Why is "socialized medicine" such a dirty word?  Okay, phrase?
912551
Americans are ridiculous about socialised medicine. Instead of putting government money towards a working plan that grants all Americans equal opportunity to be healthy, they shove it all into a big stupid war. In Canada, we are a capitalist country with a socialised medical plan that works well. Studies have actually demonstrated that Canadian medicare is overall more efficient and of a higher quality than American privatised health care. And doctors can manage to pay it off, because in Canada university education sin't as expensive either! i would know, as both my parents are doctors.\n\nEDITED TO ADD: Canada is also a large contributer to medical research. This is usually paid for by research centres and universities and has little to do with the socialized healthcare system.
1140425
To today's society, the most repulsive/unattractive word in the English language seems to be 'Sorry !'.\n...Nobody wants to use it anymore !
249667
Just to mess with us. We abbreviate such shorter words as street and doctor but use a larger word to define the act of doing so!
974270
even though medically there is nothing wrong with it....morally and ethically.....its disgusting....and fancy an adult, parent for that matter encouraging it.....OMG morons
969140
It is not a very good word, and there is no direct translation. It is something like f**k or s**t, and usually used when you drop something or do something wrong.
837263
This wording is called "legalese."\nThe tobacco companies were being sued about carcinogens in cigarettes. They were arguing over how much a cigarette would give to a user. They tried to be exacting and cover all the possible meanings.\n\n;-D Some people still don't believe smoking is hazardous to health!
435209
Okay, I'm apparently alone on this one. That's fine, I'm accustomed to being in the minority. First of all, Tiger did not HAVE to apologize for his use of the term "spaz" in a televised interview after completing his final round of The Masters, he CHOSE to apologize. Big difference.\n\nWhile you and many others might not have felt offended in the least by this derogatory term, the fact is some people were indeed offended, even upset, about it. Last time I checked, that is their right. In many countries (excluding the US), "spaz" is an offensive term for people afflicted with spastic paralysis, which is a form of cerebral palsy. Admittedly, in the US, "spaz" is generally used as a slang term for someone considered clumsy or inept (this was clearly the usage Tiger intended). But guess what? Tiger Woods is very much on the WORLD stage and makes a great deal of money in a whole host of nations outside the US of A, so he rightly needs to consider this fact when making public comments. You can all cry foul over this but I feel sure he is very well compensated for this comparatively minor responsibility. Anyway, judging by his actions in the aftermath of this little media storm, he would appear to agree with me on this point.\n\nAs always seems to happen when such issues arise, I've noticed several comments above from people carrying on about how "oversensitive" other people are. It's been my experience in life that these self-same people who endlessly complain about others being OVERsensitive are themselves very callous and extremely INsensitive. Interesting and quite revealing, that.\n\nThe BBC did a radio programme on this very topic which I happened to catch on the World Service and it was highly enlightening to me. I hadn't realized that "spaz" (root word: spastic) was viewed as highly offensive to people with physical and mental disabilities in other countries. I like to think of myself as a sensitive person, particularly in terms of having empathy for those who suffer more in this world than I do. I think that's the point, really. It matters not whether or not you or I or anyone else without any disability found the term innocuous. It had no application to us (and I'm sorry, working with the handicapped, while certainly noble and commendable work, does not make you handicapped nor a spokesperson for the handicapped) but clearly those to whom such a term can and frequently is applied in a cruel and demeaning manner took great offense and were hurt by Tiger's regrettable remark.\n\nRather than focus on the issue of what is and isn't offensive to someone with such a disability, I for one am able to take something positive away from this little incident. I think Tiger should be commended for doing the right thing. I am in no doubt whatsoever that he intended no harm when he made the unfortunate comment. But he had enough personal integrity, tact, diplomacy  -- and yes, sensitivity -- to issue an apology to anyone who in fact was offended by his poor choice of words. That takes class and makes the rest of the argument superfluous. Good on ya, Tiger, for getting it right!\n\nEnd note: I should add that I know openurmind well enough by now to state with absolute certainty that she is a kind, thoughtful and sensitive person. As with Tiger, I am in no doubt whatever that she meant no offense in her comments accompanying this question. We may have to agree to disagree on this particular issue but it need not be done disagreeably and for my part it is certainly not. I just happen to believe that it is up to the person or persons who feel aggrieved by something said or done to determine whether or not it is offensive to them or not. It's not my call, just as it wasn't Tiger's call. So if I get it wrong, it isn't going to kill me to apologize, which I do without hesitation, just as Tiger did. It's called personal accountability. It
159098
What an odd question. I mean the question iteslf is legitimate, but it's very oddly phrased.\n\nI don't understand how the term doctor is gender specific and why the example of manning a spaceship?\n\nBut as an answer, to the first question at any rate, no. Language is not sexist by definition, unless you're using a very strange definition of language. \n\nSo to the second question, which I have a bunch of other issues with. English doesn't favour men at all. Women are the ones who insist on new words when they become actors, waiters, aviators, etc. Don't even start me on the cretinism of the term bachelorette (which is just a moronym for spinster).
469949
b.... is not a dirty word when used in this context.  We as a society have changed to conotation and use it in a derogatory manner.
511743
it's more moral than just allowing disease to run rampant in this world.\n\nif you find it immoral, quit going to the doctor. the doctor knows what's wrong with you based on biological research. he prescribes drugs developed by pharmacological research. don't go to the hospital either. quit taking any kind of aspirin or ibuprofen or cold medicine because those are products of biotech too. if you are against biotech and continue to use these services you're little more than a hypocrite.
591736
You've several excellent answers already, zen (including your own example, which I too detest). But, in addition to some others previously mentioned, I think the one I really can't stand (which has not yet been posted) is the usage of "party" as a verb. I don't know why, precisely, but I have always loathed this expression and never use it myself. It reeks of pseudo-trendy hipster-loser status and thus makes me deeply nauseous. Please, if you ever hear or see me employ this term (not in a completely sarcastic context, that is), shoot me. Do not hesitate. Do not equivocate. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Do not -- you get the idea. ;)
879592
Wow! I'm amazed by the bias and misunderstanding evidenced in the answers so far. . . I have lived in a country with "socialized medicine" (Denmark) so I know something about it.  To answer the question, I believe that the U.S. may now be the only western country without a national socialized health-care system.  \n\nAs some mentioned here, in socialized medicine, taxes or other federal and state revenues would pay for our individual medical costs.  But to assume that this would automatically be a big hardship for the taxpayer shows a misunderstanding of the way such a system works and the options in the set-up that we would need to consider.  \n\nThere are many ways to pay for socialized health care, and they don't always involve raised taxes.  For one example, consider this: right now, our tax dollars are wasted to an enormous degree on the pet projects of various legislators - projects that most of us do not know about and wouldn't care to be paying for!  I would like to see some of this "pork-barrel" spending done away with (and I believe that we are moving in that direction as people educate themselves about it and demand change) - that would go a long way toward funding things like a national health-care system.  Other forms of government waste exist also, where funds would be better spent on insuring all our citizens.\n\nThe biggest thing that would worry me personally about such a system, and that may be much of the reason why we don't yet have it in the U.S., is that its establishment would necessarily require some level of federal-level regulation.  Americans (myself included) have a traditional distaste for too much government control on the federal level.  \n\nBut in this case, federal regulation and the meddling that would come with it,  may be a necessary evil that we need to consider - because the alternative is to keep going along the path we are on, in which with every year we see fewer employers able to insure employees, the costs of individually-purchased policies grow more outlandish, and the numbers of uninsured citizens increase by thousands.\n\nI think that it is telling that we are the last free-world, western, civilized nation to NOT be insuring ALL its citizens.  In America, we believe that citizens have a birth right to some things - like education and social security.  I believe we need to start believing as a nation that everyone has a right to be treated when they are ill without it bankrupting them.  It's really a right to LIVE.  It seems elementary that we would want to keep all our citizens healthy, not just the wealthy and lucky.  Something is going to have to give, and soon. \n\nMac at ASKEW\nhttp://askew.blogharbor.com
133604
I don't think it is, but sometimes people get uppity when I say it.  Especially if there's a kid in the room.  It can be bad if said with a certain tone and in a certain situation, but I don't think it is generally bad and people need to relax about it.  There are a lot of awfully worse words and phrases out there to devote your energy to.
1037423
Censorship is a dirty word, I do think there is such a thing as polite, but we in everyday life are bombarded by mfer this and f that, just turn on HBO or Cinamax, things that go on every afternoon on my tv are soft porn. I find it humorous that we all do the things that we censor ourselves with, I sh*t every morning, I fcuk every night. but I do not want you to pass the fcuking salt at the dinner table. It is really hard to understand why one thing is considered dirty and the same thing is ok. If you get it all figured out let me know.
45103
I don't like it's origins (not the root of the word, but the hateful use of the word) but the fact is, it's meaning has changed over time, I'm not offended if I hear it used in a friendly way "What's my nigga?" sort of thing (though I think it's a little awkward when said by a white person to a white person.  It's such a touchy subject because many people find it offensive, for good reason.  As for me, I'm only offended if it is used as racially condecending.
88115
Business in our society today is often a word used to validate what would be considered outside the business world as very negative behavior.  Take Wal-Mart for example: uses slave labor, helps to destroy the environment and downtowns, treats the employees like dirt, and produces cheap plastic crap.  But it’s just business you know.  That saying is being used a lot lately for immoral behavior.   To me business should mean what you’re doing in the world to make it run smoother and give yourself a place in functional healthy society.  Not the dictionary definition, but I didn’t think you were asking for that.
890936
I think it's a workable quote.\n\nI'd suggest dropping the vulgarity, not because I'm a prude, but because it distracts from the quote when the vulgarity is edited out.  If you only post it where it's not censored, then that's okay.  \n\nI suggest replacing it with one verb.  That way it flows better as the two statements are congruous.  For example:\n"I'm not a slave to a god that doesn't exist.\nI'm not a slave to a world that doesn't care."\n\nActually, I'd rather see "care" replaced with a two-syllable word.  It would flow much better.  I see some okay words like "comfort" and "nurture," but those don't thrill me.\n\nTry this different approach:\n"I'm not a slave to a god that isn't.\nI don't care for a world that doesn't."\n\nKind of twisty with the words.  It might be seen as too pretentious, though.