical policy that includes birth control pills, you should be able to buy it. If I want one that does not include that, I should be able to buy it.

Obamacare requires all of us to buy the same policies. THAT is what needs to be fixed, among other things, like the mandate.

you make good points, but you missed the real point------------personal choice.

But your EMPLOYER or your SCHOOL should not have the choice of opting me out. That is what these women are asking for. To make their own decisions about their coverage - not their employer and not their school.

THAT choice was taken away from them. My employer should not be able dictate what MY health insurance covers.


In every other jurisdiction in the world, the Catholic Church doesn't get to decide what health insurance coverages their employees get. Only in America are employees subjected to their employers' religious beliefs in their health insurance coverage.

How is this freedom? If you leave your employer you lose your coverage. How is this freedom. When you have a claim, you have a co-pay, pre-approvals and claims departments to deal with? How is this freedom?

When I get sick I call the doctor, present my OHIP swipe card, and see my doctor. If he orders tests, I take the forms up to the lab with my OHIP card - no preapprovals, no copays, no claims forms.

Then I take my prescription to the pharmacy, pay $2 and pick up my prescription. Then I go gone and get well.

THAT's freedom.

Sounds like we need to remove the employer from the equation then. Each person buys the policy that covers what they want.

Indeed, a single payer system with competitive bidding by the health industry will produce a variety of packages for a la carte shopping. Prices will go down because of competition while availability of service increases.

you are a true advocate of socialism. Can you give us a few examples of countries where it has worked? There is no competition under single payer. No one competes with the government.

 

[sartre play]

How we got from Orwell a fiction writer to birth control I don't no, question why would any one want to deny birth control? so many children living in foster care/ on the streets & with over burdened grandparents, much less those living with parents that don't want or cant provide for them. birth control a simple solution to a complex problem.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Unstructured Grammar Causes Unstructured Thought

"They" with a singular antecedent was an illogical and appeasing reaction to the pushy richgirl femininnies' demand that we use the clumsy "he or she." Those who laugh at "non-sexist" grammar but blindly follow that idiotic construction are hypocrites. To retaliate against those nags, we should go out of our way to use "he" for the singular pronoun of indefinite gender.