 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:54:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>> I win. :-P
>>
>> D*mn you, I'll get you next time. ;)
>>
> I am sure that you will get your chance. :-)
I try never to miss a chance when it's important. ;)
>> When I broke my leg in the mid 90's, I was given a handicapped tag (a
>> temporary one). It amazed me how many people parked in the spaces who
>> didn't appear to have a need
>
> AFAIK we only give disabled stickers (handicapped has dropped out of
> use) to permanently disabled people. My wife qualifies because of her
> sight and I could use it to drive her places. But she has never applied
> for one because she is mobile and and can walk. (It seems strange to
> think of a partially sighted who cannot drive, getting a parking
> sticker.)
Most places in the US still do temporary ones AFAIK, but enforcement is
not by law enforcement, but rather is on a voluntary basis. That's
probably why some people just don't care.
At a local grocery store, I even saw someone take up two spaces - they
did have a disabled (I think that's the term we use here now as well,
come to think of it) permit, but that still doesn't permit them to park
like a jerk.
>> - but there are, of course, plenty of hidden causes, to - extreme
>> asthma comes to mind, and that's sadly all too common here in Utah -
>
> Well here is another "no data" opinion. :-)
> I think that the increase in allergies, hay fever, asthma etc. Could be
> due to the amount of processed food, we eat.
> Discus. ;-)
I think there's something to that, actually. Though I think a lot of the
increase as well is due to better diagnosis. I have a cat allergy, and
have for most of my life (based on the symptoms and how long I remember
having them before the diagnosis). Respiratory issues also relate to air
quality (and here in the Salt Lake Valley, especially during the winter,
the pollution gets trapped under an inversion and stays in the valley -
which makes for a couple very tough months for those with worse asthma
than mine - I need to use an inhaler about two or three times a year).
>> because we often have such poor air quality, and the altitude doesn't
>> help.
>>
> I did not know about the air quality, the altitude, yes.
See "inversion" above. There are days where the air here in the valley
is actually a rather sickly yellow-green colour.
>>> I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that
>>> there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
>>> But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the
>>> internet. ;-)
>>
>> It really seems there *are* a lot of selfish people here. The really
>> odd thing (to me, anyways) is that the most selfish claim to be
>> following a guy allegedly from about 2,000 years ago who taught such
>> things as caring for the sick and the poor. That was, in fact, one of
>> the core lessons taught.
>>
>>
> Taught but not learnt.
Clearly. I keep trying to find the verse in the Bible that says "and
Jesus spake unto the masses 'I got mine, Jack!'," but I keep not finding
it. ;)
> It is funny how they pick and chose which parts of the bible they want
> to believe. And how it is mostly the old testament, they chose.
> It would make you boak. Funny how the Scots have a lot of words for
> unpleasant things. :-)
Yep, and aye. ;)
>>> I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just
>>> like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.
>>
>> Arguably, we don't have "football hooligans" over here, nor have we
>> (yet)
>> had riots like the one in London a year or two ago. Well, at least not
>> *recently*.
>
> Tradition, really.
> The riots are sometimes the only way to get the politician's attention.
> Hell mend the lot of them!
We do know about using riots to get the attention of the English
overlords over here. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" wrote in message news:52504552$1@news.povray.org...
>On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>> diet.
>
>Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
>the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>
>The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough to
>mind their own business. Many people feel the need to comment - directly
>- to people they don't know about their weight.
We have causes that aren't due to racism that cause people to say racist
things. Do you "mind your own business" when you hear hate speech?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" wrote in message news:52509f91@news.povray.org...
> It really seems there *are* a lot of selfish people here. The really odd
> thing (to me, anyways) is that the most selfish claim to be following a
> guy allegedly from about 2,000 years ago who taught such things as caring
> for the sick and the poor. That was, in fact, one of the core lessons
> taught.
When I got my driver's license, my father offered to buy me a car ...
if ...
if if if ...
I told him to keep it. I was becoming a man and didn't care to replace
childhood with another form of subjugation. There are several reasons
besides selfishness (I'd include fear of centralized authority here, but
I've few sympathizers in this group) a person would reject involuntary
shared responsibility, even if he _benefits_ financially.
On religion, Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to
say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my leg.” I don't want /my/ lifestyle choices to pick another man's my pocket
or break his leg. I want them to remain /my/ lifestyle choices ... and for
your choices to remain yours.
If you'd prefer the equivalent to obligatory speed limits for diet,
recreation, and sexuality, then continue to oblige others with the
consequences of those choices. I'll forever object, but not out of greed.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:38:03 -0500, Shay wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" wrote in message news:52504552$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over
>>> indulgence.
>>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>>> diet.
>>
>>Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
>>the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>>
>>The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough
>>to mind their own business. Many people feel the need to comment -
>>directly - to people they don't know about their weight.
>
> We have causes that aren't due to racism that cause people to say racist
> things. Do you "mind your own business" when you hear hate speech?
It depends on the specific circumstances.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:14:23 -0500, Shay wrote:
> I don't want /my/ lifestyle choices to pick another man's my pocket
> or break his leg. I want them to remain /my/ lifestyle choices ... and
> for your choices to remain yours.
If you break your leg and have elected to not have health insurance, then
it kinda sucks to be you.
Except that it doesn't, because here in the US, you get treated whether
or not you have insurance.
So it seems only fair that you be mandated to carry some form of
insurance, since you'll get the benefit from the system.
Or are you saying that hospitals should leave the sick, injured, and
dying on the doorstep if they don't have insurance?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 12:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Or are you saying that hospitals should leave the sick, injured, and
> dying on the doorstep if they don't have insurance?
>
The question isn't what hospitals should do, but what I would /force/
them to do.
Would I force a hospital to allocate resources to _preventive_ health,
knowing this would take resources from trauma care?
Would I force a hospital to treat a diabetic, knowing this would prevent
the purchase of a new breast-cancer-screening machine?
Would I force a hospital to hire a cancer specialist instead of a heart
specialist?
Would I force a hospital to provide helmets at a motorcycle rally if I
believed this would lower the necessity for expensive trauma care?
Would I force a hospital to build a mental-health wing instead of a
pediatric wing?
The only sane answer is that I would not force a hospital to do any of
these. I would let the hospital decide.
In the same way, I would not force my neighbor to buy a pacemaker for me
instead of an AED for you, even though either could save a life.
In the same way, I would not force my neighbor to buy a cell phone for
me instead of snow tires for you, even though either could save a life.
In the same way, I would not force my neighbor to buy a kick plate for
my door instead of an alarm for your door, even though either could save
a life.
I suppose the only non-selfish proposal is pacemakers, AEDs, cell
phones, snow tires, kick plates, and door alarms for everyone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:42:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
> The only sane answer is that I would not force a hospital to do any of
> these. I would let the hospital decide.
So, how would you fix the healthcare problems in the US?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 6:14 AM, Shay wrote:
> On religion, Thomas Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my
> neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my
> pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I have always thought that, while in principle the idea sounded good, it
implied the naive assumption that you neighbors neighbor didn't as well,
or their neighbor, or the next one, etc. One you get "outside" of your
own group, it not uncommon to find, in extreme cases, that someone, in
actual fact, wants to do both, and do so in the name of their god.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 06:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:42:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> The only sane answer is that I would not force a hospital to do any of
>> these. I would let the hospital decide.
>
> So, how would you fix the healthcare problems in the US?
>
> Jim
>
A typical authoritarian question.
No debate of the merits, no concept of opportunity cost, no mention of
the /they/ that would administer "your" fixes. Just, "I've got this
magic wand here, gau-ran-teed to make things better. Why wouldn't I wave
it? And what could you come up with that's possibly better than a magic
wand?"
The real question is:
How would I _attempt_ to improve the US healthcare system
1. without killing the goose that produced all the medicines and
procedures we're so eager to universally provide?
2. while trying to keep the "powers that be" from using any new
authority I give them in corrupt ways?
The real answer is:
I would send a few bills to kidney-disease research. But that's not the
kind of answer you want, is it?
OK, my "magic wand" answer:
I'd improve health care by taking all the money away from the people who
are dropping bombs on other people.
I've given you two posts of reasons why these are the best answers I can
give you. Have a second look or continue to pointlessly attempt
ownership of compassion.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/11/2013 4:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:42:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> The only sane answer is that I would not force a hospital to do any of
>> these. I would let the hospital decide.
>
> So, how would you fix the healthcare problems in the US?
>
> Jim
>
He wouldn't. You can't "not" force someone help others, and not have
people die as a result. What pisses me off a whole lot, are the ones
that will assert all the things no one should be "forced" to do, then,
when its them in the situation, praise the same rules they think
shouldn't exist, which resulting in them being saved.
Its also a false equivalence. Preventative care means "less" emergency
care, since a great many cases never reach the state in which they "are"
an emergency. Since such emergency care costs more, and has higher
risks, liabilities, and thus... again, costs more, reducing the number
of cases that reach that stage actually "increases" the available
resources to deal with emergencies. If you ignore this, you get idiot
shit like in my city, where the hospital can't handle some emergencies
at all, so has to, as extreme expense, ship people hundreds of miles, by
chopper, to some place that can. Basically - don't make the mistake of
having a major heart attack, or anything else untreatable here, in the
same 3-4 hours it takes for them to ship the last patient off, refuel,
and come back. If you do... you're dead. Which is just insane, except..
they also fail, miserably, at "preventative care" as well, so... odds
are, if you have a problem, it "will" progress to the point, eventually,
where you need that airlift.
All of the other arguments about "forcing" people are similar idiocies.
Its not the damn hospitals forcing people to not do care, or forcing
them to pick between expensive, one shot, high death, "emergency care",
instead of preventative care. Its insurance companies telling people,
"We will pay to replace your kidney, assuming we can bloody find one in
time, but we **won't** pay for the care needed to prevent kidney failure
in the first place." But, I suppose, Shay thinks its "inappropriate" to
"force" insurance companies to actually pay for procedures, which the
doctors **would provide**, if the insurance didn't deny them?
Because, I know for a damn fact that you won't find a single competent
doctor, unless they are some high paid idiot for the stars/certain
politicians, or a specialist, who knows that preventative care would cut
into the number of open heart surgeries, or the like they could charge
people for, who thinks "preventative care" is a bad if idea, and they
would be "forced" to give up emergency care to get it. First off, the
people providing the emergency care are often experts "at" that kind of
care, not the family doctors you go to, in order to get preventative
care. Second, most emergency wards are overworked, dealing with crap
that "should be" preventative. If you go in with a damn cold, odds are,
instead of going to a regular doctor, or a care center that deal with
basic prevention, you may find yourself waiting in line with someone who
needs their arm reattached, do to some serious accident.
But, this was **never** the way it was supposed to work. It wasn't the
way it worked before, and it only reached this point precisely because
less and less "preventative" medicine has been practiced, leaving anyone
from someone in needs of a damn bandaid, to people in need of major
surgery, from a car accident, all shoved into the "emergency room". The
one damn place that the former ***doesn't belong in the first place,
except, they can't afford a family doctor, or find anyone working, on
the day they need "basic care". And, given how many don't have doctors
at all, most of these people would have never ***had to*** go to the
emergency room, to look for even "basic care", if they had been able to
go to/find a regular doctor, to get "preventative care", to keep their
chest cold, for example, from progressing from something a few pills
would have cured, to full blown pneumonia.
"Preventative care" saves costs on unneeded "basic care".
Having "basic care" handled properly by places that **just** deal with
such non-emergencies saves money that would be better spent on
"emergency care".
And, if you are not messing with "basic care" right along side of bloody
"emergency care", in the same damn place, fewer people die, because
doctors, nurses, etc. who work in the emergency rooms, are over worked,
over stressed, and trying to deal with 500 problems an hour, instead of 50.
All of which hinges not on "doctors" being "forced" to provide such
things, but on an unwillingness of insurance companies to pay for proper
"preventative care", agree on the best "basic care", or, sometimes, even
pay for "emergency care", if it falls into some category of, "Well,
there is a cheaper, inferior, solution, which you will probably die from
sooner, saving us, the insurance company, money." Except, because the
insurance companies are the ones making these decisions, on what is, or
isn't, paid for, and the "preventative care" is the one they are
***least likely*** to pay for.. it was decided to, instead of fixing the
fucking problem, to instead "require" any and all problems, no matter
how trivial, which come into an emergency ward, to be "treated", for
free. The only "forcing" being done, sadly, being done "purely" to treat
as many people as possible, including the ones that are there
**because** they never got preventative, or basic, care, until a minor,
cheaply fixed, trivial, infection, or other problem, has **escalated**
into a full blown emergency (assuming, of course, that they don't come
in before it gets to that point, get handed a few pills, told to go to a
regular doctor, which they don't have, to continue treatment, and thus,
never do, leading, again, to them "eventually" actually ending up in the
emergency room because they are not not just sick, but possibly dying.)
Yeah, I have absolutely no bloody patience with people that think fixing
this idiot mess is a bad idea, or that someone more people will die, by
making sure more people don't get to the point they are dying in the
damn first place.. It shows a complete, and total, oblivious ignorance
of what is going, on, what doctors themselves say on the subject, what
the actual problems are, or why the fuck they got that way, in the first
place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
