Another one o' them smoking ban threads.... [Archive]

bryantm3

05-22-2008, 10:26 PM

okay, if you don't want to be subjected to other people's smoke, fine, you can ban it in indoor areas.

things that are absurd:
1) banning smoking in outdoor areas (not counting around hospitals or other healthcare facilities). this is certifiably insane. in an indoor area, air does not circulate as much as it would in a natural outdoor area, and the percentage of smoke in the air will increase due to the volume of air being considerably lower. but outdoors, smoke dissipates into the air rapidly, and unless you're just right next to them breathing in all the smoke, secondhand smoke ain't gonna do shit to you. besides, it's been shown to kill you if you breathe it in everyday; ie: if you have a smoker living with you or if you go to the same bar every night and breathe in billy bob's cigar who sits next to you. it's not going to bother you at a restaurant outdoors unless you just don't like cigarette smoke.

2) people claiming they are "allergic" to cigarette smoke. tobacco smoke is no more or less toxic than woodsmoke, and probably a lot less toxic than the pollution that comes from cars every day. the thing in smoke in general that's harmful is carbon monoxide, which is a poisonous gas. but despite all that, cigarette smoke isn't something you get 'allergic' to. it doesn't cause you to get hives, it doesn't make you break out in a rash or make your throat sore in an allergic manner. it's an irritant and it can cause harm, but you're not 'allergic' to it. if anything, you're intolerant to it, but while you're bitching about a dude 20 feet away smoking a cigarette, why don't you fuss at the dude who sits in the parallel parking space with his car idling for 30 minutes?

3) this crap of not hiring people because they smoke. alright, if they smoke, yeah, your healthcare costs are going to get higher and your cost of production is going to go up. unfortunately, health care companies are only discriminating against those who smoke, and not overweight people, people who drink, people with a history of cardiovascular disease, or south africans because they're more likely to have AIDS. so yeah, if you want your cost of production to go down, don't hire smokers. but maybe people should bitch about the rising costs of healthcare in general, and discriminating against one group of people among many that are doing things that are bad for their health.

i went to the doctor's office the other day, thought i had a cold, didn't, didn't get a throat culture or anything, just the basic ear, nose and throat checkup, and it cost me $150. that's insane. and you can't even get a decent healthcare policy for less than around $300 a month, when you'll probably only need around $100 most months. pharmacuetical companies charge $250 a bottle for pills and are dicking us in just about every way, and we're concerned about people smoking? the smokers are the victims compared to these fools for God's sake. i'm all for keeping health care private and not ceding any more power to the federal government, but for goodness' sake, our house is on fire and we're trying to keep the neighbour's dog from eating our rosebushes.

Rog

05-23-2008, 04:49 AM

If we adopt universal healthcare, there is no well in hell I am going to pay for smokers, fat, and out of shape people.

When you're sacrificing choice for socialize medicine is it really a surprise they're taking away your public smoking rights?

OK so what about drinkers? what about sportsmen? what about drivers?, cyclists?, skiers?, people with hi-fat diets?, people who have a genetic propensity to certain diseases, etc- all these things have a higher risk of being a burden to healthcare.......

potatobroth

05-23-2008, 07:34 AM

2) people claiming they are "allergic" to cigarette smoke... // ...it doesn't cause you to get hives, it doesn't make you break out in a rash or make your throat sore in an allergic manner. it's an irritant and it can cause harm, but you're not 'allergic' to it. if anything, you're intolerant to it, but while you're bitching about a dude 20 feet away smoking a cigarette, why don't you fuss at the dude who sits in the parallel parking space with his car idling for 30 minutes?

When I am around smokers, my throat swells up, I have trouble breathing, and I start to cough -- in much the same way I do when the pollen count is way up. So like it or not, while I may not be scientifically 'allergic' to ciggie smoke, I don't think its a stretch to say I am.

I typically don't have idling cars at the next table over or behind me at a bar. Until the NJ indoor smoking ban I did have smokers encircling me at dinner, at bars, at clubs (the worst!)

For all the bitching I see about the bans etc, I always wonder just why it isn't sinking in that maybe, just maybe smoking it bad for 'you' and that it might be prudent to finally quit? A friend of mine just quit 'for the baby' and I asked him, "so, you weren't worthy enough? had to wait for the baby did ya?"

Sean

05-23-2008, 12:26 PM

For all the bitching I see about the bans etc, I always wonder just why it isn't sinking in that maybe, just maybe smoking it bad for 'you' and that it might be prudent to finally quit? A friend of mine just quit 'for the baby' and I asked him, "so, you weren't worthy enough? had to wait for the baby did ya?"I don't think it's a question of it "sinking in" that smoking's bad for you. Frankly, anyone who doesn't know it's bad for you in this day and age has bigger problems than the health risks of smoking pose.

The real question is what's with the glaring hypocrisy? As I wondered earlier, how many of the people on an anti-smoking crusade are obese? Just can't seem to put down that triple bacon cheeseburger and fries, hm? Not sinking in that your extra-grande sausage and cheese breakfast quesadilla might be a smidge harsh on the old cholesterol levels? Or how about the people I'm sure we all know who just aren't capable of being decent human beings until they've had their personal pot of coffee to drink every single morning? It takes that healthy bucket of caffeine to really get you off the ground, yeah?

The point here is that there are many, many things out there that are just as bad or worse for people's health than smoking, and virtually everyone regularly partakes in at least one or more of them despite knowing the risks involved. To hold smokers to so much of a higher standard than every other bad-habitted (I just made that word up) person out there is hypocritical, plain and simple.

Just something to think about next time you're drunk, or in the sun for more than 10 minutes without sunscreen, or eating fried chicken, or driving while sleepy, or sky-diving, or taking a shortcut through a bad neighborhood.....

potatobroth

05-23-2008, 01:15 PM

The real question is what's with the glaring hypocrisy? As I wondered earlier, how many of the people on an anti-smoking crusade are obese? Just can't seem to put down that triple bacon cheeseburger and fries, hm? Not sinking in that your extra-grande sausage and cheese breakfast quesadilla might be a smidge harsh on the old cholesterol levels? Or how about the people I'm sure we all know who just aren't capable of being decent human beings until they've had their personal pot of coffee to drink every single morning? It takes that healthy bucket of caffeine to really get you off the ground, yeah?

Not that this is a statement that needs to be qualified to be discussed but why does cigarette smoking have to be compared to anything? Isn't it universally accepted at this point that smoking cigs is in all ways bad for you and in no ways good?

Eating a cheeseburger isn't bad for you. Eating them in excess is. Can the same be said about inhaling smoke? I look at all my friends that still smoke, and it seems that none of them really factor the 'its bad for me' side of things. The few that I'm friends with are still living in the 'it won't happen to me' stage that most 14 year olds shake. If I were to ask them (and by no means do I preach at them) why they don't quit I'd get the usual response of, "I don't smoke that much." We both know that is a lie. For my friends, smoking is a constant lie to themselves. I'm sure this varies greatly between smokers, but its how I see it in my circle. I even have one friend who was in the hospital because she couldn't breathe, was diagnosed asthmatic, and still wants to smoke. She is 29. I just don't get it.

All that said, I still stand by my original statement that as long as smoking is legal, it have to be regarded as such and not discriminated against in situations where it isn't bothersome to others.

Skydiving? Did you really just write skydiving? :P

Strangelet

05-23-2008, 01:34 PM

Here's a secret for you haterz. even smokers aren't fans of cigarette smoke sometimes and can be mildly put-off by someone smoking on the street around them. So really, health problems aside, its not a difference between smokers and non smokers, its a difference between people who are compelled to sanctimoniously bitch and people who aren't.

and do we want to go there? because I can start talking *a lot* of shit about the every day habits of people who don't smoke. Women who use their baby strollers as battering rams through crowded places, people who buy new SUV's drive them around with 4 dollar gas. Spitters. People who just walk out of a store and onto the sidewalk without caring to look who they run into. People who don't pick up after their pets. People who don't recycle. People who do recycle and police everyone else's recycling. part of tolerance is not so much making sure nobody does something offensive, but not being so offended yourself.

potatobroth

05-23-2008, 01:48 PM

and do we want to go there? because I can start talking *a lot* of shit about the every day habits of people who don't smoke. Women who use their baby strollers as battering rams through crowded places, people who buy new SUV's drive them around with 4 dollar gas. Spitters. People who just walk out of a store and onto the sidewalk without caring to look who they run into. People who don't pick up after their pets. People who don't recycle. People who do recycle and police everyone else's recycling. part of tolerance is not so much making sure nobody does something offensive, but not being so offended yourself.

You know, I noticed that with friends that did quit smoking. Now all of the sudden they too are put off by cigarette smoke.

As far as going there, talk all you want. None of the above makes me lose my ability to breathe properly. Sure some of the stuff above is annoying but baby strollers are rarely ever going to cause me a health problem.

Strangelet

05-23-2008, 02:02 PM

You know, I noticed that with friends that did quit smoking. Now all of the sudden they too are put off by cigarette smoke.

oh yeah, mate. you're off the hook. I'm talking about the people who find it socially offensive.

Sean

05-23-2008, 04:26 PM

Not that this is a statement that needs to be qualified to be discussed but why does cigarette smoking have to be compared to anything? Because smoking is disproportionately singled out as the target for more and more intrusive legislation despite the fact that there are plenty of other activities that just as many people regularly partake in which are equally as unhealthy.

Isn't it universally accepted at this point that smoking cigs is in all ways bad for you and in no ways good?Sure. But it's legal, and it's a personal choice, just like all the other personal choices people make every day that are bad for their health.

Eating a cheeseburger isn't bad for you. Eating them in excess is. Can the same be said about inhaling smoke?Yes. Smoking a single cigarette is no worse for you than eating a single burger. One cigarette will not give you lung cancer just as one burger will not give you a heart attack. But the obesity epidemic that's spreading across a good portion of the planet is clearly not the result of all these people only eating the occasional burger in an otherwise healthful diet. When I refer to eating a burger, or fried chicken, or a big-ass sausage and cheese quesadilla, I'm referring to an overall unhealthy diet, as the majority of Americans and Brits tend to have.

I look at all my friends that still smoke, and it seems that none of them really factor the 'its bad for me' side of things. The few that I'm friends with are still living in the 'it won't happen to me' stage that most 14 year olds shake. If I were to ask them (and by no means do I preach at them) why they don't quit I'd get the usual response of, "I don't smoke that much." We both know that is a lie. For my friends, smoking is a constant lie to themselves. I'm sure this varies greatly between smokers, but its how I see it in my circle. I even have one friend who was in the hospital because she couldn't breathe, was diagnosed asthmatic, and still wants to smoke. She is 29. I just don't get it.Well this is another issue altogether. I can't speak for your friends, but I can say that I believe the "it won't happen to me" mindset is pretty common in all aspects of life. People driving with a slight buzz because causing a drunk driving accident "won't happen to me", or people having horrible diets despite the risk of heart disease because a heart attack "won't happen to me". Your friend who had respiratory problems but then went back to smoking is no different to me than an obese person starting a diet and then going right off of it. They should both be allowed to work for Sarasota county.

Skydiving? Did you really just write skydiving? :P I did indeed. :D

BeautifulBurnout

05-23-2008, 04:44 PM

I think where it can be differentiated from the examples Sean gives is that, without a doubt, passive smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking) can have a palpable effect on the health of people who do not, themselves, smoke but who are around cigarette smoke all the time.

The case we always think about in the UK is that of an entertainer called Roy Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle) who spent a good deal of his younger life doing the jazz club circuit, and who died of lung cancer even though he was a non-smoker himself.

With most other habits or lifestyle choices, the direct effect on health is only self-inflicted. (Unless you count the people who get the shit kicked out of them on a Saturday night by a drunken yob, of course. )

I still think it is wrong to try and force people to stop smoking, if that is their choice. But I think it is right to ban it in enclosed public places, such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. I have found it much easier to stick to my non-smoking nicotine habit since smoking has been banned in pubs here. Whereas before, after a few drinks with friends, I would be happily stealing their cigs from them, nowadays I am happy to stay in the pub while the smokers go outside in the cold and rain and feed their habit, while I continue to feed mine with the Niquitins :D

Rog

05-23-2008, 09:25 PM

Lots of commonsense posts here tonight:D....pardon my grammar:eek:

Sean

05-24-2008, 12:41 AM

cacophony

05-24-2008, 10:56 AM

Niquitins

whassat?

BeautifulBurnout

05-24-2008, 11:04 AM

whassat?

Drugs (http://www.click2quit.co.uk/therapeutic-nicotine-products/niquitin-lozenges) that don't kill me :D

cacophony

05-24-2008, 12:25 PM

ahhhh the spouse used something similar when he first decided to quit (5 quits later it finally stuck. until next time...)

it gave him terrible heartburn.

IsiliRunite

05-24-2008, 02:37 PM

OK so what about drinkers? what about sportsmen? what about drivers?, cyclists?, skiers?, people with hi-fat diets?, people who have a genetic propensity to certain diseases, etc- all these things have a higher risk of being a burden to healthcare....... I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

cacophony

05-24-2008, 03:54 PM

I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

about a month ago i went to the ER after stupidly sticking my finger into an immersion blender. i use the immersion blender all the time and i'm always careful. this one time, this one single split second moment, i had a brain-fart and stuck my finger in there. at that moment the blender rolled in my hand, my palm came up against the power button, and the high-speed blade chopped my finger to the bone.

it was a stupid, stupid injury. i'm still reaping the rewards of it, with weekly physical therapy sessions, covered my my insurance. should i instead be sent to the poorhouse or left to suffer with my mangled digit because i did something stupid? have you ever made a stupid decision or are you above such imperfections?

and take the seatbelt example. do you think it's impossible that someone who usually wears their seatbelt might one day make the stupid decision to go without because they're just popping up the street to the corner store? is that person's life worth less than yours?

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

and how about the non-drinker on his 21st birthday whose friends say, "aww come on, you have to celebrate" and he binges himself into alcohol poisoning. stupid stupid mistake. should be be left to rot because you're so much smarter than that?

and "high fat diet?" heh. how often do you eat out? how often do we all eat out? how many of us have REALLY looked at the nutritional information for most of the popular mid-priced restaurants? big shocker (http://www.amazon.com/Eat-This-Not-That-Pounds/dp/1594868549), most of us are too stupid to realize that a simple dinner out at the local chili's restaurant packs more calories and fat than your typical thanksgiving dinner. you might be shocked to realize how many "fat" slender people (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18594089/) are out there.

when you give yourself the right to be judge, jury and executioner on "lifestyle choices" and deem some decisions "smart" and others "stupid" and impose limitations on healthcare based on those judgments, you enter very dangerous territory where suddenly statistics will be more important than the worth of a man's life.

obama is a smoker. still trying to kick the habit, as a matter of fact. if he quit today, his lungs would still not be considered "normal" for the next 15 years. and even after that he'll spend the rest of his life at a higher risk for lung cancer than us non-smokers. now, the man could become president. he could bring peace between warring nations, he could resolve the crisis in north korea, he could turn the country around, yadda yadda yadda.

the question is, if lung cancer is in the man's cards, is his life worth less because he made the "stupid" decision to smoke? should he be rejected from healthcare coverage and forced to cope with the ramifications of his stupid decisions because you want to stick it to him for failing to pass your "smart decision" test?

you're treading dangerous waters, my friend, when you endeavor to establish limitations on who "deserves" a fighting chance at life.

IsiliRunite

05-24-2008, 04:38 PM

I know it is dangerous waters (I mentioned that if you read my post carefully), and that is why I don't believe it is fair to have universal healthcare. It is wrong to say who deserves something and who doesn't, and it is wrong to charge person x for person y's foolishness. Not having universal healthcare avoids both of those flaws...

cacophony

05-24-2008, 06:58 PM

if you have health insurance, you're already in that situation. your premiums are applied across the whole customer base to cover all of the insurance company's expenditures. so you're already paying for stupid people who pay for services with your insurance company.

what universal healthcare does is ensure that a CEO's child and a gas station attendant's child both have the same chance of fighting childhood leukemia, for example. are you saying the gas station attendant's child deserves to die because his father may not be able to afford treatment? that's precisely what denying universal healthcare says.

Rog

05-25-2008, 03:55 PM

IsiliRunite

05-26-2008, 12:38 AM

BeautifulBurnout

05-26-2008, 06:40 AM

Given the free market economy nature of current health insurance, it is not conceivable to have a private company that has higher standards for customers than the government would legally be allowed to. There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

In the States, most personal injury cases are dealt with by juries, rather than a single judge. And the juries award stupid amounts of compensation compared to the UK. They think to themselves "this guy has no health insurance so the other guy's insurance company will pay". And so they do. Except you all end up paying higher premiums for your insurance to cover the costs of increasingly expensive litigation. Cost to the insurance company - anything up to $500,000 plus legal costs, which they have to pass on to their customers.

Supposing you were in the UK - same scenario, leg gets broken. You go to hospital, get your leg fixed for free. It would rarely cross your mind to then decide that you want to sue the guy who tackled you on the football pitch - for a start, even if a judge were to find that your opponent was in some way negligent rather than just playing by the rules of the game, he would certainly find considerable contributory negligence on your part for participating in the game in the first place as you would know the risks. Minimal payout, if any. Cost to the public - medical expenses for one broken leg.

I know which system I prefer. And I'm a lawyer :p

Strangelet

05-26-2008, 09:06 AM

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

You're talking about ambulance chasers, not free market philosophy. Granted torts cases like this do contribute to high rates, but you can't say this side effect is an inherent quality to free market health insurance.

The answer to this problem is not going to found if you limit yourself to strictly corporate or government models, free market, or socialized medicine.

An injection of free market thinking in nationalized health insurance is the only way nationalized health insurance could even work. Here in Toronto, some of my friends are complaining that there are no available family doctors or general practicioners. Period. All booked up, sorry. I mean don't get in a tizzy, and continue paying your 15% sales tax and 40% income tax, and shame on your lack of altruism if you complain that the yanks have a better system.

In the meantime take a number and wait 6 hours for the walk in clinic staff to push you through like a widget, without any information regarding your prior health history or records.

Its also a full one to one correspondence between people I know who have had an operation in a canadian hospital and who have had to go back because of cross infections.

So my point is you can't just say "hooray! we're all insured and morally upright" and walk away from the problem, the way socialized medicine supporters would have you believe, and want you to continue to believe as they get more and more dehumanizing, lazy, and bloated.

Also, regarding smoking. France, the culture of existentialism and brooding cafes, banned smoking in public places and in doors because they don't want to pay for the health problems. And you're going to see more and more of that happening, as health insurance gets more and more centralized and government administered, people's behaviors are going to be more and more dictated by laws.

potatobroth

05-26-2008, 09:38 AM

...There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

How do you define 'retards' (as offensive as it is) in this example? Do people who play sports fit into that category? Are you referring to anyone who doesn't walk about draped in bubble-wrap? While we're at it, define 'hurt yourself.'

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

05-26-2008, 09:49 AM

Could I borrow someone's lighter?

Sean

05-26-2008, 10:18 AM

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!Interesting. So sports, which are typically an excellent form of exercise, would be discouraged under your philosophy? Wouldn't this encourage people to be more sedentary for fear of risking their financial well-being, thereby making them less healthy overall, and more prone to heart disease, or circulatory problems, or obesity, etc? What would you have people do for physical exercise that would be approved as "non-stupid" in the event that they get hurt while doing it?

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

05-26-2008, 01:38 PM

Still waiting on a lighter from someone.

IsiliRunite

05-26-2008, 01:48 PM

cacophony

05-26-2008, 04:49 PM

...people do not exercise their own power as consumers...

yeah, i don't know WHAT those poor people are thinking, not paying for expensive insurance! they must just want their kids to die!

IsiliRunite

05-26-2008, 05:59 PM

cacophony

05-26-2008, 06:13 PM

i'm sure that helps the single mom who lives paycheck to paycheck, whose kid is sick, who can't afford the doctor's visit. i'm sure it's very helpful for her to know that she can simply leverage her power as a consumer and just find someone to help her pay for her kid's immediate healthcare needs.

the problem is, you're citing theoreticals and idealism. theoretically people can just leverage their power as consumers. realistically people are sick RIGHT NOW and can't afford healthcare RIGHT NOW. and not because they're "stupid," "retarded" or ignorant. it's just reality.

speculating about what the poor "should" be able to afford is a luxury of those who don't have to struggle to make ends meet.

Sean

05-26-2008, 06:30 PM

Or, more realistically, don't understand that the customer is always right or realize they have the power to support companies that fit their needs and not pay insurance companies that are out of touch or overpriced.I'm not sure how old you are or what you've had to pay for in life, but do you know how expensive it is to pay for your own health insurance if your employer doesn't provide it? I have to assume that you don't based on what you've said, because it's simply not as easy as doing a bit of camparison shopping and choosing the budget plan that suits you. We're talking about prices that are way out of reach of your average middle class or lower income families/individuals, not to mention the fact that if you're already sick, you won't be able to get health insurance and you're screwed.

Sports, while beneficial for all sorts of health, is a risky behaviour. I would not mind paying for sports injuries as much as other injuries based on personal conduct.So then you are fine with the idea of a system that encourages people not to play sports because it doesn't pass your risk assessment test, whatever that may be based on.

Are all sports risky? What about softball compared to football? Or volleyball compared to running a marathon? Who would determine what's "risky", or "smart"? Could you still get insurance for a less "risky" sport, but have to pay a higher premium?

I have to say that I don't see where the logic in your stance is coming from at all.

cacophony

05-26-2008, 07:09 PM

last august i went for a walk with the dog and slipped on a patch of mud and cracked my kneecap. it's my fault, i was engaged in the risky sport of walking. i should have been denied coverage because i chose to engage in risky behavior.

potatobroth

05-26-2008, 08:52 PM

adding to the comparison shopping point...

Last year while working for (and insuring) myself, I was sent to see a neurologist because of severe leg pain, muscle spasms and weakness in my legs. My $550/month HMO health insurance covered most of it, sans deductible. When it came time for an EMG (electro mumblemumblemumble-o-graph) my insurance wouldn't cover the test because I didn't go through the proper channels. Turns out, I needed my primary care physician referral, and not one from specialist that the prim. care phys. referred me to in the first place. How do they think I got there in the first place? Ugh. So now I'm out $1200 out of pocket because I don't know, I'm retarded like that and wanted the test results.

Fast-forward 6 months and I'm at a new job. This new job has benefits that come directly out of my paycheck. I made another appointment with the neurologist to see where things stood. He ordered another test and wouldn't you know it, my new insurance wouldn't cover a single penny of the office visit, the procedure, or hell, even the primary care phys. office visit. Seems that my new insurance carrier has a 'previous condition' clause in healthcare. If you've been seen for an ailment in the past 8 months while under the umbrella of another insurance, you're screwed. I went to the website to confirm but all I saw were smiling multi-cultural faces and old people. Then buried deep within, I found their claim. So now, I'm faced with the following options:

1) Keep TWO insurances for the 8 month gap. Problem is, if I had used my first insurance for the tests, then the 8 months would have started all over again. Sigh. I got them to admit this over the phone.
2) Wait out the 8 months before a follow-up visit. I don't know about anyone else but I put my health above most anything. I'm not waiting.
3) Pay for the tests myself and throw money that I've already paid both insurance companies down the drain.
4) Fight with credit bureaus and collection agencies as to why my dr. bills are unpaid.

I chose 3. Last years + some of this year's medical costs out of my pocket totaled ~$9500+. Thats RIDICULOUS for someone who is quite healthy aside from one or two common colds and a nerve concern (which turned out to be nothing major but still something necessary to have checked out.) $6600/HMO-yr. + $1200/test + $1200/second test + $200/specialist visit.

Now, what choice did I have as a consumer? Could I have told the original insurance company that I didn't want their business? Sure, but where does that leave me now? Could I have told my company that I didn't want their insurance? Nope, thats the one they offer to me. I would have had to pay even more for my old one. As a consumer, I was stuck between a rock and a rock. With a potential issue on my hands, I had to see a specialist. The specialist won't see me without insurance and the insurance companies won't insure someone that they suspect knows of an ailment.

Privatized insurance companies prey on the likes of me. They want me to pay their premium, and then pay out of pocket as well for tests that I don't want to wait on. If I make one false move, they deny coverage because well, they aren't me, and they don't feel the fear of a physician telling them, "we're going to test for muscle disease."

cacophony

05-27-2008, 04:15 PM

now suppose your source of income paid you minimum wage. how likely would it be that you had a spare $10k lying around to pay for these tests? wonderful that it turned out to be nothing but the symptoms you described indicated some potentially debilitating conditions.

i'd like to know what IsiliRunite would suggest for someone in your position, who is without the income to cover even a portion of that expense.

that's the issue with universal healthcare. denying universal health coverage is basically saying, "i'm sorry you're experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, you should have been born into a wealthier family."

bryantm3

05-27-2008, 09:49 PM

so what's the deal with dunhill cigarettes outsourcing to bangladesh? they used to be made in switzerland and they were the best cigarettes out there. then they changed the package and started making them over there and now they're shitty. the lights are like smoking carltons and the regular ones are like marlboros in a fancy box. and they're still selling them at what, $6 a pack? i understand the ones they sell in england (not the 'internationals') were in a different package and were a bit different from the internationals a couple of years ago, so they haven't started selling the shitty ones in england, too, have they?

Rog

05-28-2008, 02:46 AM

that's the issue with universal healthcare. denying universal health coverage is basically saying, "i'm sorry you're experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, you should have been born into a wealthier family."

exactly!..............

potatobroth

05-28-2008, 08:56 AM

exactly!..............

The moment I started second-guessing what my best option was, I realized how mad I was at the state of health insurance. To think I even considered waiting a few months is ridiculous.

cacophony

05-28-2008, 05:14 PM

i have my own anecdotal argument to share because it's easy to just talk about the poor (which i'm guilty of). but the reality is it's a crisis for all income levels at this point and we can't just sit in our comfortable middle class houses and dismiss the problem so easily.

i have a friend who lost her father this spring. he suffered a stroke the day before thanksgiving which resulted in a coma, a persistent vegetative state. he wasn't dead, he wasn't alive. he ended up in the hospital on life support through christmas because the doctors had to wait to see what would happen as the swelling went down. the prognosis wasn't good, but until they had time to see how the situation developed, they couldn't just immediately discharge him to hospice or predict any kind of recovery. eventually the hospital discharged him and recommended hospice. he wasn't improving but he wasn't worsening, and he needed a ventilator and a feeding tube.

then in january they received terrible news. their private health insurance was dropping them because they felt he'd exceeded his lifetime allowance of coverage. then the news got worse. as a retiree he also had coverage through medicare, but medicare felt his situation was beyond their scope so they denied coverage, too.

the respirator alone cost $900 per day. my friend's mother was faced with an agonizing decision. pull the plug on her husband of 35 years because she couldn't afford to keep him alive, or sell their home of 20 years to pay for his medical care. a callous person would say pull the plug. i challenge that callous person to do so if they're ever unfortunate enough to find themselves in this painful situation.

ultimately she was able to scrape together the money to cover his expenses, while lawyers (which she also had to pay for out of pocket) took the private insurance company and medicare to court. ultimately, though, he didn't make it. in april he suffered a series of heart attacks and passed away. and the fight with insurance and medicare is still unresolved.

now, let me be clear about their financial situation. my friend's father worked as an engineer in telecommunications (mostly verizon, since before it was verizon) for his entire career. your classic member of the baby boomer generation, he joined up with his company in his late 20s and stuck with it all the way through retirement. he made very good money and retired quite comfortably with benefits that included a comprehensive health care plan that he had paid into for decades. his wife is a realtor who makes a fine living selling homes in the NYC area. they own a good sized home in queens, NY, and put three kids through college. this is a family that lived quite comfortably and if not for the way circumstances worked out he and his wife would have lived out their golden years with the financial freedom and comfort that those of our generation dream about.

but one afternoon in november he had a stroke, and two months later his soon-to-be widow contemplated selling their family home to pay for the medical care he needed during his darkest hour.

now. is she "stupid" for not leveraging her awesome power as a consumer and finding a company that would cover her husband? what were her options? did she deserve to suffer the stress of the currently available healthcare systems as she experienced the agony of watching her husband die?

this isn't a crisis for the poor. it's a crisis for every one of us. if you think you're financially stable enough to not worry about healthcare, you're dead wrong. this is becoming more and more common, as the cost of healthcare rises and insurance carriers include more and more exception clauses in their coverage. when you deny the idea of universal healthcare, you approve of a world where the situations like the one described above are possible.

and to tie it back to the original discussion, he might have eaten a high trans-fat diet for all any of you know. maybe he ate too much sodium. maybe he ate too much red meat. maybe he smoked. maybe he made lifestyle choices that led to his stroke. maybe he didn't. but what if he had? did my friend's family deserve to suffer in the end, because he may have made lifestyle choices? if i told you he'd eaten a lifetime of fatty foods and smoked, would you shrug and say, "oh well, he should have lived better." what if i said he was a slim, fit man of 65 who jogged daily and ate healthy foods his whole life? would that make the situation more tragic? when we debate the merit of lifestyle choices and what people "deserve" as a result of those choices, we delve into dangerous territory.

Deckard

05-28-2008, 05:23 PM

Quite scary that someone of their position ended up in that situation. I think it makes your point well.

Strangelet

05-28-2008, 07:14 PM

this isn't a crisis for the poor. it's a crisis for every one of us. if you think you're financially stable enough to not worry about healthcare, you're dead wrong. this is becoming more and more common, as the cost of healthcare rises and insurance carriers include more and more exception clauses in their coverage. when you deny the idea of universal healthcare, you approve of a world where the situations like the one described above are possible.

And if you approve of universal health care blindly, without consideration to its actual implementation, by the same logic you could be very well be approving of

...a woman dying while waiting hours in a backed up waiting room
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2002/10/11/bc_emerg021011.html

...a woman waiting 3 years while living through excruciating pain to get a fairly standard operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2n8JxYXgs&eurl=http://freemarketcure.com/twowomen.php

...a man living in his house for a year because he had to wait for someone to patch the gaping hole in his head, for fear something would touch his exposed brain tissue
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/216280 (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/216280)

did I mention there's no doctors available in toronto? like, none (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/06/22/to-doctor20060622.html).

and this brings it home, an independent study on universal health care up here in the north that concluded the following effects of universal health care, the unfinished health care revolution (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/429459)

Political leaders told the public they were decentralizing health care to bring decision-making closer to home. But, in most cases, they were trying to insulate themselves from the fallout of closing hospital beds, firing highly paid administrators and reining in spending.
No one wanted to take on the medical profession, so doctors remained outside the system, operating their private practices on a fee-for-service basis.
Major chunks of the health-care system – mental health and chronic care – were overlooked, leaving patients without access to a full range of services.
No clear lines of accountability were set. Governments and regional health boards blamed each other whenever an unpopular decision was made. Patients couldn't figure out who was in charge. Taxpayers didn't know where their money was going.
My point isn't to prop up the us system as some success story. I'm merely surprised how uninformed my fellow americans are about universal health care. THey seem to see it as the mythical gum drop kingdom and they allow their presidential candidates to talk down to them accordingly.

Again, I'm saying its not the end of the road. Now that I'm a permanent resident of canada I get health insurance even if I think my boss is a pig and want to quit. No more hassle about pre existing conditions or being tied down to th "company store" model of health care. But then if I do get sick I might have to fly back to the states to get my needs taken care of before I like, die or something.

cacophony

05-28-2008, 07:30 PM

so far no one has advocated a mindless implementation of universal healthcare, any of the candidates' specific plans, or cited any country's existing system as the end-all and be-all. personally i find clinton's plan to be near disastrous.

i think it has to be implemented carefully for the exact reasons you cited. however, we also have to be careful not to make perfect the enemy of good. if all we did was start by implementing universal healthcare for minors, that would be an incredible start.

the fact is, no government program is going to be better than the best of what individualized healthcare COULD provide if enough money were thown at a policy. unfortunately putting it in the hands of the government inevitably means lowering the bar across the board because you have to establish a minimum of care. and once you establish a minimum of care, that minimum becomes your goalpost, not your fail point. it's just how government programs work.

but if there were a safety net of government care, i guarantee companies like aetna and blue cross and humana would offer "better" coverage for competitive premiums. these companies aren't going to quietly go out of business, they will seek ways to continue to bring in revenue through supplemental or superior service. i'm talking about a scenario where health insurance is taken out of the hands of employers, who have to buy bulk packages and individual consumer pressure never comes into play.

that's how you end up with true market competition. right now there is virtually no competition at all. having been through two layoffs and having to switch employer-based insurance several times, i can confidently say that the only competitive difference among all of the existing programs offered by all of the existing companies are in their useless add-ons. like your actual necessary coverage is no different, but one will offer you a 1-800 number to call for tips on how to deal with stress. and another one will email you to remind you to get a mammogram. and another will give you a discount on a gym membership. not actual health coverage.

inject true competition into the system by creating a universal safety net and create a market space for individual insurance providers to exceed the minimum and offer superior service at competitive rates.

Rog

05-29-2008, 03:26 AM

What sort of profits do these private insurance companies make i wonder?

Strangelet

05-29-2008, 07:52 AM

BeautifulBurnout

05-29-2008, 08:15 AM

I agree entirely with Cacophony's post too.

The best health system I have come across is the French one. There is a sliding scale of "universal" healthcare where those out of work/retired etc have 100% cover, and those in work, depending on their income, have to contribute 10%, 20% and so forth (I can't remember the actual figures).

So what salaried people tend to do is take out a "complementary" insurance policy to cover the shortfall, which costs a relatively small amount per month in comparison to full cover. You pay your doctor with a cheque, you send off your form to the national health service and the insurance company, and by the time your cheque has cleared at the bank, they have transferred the money directly into your account. Ditto for hospital bills.

OK, sometimes there can be a day or two delay in getting your money back, but generally speaking you are rarely out of pocket for any length of time.

What is also good about this system is that, unlike the UK where you are registered with a doctor and, unless he or she actually sticks needles unnecessarily in your eyeballs, it is virtually impossible to change to another one irrespective of how crap/incompetent/rude they are, in France you are the consumer - you pay (even if it is reimbursed) so you get to choose who you want to see. And you don't need a referral from a general practitioner to see a specialist either. If you need a dermatologist/ob-gyn or whatever, you phone directly to make an appointment.

This, imo, increases the effectiveness of the medical system because doctors cannot afford to be lackadaisical or incompetent, otherwise they end up with no patients.

IsiliRunite

05-29-2008, 12:23 PM

One thing I haven't pointed out is the constitutional illegality of Universal Healthcare, not that I am a Republican and advocate their government-expansion policies.

cacophony

05-29-2008, 03:10 PM

you're going to have to expand on that.

IsiliRunite

05-29-2008, 03:35 PM

A lot of what Republicans and Democrats have been proposing and putting into practice over the last century and a half has not been in accordance with the Constitution that outlines what the Federal Government is capable of doing. Granted the Constitution does not outline what the Federal Government can not do, powers not given to the Federal Government can be legitimately carried out by the States.

Like, for example, a lot of people believe the First Amendment says that no government at any level can incorporate religion into its policies and et cetera. In actuality, the First Amendment says the Federal Government can not rule on the legality of the religious incorporation that states choose or choose not to follow. Crazy, right?

So, in essence, if there is to be universal healthcare it will have to (legally) exist and be executed on the state-level which would work more efficiently because of the smaller scale of policy and the increased input of the people via proposals. Obviously there is no room for federal proposals, so we have old men who have not worked a day in their life make our policies after being bribed by special interests :)

This is just an example of why I appreciate state power as opposed to federal power because the states are more in touch with the needs of their specific citizens and, as evidenced by the totalitarian nature of increasing central power that we can see throughout history...

I could go on for pages about why the Federal Governments should be fixed in size while the states should fluctuate according to the opinion of state citizens, but there you go, Universal Healthcare at the Federal level would be illegal, unless you were to make an amendment for it.

cacophony

05-29-2008, 06:54 PM

personally i find it odd to put bureaucratic technicalities ahead of empathy for your fellow human beings, but that's just the bleeding heart liberal in me.

i'm not going to debate the whole "what did the framers of the constitution really mean" issue. creating an amendment to cover the technicality is just a blip in the process that a motivated executive and legislative branch wouldn't blink at (and historically have not). and then ultimately it's up to the supreme court to decide if challenged. seeing as they haven't rejected other "universal" national programs, i don't see something like that overturning on a technicality.

so let me ask you this. if "universal" healthcare were adopted at the state level in all 50 states, no federal government involvement, would you still oppose it?

IsiliRunite

05-29-2008, 08:25 PM

I would oppose it in my state, by voting against it unless it addressed my concerns about support self-destructive behaviour, but I wouldn't be offended if other states were under the system.

I still believe that smoking, drinking, and no-seatbelt et cetera cases should have to pay using private coverage or funds...

Sarcasmo

05-31-2008, 05:01 AM

Okay, noone wants to be the hothead, and I hadn't wanted to either, but my week was just shit, and, well, it might as well be me.

IsiliRunite, what kind of weird, twisted, fucked up world do you plan on living in, where every single activity is scrutinized when we're tallying up the bill? Ever think that, perhaps, the stress and fear caused by an emergency room visit might be enough suffering to heap onto someone? Ever think that, maybe, just maybe, having to deal with a debilitating illness or disease might be enough of a wakeup call for someone to start living healthier, or maybe not taking some chances, and maybe we don't need to stick them with the entire tab for choices they may have made years and years ago?

It's part of life, and it's part being an evolved organism, to take care of people that need it, even if they may have done something a little reckless, a little inadvisable, or just plain stupid. Your "make stupid people pay for their mistakes," is so fucking callous and narrow minded that you'd have to parrot it in front of a mirror for a week just to start believing the shit. For example:

I smoke. A lot. All day long. Sometimes, within ten feet of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch. You know why? Because I've been spending the last 5 weeks on the Syrian border, where packs of wild dogs bark in my ear all night, I routinely stay up way past 3:30am (due to work or insomnia). I spend 7-13 hours in a cramped, armor-plated, poorly-cooled truck to travel 50 miles, so I can spend 4 days or so sleeping under the stars on an uncomfortable metal and canvas cot, not showering, and eating something unidentifiable out of a cardboard box. And if you still can't understand why I might engage in "risky behavior" like smoking, I do all of this ten thousand miles away from my friends, family, and fiancee. My battalion is run by nitwits. I have to try to keep gear up and running with spit and duct tape. It's rapidly approaching 120 degrees F in the shade. If I don't get this little "coffin nail," or "cowboy killer," or "cancer stick," I might just go kinetic on something (or someone). There's no psychiatrist to talk to out here, so that I can get something off of my chest. Within the Marines, a pep talk is, "Suck it the fuck up." There's no chaplain here that I can bare my soul to and have a good cry. But I have cigarettes, and goddamn it, they do the job. They smell and taste like shit. They make me feel like hell in the morning, and I know I'm just tarring the hell out of my lungs. And you're going to tell me that if I develop lung cancer in 15 or 20 years, YOU think I should have to pay for all of my treatments?

You can take that idea and cram it up your ass.

The truth of the matter is, I only smoke when I'm deployed. It cures boredom and anxiety, and it helps me stay awake when I need to. When I get home, I stop, because I don't need it anymore. I have the most incredible and gorgeous woman in the world when I'm home. I have the ocean. I have a queen sized bed, and a 42 inch TV in my bedroom. I have much easier access to porn. The problem is, I've already made my toss at the genetic roulette table, and it might come back to bite me in the ass someday. I'm comfortable with that. What I'm not comfortable with is some dipshit, self-centered philosophy that excludes you from participating in the rest of society. I gave 5 years of my life to the American people, and I did it as well as I could. As far as I'm concerned, you IsiliRunite, owe me.

Not to mention the hundreds and thousands of guys out there who are fucked up for life because they participated in our society, while you were researching the constitutionality of universal healthcare. You have any idea what 2 155mm South African artillery shells, together with a bottle of acetylene and a can of gas does to a humvee, even an uparmored one? Care to take a guess at what it does to a human body? Ever picked up body parts and brought them back to their previous owners after they and their comrades were mortared? If you have, then you might understand why someone might need a drink from time to time...or ten...or as many as it takes to become emotionally numb, so you can at least leave the house. Hundreds and thousands of people are in our country right now, who have to get so drunk, so stoned, all the time, just so they can fall asleep. They're so fucked up that they can't hold jobs. They have no income. And if one of them needs hospital attention because they decided to try to kill themselves, YOU'RE comfortable with making them foot the bill.

I wish I could be as eloquent as our dirtymama here (congratulations on twin boys, cacophony), and I wish I didn't have to swear so much to get my point across. I've had about 4 and a half hours of sleep, and I suppose my temper isn't what it could be. But I just thought I needed to get another point across.

That being said, get some fucking perspective in your life, man.

IsiliRunite

05-31-2008, 02:49 PM

cacophony

05-31-2008, 05:50 PM

Maybe if we rehumanized ourselves into compassionate, considerate beings instead of isolated individuals...

I'm actually what you would call an isolationist.

lollerskates.

also i find it ironic that you're suggesting that we be humane, but you're more interested in guarding your own personal finances than ensuring that no child, no matter how poor his or her circumstances, has to die of treatable diseases. that's freakin' humane, brother.

also, i never voted for a war, either. i don't support the actions that put our troops there. i don't believe in the reasons that drove us there. but the day i would respond to a soldier by dismissing his efforts as, "i'm an isolationist" is the day i deserve a solid steel-toed boot up the ass. i've never said this to anyone online or in person, but shame on you.

in conclusion, i'd like to buy sarcasmo a steak. for many reasons, but primarily because i think he was far more eloquent than he thinks on this subject.

IsiliRunite

05-31-2008, 06:48 PM

dictionary.com

He did express himself pretty well, but I still think what he expressed is bogus.

cacophony

05-31-2008, 10:22 PM

so if i understand you correctly, your philosophy can be summarized as follows:

"i keeps what i makes, and screw all y'alls."

Sean

05-31-2008, 10:45 PM

If you were to run through your house and clip your living-room table, consequently making the vase sitting no that table fall and shatter, is your brother the one who gets hit with the belt?What a stupid analogy.

I'm losing a father to cigarettes, and I have already lost a mother to the habit, but for me to sit around and act like it is okay for the rest of you to pay for their mistakes in any way is absurd. What happened to accountability?Accountability is one thing - but you've actually been saying that someone getting exercise through sports should be left out in the cold because they're somehow being irresponsible and taking part in "risky" activities. Driving a car is a risky activity too....should anyone who gets in a car accident have to pay for their medical bills out of pocket? If not, then WHY not?

And realistically, exercise in general seems like it would fall under your "risky" activity label. I know a few people who have hurt themselves during weight training in the gym - weight training being a necessary part of a healthy gym routine. So should they be left to fend for themselves too? If not, then WHY not? And if so, then what in the world should people do for exercise? Not getting ANY exercise is far worse for your health than risking injury through sports and gym workouts, so what would you have people do? :confused:

You're labeling of "risky" or "stupid" activities are ridiculously thoughtless.

and you guys are gonna come at me with an argument about some little boy who couldn't get health care coverage for his minor dental cavity and ended up dying. Clearly, you're not processing what people here are saying.

That sucks. That is awful, and should have never happened. Maybe if we rehumanized ourselves into compassionate, considerate beings instead of isolated individuals.Didn't you just say that you're an "isolationist"? So which is it? Should we break out of being isolated, or should we be isolationists?

Universal healthcare is a programme that reroutes HOW humans do not act humanely, forcing their actions to become humane and potentially punishing those who act perfectly humanely. Why not make our actions more humane in the first place? That is something that would address more worldly concerns than just healthcare. I guess its just too easy to blame some white corporation CEO for the problems in the world than looking inward and taking some responsibility for why the world is not perfect.How can you claim that you're taking a humane stance when your ideas would leave a huge portion of the population to suffer and die because you deem them to be "retards"?

I'm a centerist who sees value in many liberal, as well as conservative ideas, but your stance is just ridiculous.

Sarcasmo

06-01-2008, 01:39 AM

If you were to run through your house and clip your living-room table, consequently making the vase sitting no that table fall and shatter, is your brother the one who gets hit with the belt?

Additionally, I never signed off on a war. I'm actually what you would call an isolationist.

I'm losing a father to cigarettes, and I have already lost a mother to the habit, but for me to sit around and act like it is okay for the rest of you to pay for their mistakes in any way is absurd. What happened to accountability?

and you guys are gonna come at me with an argument about some little boy who couldn't get health care coverage for his minor dental cavity and ended up dying.

That sucks. That is awful, and should have never happened. Maybe if we rehumanized ourselves into compassionate, considerate beings instead of isolated individuals. There is a people solution to the healthcare issue, and I'm a firm believer that people's action in the field would produce more results than government. By creating universal healthcare we are saying, "Hey, a lot of us are really greedy and selfish, but that is okay, because instead of changing our priorities and day-to-day actions, we humans can create a bigger government to make sure none of us are negatively affected by humans." Which, obviously, does not make sense.

Universal healthcare is a programme that reroutes HOW humans do not act humanely, forcing their actions to become humane and potentially punishing those who act perfectly humanely. Why not make our actions more humane in the first place? That is something that would address more worldly concerns than just healthcare. I guess its just too easy to blame some white corporation CEO for the problems in the world than looking inward and taking some responsibility for why the world is not perfect.

Your example using the table is WAY too simplistic to be anything approaching usable for this discussion. And you're still dancing around all the valid points that other people are making, just so you can keep hammering away at your stupid "accountability" standpoint. What you just said, to my eyes anyway, was instead of incorporating a modified version of universal healthcare, which has shown to be effective at covering people who do not have the means to access private insurance, we should just evolve. You just argued for social evolution instead of something that could be implemented within a couple of years. Even Dennis Kucinich would tell you that you're talking crazy.

Plus, you never addressed anything I said about people who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of maintaining an income. Specifically, people with mental and emotional disturbances who have a hard enough time keeping from killing themselves, that they can't hold jobs. How are they supposed to get treatment for anything? You're focusing on making sure that people are accountable for their actions, but the situation isn't that simple. Never was, never will be, no matter how much you argue to the contrary.

To be honest, I don't think you addressed anything I said. You just repeated the same tired material you've been using for the last 6 pages. That, and you felt it necessary to tell me you didn't vote for the war, which I could give two shits about. It's not about supporting the war. It's about the fact that there are men and women who have given something far more valuable than money to you and every other self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled American out there, and they're not getting the treatment that they need. Treatment that they deserve. Treatment that self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled Americans OWE them. I don't care if the person in question is booting black-tar heroin, if he's done a combat tour for the US military, every man, woman, and child in America owes him whatever he needs to get straight, get healthy, and enjoy his life.

IsiliRunite

06-01-2008, 12:15 PM

Sarcasmo

06-01-2008, 04:11 PM

Obviously there are some special circumstances you are in that are attempted to be covered by the pre-existing Veteran's health-care-fo-life plan, that could use reworking but..

I'm sorry you think its "tired" that I have some principles I stand by and can express using a variety of methods. I would address people's specific examples if they weren't addressed by some of my beliefs a few miles upstream of their example.

Keep painting the picture that I am the bad guy by putting removing a little faith in government and putting it back in people to solve, what you and I both acknowledge, are problems. I've said all I can say...

It's not so much that we're for bigger government, but the changes you would like to see made are on a societal level, and that takes decades of engineering to do, and while that happens, people are going to die who don't need to.

I've read the pages prior to my post, and you still haven't addressed the questions that I've put to you, totally separate from anything involving veterans. Again, what, other than universal healthcare on a federal level, will provide for people who are too emotionally or mentally damaged to hold a job? War is not the only thing that causes PTSD, and PTSD is not the only affliction out there. If these people cannot hold jobs and cannot make money, how do we ensure that they have the means with which to get medical treatment? To throw another variable into the mix, what if they're habitual drug users? I've worked with the developmentally disabled, and a great number of them smoke. They're developmentally disabled, which means that at some point in their early childhood (before the age of 18) something happened to them that trapped their minds in an age of anywhere from 19 months to 7 years of development. Are you saying that you would deny them health care to related to their smoking because they were, for lack of a better term, retarded?

The big issue that most of us argue against you on is the fact that market forces and leveraging one's power as a consumer only work when you have MONEY. If you can't make any MONEY, you can't even get your foot in the door, and you lose from the get go. Are we supposed to tell those people, "Hang on, we're trying to evolve as a society, and we'll get to you once we've activated the altruism gene?"

The second big point that we argue against you on is the fact that a hospital stay, even a small one, can be a financial cataclysm for nearly anyone not fabulously rich. A man who was 4 days out of open heart surgery for a quadruple bypass fell when he was walking to the bathroom, popped his stitches and developed an infection, resulting in his lingering in an intensive care suite for 3 months, and then the cardiac wing for another ten, and he still died. All told, his hospital expenses were north of 2 million dollars. Do you know anyone who could absorb that kind of expense? And are you willing to say, flat out, that if his 4x bypass was caused by obesity and lack of exercise, and he survived that ordeal, that he should have to foot the bill for the whole shebang?

Here's the way the world works. There's a thing called a Hippocratic Oath, which states that a physician cannot deny care to a patient that needs it. Now, this doesn't apply to things like tummy-tucks and face-lifts, but it damned sure applies to things like chemotherapy and heart bypasses. What that means, in a nutshell, is that if you can't pay the hospital, they still have to treat you, and the cost still has to go somewhere. I don't even know if a hospital can take you to court to recoup their losses. So that means, even according to your plan, you'll still end up paying for people's stupid mistakes because, thank God, you didn't write the Oath. If, according to your view of How Things Should Work, people were held ultimately accountable for everything they did throughout their lives, noone would get treatment for anything, because insurance companies wouldn't insure people who smoked, drank, did any kind of drug, engaged in promiscuous, unprotected sex, or played high impact sports. That means that in order to conform to your way of thinking, anything and everything we did would be open to scrutiny from potential health care providers and insurance companies. Which, oh Constitutional Scholar, is... I don't know, A DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! I made that bit a tad conspicuous so that you'd catch it. And in order to monitor people that closely, you'd need, oh, I dunno, A FUCKING HUGE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT! Again, emphasis is for your benefit.

May the power of comprehension wash over you. I've said all I can say...;)

cacophony

06-01-2008, 04:26 PM

And in order to monitor people that closely, you'd need, oh, I dunno, A FUCKING HUGE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT!

i've been thinking that from the start.

i feel like there are huge holes in our friend's argument. he's arguing constitutionality and advocating smaller government, and then suggesting that we screen people according to the nature and cause of their health care needs and then judge them worthy of coverage. does not compute.

if you don't want to be the "bad guy," IsiliRunite, participate in the conversation. you've done nothing to address any of the questions posed. i've asked a number of times whether you think the child of a rich man deserves a better chance than the child of a poor man. so how's about it? do you think it's okay for people do die of treatable conditions simply because they can't afford coverage? i want an answer to that. you make yourself the "bad guy" when you refuse to address the simple ethical dilemma that is a necessary component of many of our opinions on the subject.

i'm willing to accept any answer here, such as, "no it's not right, but we all have to shuffle off this mortal coil sometime." or, "no one deserves health, it's not a basic human right." ANYTHING. hell, i can't even argue with you if you don't regard health as a basic human right. i can disagree but i can't empirically disprove your perspective.

you're hiding behind constitutionality instead of addressing what is, for everyone else, a moral debate. and you're hiding behind philosophical naval-gazing about the nature of humanity and the evolution of compassion. i think we can all agree that the naval-gazing "solution" you offered would be a wonderful world indeed, but since we all live in the world TODAY at this specific point in evolution, it's not too much to ask that you come out from your hiding place and engage in a real world discussion.

so far you've taken a position that seems to be entirely about not wanting anyone else to get their grubby mitts on your money;. if you don't want to be viewed as something of a selfish "bad guy" it's up to you to correct the impression you've created. no one is responsible for what you've said in this thread but you.

Sean

06-01-2008, 08:04 PM

I would address people's specific examples if they weren't addressed by some of my beliefs a few miles upstream of their example.Not really you haven't. For example, here's one I posed in my previous post that points out a huge flaw in your thinking, and which I would still love to have you address. I'll pose it here again, in a clearer way.

You've deemed exercise through many sports to be "risky", and therefore unworthy of being covered by insurance. A quick search for sports injury statistics in the U.S. tells us that in 1998 (it was the first year that popped up - http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html), there were around 22,665 injuries due to tennis, 49,331 injuries due to swimming, 180,582 injuries due to baseball, and 577,621 injuries due to bike riding. Another quick search says that on average, there are 3,000,000 injuries due to auto accidents every year, 2,000,000 of which are permanent injuries. So this would indicate to me that driving a car is a more "risky" activity than any of these sports. Should car accident victims be covered considering the known risks they're taking in getting behind the wheel?

And digging deeper into the sports related injury statistics, you'll see that in '98, there were 60,039 injuries due to weight lifting, 33,320 injuries to people exercising using "exercise equipment", and 123,177 injuries to people exercising using no exercise equipment. That's more injuries collectively at the gym than there were injuries due to presumably "risky" sports like the 81,787 injuries to snow skiers, or the 169,734 injuries to soccer players, so does that mean that gym-related injuries shouldn't be covered either?

And the overall question here is how would you have people get exercise? Clearly, not exercising would result in worse health for most people, but by your logic, most great forms of exercise would leave people financially screwed if they happened to get hurt while doing them.

Keep painting the picture that I am the bad guy by putting removing a little faith in government and putting it back in people to solve, what you and I both acknowledge, are problems. I've said all I can say... No one's painting a picture of you being a bad guy, but you're certainly not making yourself look good. And I'm on board with personal responsibility and smaller government when possible, but your personal theories on who should and shouldn't be privy to health insurance coverage are so thoughtless as to be stunning. There are blatant contradictions that you refuse to acknowledge or explain - e.g. people who get exercise through sports and other "risky" physical activities shouldn't be covered, and yet I assume you think that people who get no exercise at all also shouldn't be covered because not exercising would be "stupid" :confused:.

And as was pointed out by Sarcasmo and Cacophony, the government department devoted to what are and aren't acceptably "safe" activities would have to be massive to keep up with every possible injury scenario that could arise. Or, if it was a private department in a health care company that was determining this stuff, the likeliest outcome would be prices of insurance coverage skyrocketing well higher than they already are just to cover the cost of the work involved in figuring this all out.

And then there would be the deluge of new lawsuits that would constantly be brought against insurance companies because so many injuries or illnesses would be the result of situations that wouldn't fit cleanly into the pre-established list of possible scenarios outlined in the insurance guidelines. And every time the insurance company loses a suit brought against them - which would probably be quite often if they adopted your self-contradictory logic - then guess what? Insurance costs for the rest of us would shoot up yet again. And let's not forget the fact that our courts are already stretched thin these days, so the toll it would take there would be notable as well.

And finally, with the mountains of new red tape your ideas would create, it's easy to imagine that huge numbers of people would be getting sicker, or even dying while they waited to find out if their insurance provider would cover their problem or not. This means that one, if they were more sick by the time they got the green light to be treated, the treatment would probably take longer and cost more, raising our insurance rates yet again, two, your ideas would be responsible for unnecessary deaths, and three, there would be even more lawsuits concerning wrongful death cases.

So in addition to the question you haven't answered that I re-posed to you in the first half of this post, I have this one: when you consider these realistic, potential consequences of your ideas - significantly higher insurance premiums, sicker people, unnecessary deaths, a bogged down court system - what exactly do you think the benefits would be?

Rog

06-02-2008, 05:02 AM

lollerskates.

also i find it ironic that you're suggesting that we be humane, but you're more interested in guarding your own personal finances than ensuring that no child, no matter how poor his or her circumstances, has to die of treatable diseases. that's freakin' humane, brother.
.</p>
Just what i was going to say :D

cacophony

06-02-2008, 08:01 AM

^ even an obgyn? i never understand when coverage considers obgyn a "specialist." for women, it's pretty much the same thing as a general practitioner. dermatologist is optional, gastroenterologist is only necessary when problems arise. but obgyn is annual routine maintenance.

i've been lucky because my last two plans allowed me to pick my obgyn without a referral from my primary care physician. previous plans i'd been on considered them specialists and i had to get a referral. which is just silly.

potatobroth

06-02-2008, 08:16 AM

with the specialists I had to see in the past few years, I was always shocked that my insurance company kept sending me over to my prim care phys. it just seemed like a total waste of money to both me and the ins co since the office visits were less than five minutes long and consisted of, "so, did you go see X specialist yet? oh, you needed to come here first for insurance reasons? ok, go see X specialist."

its an industry of wasted money and unfortunately most of it is mine.

Strangelet

06-02-2008, 08:30 AM

It's not about supporting the war. It's about the fact that there are men and women who have given something far more valuable than money to you and every other self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled American out there...

OT a bit but I wanted to respond to this.

Lord knows I would be cursing us mopes back stateside if I were in such a hell on earth in the face of such indifference from home. Bitter wouldn't be the word. But I think some of this conventional bitterness misses the picture. like totally. It was one of your own, the commander in chief, that told us to be indfferent, to go to the mall, to spend instead of sacrifice, to bankrupt your service structures with tax credits that coincidentally are about the same dollar amounts as a chinese made flat screen tv at walmart.

I won't argue whether or not being self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled is ingrained in our culture. I will argue that the strategy of diversion played by the pentagon run media and the white house had nothing to do with the fact that americans behave this way. They played their hand for one reason and one reason only. That the war is a sham and the more anyone starts digging into cost benefit analysis or ethical ramifications they see how much of a sham it is.

You could say the american people are guilty of allowing themselves to be placed under such soma. But now our behaviors of obedience and emotional patriotism become just as much of a factor as being self centered or spoiled.

People do what their leaders tell them to do. Soldiers go to war because they are told it is good for the country. Citizens max their credit cards in obstinence toward the financial writing on the wall.

We're all being played. And I don't want to be an asshole for saying this but I think its the truth.

What I'm really trying to say is this. I'm personally grateful for your service, everyone I know who hates the war are grateful for your service, and the role for each of us, citizen and soldier, is to come together against the real enemy - the prevarications and lies of our leaders. You deserve the same support enjoyed by the soldiers of ww2, our grandfathers and grandmothers who lived off of rations. We aren't that generation but we aren't being asked to be that generation either. And you have to fucking wonder why.

Sarcasmo

06-02-2008, 09:14 AM

OT a bit but I wanted to respond to this.

Lord knows I would be cursing us mopes back stateside if I were in such a hell on earth in the face of such indifference from home. Bitter wouldn't be the word. But I think some of this conventional bitterness misses the picture. like totally. It was one of your own, the commander in chief, that told us to be indfferent, to go to the mall, to spend instead of sacrifice, to bankrupt your service structures with tax credits that coincidentally are about the same dollar amounts as a chinese made flat screen tv at walmart.

I won't argue whether or not being self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled is ingrained in our culture. I will argue that the strategy of diversion played by the pentagon run media and the white house had nothing to do with the fact that americans behave this way. They played their hand for one reason and one reason only. That the war is a sham and the more anyone starts digging into cost benefit analysis or ethical ramifications they see how much of a sham it is.

You could say the american people are guilty of allowing themselves to be placed under such soma. But now our behaviors of obedience and emotional patriotism become just as much of a factor as being self centered or spoiled.

People do what their leaders tell them to do. Soldiers go to war because they are told it is good for the country. Citizens max their credit cards in obstinence toward the financial writing on the wall.

We're all being played. And I don't want to be an asshole for saying this but I think its the truth.

And I wont disagree with you on any particular point in your message, but I think you either misread where I was going with my argument, or I explained it too obtusely, which I've been known to do.

I've held the opinion for a while now that some kind of semi-compulsory social service should be the norm for young adults in this country, for only a couple of years. Of course, this would not be limited to military service, but would extend to the Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross; any charitable organization in need of volunteers would do. And with a little re-working, such service could easily mimic military service in terms of pay or time served, and the many benefits that military members earn through their service would be offered as well. I just see a real problem with the way young people are developing with no sense of civic responsibility or pride. Very few people have the kind of experience in a culture where you're not only responsible for yourself, but for those around you, and for those you serve. Ours is one of instant self gratification and obsession. That's more to what I was getting at. Hopefully I've explained it a little bit better. Think what you want of the war, the motivation, the legitimacy, the management. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to honorably serving our Nation as Her warriors are deserving of everything good that our society has to offer. I think that we'd be better off as a nation if we encouraged and rewarded our youth for voluntary and selfless service.

Strangelet

06-02-2008, 09:23 AM

And I wont disagree with you on any particular point in your message, but I think you either misread where I was going with my argument, or I explained it too obtusely, which I've been known to do.

I've held the opinion for a while now that some kind of semi-compulsory social service should be the norm for young adults in this country, for only a couple of years. Of course, this would not be limited to military service, but would extend to the Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross; any charitable organization in need of volunteers would do. And with a little re-working, such service could easily mimic military service in terms of pay or time served, and the many benefits that military members earn through their service would be offered as well. I just see a real problem with the way young people are developing with no sense of civic responsibility or pride. Very few people have the kind of experience in a culture where you're not only responsible for yourself, but for those around you, and for those you serve. Ours is one of instant self gratification and obsession. That's more to what I was getting at. Hopefully I've explained it a little bit better. Think what you want of the war, the motivation, the legitimacy, the management. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to honorably serving our Nation as Her warriors are deserving of everything good that our society has to offer. I think that we'd be better off as a nation if we encouraged and rewarded our youth for voluntary and selfless service.

i don't think I misread your post. I was more just responding to how I just felt fucking awful hearing about what you're going through and just a little pissed that its going on. especially when i have argued myself into thinking that the foundation of the war is cracked and rotting.

btw i added this..

What I'm really trying to say is this. I'm personally grateful for your service, everyone I know who hates the war are grateful for your service, and the role for each of us, citizen and soldier, is to come together against the real enemy - the prevarications and lies of our leaders. You deserve the same support enjoyed by the soldiers of ww2, our grandfathers and grandmothers who lived off of rations. We aren't that generation but we aren't being asked to be that generation either. And you have to fucking wonder why.

IsiliRunite

06-02-2008, 02:08 PM

i've been thinking that from the start.

i feel like there are huge holes in our friend's argument. he's arguing constitutionality and advocating smaller government, and then suggesting that we screen people according to the nature and cause of their health care needs and then judge them worthy of coverage. does not compute.

if you don't want to be the "bad guy," IsiliRunite, participate in the conversation. you've done nothing to address any of the questions posed. i've asked a number of times whether you think the child of a rich man deserves a better chance than the child of a poor man. so how's about it? do you think it's okay for people do die of treatable conditions simply because they can't afford coverage? i want an answer to that. you make yourself the "bad guy" when you refuse to address the simple ethical dilemma that is a necessary component of many of our opinions on the subject.

i'm willing to accept any answer here, such as, "no it's not right, but we all have to shuffle off this mortal coil sometime." or, "no one deserves health, it's not a basic human right." ANYTHING. hell, i can't even argue with you if you don't regard health as a basic human right. i can disagree but i can't empirically disprove your perspective.

you're hiding behind constitutionality instead of addressing what is, for everyone else, a moral debate. and you're hiding behind philosophical naval-gazing about the nature of humanity and the evolution of compassion. i think we can all agree that the naval-gazing "solution" you offered would be a wonderful world indeed, but since we all live in the world TODAY at this specific point in evolution, it's not too much to ask that you come out from your hiding place and engage in a real world discussion.

so far you've taken a position that seems to be entirely about not wanting anyone else to get their grubby mitts on your money;. if you don't want to be viewed as something of a selfish "bad guy" it's up to you to correct the impression you've created. no one is responsible for what you've said in this thread but you.

Just for clarification, because its obvious you have no idea what I am talking about.

1. Federal Universal Healthchare is illegal, and aside from being illegal it would entail a bigger government that I would not appreciate
2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional it would, as well, entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

That is not my entire argument, but you are confusing and blending two major points of my argument and calling me a hypocrite.

I'm not going to address specifics if you all can't demonstrate that you are capable of understanding the basics of my arguments.

And while there are probabilities that one can get hurt doing anything, let me set up a little contrasting list so you can understand me:
Driving - Potentially Dangerous
Driving without a seatbelt - Foolish behaviour to in which a person unnecessarily increases the probability of physical harm. I do not want to pay for these people
Playing Hockey - Potentially Dangerous
Playing Hockey without a helmet - A person's explicit action, obviously not to get injured, but still unnecessarily increasing the base probability of physical harm

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

There is another explanation for why I do not like Universal Healthcare, so let me know if that makes any more sense.

With respect to my foreign policy...
Isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

With respect to my views on the modern man
Isolated - separated from other persons or things; alone; solitary.

I volunteer at a hospital every week, which is one way I walk the walk about people actively solving people problems instead of creating big governments, which I do not appreciate, instead of being an active member of compassion and responsibility in their community

I also give blood. I don't mind if you have views that oppose mine, but if you are going to attempt to understand and then oppose mine, don't do it half-heartedly. Bitches :)

Rog

06-03-2008, 04:43 AM

Twice in your last last post you mention 'punishing people's wallets', money before people? typical chelsea fan :P

Strangelet

06-03-2008, 08:05 AM

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

Again, a glaring self contradiction. You can't call it humane to enforce a criteria for discrimination based on your own personal definition of what is acting in one's self-interest and inhumane if a government program did the same thing.

Anyway, we're still having the problem of these pedestrian notions of what is acting in one's self interest and accountability. I mean sorry to add to the dog pile, but fuck, mate. Let's start off by deciding how much medical care expenses are dealt out because of environment versus genetic dispositions. And of the subset caused by environment how much is spent because of pollution, asbestos, and lead cookery, and how much is actually caused by one's own choices. And of that subset, how much of those choices could be legally deemed to be reasonably willfully self destructive? Seriously, lets quantify this.

Strangelet

06-03-2008, 10:18 AM

I think what you're trying to do, Isillrunite, is argue is a libertarian/ayn randian outlook on health care.

So lets go to the source. Here's Dr. Ron Paul speaking about health care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc)

What I find interesting is he has more in common with the things cacophony and Sarcasmo and Sean has been saying than the things you've been saying.
I honestly believe Ron Paul is a god and deserved a less frenzied fan base to color what are clear practical objectives behind the sensationalist libertarian philosophy. just my opinion. People got hung up on the whole "do away with the department of x" half because the media loved to pave over the pragmatic side of Paul and half because his crazy ass followers made sure of it.

Sean

06-03-2008, 11:03 AM

I'm not going to address specifics if you all can't demonstrate that you are capable of understanding the basics of my arguments.I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that this comes down to our inability to comprehend your arguments.

What it does come down to is that you've delivered us a laundry list of glaring contradictions, cold rationalizations with apparently little thought put towards their realistic consequences, misrepresentations of the responses that have been directed at you, and an appaerent unwillingness to clarify your core position and how any of it makes sense on any realistic or constructive level.

Maybe it would be a good idea, since you keep referring to how your core beliefs exempt you from having to address more detail oriented flaws, if you would go ahead and outline those core beliefs in a clear, concise way.

IsiliRunite

06-03-2008, 12:50 PM

Again, a glaring self contradiction. You can't call it humane to enforce a criteria for discrimination based on your own personal definition of what is acting in one's self-interest and inhumane if a government program did the same thing. A government programme cannot judge people on intangibles [nobody can decide what "good health" is] or certain aspects of their being they cannot control [genetics or race], legally, especially when it comes down to life or death. As people, we do it all the time... you all go to parties and choose not to have sex with the fat chicks!

That is not a contradiction, that is a dichotomy.

Deckard

06-03-2008, 01:04 PM

you all go to parties and choose not to have sex with the fat chicks!
oh, all the time.

Strangelet

06-03-2008, 01:16 PM

A government programme cannot judge people on intangibles [nobody can decide what "good health" is] or certain aspects of their being they cannot control [genetics or race], legally, especially when it comes down to life or death. As people, we do it all the time... you all go to parties and choose not to have sex with the fat chicks!

That is not a contradiction, that is a dichotomy.

you got to be fucking kidding me. Incidentally, fat bottomed girls are what makes this crazy world go round, mate.

BeautifulBurnout

06-03-2008, 01:29 PM

As people, we do it all the time... you all go to parties and choose not to have sex with the fat chicks!

You are absolutely right. Although I make a different kind of choice. As a fat chick, I go to parties and choose not to have sex with the moronic bigots. Which would probably explain why you have never had sex with a fat chick.

IsiliRunite

06-03-2008, 01:38 PM

You are a beautiful human being.

There are plenty of fat chicks I would have sex with in the world...its just that Star Jones-esque big women aren't my type, and that is the type of big women I see frequently in Detroit. Let me admit a mistake and say, "unattractive chicks", because we all can agree ugly chicks are ugly!

I am so serious, Strangelet, and so sincere...

BeautifulBurnout

06-03-2008, 01:56 PM

Hehehe. Nice save. :D

From my point of view, the older you get, the less you are worried about the exterior packaging and the more you are concerned with what goes on inside a person - intelligence, sense of humour, shared values all add up to so much more than looks, imo. So it is difficult for me to follow your analogy in that respect.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

06-03-2008, 02:18 PM

A... you all go to parties and choose not to have sex with the fat chicks!

That is not a contradiction, that is a dichotomy.

Speak for yourself. I don't go for the model/magazine(plastic) type. I like them a bit chunky.

cacophony

06-03-2008, 02:59 PM

I've held the opinion for a while now that some kind of semi-compulsory social service should be the norm for young adults in this country, for only a couple of years. Of course, this would not be limited to military service, but would extend to the Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross; any charitable organization in need of volunteers would do. And with a little re-working, such service could easily mimic military service in terms of pay or time served, and the many benefits that military members earn through their service would be offered as well. I just see a real problem with the way young people are developing with no sense of civic responsibility or pride. Very few people have the kind of experience in a culture where you're not only responsible for yourself, but for those around you, and for those you serve.

i think you would enjoy reading robert heinlein. starting with "starship troopers." he agreed with your sentiment and built a solid plot around making that argument.

cacophony

06-03-2008, 03:15 PM

Twice in your last last post you mention 'punishing people's wallets', money before people?

this is what i keep coming back to. at no point does there seem to be a fundamental philosophy that transcends the concern for personal wealth.

and just to note, IsiliRunite, we could certainly all have a pissing contest about who is more selfless than whom and i'm sure many of us could contribute a laundry list of charitable acts to support our positions. personally i find it a little amusing that you pissed on sarcasmo's service then chose to announce your own low-risk acts of selflessness to illustrate what a good person you are. the bloodmobile shows up at work so you donate a pint? excellent. our soldiers whose service you casually dismissed face mortar fire on a daily basis. you'll always be your own hero, but you'll have to forgive me if i don't regard you as a saint.

you have still not addressed any of the questions addressed to you in this thread, as sean pointed out. it's a question of morality and it is simple. i'm not trying to back you into saying "universal healthcare is awesome!" i even gave you the perfect out in my last post. do you or do you not think a person's chance of survival in this world should depend on his or her ability to pay? do you think health is a fundamental human right? you don't have to say yes. i'd be happy if you said no, because at least you'd be participating in the conversation. it's a simple question, i don't see what's so difficult about answering it.

IsiliRunite

06-03-2008, 04:00 PM

personally i find it a little amusing that you pissed on sarcasmo's service then chose to announce your own low-risk acts of selflessness to illustrate what a good person you are.
Let's be real...While I do appreciate Sarcasmo's service, and I'm glad I was not drafted because he volunteered, military service is not exactly charity and there are very real socioeconomic gains that can be made for putting your life on the line in the military. Granted those are just incentives, but it is not totally selfless. If Sarcasm's service is totally selfless in nature, as a individual, then I do applaud that.

do you or do you not think a person's chance of survival in this world should depend on his or her ability to pay?
I believe health starts with the individual's ability, whether based on upbringing or information acquisition, to keep themselves from falling into illness. Then, if that step has been bypassed or ignored, that little bill we use to quantify workmanship and effort in this society, personal wealth can be used to make up for those shortcomings. Finally, if money and giving-a-fuck (ignorance is no excuse) are both absent, hopefully the less fortunate can rely on the personal charity of hospital, doctor, or peer to prevent their mistakes as individuals from catching up to them.

do you think health is a fundamental human right?Good health is a fundamental human privilege, and I have a constitutional right to not be forced into charity. Killing someone is unconstitutional, letting someone die is not.

potatobroth

06-03-2008, 08:23 PM

Finally, if money and giving-a-fuck (ignorance is no excuse) are both absent, hopefully the less fortunate can rely on the personal charity of hospital, doctor, or peer to prevent their mistakes as individuals from catching up to them.

And the fortunate-enough, the ones who dumped ~$6k a year for ~33 years, are supposed to sit idly by as their coverage is denied on the whims of their carrier? These are the same fortunate-enough people who don't have a choice how they handle medical needs -- their options are dictated to them and sometimes at a cost that wipes out a good portion of their short-term savings. What happens when illness strikes in close proximity and financial stability is not quite back where it needs to be?

Your ideals presume that the only reason people get sick or need medical attention is because they are weak or because they weren't wearing a foam body suit. Prevent their mistakes? Tell a dying relative that their cancer is a preventable mistake.

Strangelet

06-03-2008, 08:54 PM

Good health is a fundamental human privilege, and I have a constitutional right to not be forced into charity. Killing someone is unconstitutional, letting someone die is not.

ok everyone lets raise some money for tuition. Isilirunite needs to take ethics 101

IsiliRunite

06-03-2008, 11:54 PM

Your ideals presume that the only reason people get sick or need medical attention is because they are weak or because they weren't wearing a foam body suit. Prevent their mistakes? Tell a dying relative that their cancer is a preventable mistake.

Step two in the health care process, for my ideals, is that you have money to pay for those things. If everyone went through step 1, the only real major health concerns would be from people who sleep, eat, exercise, and deal with stress well (because of education/upbringing) but have health conditions that arise from genetic cases or other diseases we haven't pinpointed to be cause by human recklessness (because ideally, in step 1, people don't get preventable diseases as much as they do today). If the disease is not preventable hopefully the individual has enough monetary credit to pay for care (that isn't as overpriced as things are today, ideally). If there isn't money, in my ideals, there would be a community safety-net act that would provide the health care for her.

I do believe that medical care is unreasonably priced, to agree with the Universal Healthcare types. I'm not sure I expressed that before clearly.

I don't think this is too utopian, or unrealistic. I believe this is not utopian because humanity has gradually made some gains in certain aspects of society, like slavery and other retrospectively inhumane things, and I believe health care charity/community action is a possible jump. I'm slightly smoked out so excuse any incoherence...

I also just got the idea to brilliantly sample the synth anthem from Dark Train...

Rog

06-04-2008, 02:31 AM

I believe health starts with the individual's ability, whether based on upbringing or information acquisition, to keep themselves from falling into illness. .

what a load of crap!

potatobroth

06-04-2008, 09:04 AM

Step two in the health care process, for my ideals, is that you have money to pay for those things. If everyone went through step 1, the only real major health concerns would be from people who sleep, eat, exercise, and deal with stress well (because of education/upbringing) but have health conditions that arise from genetic cases or other diseases we haven't pinpointed to be cause by human recklessness (because ideally, in step 1, people don't get preventable diseases as much as they do today).

Because accidents (freak or otherwise) don't happen on a daily basis that require medical attention and that are neither caused by reckless behavior nor genetic predisposition, do they?

I'd love to hear your charity-riddled thoughts on short & long-term-disability pay. Sometimes these accidents take people out of work, and dumping money into medical bills while trying to support a family is something that can't be shirked.

cacophony

06-04-2008, 08:08 PM

what a load of crap!

i know. i hope everyone here is working hard to avoid parkinson's disease! you know how you do that? well.... um...... see first you...... huh. i don't think anyone knows how to avoid parkinson's disease.

IsiliRunite

06-04-2008, 09:14 PM

read the fucking post.

Strangelet

06-04-2008, 09:56 PM

read the fucking post.

you mean this one?

Anyway, we're still having the problem of these pedestrian notions of what is acting in one's self interest and accountability. I mean sorry to add to the dog pile, but fuck, mate. Let's start off by deciding how much medical care expenses are dealt out because of environment versus genetic dispositions. And of the subset caused by environment how much is spent because of pollution, asbestos, and lead cookery, and how much is actually caused by one's own choices. And of that subset, how much of those choices could be legally deemed to be reasonably willfully self destructive? Seriously, lets quantify this.

Sean

06-04-2008, 11:34 PM

Step two in the health care process, for my ideals, is that you have money to pay for those things.Oh, right. There's no problem, because everyone has the tens of thousands of dollars on hand it takes to go through even a minor hospital stay. I know you address this point later, but seriously. Imagine this. You lose your job and with it your insurance, and you're worrying about paying the rent/mortgage, grocery bill, and tuition for the kids. Then, you get hit by an uninsured drunk driver. Now, with no job and no insurance, what do you pay for? Your medical bills, or the bills you need to pay to support your family? If everyone went through step 1, the only real major health concerns would be from people who sleep, eat, exercise, and deal with stress well (because of education/upbringing) but have health conditions that arise from genetic cases or other diseases we haven't pinpointed to be cause by human recklessness (because ideally, in step 1, people don't get preventable diseases as much as they do today).Is this a serious statement? I can't believe that you realistically think these would be the only remaining major health concerns. What about accidents? What about someone contracting HIV through a blood transfusion? What about Alzheimer's? And how are people supposed to get the exercise you prescribe when you also claim that injuries resulting from sports shouldn't be covered? You really are painting a picture of a terrifying world where I think we'd all be forced to live in nerf bubbles to avoid getting hurt or sick and going bankrupt.

Let me sum up my point clearly - shit happens. Shit happens, and at some point or another, most everyone ends up in a situation beyond their control where they need a safety net to keep the shit that's happened from obliterating all they've worked for their entire lives. You seem to be one of the lucky few who hasn't had shit happen to you where this is concerned, but some day it will, and you'll understand what we're all talking about.

If the disease is not preventable hopefully the individual has enough monetary credit to pay for care (that isn't as overpriced as things are today, ideally). Yeah...."hopefully" they can jack up their credit cards with medical bills, and then end up in a lifetime of debt, or bankruptcy. There's a good policy. Really comforting as you stumble into the emergency room with some major problem. If there isn't money, in my ideals, there would be a community safety-net act that would provide the health care for her. Oh...you mean something like what we've all been talking about! Finally a light at the end of the tunnel!

I do believe that medical care is unreasonably priced, to agree with the Universal Healthcare types. I'm not sure I expressed that before clearly.For the record, I'm not sure I really qualify as a "universal healthcare type". I just think that the system as it is now is inadequate.

Rog

06-05-2008, 05:45 AM

i know. i hope everyone here is working hard to avoid parkinson's disease! you know how you do that? well.... um...... see first you...... huh. i don't think anyone knows how to avoid parkinson's disease.

dead right cacophony - or Alzheimers or Virulent CJD or food poisoning or Cryptosporidia, or any other bacterial/viral infection picked up in the community/from food/from going on holiday ad nauseum

The basis of your argument is totally flawed. No amount of education/good diet/fitness whatever etc can stop you getting E.coli 0157 from meat or salmonella from eggs or crypto from a swimming pool or resistant TB from walking past someone on the street.....or are you superhuman?

potatobroth

06-05-2008, 07:53 AM

If there isn't money, in my ideals, there would be a community safety-net act that would provide the health care for her.

read: Universal Health Care

Strangelet

06-05-2008, 08:31 AM

dead right cacophony - or Alzheimers or Virulent CJD or food poisoning or Cryptosporidia, or any other bacterial/viral infection picked up in the community/from food/from going on holiday ad nauseum

The basis of your argument is totally flawed. No amount of education/good diet/fitness whatever etc can stop you getting E.coli 0157 from meat or salmonella from eggs or crypto from a swimming pool or resistant TB from walking past someone on the street.....or are you superhuman?

according to medicalnet.com, these are the primary causes of cancer.

Growing older
Tobacco (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11299)
Sunlight
Ionizing radiation
Certain chemicals and other substances
Some viruses and bacteria
Certain hormones
Family history of cancer
Alcohol (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8709)
Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or being overweightSo I guess if you are poor, you need to be held accountable and take responsibility that you don't ever grow older, work in the sun, work around chemicals, get infected by bacteria/viruses, and be born from certain families? I mean besides the no drinking/smoking part.

This is troll-like logic.

Or you back it up with an alternative safety net, not some passive muttering about a community based charity effort like its a minute detail. Even Ron Paul knows that.

IsiliRunite

06-05-2008, 01:25 PM

read: Universal Health Care

Ideally, no. Universal health care is not charity, it is not people in your neighborhood taking care of you or people in your work setting aside profits to help you pay for medical expenses or anything like that... I am talking about voluntary service to another human being, not big government programmes.

I'm a biochem/microbiology double major...obviously I know there are things that are not preventable, liked I mentioned in my post that nobody seems to read but seems to take so literally, but step 2 and step 3 have that covered.

you mean this one?

I talked about this literally two posts ago. You are not even reading my posts, or at least trying half-assedly to understand them. You're not cute, funny, clever, witty, justified...you are demonstrating the fact that you don't like using reading comprehension abilities.

Sarcasmo

06-05-2008, 01:58 PM

I find it hilarious that you're obstinately sticking with an argument that, for some reason, hasn't found a single positive reaction. It's not that we're all incapable of reading. It's the fact that your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds. When you've got several people with real world experience, including a mother with twins, a lawyer, and Rog (I didn't want to say "Old Guy";):D:p) telling you that you're flat out wrong, an analytical mind, and one well adjusted to the concept of debate, will go back and try to find the flaws in his argument, instead of telling US to go back and read them. YOU, my friend, are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, and no about of babble about our inability to understand your argument is going to change that. We can keep digging in the piles of shit you've left for the last 11 pages, but at the end of the day all we're going to find is shit. We've given you example after example of how your little theory of "How Things Should Work" is totally unworkable from a practical, genetic, and historical standpoint. I said before, I've got nothing else to argue, because that would just be an exercise in banging my head against the wall. Face facts, wake up and smell the coffee, take your head out of your ass.

potatobroth

06-05-2008, 01:59 PM

Ideally, no. Universal health care is not charity, it is not people in your neighborhood taking care of you or people in your work setting aside profits to help you pay for medical expenses or anything like that... I am talking about voluntary service to another human being, not big government programmes.

I'm a biochem/microbiology double major...obviously I know there are things that are not preventable, liked I mentioned in my post that nobody seems to read but seems to take so literally, but step 2 and step 3 have that covered.

You're going to have to reiterate your "steps" because I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.

The way you describe things seems as though you imagine a world where only people who can afford to pay for their own injuries should play sports, race cars/bikes/on foot, go to a zoo, etc. You are leaving it up to chance for the poor person who wants to play a game of football but ends up snapping an ankle in the process. Its all well and good that in your system its only pittence to have the ankle set and cast, but I could make up costs like that as well and say all food should be handed over from farmers at no cost. And why not, its all speculative and magically charitable anyway.

Your 'Steps' aren't really steps but absurd points of a random eutopia where free services are handed out because well, you think they should. Somehow you have developed the notion that you will never need services rendered of a medical nature and that any money you drop into a government orginazation (or whatever since this conversation has evolved a bit) is wasted money.. that you'll never benefit from it. Although I hear almost no one wants cancer these days and never expected to fall ill from it. That's just what I hear.

BeautifulBurnout

06-05-2008, 02:13 PM

I find it hilarious that you're obstinately sticking with an argument that, for some reason, hasn't found a single positive reaction. It's not that we're all incapable of reading. It's the fact that your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds. When you've got several people with real world experience, including a mother with twins, a lawyer, and Rog (I didn't want to say "Old Guy";):D:p) who happens to be a govt. scientist...telling you that you're flat out wrong, an analytical mind, and one well adjusted to the concept of debate, will go back and try to find the flaws in his argument, instead of telling US to go back and read them. YOU, my friend, are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, and no about of babble about our inability to understand your argument is going to change that. We can keep digging in the piles of shit you've left for the last 11 pages, but at the end of the day all we're going to find is shit. We've given you example after example of how your little theory of "How Things Should Work" is totally unworkable from a practical, genetic, and historical standpoint. I said before, I've got nothing else to argue, because that would just be an exercise in banging my head against the wall. Face facts, wake up and smell the coffee, take your head out of your ass.

Nah - he's been touched by Adam Smith's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations) invisible hand once too often. ;)

Reagan and Thatcher *spit* had a bash at making this work. As far as That Woman is concerned, she succeeded in destroying just about all industry in the UK that isn't linked to armaments or big pharma and spawned a generation of up-their-own-asses materialistic self-seeking self absorbed brats. "There is no such thing as society" indeed.

IsiliRunite

06-05-2008, 03:50 PM

I'll write one essay to explain my views later tonight, and if it doesn't make sense you can call me crazy.

Strangelet

06-05-2008, 04:50 PM

You are not even reading my posts, or at least trying half-assedly to understand them.

i only wish that were true. :rolleyes:

anyway, mr. smarty pants double major, this isn't a microbiology problem, its a socio-economic problem. One where you just can't throw token concepts like "accountability" and "freedom rulez" at it and expect it to be solved.

You're not cute, funny, clever, witty, justified...you are demonstrating the fact that you don't like using reading comprehension abilities.

That's a dumb reason to hate britney spears. I actually thought her last album had some moments.

Strangelet

06-05-2008, 04:55 PM

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

06-05-2008, 04:57 PM

... Universal health care is not charity, it is not people in your neighborhood taking care of you or people in your work setting aside profits to help you pay for medical expenses or anything like that... I am talking about voluntary service to another human being, not big government programmes ...

Not charity - Agreed

People in your neighborhood taking care of you or people in your work setting aside profits to help you pay for medical expenses - The funds have to come from somewhere.

Voluntary service to anther human being - Yeah, right. That'll happen.

Big government programmes - Only option for many.

IsiliRunite

06-05-2008, 06:21 PM

I'm really angry because I made bad decisions in my life. If you can't talk about anything that won't fix our current problems immediately and without much effort, shut up! I'm too much of a battle-scarred cynic to set goals of progress for humanity.

Agreed.

If you disagree with what I say, that is okay, but to act as though this is a matter of right or wrong (like a piece of declarative knowledge) is quite arrogant and reckless. Maybe its better to have no beliefs than to stand behind yours as though they are the only perspective on the situation.

You are not "wrong", in my mind. You just don't have the same beliefs I do...When you act like there is no middleground or need for communication between schools of thought, that is when this health care problem or any problem for that matter will not be solved.

cacophony

06-05-2008, 06:30 PM

no one at any point has behaved as though the issue is black and white, right or wrong.

i, in fact, gave you a number of sample counter-arguments in order to illustrate that at no point is this a simple matter. it all inevitably comes down to subjectivity.

but even if it were black and white, you've offered no white to counter everyone else's black. you're off in the ultraviolet, complaining that people can't see you.

Sean

06-06-2008, 02:40 AM

You're going to have to reiterate your "steps" because I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.

The way you describe things seems as though you imagine a world where only people who can afford to pay for their own injuries should play sports, race cars/bikes/on foot, go to a zoo, etc. You are leaving it up to chance for the poor person who wants to play a game of football but ends up snapping an ankle in the process. Its all well and good that in your system its only pittence to have the ankle set and cast, but I could make up costs like that as well and say all food should be handed over from farmers at no cost. And why not, its all speculative and magically charitable anyway.

Your 'Steps' aren't really steps but absurd points of a random eutopia where free services are handed out because well, you think they should. Somehow you have developed the notion that you will never need services rendered of a medical nature and that any money you drop into a government orginazation (or whatever since this conversation has evolved a bit) is wasted money.. that you'll never benefit from it. Although I hear almost no one wants cancer these days and never expected to fall ill from it. That's just what I hear.Wow! Thanks, potatobroth - you just saved me a lot of typing. Well said! :)

Sean

06-06-2008, 02:45 AM

Rog

06-06-2008, 04:59 AM

Agreed.

but to act as though this is a matter of right or wrong (like a piece of declarative knowledge) is quite arrogant and reckless. .

yer got to laugh at this little gem really..........:D:D

I hope for your sake that you never get into a situation where you are ill and have no money in your country - only then will you recognise reality and the shallowness of your 'arguments'........

Sarcasmo

06-06-2008, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo http://www.darktrain.org/dirty/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.darktrain.org/dirty/forums/showthread.php?p=97421#post97421)
I'm really angry because I made bad decisions in my life. If you can't talk about anything that won't fix our current problems immediately and without much effort, shut up! I'm too much of a battle-scarred cynic to set goals of progress for humanity.

Agreed.

If you disagree with what I say, that is okay, but to act as though this is a matter of right or wrong (like a piece of declarative knowledge) is quite arrogant and reckless. Maybe its better to have no beliefs than to stand behind yours as though they are the only perspective on the situation.

You are not "wrong", in my mind. You just don't have the same beliefs I do...When you act like there is no middleground or need for communication between schools of thought, that is when this health care problem or any problem for that matter will not be solved.

:rolleyes: Good Lord. Listen, you putz, if you're going to put me on the defensive, you're going to have to do better than this. I've been around since '99, when Andy Redbeard, Sven, and ergo were still around, and they would have eaten you alive. What you have to understand is that this is a place where your opinions are going to be challenged, especially when they seem to have emanated from a "challenged" mindset. Breaking down into petty insults about what I've done with my life isn't the way to go. In fact, it's just going to set more people against you. I can see why you're interested in dealing with microorganisms, seeing as that's just about the only level of life that can tolerate you for any length of time, but I'd check the slides for retarded growth just in case.

And I AM demanding a solution to our problem now, and I don't particularly care if it guts the wallet of a prick like yourself. Anyone who places money above human life is a turd, and they deserve whatever karmic vengeance they have coming. I've lived in the real world, and I've actually worked in a hospital as an EMT for 3 years prior to joining the service, as opposed to volunteering once a week so that I can gloat over my health and leer at nursing students. One of the facts that I've been attempting to drill into your head is the fact that, under the current system, we're already paying for stupid people, and because of the Hippocratic Oath, that's not something that's likely to change. You might be able to deny insurance to an idiot, but you can't deny care, seeing as medical attention is something that this country decided was a human right. So the money has to come from somewhere, right?

Now, I'm glad that you're setting goals for humanity, but it's just that humanity has this silly way of resisting change, and your powers of persuasion, as evidenced by this ongoing exercise in futility, rank somewhere between that of a sloth and that guy who tucked his dick between his legs in "Silence of the Lambs." Not to mention the fact that your supposed plan to help humankind evolve to solve the health care crisis is so far removed from the realm of possibility and practicality as to be totally wacko. Who takes care of who? How do you break it down? How do you deal with population densities, seeing as people living in 40 story filing cabinets have quite a few more people to take care of than the equivalent land area in Bangor, Wisconsin. How do you deal with the socioeconomic fact that citizens living in Cabrini Green or the Robert Taylor Projects in Chicago are just a little worse off than those living in the Hamptons. What you've failed to realize is that we "get" what your whole outline is, we just haven't gotten a single straight answer when we posit specific examples to you. We get a lot of runaround and language insulting our intelligence, which, somehow, does not persuade us.

I can't wait for your "essay" later on. Unfortunately, due to "poor decisions," I will not be able to read it for about 4 days or so (convoy back to al Taqqadum) so I will wait with baited breath until then. Unfortunately, I had planned on returning to school after my time in the service was up (one of the side effects of my "poor decision" was a free education) but if our institutions of higher learning are turning people like you out, I might just be a bartender.

Sean

06-06-2008, 10:25 AM

...I've been around since '99, when Andy Redbeard, Sven, and ergo were still aroundOooooo-the old nemeses. :D Wonder what ever happened to Sven and Ergo. I honestly don't remember Andy Redbeard at this point. I must've never had any psychologically scarring debates with him....;)

Strangelet

06-06-2008, 10:52 AM

Oooooo-the old nemeses. :D Wonder what ever happened to Sven and Ergo. I honestly don't remember Andy Redbeard at this point. I must've never had any psychologically scarring debates with him....;)

i actually learned a lot from Sven, god bless him, after we got tired of insulting each other. good chap.

i just remember goldfish. man that guy wouldn't budge an inch on michael moore's objectivity.

Deckard

06-06-2008, 11:36 AM

i actually learned a lot from Sven, god bless him, after we got tired of insulting each other. good chap.

i just remember goldfish. man that guy wouldn't budge an inch on michael moore's objectivity.
Haha! yeah, both smart and funny guys from what i remember.
I don't recall Andy Redbeard though (I only joined in 2001).

stimpee

06-06-2008, 12:26 PM

3 weeks until the smoking ban here in NL. cant wait!

Strangelet

06-06-2008, 12:27 PM

3 weeks until the smoking ban here in NL. cant wait!

how does that work for the *ahem* coffee shops?

Rog

06-06-2008, 07:01 PM

:rolleyes: Good Lord. Listen, you putz, if you're going to put me on the defensive, you're going to have to do better than this. I've been around since '99, when Andy Redbeard, Sven, and ergo were still around, and they would have eaten you alive. What you have to understand is that this is a place where your opinions are going to be challenged, especially when they seem to have emanated from a "challenged" mindset. Breaking down into petty insults about what I've done with my life isn't the way to go. In fact, it's just going to set more people against you. I can see why you're interested in dealing with microorganisms, seeing as that's just about the only level of life that can tolerate you for any length of time, but I'd check the slides for retarded growth just in case.

And I AM demanding a solution to our problem now, and I don't particularly care if it guts the wallet of a prick like yourself. Anyone who places money above human life is a turd, and they deserve whatever karmic vengeance they have coming. I've lived in the real world, and I've actually worked in a hospital as an EMT for 3 years prior to joining the service, as opposed to volunteering once a week so that I can gloat over my health and leer at nursing students. One of the facts that I've been attempting to drill into your head is the fact that, under the current system, we're already paying for stupid people, and because of the Hippocratic Oath, that's not something that's likely to change. You might be able to deny insurance to an idiot, but you can't deny care, seeing as medical attention is something that this country decided was a human right. So the money has to come from somewhere, right?

Now, I'm glad that you're setting goals for humanity, but it's just that humanity has this silly way of resisting change, and your powers of persuasion, as evidenced by this ongoing exercise in futility, rank somewhere between that of a sloth and that guy who tucked his dick between his legs in "Silence of the Lambs." Not to mention the fact that your supposed plan to help humankind evolve to solve the health care crisis is so far removed from the realm of possibility and practicality as to be totally wacko. Who takes care of who? How do you break it down? How do you deal with population densities, seeing as people living in 40 story filing cabinets have quite a few more people to take care of than the equivalent land area in Bangor, Wisconsin. How do you deal with the socioeconomic fact that citizens living in Cabrini Green or the Robert Taylor Projects in Chicago are just a little worse off than those living in the Hamptons. What you've failed to realize is that we "get" what your whole outline is, we just haven't gotten a single straight answer when we posit specific examples to you. We get a lot of runaround and language insulting our intelligence, which, somehow, does not persuade us.

I can't wait for your "essay" later on. Unfortunately, due to "poor decisions," I will not be able to read it for about 4 days or so (convoy back to al Taqqadum) so I will wait with baited breath until then. Unfortunately, I had planned on returning to school after my time in the service was up (one of the side effects of my "poor decision" was a free education) but if our institutions of higher learning are turning people like you out, I might just be a bartender.

I bow down before you sir!:D

as a studier of microorganisms albeit at a slightly higher level than biochem/microbiology major, i understand where you're coming from;)

cacophony

06-06-2008, 09:33 PM

i just remember goldfish. man that guy wouldn't budge an inch on michael moore's objectivity.

yeah hey, where'd that dude go?

BeautifulBurnout

06-07-2008, 02:13 AM

That misquote of Sarcasmo kind of crosses a line for me there, sport.

Yup.

stimpee

06-07-2008, 05:12 AM

how does that work for the *ahem* coffee shops?only applies to tobacco. you can smoke marijuana still.

cacophony

06-07-2008, 10:14 AM

only applies to tobacco. you can smoke marijuana still.

don't expect that to last as more research on the health effects of pot is studied.

New research (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20071214/study-shows-toxins-in-marijuana-smoke) from Canada shows that some toxins may be more abundant in marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes.

The researchers burned 30 marijuana cigarettes and 30 tobacco cigarettes on a machine in their lab, measuring levels of chemicals in the smoke.

Ammonia levels were up to 20 times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. Levels of hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen-related chemicals were three to five times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke.

blame canada!

Sean

06-08-2008, 12:56 AM

don't expect that to last as more research on the health effects of pot is studied.

blame canada!Generally though, don't people who smoke pot tend to smoke less of it than a cigarette smoker would smoke cigarettes? So I'd say it's healthy! :D

IsiliRunite

06-08-2008, 01:46 AM

but you hold in the smoke a lot longer using certain methods.

I am tired of people taking the fact that the leaf is just a carrier for cannabinoids that is unhealthy to smoke. When you put being 'high' into context, the actual chemicals that get you high in pure form are quite healthy... There are side effects, but when you synthesize the active canibinoids and give a dose of those together in moderation, the negative side-health effects are compareable to anything you may take for allergies or arthritis.

I eat the stuff, personally. Still working on that essay...

potatobroth

06-08-2008, 08:03 AM

I eat the stuff, personally. Still working on that essay...

I can't help but wonder how this fits into your health model. Awaiting.

cacophony

06-08-2008, 11:50 AM

I am tired of people taking the fact that the leaf is just a carrier for cannabinoids that is unhealthy to smoke. When you put being 'high' into context, the actual chemicals that get you high in pure form are quite healthy... There are side effects, but when you synthesize the active canibinoids and give a dose of those together in moderation, the negative side-health effects are compareable to anything you may take for allergies or arthritis.

i love it when people who don't follow the research go on a tear about what the world is willing/not willing to admit about pot.

cannabinoid are huge in medical research right now specifically because of their potential medical benefits. however, the mere fact that it's a plant that makes you feel good doesn't automatically make it good for your health. nor does it mean there's a grand worldwide conspiracy trying to cover up the good stuff you enjoy so much.

the fact is, smoking pot does put you at an increased risk of lung and oral cancers than non-smokers, although the research is still incomplete. it's not a grand conspiracy. you can argue whether it's less damaging than tobacco but that's like arguing whether it's worse to crash in a car or crash in a truck. you're still better off not crashing. long-term high exposure has also been shown to shrink the hippocampus and amygdala. (http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080602/marijuana-use-may-shrink-the-brain)

it's about risk assessment. there are risks associated with pot. enough to make you turn it down? doesn't sound like it, and that's totally your choice. but don't do this namby pamby "it's a plant that's good for you" crap just because it's an activity you enjoy.

i'd like to point out something here. i personally don't think the risks are worth it. smoking anything, in my opinion, is a fairly stupid thing to do to the one and only body you get in this life. i've watched someone die of lung cancer and it's one of the most horrifying things to see. it's not worth it for any reason.

but the difference between you and i, my friend, is that my vision of universal healthcare will treat you and try to save your life if you develop health complications as a result of stupidly treating your body like a disposable diaper. you, on the other hand, would deny me the same respect if our situations were reversed.

IsiliRunite

06-08-2008, 08:02 PM

I am totally fine with the research, because I do believe their are side effects. I do not like it, however, when people try to spin my eating a pot brownie once a week is gonna lead to me developing lung cancer because people are not very intelligent and cannot separate correlation from causation with respect to the drug. If there were no cannibinoids in pot, you'd get lung cancer from smoking the leaf. If there is no leaf around the cannibinoids, you're not gonna get lung cancer from consuming the cannibinoids. That is all I'm saying...

you are a little too quick on the offencive. I am not some pseudo-science pothead with a G.E.D. and a bag of pot...

potatobroth

06-08-2008, 08:14 PM

IsiliRunite

06-09-2008, 02:30 PM

But ya can get cancer is what we're saying. Not only people who abuse dangerous vices get cancer. Yes, this is true. I am well aware. (not being mean or sarcastic)

Before I post my little thing...

Do we all agree that Universal Health Care in the United States is a system in which the Federal government creates a bureau that uses taxpayer money to put money in the pockets of hospital employees and staff which in return for the unconditional health care of all who step foot into the hospital, regardless of their health context or taxpayer status? If coverage is not desired by an individual, is it possible for this individual to opt out of paying the tax that sponsors this universal health care bureau? Is health coverage absolute, or is cost split between private HMO and federal government? Give the context for split coverage, if so.

If this definition is in-line with all of yours', there are a few problems I have with Universal Health Care.

First and foremost, I do not believe that health care is a fundamental human right. I understand that health care is an important part of being alive, and that life is a fundamental human right. While these views seem somewhat contradictory, putting health care in line with other crucial-for-life resources such as food, water, and shelter reveals that health care does not warrant a federal government bureau to ensure its availability to all humans; plenty of Americans go to bed malnourished and unsheltered each night. Perhaps the desire for universal health care stems from citizens who live decently well aside from health care, because health care is an unreasonably priced commodity that is necessary for life, or maybe these citizens who campaign for universal health care don't empathize enough with the fact that a lot of people go to bed on the side of the road each night and consequently have not thought about creating government agencies to end the practice that does not immediately affect them in addition to overpriced health care. I do agree that health care is very unreasonably priced...

Combating the overpriced nature of health care using government money, as opposed to an individual combining the over-time and upon-treatment bills, does not actually lower prices but merely means everyone's pockets get fucked over a little bit instead of the ill minority citizens getting impaled with bills and the totally healthy being totally unaffected. Sure, HMO's have salaries to pay for their employees and they are the obvious middle man in health care. A federal bureau to collect taxes and redistribute the funds to hospitals also has employees to pay, as well (to my understanding, a lot of the money collected by the IRS is used to fund IRS operations). As to which one is more efficient, HMO or Government, I am not sure. If cost is the issue, perhaps a better way to reduce the cost of medical coverage is to limit frivolous law-suits against doctors and increase the efficiency of a currently existing government agency: the FDA.

One of the illusions that is being created in this thread is that without universal health care many people in emergency situations will die. The federal government already requires anyone who enters a hospital under emergency circumstances will receive coverage. If federal paperwork is added pre-treatment as it is in certain countries, hospital wait-times may be longer than they are today. Of course there are circumstances that a few hours will not make or break, such as cancer, but the inconvenience may still exist if universal health care is not put into effect while taking this concern into account.

While universal health care does provide coverage for those who genuinely cannot afford health care under their own abilities, universal health care also removes some cause-effect accountability in the individual. When the group (Nation) is footing the bill, it is not impossible to conceive of a citizen who does not take monetary costs associated with unhealthy lifestyle choices as seriously as he would if he were solely responsible for coverage through HMO monthly bills and upon-treatment bills. Another potential problem associated with universal health care could occur when coverage is given to individuals who do not pay taxes; if the group pool of money is to avoid any one member of the group being severely affected by bills, what is the point of covering those who have not committed to the group?

Some still prefer the group pool of money, even if some individuals are not using the money in accordance with common sense (ie alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword). Even if you do not believe in "common sense"...at a certain point, with certain conditions and certain specific ways to contract those conditions, there are direct causations between deliberate human activity and the presence of a disease. As a registered voter, I choose to vote against this communal-money-pool school of thought because I do not want others to be held accountable for my actions and choices and I do not want to be held accountable for the actions and choices of others (when choices lead to illness), even if it means higher prices for me as an individual down the line. Obviously this accountability argument does not apply to pathogens, unpreventable diseases, unforeseeable/unpreventable/uncushionable illnesses or states of being sick. My intro into this thread had to deal with this issue of accountability; because certain people do not want to pay for lifestyles they have smugly deemed unacceptable, they will pressure for laws to limit your freedom of lifestyle or deny you health care coverage under the universal health care system.

I personally believe limiting the individuals freedom of lifestyle by propping up smoking bans in private places or denying smokers health coverage because I do not deem their health choices acceptable violates multiple amendments to the Constitution. Be careful to not confuse my beliefs; if there is universal health care, everyone should get coverage or else the institution is illegally discriminatory. If there is not universal health care present, I will keep voting against it because it would create the (unnecessary) dilemma of paying for the (un)health(y) choices of others or illegally denying them coverage.

If citizens really feared smoking as much as the government would want you to believe, free market solutions tell me bars that ban smoking on principle, by choice, should be more popular than they are ;)

Aside from all of these potential issues, health care is not outlined as a government responsibility in the Constitution and is therefore illegal at the federal level. If no faith can be put in the free market solutions by dirty readers, I believe government regulation on HMO business practices and ethics is the most reasonable solution in place of free market ones. The only free market solution, in practically any debate, is the success of companies that do what people want the companies to do for them. If I'm going to be an ideologue... While health care is an essential part of health, health care is still treatment. Perhaps prevention, in the form of education about diet, exercise, and public sanitation could at least limit some of the strain on tomorrow's hospitals.

I understand criticisms that I simply debated against universal health care instead of supporting the free market, but I'm not sure I care at this point. I don't have a thorough solution that I can outline for you, I just believe universal health care is not it. Free market is pretty self-explanatory, though, and simplicity may be an asset. If you want to learn more, or learn anything, read a book about it.

For the record, my insult toward Sarcasmo was about him being so God damned unnecessarily angry and hostile, but not angry and hostile about one particular decision in his life. I do not take the insult back, but I will say that I respect the man's right to think individually and express himself accordingly.

Sean

06-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Okay, I'll bite. It'll have to be a two-parter though...Before I post my little thing... :D Sorry, but that made me giggle like a small child. Just wanted to establish my immaturity right off the bat. Now onto the grown-up talk....

If this definition is in-line with all of yours', there are a few problems I have with Universal Health Care.It's not necessarily, but I think we can still discuss the philosophical merits of universal healthcare.

First and foremost, I do not believe that health care is a fundamental human right. I understand that health care is an important part of being alive, and that life is a fundamental human right. While these views seem somewhat contradictory, putting health care in line with other crucial-for-life resources such as food, water, and shelter reveals that health care does not warrant a federal government bureau to ensure its availability to all humans...I believe the contradiction here outweighs the qualifiers you provide. First and foremost, yes it is a blatant contradiction in that preserving our basic human right to life requires that we are able to have regular physicals, and treatment for injuries and illnesses.

But secondly, the comparisons you give are actually incomparable to the subject at hand. While I agree that food, water and shelter are obvious necessities, and that we should be looking for solutions to these problems as well, I disagree that they are in any way appropriate to use as arguments against universal health care. So let's take them one at a time.

Food vs health care. You can get a meal that will fill you up for less than $5 virtually anywhere in the country. There is no medical procedure or exam that, uninsured, will be even remotely as affordable. Or to put it another way, a hungry person can get a meal by scrounging up change, begging, going to a soup kitchen, etc to end their hunger for the moment. Certainly not desirable, but definitely doable. Contrast that with an uninsured person who discovers, for example, that they need hernia surgery - this happened to me shortly after I left college and before I was qualified to join the union. With the help of a very kind employee at the doctor's office, I was able to haggle the price of the surgery/anesthesia/hospital costs down to $10,000. That pretty much wiped out everything I had managed to save up until that point in my life. Someone who wasn't fortunate enough to have $10,000 on hand could be facing choices such as enormous debt, or even death from an untreated hernia. And even though I had the money and paid it immediately, I still had to deal with a collection agency being sicked on me by the anesthesiologist because the surgeon hadn't forwarded his share of the payment on to him, and it took me months of stress to resolve. I would've preferred the challenge of finding a meal.

Water vs universal health care. I don't know about where you live, but I know of countless public places around L.A. where there are water fountains that anyone can use for free. Nothing comparable for medical treatments though.

Shelter vs health care. I'd basically say that the same argument applies here as with the food issue. And again, I'm not arguing that malnourishment and lack of shelter aren't problems. I'm only saying that they're problems which can be solved by an individual far more readily than an unchecked illness or injury. Which leads us to your next point...

Combating the overpriced nature of health care using government money, as opposed to an individual combining the over-time and upon-treatment bills, does not actually lower prices but merely means everyone's pockets get fucked over a little bit instead of the ill minority citizens getting impaled with bills and the totally healthy being totally unaffected. Sure, HMO's have salaries to pay for their employees and they are the obvious middle man in health care. A federal bureau to collect taxes and redistribute the funds to hospitals also has employees to pay, as well (to my understanding, a lot of the money collected by the IRS is used to fund IRS operations). As to which one is more efficient, HMO or Government, I am not sure. If cost is the issue, perhaps a better way to reduce the cost of medical coverage is to limit frivolous law-suits against doctors and increase the efficiency of a currently existing government agency: the FDA.Basically, you acknowledge the problem of the high cost of health care, but offer no realistic solution. I'm all for limiting frivolous lawsuits, believe me. But the high cost of health care is not simply, or even largely, due to lawsuits (sorry, but I think you need to use safari to open the link) (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:rJQNO4h10x8J:finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/2760+health+care+high+cost+cause&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=safari). It's due to a variety of primarily social and economic factors which, yes, should absolutely be reigned in. However, that still won't solve the problem. Most information you find on soaring health care costs talks about how they've really shot up since the year 2000, and the example I gave of my hernia surgery happened back in 1993, when treatment was far more "affordable". So even if we get costs down, they will still be out of reach for the vast majority of the uninsured.

One of the illusions that is being created in this thread is that without universal health care many people in emergency situations will die. The federal government already requires anyone who enters a hospital under emergency circumstances will receive coverage. If federal paperwork is added pre-treatment as it is in certain countries, hospital wait-times may be longer than they are today. Of course there are circumstances that a few hours will not make or break, such as cancer, but the inconvenience may still exist if universal health care is not put into effect while taking this concern into account.What you're ignoring here is the difference in quality of health care between those who have good insurance, those who have the bare minimum, and those who are uninsured. Simply put, the treatments, techniques and equipment made available to you directly correlates with how good your coverage is, or how much you can afford to pay. So while you may get "treated" as a poor, uninsured person, you will likely get the bare minimum treatment, which very likely won't solve a serious illness as much as it will temporarily ease the problem. Ultimately, this can very well lead to death, or a life of pain and discomfort that could otherwise be eased or even eliminated.

While universal health care does provide coverage for those who genuinely cannot afford health care under their own abilities, universal health care also removes some cause-effect accountability in the individual. When the group (Nation) is footing the bill, it is not impossible to conceive of a citizen who does not take monetary costs associated with unhealthy lifestyle choices as seriously as he would if he were solely responsible for coverage through HMO monthly bills and upon-treatment bills.I agree, but the problem is that this is already happening (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25sun1.html), and is already what's playing a huge part in driving costs of health care up. So again, I agree that it's a problem we need to solve, but it isn't an argument against universal health care in my opinion. It's simply a consideration that must be addressed in the implementation of a universal system.

Another potential problem associated with universal health care could occur when coverage is given to individuals who do not pay taxes; if the group pool of money is to avoid any one member of the group being severely affected by bills, what is the point of covering those who have not committed to the group? Again, I'm not sure that just presenting challenges in making it feasible is reason enough to say it shouldn't happen. I agree that this example needs to be considered and dealt with, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't even try.

Sean

06-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Part two...

Some still prefer the group pool of money, even if some individuals are not using the money in accordance with common sense (ie alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword). Even if you do not believe in "common sense"...at a certain point, with certain conditions and certain specific ways to contract those conditions, there are direct causations between deliberate human activity and the presence of a disease. As a registered voter, I choose to vote against this communal-money-pool school of thought because I do not want others to be held accountable for my actions and choices and I do not want to be held accountable for the actions and choices of others (when choices lead to illness), even if it means higher prices for me as an individual down the line. Obviously this accountability argument does not apply to pathogens, unpreventable diseases, unforeseeable/unpreventable/uncushionable illnesses or states of being sick. My intro into this thread had to deal with this issue of accountability; because certain people do not want to pay for lifestyles they have smugly deemed unacceptable, they will pressure for laws to limit your freedom of lifestyle or deny you health care coverage under the universal health care system. And here we differ on the "common sense" issue. I disagree with the bulk of the examples you've given of people being "stupid", "retarded", or showing no "common sense". In your comments above, you illustrate your point by saying "alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword" aren't using "common sense". Alcoholism is a disease, and an extremely difficult one to fight. I simply don't see that as an issue of "common sense" as you do. And you've already refused to respond in any meaningful way to my challenges regarding what exercise-driven physical activities you believe should be classified as "stupid", so I'll just let my earlier replies stand as my response to this point.

Aside from all of these potential issues, health care is not outlined as a government responsibility in the Constitution and is therefore illegal at the federal level.I would submit that this is why the constitution was framed as a document that could, and should, be amended. As we progress as a society, new needs arise, new discoveries are made, and new debates present themselves. All of these have to be dealt with as they come to the forefront, which is where the healthcare issue is right now. It's not an illegal proposal - it's a new proposal. And if it was illegal, wouldn't it be safe to say that Republicans would have already seized upon that fact in their debate against Democrats on the subject? I'm no constitutional scholar, but then neither are you I suspect. So ultimately on this point, I'll defer to actual constitutional scholars, and I have never seen any of them argue the illegality of the concept of universal health care.

If no faith can be put in the free market solutions by dirty readers, I believe government regulation on HMO business practices and ethics is the most reasonable solution in place of free market ones. I agree with a free market philosophy when it comes to non-essential goods and services, but health care is a necessity for all people. The free market works on a fundamental principle of consumption, which is that people tend to look for the best deal they can (typically meaning the most affordable). When they find it, they go with it, thus rewarding companies who make an effort to keep their goods and services affordable, and of a certain quality. But as was mentioned in the first article I linked to in this reply:

"When was the last time you heard someone say something like this: 'You're having chest pains, Al? Sorry to hear that. You should see Dr. Smith. He's not as fancy as those cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, but you can't beat his prices! In fact, I think he's having a Presidents' Day special on angioplasty right now.' There's no medical equivalent of Wal-Mart. Everyone wants Neiman Marcus."

Given this fact, the free-market approach to health care suffers from a severe handicap, and cannot be relied upon to effectively change the current health care situation for the better.

Perhaps prevention, in the form of education about diet, exercise, and public sanitation could at least limit some of the strain on tomorrow's hospitals."Exercise". Still waiting for a good reply to the points I previously raised on that one. Especially since I hate, hate, hate going to the gym, which means that I get the bulk of my exercise through playing sports as frequently as possible, especially beach volleyball.

I understand criticisms that I simply debated against universal health care instead of supporting the free market, but I'm not sure I care at this point. I don't have a thorough solution that I can outline for you, I just believe universal health care is not it. Free market is pretty self-explanatory, though, and simplicity may be an asset. If you want to learn more, or learn anything, read a book about it.Given that the free market strategy is fundamentally flawed as I mentioned above, it's probably good that you didn't spend more time advocating it. ;)

Overall though, it seems to me that your main argument against universal health care can be boiled down to something along the lines of "there are difficult issues to consider in drafting effective universal health care, so we shouldn't even try". I say tackle those issues head on and see what we can come up with. The free market just doesn't lend itself to realistic management of health care costs, and not making affordable health care available means a lot of unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

For the record, my insult toward Sarcasmo was about him being so God damned unnecessarily angry and hostile, but not angry and hostile about one particular decision in his life. I do not take the insult back, but I will say that I respect the man's right to think individually and express himself accordingly. Also for the record, the offense I took to it was that nothing Sarcasmo said in the post in question had anything to do with any "bad decision" he had made in life. If you re-read his post, it was all about telling you that he thinks you're wrong, plain and simple. You then went ahead and apparently assumed that his frustration with your posts was rooted in some kind of self-loathing resulting from bad decisions he's made. I'll help out by quoting Sarcasmo's post in it's entirity here:

I find it hilarious that you're obstinately sticking with an argument that, for some reason, hasn't found a single positive reaction. It's not that we're all incapable of reading. It's the fact that your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds. When you've got several people with real world experience, including a mother with twins, a lawyer, and Rog (I didn't want to say "Old Guy";):D:p) telling you that you're flat out wrong, an analytical mind, and one well adjusted to the concept of debate, will go back and try to find the flaws in his argument, instead of telling US to go back and read them. YOU, my friend, are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, and no about of babble about our inability to understand your argument is going to change that. We can keep digging in the piles of shit you've left for the last 11 pages, but at the end of the day all we're going to find is shit. We've given you example after example of how your little theory of "How Things Should Work" is totally unworkable from a practical, genetic, and historical standpoint. I said before, I've got nothing else to argue, because that would just be an exercise in banging my head against the wall. Face facts, wake up and smell the coffee, take your head out of your ass.

...and now your misrepresentation of what he said...

I'm really angry because I made bad decisions in my life. If you can't talk about anything that won't fix our current problems immediately and without much effort, shut up! I'm too much of a battle-scarred cynic to set goals of progress for humanity.Nothing in your misrepresentation had anything to do with what Sarcasmo said....except that it actually did support his assertion that "your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds". Rather than acknowledge that you hadn't been presenting your stance effectively, you assumed his response was all about some kind of self-loathing and personal frustration over bad decisions he must have made in his life.

I have no problem with disagreements, debates and even blunt arguments, but all three can be had without that kind of very personal attack. In this case, Sarcasmo was blunt - you were flat out rude.

I don't want to just end my reply that way, so let me just say that it's obvious you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and I'm all for maintaining open dialogue, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as the personal attacks don't enter into it, I enjoy the passion your posts have brought to the world forum.

IsiliRunite

06-11-2008, 03:21 PM

Just to clarify on a few things I've said:
-"common sense" is not denying the alcoholic a liver transplant if the list has rolled around to his name (that is just mean) but rather denying him common funds to pay for the surgery. so...violating common sense with respect to the universal health care system is taking deliberate action to ensure or increase the chance of requiring medical care, at no real benefit to the man requiring the treatment, while someone else is paying the bill. its rude to expect the coverage (of bill), and it violates 'common sense' to pay for it. I understand that you have to drive to work, but you don't have to go over the speed limit etc...
-Exercise not as a law, but just to change our society a little bit so that moving around and taking care of yourself is more available in fun ways. more recess in school, more public parks, parents reminding their kids that real football is as fun as madden 08 etc
-free market is used in reference to HMOs, or the links between average people and the complex health care system. Its not about doctors competing against one another, ideally, but moreso people paying for coverage that suits their needs instead of assuming the way things are is the way they have to be. Money talks is pretty much the philosophy, I would like people to be more hands-on with their in a country that is based on capitalism
-There are disparities in every facet of life, including health care, based on your ability to pay. Guess what my proposed philosophy is to dampen these disparities
-I still stand by my point that health care is not a right
-There are community/charity hospitals and a government safetynet, so the analogy to water fountains does apply to health care, even if at a smaller scale. I'm not sure if anyone here wants to expands these programs, though
-90% of my concern about health care is not that we can or can not solve certain issues (others are innate), its just that lobbyists/bad politicians would not allow the universal health care bill to do what it should

Respond to my original post, but read these before doing so, please

Sean

06-11-2008, 05:28 PM

Was this a reply to me? If so, it ignores all the substantive points I made. And labeling an alcoholic who requires medical treatment as "rude" is a bit off base, too. And you still haven't explained how the "stupidity" of playing "risky" sports can coexist with telling kids to go play football, etc. And I can't imagine you've had any firsthand experience with HMOs if you think that a free market approach with them will do the trick. Oh well. I gave you an honest shot. :rolleyes:Just to clarify on a few things I've said:
-"common sense" is not denying the alcoholic a liver transplant if the list has rolled around to his name (that is just mean) but rather denying him common funds to pay for the surgery. so...violating common sense with respect to the universal health care system is taking deliberate action to ensure or increase the chance of requiring medical care, at no real benefit to the man requiring the treatment, while someone else is paying the bill. its rude to expect the coverage, and it violates 'common sense' to pay for it. I understand that you have to drive to work, but you don't have to go over the speed limit etc...
-Exercise not as a law, but just to change our society a little bit so that moving around and taking care of yourself is more available in fun ways. more recess in school, more public parks, parents reminding their kids that real football is as fun as madden 08 etc
-free market is used in reference to HMOs, or the links between average people and the complex health care system. Its not about doctors competing against one another, ideally, but moreso people paying for coverage that suits their needs instead of assuming the way things are is the way they have to be. Money talks is pretty much the philosophy, I would like people to be more hands-on with their in a country that is based on capitalism
-There are disparities in every facet of life, including health care, based on your ability to pay. Guess what my proposed philosophy is to dampen these disparities
-I still stand by my point that health care is not a right
-There are community/charity hospitals and a government safetynet, so the analogy to water fountains does apply to health care, even if at a smaller scale. I'm not sure if anyone here wants to expands these programs, though
-90% of my concern about health care is not that we can or can not solve certain issues (others are innate), its just that lobbyists/bad politicians would not allow the universal health care bill to do what it should

Respond to my original post, but read these before doing so, please

IsiliRunite

06-11-2008, 05:33 PM

It's not a response to what YOU said, its just a clarification of what I said. Its not that he's rude to require medical care, its rude that he might want you and I to pay for it. Its not like I am offended by the existence of sick and special needs people... I like helping people, too.. :/ I did make a diction error and I paranthetically changed it.

I'll respond to everyone after everyone that wants to respond to me has done so. if its just you and I, then I'll respond in a few days. I didn't want to assume you were the only one speaking on behalf of universal health care :D

Strangelet

06-11-2008, 06:45 PM

First and foremost, I do not believe that health care is a fundamental human right. I understand that health care is an important part of being alive, and that life is a fundamental human right. While these views seem somewhat contradictory, putting health care in line with other crucial-for-life resources such as food, water, and shelter reveals that health care does not warrant a federal government bureau to ensure its availability to all humans; plenty of Americans go to bed malnourished and unsheltered each night. Perhaps the desire for universal health care stems from citizens who live decently well aside from health care, because health care is an unreasonably priced commodity that is necessary for life, or maybe these citizens who campaign for universal health care don't empathize enough with the fact that a lot of people go to bed on the side of the road each night and consequently have not thought about creating government agencies to end the practice that does not immediately affect them in addition to overpriced health care. I do agree that health care is very unreasonably priced...

I think its right to ask health care supporters what the difference is between food/shelter and health care. All are essential to life. And yet food/shelter has never been strictly guaranteed by the constitution and therefore legally government sponsored, so why would health care be sponsored?

The problem with this thinking, as Sean pointed out, is varied....

1. not because its costly for the middle class and they only care about their own, its pricey for everyone. even people who can't eat. We would see the same push to regulate and centrally administer food if that became a problem for everyone underneath the richest 2%

2. We actually do guarantee essential resources through public water works, roads, red cross, national guard. Is not protection from danger, infrastructure and roads just as essential to life? And yet we see the government at play already in these areas. So we can think of health care as a bread line. Or we can see it as one's own personal katrina. So we have emergency services for natural disasters by city. My question is what is the difference between someone who lives in new orleans facing a cat 5 hurricane and someone diagnosed with acute adult onset leukemia, who never drank or smoked?

3. The constitution is a legal document. Not a bible of ethics. That means while it does not legally allow for progressive measures to defeat social ills, it does not strictly disallow the possibility. Which means strict constitutionalists risk seeming like the type to walk past a stabbing victim without calling 911 because he's/she's not legally bound to do so. What I'm saying is the human condition is not perfectly encapsulated in the Constitution and its folly to shoe horn our intellect into it.

4. Like it or not, government programs work to clean up the mess caused by markets that have become imbalanced. Its just a fact that Roosevelt's progressive policies of government subsidies and progressive programs defeated run away deflation and unemployment. We have similarly bleak circumstances in HMO based health care.

So while I agree with your essay philosophically, because like I said, I'm dealing with universal health care right now, and its a real problem up here in Canada. And I do have a lot of beliefs in the libertarian corner.

But opponents have got to do better than talk about the abstracts of freedom and the constitution and move forward to actually talk about a practical implementation of reform.

So I'm asking you, how do we reform the current situation, by actually covering people's health care without universal health care?

Sean

07-29-2008, 11:51 AM

The Los Angeles City Council is voting today on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South L.A. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2LVaLShumcn9MZJrHLDVPf_bGOwD927D23G0). I think it's stupid. This is where I take up IsiliRunite's philosophy on personal responsibility. To explain that better, here's the last paragraph in the linked article:

Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. "They should have better things for children," she said. "This fast-food really fattens them up."

I guess Rebecca doesn't realize that it's even cheaper to grab some healthy ingredients from the grocery store to make a decent meal for the kids. And don't tell me about how she may not have the time to go to the store and prepare meals at home - buy some milk and a loaf of whole-grain bread, some sliced turkey, lettuce, tomato, whatever, and make a decent freakin' sandwich for them. It's fast, easy and cheap, and a hell of a lot healthier than a burger, fries, chicken nuggets and soda.

And if demand is lowered through this increased personal responsibility, then the number of fast food restaurants in the area will drop as a result. That, in my opinion, is the only way to affect lasting change where this issue is concerned.

Another favorite quote from the article:

"What's next — security guards at the door saying 'You're overweight, you can't have a cheeseburger'?" Casana said.

dubman

07-29-2008, 01:25 PM

I guess Rebecca doesn't realize that it's even cheaper to grab some healthy ingredients from the grocery store

it... really isnt. i spend on average a little over $10 a day on food ($350 a month) if i go shopping. at mcdonalds i can get two cheeseburgers and a small fry for three.
milk - $3.50
loaf o bread - $4.00
packet o sliced turkey - $3-$5
packet o cheese - $3-$5
lettuce - $2-$3
tomato - $2-$3

all told we're looking at an average of 20 dollars for less than a weeks worth of food if you have kids.

you can make 20 go a long way at mcdonalds for kids though, especially if you're poor. it's become a real problem for a doctor i know working in lower income houeholds. she constantly has to try and convince them that they need to stop them from going to mcdonalds only to get told that it's cheap, it's what they like, and it all gets done right there. it takes less time, money, and headache than going to the store and buying what they shouldnt and spending more than what they have.
mind, i'm taking about poor families and not parents who simply spoil their kids, but that's who they're targeting, especually in LA. you'll find a much higher concentration of mcdonalds and fast food in depressed neighborhoods.
so i'm not going to stand up for fast food's right to exist. i indulged yesterday and it was awesome but theres no question that it's nothing but bad for you. legislating it out of an entire city is out of hand (like city councils and governing bodies tend to go) but i'm not going to get pissy on their behalf. they make their money letting people make the "its our responsibility" agument for them while being the most openly detrimental thing you cn eat for a meal. if thats how it's supposed to work then legalize a whole mess of other hideousness while youre at it. addiction, heart disease, overdosing.. let's all be able pick our poison.

OR, we can do the middle ground that'll sucker-punch all concerned. i quite liked that idea of putting up the nutrition facts in plain display next to the items concerned. not the whole shebang, but the juicy parts: calories and fats. fast food was afraid of that and justly so. at this point in my life whenever i do it it's either an acceptable lapse because i occasionally fckn crave it or part of a looong stretch of eating absolute shit. seeing the info reminds me and a lot of other people that the extreme content of fat and calories is not just a lapse, but a full on attack on your body, and would make half the people that crawl in on a craving think twice. if it's the people's responsibility, then people should not just be let-known but be made painfully aware of, and i like it that it'd be right as they're ordering it.

Sean

07-29-2008, 02:14 PM

it... really isnt. i spend on average a little over $10 a day on food ($350 a month) if i go shopping. at mcdonalds i can get two cheeseburgers and a small fry for three.
milk - $3.50
loaf o bread - $4.00
packet o sliced turkey - $3-$5
packet o cheese - $3-$5
lettuce - $2-$3
tomato - $2-$3

all told we're looking at an average of 20 dollars for less than a weeks worth of food if you have kids.There are like 20 slices of bread in a loaf. So we're talking milk and 10 sandwiches for $20 (going by your numbers). That's $2 per sandwich with a glass of milk. And this lady complains that fast food places are fattening up her kids and that she'd pay more for a good restaurant, so even if groceries do cost a smidge more, she has no excuse. She shouldn't blame fast food places when it's her own fault for choosing to frequent those fast food places.

you can make 20 go a long way at mcdonalds for kids though, especially if you're poor. it's become a real problem for a doctor i know working in lower income houeholds. she constantly has to try and convince them that they need to stop them from going to mcdonalds only to get told that it's cheap, it's what they like, and it all gets done right there. it takes less time, money, and headache than going to the store and buying what they shouldnt and spending more than what they have.
mind, i'm taking about poor families and not parents who simply spoil their kids, but that's who they're targeting, especually in LA. you'll find a much higher concentration of mcdonalds and fast food in depressed neighborhoods.This is all straight-up cop-outs in my book. "It's cheap"? So are some basic, healthy ingredients at the grocery store, or Costco. "It's what they like"? Things may have changed since I was a kid, but I don't recall having the final say in what I ate as a child. My parents determined my diet, and that typically included things like eating the vegetables I hated, as it should be. "It all gets done right there"? Well that's just plain laziness. One trip to the grocery store, and you can throw together your cheap-ass sandwiches without even having to leave the house for a few days.

so i'm not going to stand up for fast food's right to exist. i indulged yesterday and it was awesome but theres no question that it's nothing but bad for you. legislating it out of an entire city is out of hand (like city councils and governing bodies tend to go) but i'm not going to get pissy on their behalf. they make their money letting people make the "its our responsibility" agument for them while being the most openly detrimental thing you cn eat for a meal. if thats how it's supposed to work then legalize a whole mess of other hideousness while youre at it. addiction, heart disease, overdosing.. let's all be able pick our poison.Hell, well then why stop there? Sure, fast food is largely bad for you, but why not scour the menus of all restaurants and ban any items that are unhealthy? I mean, I can go down the street to Paco's Tacos right now and get myself a Chile Relleno - a nice, spicy pepper stuffed with cheese, then breaded and deep fried, served with a side of refried beans covered in melted queso. And that's not the only heavy, greasy, wildly unhealthy thing on the menu by a long shot. Is any of that healthier than a McDonald's cheeseburger? I doubt it. Will these dishes be banned at any of the countless Mexican restaurants in south LA? Not without a huge uproar. So when they get rid of the fast food chains and dumb-ass Rebeca takes her kids to Paco's or somewhere just like it, am I supposed to believe that she'll suddenly start exercising stellar judgement in what she allows her kids to order from the menu? I doubt she will because she doesn't hold herself responsible for what her kids eat - she says that's the fault of fast food chains! And what about Mom and Pop burger joints? Or restaurants like Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles (http://www.roscoeschickenandwaffles.com/) with a menu that's mainly made up of fried chicken, waffles, and gravy in various combinations? Or Italian restaurants that have tons of heavy pasta dishes that add to the obesity epidemic? Or Aunt Kizzy's Back Porch (http://www.auntkizzys.com/lunch.htm)? Or any of a countless number of other sit-down restaurants that have equally unhealthy menus? (Holy crap....I've just listed some of my favorite places to eat...:D)

Oh - and for the record, I love Paco's. I'm actually wearing my Paco's t-shirt right now. But when I go there, guess what? I actually make a choice to skip the Chile Relleno, instead usually opting for the Albondigas soup that's mostly vegetables, or the fajitas that are basically just seasoned meat, peppers, onions and tomatoes. On occasion though, I'll get that stuffed and fried sum-bitch, and that's a choice I want to continue being able to make.

OR, we can do the middle ground that'll sucker-punch all concerned. i quite liked that idea of putting up the nutrition facts in plain display next to the items concerned. not the whole shebang, but the juicy parts: calories and fats. fast food was afraid of that and justly so. at this point in my life whenever i do it it's either an acceptable lapse because i occasionally fckn crave it or part of a looong stretch of eating absolute shit. seeing the info reminds me and a lot of other people that the extreme content of fat and calories is not just a lapse, but a full on attack on your body, and would make half the people that crawl in on a craving think twice. if it's the people's responsibility, then people should not just be let-known but be made painfully aware of, and i like it that it'd be right as they're ordering it.Now I'm all for this. Inform people and let them make their own choices. It's like the old "give a man a fish" proverb. Instead of saying “give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”, I'm saying "take away a man's fast food; you might have made his diet healthier for today. Teach a man to be aware of what he eats; and you have definitely made his diet healthier for a lifetime".

Inform me, don't coerce me.

And by the way, did you feel the earthquake at all where you are?

IsiliRunite

07-29-2008, 03:04 PM

Fruits, vegetables, breads, and deli meats are ridiculously cheap at grocery stores if you are used to spending money at restaurants. Dairy will always be expensive, but you don't want to consume that much of it any ways.

Sean

07-29-2008, 05:02 PM

The moratorium passed unanimously (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080729/D927OLQ02.html). They say that it's:

...a bid to attract restaurants that offer healthier food choices to residents in a 32-square-mile area of South Los Angeles.

Councilwoman Jan Perry says residents at five public meetings expressed concern with the proliferation of fast-food outlets in the community plagued by above-average rates of obesity.

Nearly three-quarters of the restaurants in South L.A. are fast-food outlets. That's a higher percentage than other parts of the city but the restaurant industry says the moratorium won't help bring in alternatives.

Deckard

07-29-2008, 05:33 PM

You know that quake you had today in LA? That was God registering his vote. Against.

(Obviously, being the bringer of free will)

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

07-29-2008, 05:47 PM

Always the minority, I guess, but I'm glad it went through.

dubman

07-29-2008, 07:49 PM

There are like 20 slices of bread in a loaf. So we're talking milk and 10 sandwiches for $20 (going by your numbers). That's $2 per sandwich with a glass of milk. And this lady complains that fast food places are fattening up her kids and that she'd pay more for a good restaurant, so even if groceries do cost a smidge more, she has no excuse. She shouldn't blame fast food places when it's her own fault for choosing to frequent those fast food places.

This is all straight-up cop-outs in my book. "It's cheap"? So are some basic, healthy ingredients at the grocery store, or Costco. "It's what they like"? Things may have changed since I was a kid, but I don't recall having the final say in what I ate as a child. My parents determined my diet, and that typically included things like eating the vegetables I hated, as it should be. "It all gets done right there"? Well that's just plain laziness. One trip to the grocery store, and you can throw together your cheap-ass sandwiches without even having to leave the house for a few days.

Hell, well then why stop there? Sure, fast food is largely bad for you, but why not scour the menus of all restaurants and ban any items that are unhealthy? I mean, I can go down the street to Paco's Tacos right now and get myself a Chile Relleno - a nice, spicy pepper stuffed with cheese, then breaded and deep fried, served with a side of refried beans covered in melted queso. And that's not the only heavy, greasy, wildly unhealthy thing on the menu by a long shot. Is any of that healthier than a McDonald's cheeseburger? I doubt it. Will these dishes be banned at any of the countless Mexican restaurants in south LA? Not without a huge uproar. So when they get rid of the fast food chains and dumb-ass Rebeca takes her kids to Paco's or somewhere just like it, am I supposed to believe that she'll suddenly start exercising stellar judgement in what she allows her kids to order from the menu? I doubt she will because she doesn't hold herself responsible for what her kids eat - she says that's the fault of fast food chains! And what about Mom and Pop burger joints? Or restaurants like Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles (http://www.roscoeschickenandwaffles.com/) with a menu that's mainly made up of fried chicken, waffles, and gravy in various combinations? Or Italian restaurants that have tons of heavy pasta dishes that add to the obesity epidemic? Or Aunt Kizzy's Back Porch (http://www.auntkizzys.com/lunch.htm)? Or any of a countless number of other sit-down restaurants that have equally unhealthy menus? (Holy crap....I've just listed some of my favorite places to eat...:D)

you're seeing all of this snowball, and while, imo, thats a distant but possible scenario, i dont think it would extend past multi-billion dollar corporations who make their profits off of arguments like this.
but i mean, in the big concept, you're right. people/parents/the public at large are lazy. and laziness is no excuse to hold their hand and take away their sweets.
i'm just saying that, at the same time, i have no problem with trolling a corporation that makes profits by feeding shit to people, so logical arguments aside, i'm not going to feel much pity at all if LA goes off the deep end (like they do) and enact over-the-top stuff like this. mcdonalds and fast food are getting screwed, and thats a fun way to go.
but since that *direction* could be more topsy turvy than is comfortable for many, it's best to find a way without potentially scary precedent that agitates the hell out of them at the same time, and i think not just available information, but *requiring* clear and unavoidable information about the product is a fun an effective way of doing that too.
because i think much of that buying is an impulse. a quick fix and something easy to give the kids that you dont have to prepare. as much as we want to be logical and ascribe laziness, poor choices, or otherwise being a bad parent, being a mother of four tends to create the desire to lessen any possible hassle you may have. now, it sounds like her priorities may be off, because nutrition is a tad more important rather than finding a way to make em happy/keep em quiet. but that impuse is completely understandable when you're pulling your hair out about the mess of other things they need.
which, again, would make an unavoidable reminder of what youre pumping into them just that much more effective.

i woke up at around 11:30 (talk about lazy), so i didnt know there was an earthquake until i read your post earlier today.