Michael Moore bitchslaps CNN [Archive] - Page 2

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:13 PM

I've seen folks who come from poor backgrounds excel in life, maybe I just don't understand why everyone can't do it.

Because not everyone with the same background gets the same opportunities.

Seriously.

Yes, some will get them and let them go by, because they're lazy, or don't believe they can do it, or whatever... but there's craploads of people who'd give their eyeteeth to get out of their situation, who wear out their shoes trying to find a good job... and can't. There's single mothers who have no means of daycare for their children who stay at home with those children and take the dole... because if they didn't,

1. their child could get hurt, and would certainly be neglected, being at home alone at a very young age, and

2. if they *did* leave, say, a two or three year old at home alone, DFACS would take them away.

Which is why I got so pissed at the funding cuts the Bush Administration supported for programs that provide such daycare to such mothers.

I'm a mom, and I know I wouldn't want to leave a small child at home alone... or leave them with someone who is a crackhead, or might sell my child's body for drugs, or who will neglect them. If push came to shove, I'd take the public dole and wear the name "Welfare Mom" proudly, if it meant my child was being well-cared for and looked after, if I couldn't get a job that would allow me to pay for daycare *and* support us, too. Which all too often, is the case for "welfare moms."

Granted, there are some stupid women out there who keep getting pregnant, who abuse the system, who would rather take a handout from the govt. rather than get off their asses and work... but their presence doesn't negate the presence of moms who really would work their butts off, if they knew their kids were going to be okay and decently cared for, while they were at work... rather than slapped around, left with a dirty diaper all day, or even worse, handed over to drug-dealing perverts.

There will always be assholes who abuse any government aid system. That's a given. The point is, to try to get the system to the level that the corruption is manageable---because it also serves a lot of folks who both deserve and need the help. Part of that is getting a good system; part of it is employing good and smart people in the system as its administrators. If we had better funding and better oversight for the Welfare system, I believe far fewer "layabout assholes" would get assistance, and far more of those in genuine need would get the help they're supposed to get.

As it is, employment as a "social worker" tends to attract two kinds of people: those who truly want to do good to others and are willing to sacrifice some things in their own livelihoods to help that along... and those who are dumbfuck assholes, who "settle" for the work because they were too lazy, or stupid, to do anything else.

Part of the problem is that under the current system's red tape, the dumbfucks have a big advantage over the truly dedicated, in terms of who has the power and what gets done or gets ignored. The system isn't inherently bad---the rules that surround it, and the way it's administered, IS. It doesn't need to be scrapped---just fixed.

Spackling Compound

07-12-2007, 04:16 PM

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 04:24 PM

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 04:26 PM

I can see being told to go check out your textbook being seen as an act of assholery, however. I suppose it would be better to seek another doctor.
However, I can see being thrown out of a doctor's office being something that can happen to someone maybe once in a lifetime...but several times , I would begin to wonder about the "victim" rather than the "perp".Incident #1:

The victim was told by the doctor that, though he had no idea how to test for addison's -- despite said victim giving him a sheet on the test and where he could get it from and that she would be glad to pay for it out of pocket, and him putting it aside -- that she should keep taking the steroids that made her start puking blood. When the victim stated that she would rather not continue the steroids and take the test to properly monitor her DHEA and cortisol levels, he reiterated that he did not have any idea how to do that -- depite said printout -- and asked her not to come to him again, since she would not take the meds he prescribed. (Edit: since it's dangerous to prescribe only cortisol to an Addison's patient, especially without proper monitoring, as the vomiting of blood illustrates.)

The victim then hunted around for an endocrinologist, and only one would see her, since she has no health insurance. This led to incident #2:

The victim was told that her rare and terminal illness was a seasonal allergy that would be over in a few months, and that the doctor had never heard of addison's disease, and why was she making stuff up? When she told him that it should be in his medical textbooks and here, would he like the thick folder of printouts that she had brought with her, including detailed reference material, he told her that he did not treat hypochondriacs and to get out of his office.

She finally had to go to a homeopath who had previously been a mainstream doctor for about 45 years, and HE gave her the correct hormone pills, though he did not seem to believe that steroids make one gain weight that's difficult to lose.

You really should look into how people with rare illnesses are treated. You get turned away, dismissed, asked to leave, told to leave, and treated like shit quite often. People who've never experienced this are also happy to tell you that it's your fault, too, as was proven just now.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:30 PM

Acquire a rare illness. Most doctors seem to treat you as an affront after they've failed to diagnose you a few times. What's worse is if you're educated about your condition-- they get really upset if you ask them to look it up in their medical textbooks. Especially if you refuse to take the treatment that they misprescribe you and that make your condition worse.

Why, that's challenging their authoritah right there. I've been thrown out of doctors' offices for these things. :)

It's common for people with unusual illnesses to receive shabby treatment from doctors. You get serious attitude if you know more than your practitioner.

Sadly enough, that's true. Too many doctors let their fucking ego get in the way of helping their patients.

For that matter, I still wish Troy had sued for malpractice against the doctor who did his surgery for his breathing issues...

Troy has sleep apnia. BAD. In his tests, he was at a level of 72% blood oxygenation during sleep---and you start getting brain damage when your levels drop below around 82%.

So, our wonderful and good-hearted GP sent Troy to a high-profile ENT man, to get surgery to help his breathing issues.

Problem was, this guy was a jerk.

Basically, the specialist make Speedy Gonzales look like a turtle: when you'd go see him for an office visit, he's speak rapidly, never listen, and had you in and out within 15 minutes. I/we should've seen that as a warning sign... but we were desparate for the surgery, and believed in this guy's rep as a "great surgeon."

Dumb.

From when Troy hit the operating room until the surgeon came out to tell me (in a 15 second blurb) how it went... took around 25 minutes. So, in that time, Troy was wheeled into the operating room, put under, the doctor trimmed his oovula (the thingy that hangs down the roof of your mouth), did extensive trimming inside Troy's sinuses, removed tonsils and adnoids... and came out to report to me.

Far too fast. Troy not only stil has serious issues with sleep apnia and snoring---the damned doctor left a "shelf" of flesh in the back of Troy's throat. It catches food from time to time, triggering a terrible coughing/choking fit. AND, he trimmed too *much* off the oovula, so that Troy now has difficulty swallowing.

And of course, being a "high profile" specialist, this guy charged the max rate going for his services.

We were so stupid not to sue... but that's the case with a lot of folks who get ongoing problems from the doctors they see and trust.

Anyway, I'm a lot more picky about my doctors now... and if a doctor rushes through my appointment with no good reason, or refuses to listen to me and talk WITH me about my condition... I get up and leave, and won't go back. The docs I keep are the ones who realize that, as the patient, I too have an effect on the results, and are willing to work with me on that basis. If they ignore my questions or slide past them, they aren't going to work with me, and they aren't going to help me. If they won't listen to the symptoms I give, and the opinions I give, they're worthless. They don't live in my body: I DO. I AM the one who gets the biological and sensory feedback from it, not them.

So yeah, docs who won't listen when you tell them "I have this disease, I have a HISTORY with this disease, it does blahblahblah..." I'm out the door. And it's infuriating, and sad, when a doctor ignores the kind of symptoms you've described for the disease you have, and tries to tell you, as the "Ignorant Layman", that "You're just imagnining things," or "You're a hypochondriac"... especially when you're swelling out the wazoo and throwing up blood. Duh.

Can I go hit those so-called "doctors" with a "stupid" stick?:evilsmile

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:32 PM

Incident #1:

The victim was told by the doctor that, though he had no idea how to test for addison's -- despite said victim giving him a sheet on the test and where he could get it from and that she would be glad to pay for it out of pocket, and him putting it aside -- that she should keep taking the steroids that made her start puking blood. When the victim stated that she would rather not continue the steroids and take the test to properly monitor her DHEA and cortisol levels, he reiterated that he did not have any idea how to do that -- depite said printout -- and asked her not to come to him again, since she would not take the meds he prescribed. (Edit: since it's dangerous to prescribe only cortisol to an Addison's patient, especially without proper monitoring, as the vomiting of blood illustrates.)

The victim then hunted around for an endocrinologist, and only one would see her, since she has no health insurance. This led to incident #2:

The victim was told that her rare and terminal illness was a seasonal allergy that would be over in a few months, and that the doctor had never heard of addison's disease, and why was she making stuff up? When she told him that it should be in his medical textbooks and here, would he like the thick folder of printouts that she had brought with her, including detailed reference material, he told her that he did not treat hypochondriacs and to get out of his office.

She finally had to go to a homeopath who had previously been a mainstream doctor for about 45 years, and HE gave her the correct hormone pills, though he did not seem to believe that steroids make one gain weight that's difficult to lose.

You really should look into how people with rare illnesses are treated. You get turned away, dismissed, asked to leave, told to leave, and treated like shit quite often. People who've never experienced this are also happy to tell you that it's your fault, too, as was proven just now.

People with Fibro-myalgia often get similar dismissal.

And it pisses me off, both what you described, and that.:mad:

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 04:33 PM

Can I go hit those so-called "doctors" with a "stupid" stick?:evilsmileNot enough sticks. ^^

Fibro's a symptom of Addison's, actually, because it's adrenal fatigue. It doesn't mean you have addison's, but one can be a symptom of the other because it's caused by adrenal glands that don't perform properly and so hose the endocrine and immune and nervous systems.

So yes, that would be why people get similar treatment by doctors. I don't understand why the US medical establishment's so backwards on this one. They did appropriate a bunch of money for research, but that just got funnelled into other stuff and nothing got done.

Paul McEnery

07-12-2007, 04:35 PM

First of all don't talk down to me.

I doubt that would be possible.

Paul McEnery

07-12-2007, 04:37 PM

What IS the mystique behind golfing anyways?

Fetish club:

It allows people with unsightly arses to display them to each other.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:37 PM

I suppose that it is possible "most" doctors would treat the patient as an affront if they can't diagnose an illness. I have a hard time imagining that but it is possible.
I can see being told to go check out your textbook being seen as an act of assholery, however. I suppose it would be better to seek another doctor.
However, I can see being thrown out of a doctor's office being something that can happen to someone maybe once in a lifetime...but several times , I would begin to wonder about the "victim" rather than the "perp".

Not if you have a rare disease. There are far too many doctors who, if it's not within their mainstream knowledge, attempt to place the "blame" for their ignorance on the patient, rather than admitting that the patient knows more about their own disease than THEY do.

Doctors are human. Some doctors are assholes. Many doctors ACT like assholes when their "vast medical knowledge" (aka "I went to school for 12 years for my degree") gets questions. NEVERMIND that the patient may actually KNOW more about their own disease than the DOCTOR.

A GOOD doctor, when confronted with such symptoms and such info from a new patient, will go and look up the info, or look at the info the patient has brought with them, if said doctor has never encountered the disease before.

I hate, I hate, I HATE doctors who seem to think that their 12 yrs. of education means that they of course know all there is to know about medicine, and that their "layman" patients are always stupid by comparison.

Can I go kick those doctors in the nuts now, Rev? They deserve it.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:38 PM

Fetish club:

It allows people with unsightly arses to display them to each other.

Under those god-awful checkered knickers and the argyle socks????

Paul, please: you're offending my perception and enjoyment of the term "Fetish Club."

:D

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 04:39 PM

Can I go kick those doctors in the nuts now, Rev? They deserve it.Go right ahead. <3

Nick Soapdish

07-12-2007, 04:40 PM

I agree, my parents had the money to be able to provide me with 4 years of college. I'm providing my 3 years of grad school. Now if i get rich is it b/c mommy and daddy are rich? Or is it b/c I took advantage of the oppotunities I was given at the start and made the most of it.

I have a friend, he was I guess what you considered poor, busted ass in HS, got a scholarship and is not studing over in Oxford for the summer on a joint MBA/JD degree. His parents had nothing, both worked two jobs, never really helped him out. Maybe my prospective of the majority of poor folks is wrong, but it's what I've gone to see. Anyone can make something of themselves if they choose too. I know there are expectations, shit happens, life is a bitch, but I do believe the majority of folks who are considered poor are there b/c of life choices they've made and are now unable to work themselves out of it.

What you seem to be missing is that you had a lot more opportunities than most poor people do.

You say that your parents were rich.

Presumably, they had lots of books around the house for you to read.

Presumably, they didn't need to both work 80-hour workweeks and can spend some time with you while you were growing up and take an interest in your education.

Presumably, you lived in a house that was safe enough that you didn't need to worry about gunfire or robberies and that the power was always on so that you could actually read at night.

There are lots of other seemingly small things that "we" take for granted that are big boosts in our ability to get ahead.

Your friend was able to succeed in spite of that. It doesn't mean that you would've been able to nor does it mean that the majority of people are able to. And it's not necessarily a reflection on your friend's parents. Having to work two jobs each makes it very tough to spend quality time with your kids.

Apparently, you didn't bust your ass in HS or weren't brilliant enough to just fake it so that you could get a scholarship so you already got a second chance that your friend didn't get.

Not having to work throughout college also makes it a lot easier to get the degree.

Most people make mistakes. But if you're (comparatively) rich, you just get second (and third, fourth, and etc.) chances. When you aren't, you have just the one.

I've made lots of mistakes.

I coasted through high school, but was able to get a scholarship anyway. A lot of that was due to all the other education opportunities that were available to me in my household.

But I promptly blew that scholarship when I learned that I couldn't coast through college. Then I got my third opportunity when my parents helped me get through school. I also worked, but they paid tuition and part of my housing. I was mostly just paying for food and a bit more. So I was able to get out of college with a minimum of loans which made my future employment options easier since I didn't need to be making tons to repay those loans.

My dad provided healthcare for me up until March of this year. That's completely different then socialized medicine. Maybe I'd be more for socialized medicine if it wasn't run by the government. I want everyone to have insurance, who doesn't. What I don't want is a system run by the government. Maybe I should have said that first.

Who would run it then? :confused:

Paul McEnery

07-12-2007, 04:42 PM

Under those god-awful checkered knickers and the argyle socks????

Paul, please: you're offending my perception and enjoyment of the term "Fetish Club."

:D

Oh, I think that's the outfit you should wear next time you go clubbing.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:44 PM

You know, Solaris, I think we actually DID agree on something politically once last year! :) But yeah, we're polls apart but I still think you're tops. Come to think of it, apparently you, me, and Gilda left CBR at the same time, and then came back at the same time too. Are the three of us travelling in a flock?

I don't think I've ever met one of those doctor's who think they're gods. They may not be working at my hospital. Well, we DO have a doctor with the last name "Thor" who has a bunch of Thor memorabilia and says he lives in Asgard. I suspect he may be joking, he has a Mjolnir on his desk, and I was able to pick it up.

I've never golfed. My step-uncle does. What IS the mystique behind golfing anyways? You know ... okay, that settles it. I'm gunna ask him to take me when I have a few days off.

Oh, Daddy just told me to tell you that most states allow you to get a BA in teaching, while California doesn't. Apparently here, if you want to be an elementary teacher, you major in Liberal Arts, then take the extra year of teacher training.

Good grief, California is weird. :D

I dunno... but if we're a flock, flocking with you and Gilda is a helluva compliment! ;)

I don't know about the golf thing... but it's definitely a business mystique, which is probably why that kind of doctor picks it up. A lot of business deals get made on the golf course. Golf, for many people, is as much a "status" thing as it is a fun game they enjoy. In fact, there are some business types who literally *hate* the game---but in order to impress their clients and do business with them, they learn to play anyway, and pretend to like it.

That's no raps to the game itself---hey, if you like the game, and play it, fine: it's just that it's also become a status symbol for many... something like the "Land Rover" craze that swept through the business community a few years ago. You were "in" if you drove one. BMW's are a similar thing.

I've never been much for status symbols... if something I like *is* one, fine, I don't care---I want it because I like it, not because a bunch of well-off yuppies decided it's the "in" thing. :D

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 04:47 PM

People with Fibro-myalgia often get similar dismissal.

And it pisses me off, both what you described, and that.:mad:

Then again, and just to lighten things up, from an ER residents perspective, I always cringe just a bit when I get the call that we have someone in with excruciating anal pain, because I just KNOW we're gunna pull something interesting out of someones rectum. The rubber duck sealed it for me, but the phone set to vibrate that DID after we pulled it out was a real crowd-pleaser too. No, I don't remember who was calling the patient, or why. The only time I find it difficult to feel compassion for a patient is when I've just extracted a Barbie doll from their rectum. A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine pulled a Bratz doll out of someone's behind.

I defy anyone to deal with this kind of stuff and not have it affect them :)

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:48 PM

Oh, I think that's the outfit you should wear next time you go clubbing.

No way... BUT, I'll go for the tartan mini skirt (with no panties), schoolgirl white blouse, white knee socks...

I've actually seen that done at a club, and it was quite fetching... especially when the girl bent over. :D

AaronJ

07-12-2007, 04:52 PM

Very well said. The fact that a baseball player makes 10 times more then a doctor is horrendous. I understand why sports stars make the money they do, but to hold them on a higher ledge then a doctor or a lawyer, ridiculous. The stuff doctors give up to become what they are is nothing short of amazing.

OK, now I am convinced that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Alex Rodriguez. He makes $25 Million per year. At first blush (and second blush, and third blush) that's a lot of money.

But ask yourself: How many people do you know who can HONESTLY say they are one of the top-ten in THE WHOLE WORLD at what they do? Seriously. How many? Give me an answer, if you can.

Now, ask yourself this: How many of those people work for a company that pulls in billions in PROFITS each year? How many? I'm really interested.

Almost every professional athlete is one of the two or three or five best in the whole world at what he does. There is almost no one else who can say that. No one.

And don't kid yourself, if you think professional athletes don't *work* at their jobs. How many knee reconstructions have you had? Three? Five? Seven?

How many times have you played an entire game with a broken collarbone?

How many times have you pitched through an injury?

When's the last time you got your ACL ripped to shreds by someone taking a cheap shot at you?

Magglio Ordonez, of the Detroit Tigers, had a bum knee. No one in the US knew what was wrong exactly or how to fix it. He went to Austria, where he was finally diagnosed. They took an Achille's Tendon from a corpse and grafted it to his knee.

Now, three years + later, he's starting to feel good again. He's leading the league in hitting (.370). He's a hero.

How many 8 inch scars do you have? Are you one of the two or three best in the world at what you do? How much have you put on the line, literally, for what you do?

Don't give me this "Athletes are overpaid" crap.

ETA: Oh, and you said you are 23, right? What if you KNEW your career would be over, TOTALLY OVER, within ten years? Add that to the equation.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 04:58 PM

Then again, and just to lighten things up, from an ER residents perspective, I always cringe just a bit when I get the call that we have someone in with excruciating anal pain, because I just KNOW we're gunna pull something interesting out of someones rectum. The rubber duck sealed it for me, but the phone set to vibrate that DID after we pulled it out was a real crowd-pleaser too. No, I don't remember who was calling the patient, or why. The only time I find it difficult to feel compassion for a patient is when I've just extracted a Barbie doll from their rectum. A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine pulled a Bratz doll out of someone's behind.

I defy anyone to deal with this kind of stuff and not have it affect them :)

Just let it go as "dumb shit dumb people do"... and try to get a good laugh out of it.

Now I'm gonna tell on my in-law:

She and her hubby had to go to the ER... because they were "playing" with fruits, and *peeled* the banana before insertion.. and they couldn't get it back out. :D

Sab, don't let the dumb patients get you down... working in an ER really is hell, because you see the worst of immediate human misery face to face every day, with blood and gore included. The nice thing is, you're saving lives... whether their dumb or smart. Take the weird stuff as funny, dismiss the "bitchy" dumb people for what they are... and try to remember the ones who are truly grateful for your interventions, and your help, that have helped them and/or the ones they love.

I've been to ER's several times... never, thank gods, for anything truly life-threating... and I've seen all kinds and types, both injuries and people, in the waiting room, or wheeling in from an ambulance. In some respects, you get to see a microcosm of our society: you see people when things are at their worst, and get to see their reactions. And of course, some will react badly. Sometimes that's fear and stress; sometimes it's because they're plain assholes. But sometimes, you also get to see people who do their best to be patient, to be brave in the face of pain and fear... which is a lot more than most of us get to see, of life and of people. Treasure those folks who make heroes of themselves, when they're in your care... and let the jerky ones go, in your mind. It's the heroic ones you should remember---because YOU had a hand in helping their lives go on, and continuing them to help others. You may never know what wonderful things they go on to do, or what people they touch, in their lives---but you can see from their very behavior, that they will do so, once they can get back at it... and you are part of the reason why they are ABLE to do it.

So, when you think about it, you contribute in a significant way to people who do good in this old world.

I hope that thought gives you lots of hugs and snuggles. :)

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 04:58 PM

I defy anyone to deal with this kind of stuff and not have it affect them :)I'd love those cases.

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 05:03 PM

Almost every professional athlete is one of the two or three or five best in the whole world at what he does. There is almost no one else who can say that. No one.

There's something wrong with the math here, but I just don't have time to figure out what it is. It has something to do with "EVERY pro athlete" is in the top five ...

Oh, and thanks, Solaris! :) Muchly appreciated!

Solaris

07-12-2007, 05:09 PM

There's something wrong with the math here, but I just don't have time to figure out what it is. It has something to do with "EVERY pro athlete" is in the top five ...

Well, in his defense, it's only the top top athletes who get the millions... the run of the mill guys get maybe $125-175K per year... ???

AaronJ

07-12-2007, 05:12 PM

There's something wrong with the math here, but I just don't have time to figure out what it is. It has something to do with "EVERY pro athlete is in the top five" ...

You do realize that people play different positions in sports, right? And that people get paid different amounts, right?

You do realize that a guy who is left back footballer and a guy who is pitcher in the major leagues, etc.

There are approx. 700 guys in the Major Leagues in baseball. Now, those 700 guys are the best 700 guys in the world at what they do. They just are. If ever there were a meritocracy, it is professional sports.

Now, take the bottom 200 out. Those guys are first-year guys or still stuck in their rookie contracts. Take the oldest 200 out. Those guys are finishing their careers on contracts they signed years ago.

That leaves us with 300 guys.

There are pitchers, then there are position players. Of those 300, about 120 are pitchers, and about 180 are position players. Give or take.

Of those 180 position players, there are 8 positions, plus DH.

Go ahead, do the math.

A guy playing 2B for the Rockies is most likely one of the top-5 in whole world at what he does. He *might* be top-10. Even, at the edges, top-20. But that's the real limit.

And absolutely, any guy in The Show can say he is one of the best 20-30, at the VERY LEAST, in the world at what he does.

But most guys come up, come down, get shifted around, moved to DLs, etc. The guys who stick? They are top-5 or top-10 at the least.

Now it works differently in non-team sports, like golf and tennis. In Tennis, for example, you can be ranked 300th and qualify for the US Open. It's unlikely, but it can, and has happened.

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 05:35 PM

AaronJ

07-12-2007, 05:39 PM

I think I'll just wait until Mr. McEnery or SUPERECWFAN#1 reads that post and agrees with it or not, and then I will, because I'm just not getting it. Outside of guns, archery, and pro wrestling, sports ain't my thang.

Well really, no one ever actually agrees with Paul McEnery, they just sort of read his posts and say "Well, that went completely over my head but it sort of SEEMS like something I should sign on to, so okay." :D

And if SUPERECWFAN disagrees with the post, diana_fan will end up wrapped up in barbed wire and set on fire in the middle of a ring with a table on top of him. So it's in his interest to be telling the truth.

Actually, I sort of mis-stated what I was saying.

The concept that these guys getting HUGE salaries, they are the ones who are the top-2 top-3 top-5 in the world at what they do.

But ANYONE in the show (and that includes guys making the minimum which is $375,000 I think, up to A-Rod at $25 Million) is one of the very best in the world at what he does.

But yes, the very top-paid guys, like A-Rod, Jeter, Magglio, Vlad, etc., they can all claim that they are among the few best in the whole world at what they do.

That's why they were all All-Stars this year, last year, the year before, etc.

Brian M.

07-12-2007, 05:43 PM

What you seem to be missing is that you had a lot more opportunities than most poor people do.

You say that your parents were rich.

Presumably, they had lots of books around the house for you to read.

Presumably, they didn't need to both work 80-hour workweeks and can spend some time with you while you were growing up and take an interest in your education.

Presumably, you lived in a house that was safe enough that you didn't need to worry about gunfire or robberies and that the power was always on so that you could actually read at night.

There are lots of other seemingly small things that "we" take for granted that are big boosts in our ability to get ahead.

Your friend was able to succeed in spite of that. It doesn't mean that you would've been able to nor does it mean that the majority of people are able to. And it's not necessarily a reflection on your friend's parents. Having to work two jobs each makes it very tough to spend quality time with your kids.

Apparently, you didn't bust your ass in HS or weren't brilliant enough to just fake it so that you could get a scholarship so you already got a second chance that your friend didn't get.

Not having to work throughout college also makes it a lot easier to get the degree.

Most people make mistakes. But if you're (comparatively) rich, you just get second (and third, fourth, and etc.) chances. When you aren't, you have just the one.

I've made lots of mistakes.

I coasted through high school, but was able to get a scholarship anyway. A lot of that was due to all the other education opportunities that were available to me in my household.

But I promptly blew that scholarship when I learned that I couldn't coast through college. Then I got my third opportunity when my parents helped me get through school. I also worked, but they paid tuition and part of my housing. I was mostly just paying for food and a bit more. So I was able to get out of college with a minimum of loans which made my future employment options easier since I didn't need to be making tons to repay those loans.

Who would run it then? :confused:

Who would run it...I'd like a system that is a lot more affordable to those in lower income brackets. I will always believe that when it comes to running something private industry will always be better and more efficent then government. Toss in tax refunds for those in a lower income bracket and try and make healthcare cheaper would two ways I'd go about making it more accessible to those who can't afford it.

Brian M.

07-12-2007, 05:44 PM

I doubt that would be possible.

Yea I love it when folks like you act superior to others. It really makes what you say all that more effective.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 05:56 PM

Actually, I sort of mis-stated what I was saying.

The concept that these guys getting HUGE salaries, they are the ones who are the top-2 top-3 top-5 in the world at what they do.

But ANYONE in the show (and that includes guys making the minimum which is $375,000 I think, up to A-Rod at $25 Million) is one of the very best in the world at what he does.

But yes, the very top-paid guys, like A-Rod, Jeter, Magglio, Vlad, etc., they can all claim that they are among the few best in the whole world at what they do.

That's why they were all All-Stars this year, last year, the year before, etc.

Backpedal, baby... backpedal!

Just kidding. :D ;)

Then again... if Sab was threatening to put me in a ring of barbwire and set me on fire... wait, I might like that.

No... not really.

:D

Dazzler

07-12-2007, 05:58 PM

Yeppers. Cuz when you put in the time and the work and the training to go for the tough jobs and get the good grades, you get to make the big bucks. Which, BTW, I'm not making yet. But I absolutely love the fact that the "popular" kids at my high school who partied all day and night, and blew off school, are now still working at McDonalds while I've actually got a career because I said "Screw it, I'm working hard now so I can get ahead later". And also, both my father and step-uncle are teachers, so I'm quite aware of what they do and go through, thank you very much, and yes, they deserve more money (why you think I wouldn't think they do is a mystery, but oh well ...) and still I'd love to take a whole Summer off, something they LOVE to brag about to me. Even where I am now as a resident, I put in over twice as many hours as both of them do. And you know, when a teacher makes a mistake, their students don't, y'know, die on them, and then the lawyers don't sue. Higher risks, higher rewards. I'd also put high-level engineers and airline traffic controllers up at the top of the list as well.

You are so unbelieveably full of yourself.

--Dazz

PS. I don't get the whole summer off. Not all teachers do. I work all year round. Sometimes upwards of 80 hours a week. And in my field, students do die, so you don't have the corner marketed on hard, time consuming, emotionally stressful jobs.

Solaris

07-12-2007, 06:02 PM

You are so unbelieveably full of yourself.

--Dazz

PS. I don't get the whole summer off. Not all teachers do. I work all year round. Sometimes upwards of 80 hours a week. And in my field, students do die, so you don't have the corner marketed on hard, time consuming, emotionally stressful jobs.

Dazz... can we say, rather, that Sabrina only has the experience she's had to go on, and that your experience in teaching differs significantly from what she's encountered?

TBH, that would be the much nicer way to inform her that what you know is different than what she's seen, where she is... rather than simply deciding she's "full of herself."

(And yeah, I know how a blanket attack can feel quite personal, when you in some way have a connection to the group that's being attacked... but really, Sab isn't a nasty person, so please don't treat her as such, okay?)

AaronJ

07-12-2007, 06:04 PM

Backpedal, baby... backpedal!

Just kidding. :D ;)

Then again... if Sab was threatening to put me in a ring of barbwire and set me on fire... wait, I might like that.

No... not really.

:D

Nah. Not backpedaling. Just making clear what I sort of muffed up in my first attempt. :)

I admit that I was sort of unclear, and didn't make a lot of sense in my initial post.

OTOH, all my other points still stand. *smile*

Dazzler

07-12-2007, 06:05 PM

Dazz... can we say, rather, that Sabrina only has the experience she's had to go on, and that your experience in teaching differs significantly from what she's encountered?

TBH, that would be the much nicer way to inform her that what you know is different than what she's seen, where she is... rather than simply deciding she's "full of herself."

(And yeah, I know how a blanket attack can feel quite personal, when you in some way have a connection to the group that's being attacked... but really, Sab isn't a nasty person, so please don't treat her as such, okay?)

For you, okay. I like you so I'll take your advice.
However, I must say I must not know her as well as you do.

--Dazz

Solaris

07-12-2007, 06:10 PM

For you, okay. I like you so I'll take your advice.
However, I must say I must not know her as well as you do.

--Dazz

Well... and I hate to bring it up... but any young woman who survives an attack, wakes up from a coma, and goes on to work in a profession that heals people... has got some moxie. And despite the fact that she's a frothing conservative, and I'm a frothing liberal... we like and (dare I say) admire each other... I guess because, deep down, no matter how we differ in opinion on what the means are to help our world, we're both committed to doing so... and in a way that, at times, involves some significant personal cost and/or dedication.

TBH, so does teaching, for those who care about their jobs and their students. I grew up inside the system, watching my mom and other teachers, not just in school, but more importantly, after school and in their "private" time. My mom wanted me to be a teacher, but I knew after a few bouts of substituting, that I didn't have the patience required to deal with both the discipline issues, and the red tape issues. But I admire those who *do* have it---I've had some great teachers in my time, and they affected my life in a good way. :)

Loren

07-12-2007, 06:11 PM

Loren, if you aren't a Libertarian... you should be.

It falls under the elastic clause, Loren, you know that.

I note that neither of you addressed the latter half of the question, asking what, if any, limitations on federal power would still exist if we accept that the Constitution empowers the Congress to take over all of health care.

Sure, the elastic clause helps in some situations (and note that its usage depends on enforcing another enumerated power, which hasn't been identified yet), but the key question here is when does the elastic stop stretching, and breaks? Surely the Founders didn't go to the trouble of enumerating powers, only to intend the Elastic Clause to mean "And Congress is empowered to do anything else it feels like, too."

Oh, and just for the record, with regard to patents and copyrights:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Dazzler

07-12-2007, 06:14 PM

Well... and I hate to bring it up... but any young woman who survives an attack, wakes up from a coma, and goes on to work in a profession that heals people... has got some moxie. And despite the fact that she's a frothing conservative, and I'm a frothing liberal... we like and (dare I say) admire each other... I guess because, deep down, no matter how we differ in opinion on what the means are to help our world, we're both committed to doing so... and in a way that, at times, involves some significant personal cost and/or dedication.

TBH, so does teaching, for those who care about their jobs and their students. I grew up inside the system, watching my mom and other teachers, not just in school, but more importantly, after school and in their "private" time. My mom wanted me to be a teacher, but I knew after a few bouts of substituting, that I didn't have the patience required to deal with both the discipline issues, and the red tape issues. But I admire those who *do* have it---I've had some great teachers in my time, and they affected my life in a good way. :)

Since you can't see my grumpy face over the net, I just want to make it clear that it's being made.
Not to discount what you say in any way, of course. I'm just not in the best of moods after this exchange.
Anyway, I've got to go do some work now. That I'm not getting paid for.

--Dazz

Solaris

07-12-2007, 06:18 PM

I note that neither of you addressed the latter half of the question, asking what, if any, limitations on federal power would still exist if we accept that the Constitution empowers the Congress to take over all of health care.

Sure, the elastic clause helps in some situations (and note that its usage depends on enforcing another enumerated power, which hasn't been identified yet), but the key question here is when does the elastic stop stretching, and breaks? Surely the Founders didn't go to the trouble of enumerating powers, only to intend the Elastic Clause to mean "And Congress is empowered to do anything else it feels like, too."

Oh, and just for the record, with regard to patents and copyrights:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Loren, I know you are a very self-contained individual, and a very cerebral person, and your profession is Law... but for cripes sakes, can't you loosen up and FEEL once in a while? I mean, as in, don't just look at something as to how it works LEGALLY, or even FINANCIALLY... but how you FEEL about it EMOTIONALLY?

Dude---you're gonna give yourself a heartattack at age 30, if you don't let go of those emotions once in a while... even if they're negative ones. I don't care how cerebral you are, I know you have them---everyone does.

Hon, try letting your heart take the lead every once in a while. Seriously. Because while Reason may give us the WHY of things... our feelings, and love, give us the PURPOSE of things.

:)

Solaris

07-12-2007, 06:21 PM

Since you can't see my grumpy face over the net, I just want to make it clear that it's being made.
Not to discount what you say in any way, of course. I'm just not in the best of moods after this exchange.
Anyway, I've got to go do some work now. That I'm not getting paid for.

--Dazz

Argh. Typical---not getting paid for the vast amounts of overtime you do, as a teacher.

But I meant every word I said. I may chew on Sab's hide sometimes, or she mine---but in the end, she really *cares*... and that goes a long way with me. But again, I know how you feel---I recently responded to someone's scorn, on the Comm Forum, over something that applied to my life and situation... and it wasn't pretty. In fact, I was quite pissed.

Sad thing is, the person was much less perceptive and caring than you, and had no clue as to *why* I was pissed, or that it mattered. :(

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 06:30 PM

PS. I don't get the whole summer off. Not all teachers do. I work all year round. Sometimes upwards of 80 hours a week. And in my field, students do die, so you don't have the corner marketed on hard, time consuming, emotionally stressful jobs.

Note I mentioned air traffic controllers and engineers as other jobs that should be up there. I know I typed it, so I specifically did NOT state doctors have the market cornered on high-stress jobs. And even when Daddy was year round, he still got one week off for easter, two for Christmas, and about three for Summer, more than the usual two weeks most people have.

Everything I know about teaching, I learned from Daddy and my step-uncle. And they both teach jr. high, so I can't see how anything could be more stressful than what they do in education. Although when I read Daddy your post, he said "Eighty hours? What are YOU doing?" I'm not discounting the fact that there aren't other stressful jobs, but then again, there's quite a few people saying "Doctors and surgeons are overpaid with overblown egos.", and that just ain't so.

So, okay, I'll play nice here. What exactly ARE you doing?

But as usual, Solaris rules! :) Hmm ... I didn't know you'd read that story. I figured most people had forgotten it.

Paul McEnery

07-12-2007, 06:34 PM

Yea I love it when folks like you act superior to others. It really makes what you say all that more effective.

And I love the irony of someone having shitfits about immigrants and poor people having the nerve to say this.

Sabrinaset

07-12-2007, 06:53 PM

But I meant every word I said. I may chew on Sab's hide sometimes, or she mine---

..and we always love that special time together when we do :p

Solaris

07-12-2007, 06:54 PM

..and we always love that special time together when we do :p

HEY! I said "chew on hide," not "Eat out..."... nevermind.

:D ;)

Tommy

07-12-2007, 07:22 PM

I note that neither of you addressed the latter half of the question, asking what, if any, limitations on federal power would still exist if we accept that the Constitution empowers the Congress to take over all of health care.

I wasn't aware it was about taking control of all of health care. I thought it was about providing health care for those that didn't have it.

LtMarvel

07-12-2007, 09:59 PM

I think Congress has the right to regulate teleportations, free roaming holograms (until they become sentinent), phaser rifles, photon torpedos, flying cars, hovering cities, and time travel as soon as they become existant. We do not have amend the US Constitution for these powers.

Sooo, about the same as before.

Crowley

07-12-2007, 10:09 PM

Actually I do. I know several people who have to sell it all. Our government isn't your nanny. You are responsible for yourself and your family. Stop looking for the government to do everything for you.

Excellent... so when you get robbed, raped, have you house burnt to the ground, or have a heart attack... you're shit out of luck pal.
No Buses or Trains for you either, or cars, or roads, or mail...
and no trash pickup either.

Tell me again how you're going to "man up" and not have the government nanny you?

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 11:10 PM

Excellent... so when you get robbed, raped, have you house burnt to the ground, or have a heart attack... you're shit out of luck pal.
No Buses or Trains for you either, or cars, or roads, or mail...
and no trash pickup either.

Tell me again how you're going to "man up" and not have the government nanny you?
No FDA (wel, it's been starved for funds and mismanaged under Bush, so who's not surprised at how it is now-- it's a good strategy to underfund something and then claim that big government doesn't work), USDA, etc.

More melamine please!

Dazzler

07-12-2007, 11:11 PM

Note I mentioned air traffic controllers and engineers as other jobs that should be up there. I know I typed it, so I specifically did NOT state doctors have the market cornered on high-stress jobs. And even when Daddy was year round, he still got one week off for easter, two for Christmas, and about three for Summer, more than the usual two weeks most people have.

Everything I know about teaching, I learned from Daddy and my step-uncle. And they both teach jr. high, so I can't see how anything could be more stressful than what they do in education. Although when I read Daddy your post, he said "Eighty hours? What are YOU doing?" I'm not discounting the fact that there aren't other stressful jobs, but then again, there's quite a few people saying "Doctors and surgeons are overpaid with overblown egos.", and that just ain't so.

So, okay, I'll play nice here. What exactly ARE you doing?

But as usual, Solaris rules! :) Hmm ... I didn't know you'd read that story. I figured most people had forgotten it.

Well, note that I don't feel like i have to qualify myself to your or your dad, but i work at a private school for low functioning children with severe autism and mental retardation. The job entails working with them all week during the day and at-night respite care. It also entails working with them on weekends and holidays as necessary. They mostly live in groups homes or at homes that are unable to meet their demanding physical needs. That's at least an 8 hour school day with 25 children who need constant physical care, another 3-4 hours at home with the family (some overnights, but, admittedly, that's rare), and some weekend outings and respite for families . That does indeed add up to 80 hours a week (ok 76 or so, but who's counting?). All day, with 25 kids, I change diapers of people old enough to be my siblings, feed them, administer medicine, monitor sugar levels, wipe drool, wipe shit, get punched in the face, take bites to the neck, and get decked in the spine (at least twice in the nuts). I got punched in the face so hard once that my glasses broke in half on my face and i had a nice cut on my eye. i've been stabbed with pencils and had chairs thrown at my face. This isn't alone, of course, I'm not superman. But there's absolutely no way that it's easy.
I spend ridiculous amounts of unpaid overtime maintaining contact with psychologists and medical doctors, and behaviorists. I deal with school administration and surprise visitors from the school board....not to mention irate parents and guardians who are pissed because their kid obtained a bruise from where i had to pry him off of my chest because he was trying to eat me. I've been a funeral two weeks ago because a student choked to death on her own saliva during the night. Which could have been easily avoidable. If i fuck up with medically fragile children, they CAN die. I have to be on my toes according to every letter of the law because if i so much as touch as child in a way that could be considered either physical abuse or sexually suggestive, I can lose my job, my ability to teach in the states, and I can get sued within and inch of my life. It doesn't even HAVE to be either of those things, it could just be a hug or a playful toussle of the hair. People are extremely persnickety about their kids.
I get a week off for vacation and three days for christmas because this is a year round job. When you're dealing with children who can't physically take care of themselves, it doesn't lend itsself to a nice three month summer vaca. My life is absolutely consumed by this job. I have no social life and the few friends I do have are my co-workers. Who are usually too exhausted to hang out. My sister does the exact same job in South Carolina so we're constantly trading war stories. If you don't work in special ed, or have a special needs child yourself, it's easy to assume it's no big deal, so it's nice to have her to talk to about the completely UNbelieveable stuff that we experience.

And i went to Oxford for chrissakes. And I studied hard and made excellent marks, too. And I get paid pure shit, because, as you said yourself, the market dictates what jobs are worth paying the big bucks and somehow being a special education teacher ranks right up there with mcdonald's worker.
THAT'S exactly what I'm doing. All day, everyday, nearly all year round.

Really, though, this is all neither here nor there. Honest to God, I'm tired of the conversation as it stands and don't want to turn this (even moreso) into some dreadful tit-for-tat "who has it harder" bullshit thing. Let's just call it a day. I expended all my mental energy on this post and don't really feel the fire to continue.

--Dazz

Crowley

07-12-2007, 11:48 PM

No FDA (wel, it's been starved for funds and mismanaged under Bush, so who's not surprised at how it is now-- it's a good strategy to underfund something and then claim that big government doesn't work), USDA, etc.

More melamine please!

yeah... and remember...

we're trusting our government to "manage" another country right now...

Reverend Smooth

07-12-2007, 11:55 PM

yeah... and remember...

we're trusting our government to "manage" another country right now...
Actually, not a lot of people are trusting this administration to do that anymore. XD

Dazzler

07-12-2007, 11:56 PM

Actually, not a lot of people are trusting this administration to do that anymore. XD

I sure as shit ain't. I didn't trust them to do it in the first place. They just kinda....did it...and I was supposed to be happy about it.

--Dazz

Solaris

07-13-2007, 05:29 AM

Wow, Daz. I sure as hell couldn't do what you do. I know---I tried it for a little while.

Basically, I was hired as a caretaker for *one* child, at a live-in school that deals with "behaviorally-challenged" children who also have other illnesses, like cerebral palsy, hearing impaired, retardation, etc. For many of these kids, this school was a "last ditch effort" place---they'd spend years in the system in other facilites, and either the facilities kicked them out, or they aged out of the place, or their parents weren't happy with the place they were in. Some of them had been abused. A few of them had, at that school or at other places, attacked caretakers with a knife, etc. and/or attempted rape.

Granted, not all of the kids were that dangerous---but even the nicest among them often had temper tantrums, or soiled themselves, etc.

I was assigned to a twelve-year old boy: he had CP, was new to the school, and had been through several facilities and hospitals practically since he was born. Prior places had also diagnosed him as retarded---but I took one look at his face and expression, and knew that wasn't true. (Don't get me wrong: the director of the facility said she didn't think he was retarded... I looked at him and agreed wholeheartedly with her; but it wasn't me who initially "diagnosed" that, heh---it was her.)

Long story short, I weathered tantrums (more than once I had to maneuver him into a gentle but firm restraining hold, and sit like that with him forever till he calmed down); I learned to evade his bites, after he nailed me on the forearm (it took a month to heal up); I cleaned up his bedding, clothes, him, etc. when he shat himself out of temper, etc.

I did my best with the kid, because somehow I *knew* that a lot of his "behavior problems" were merely frustration + prior experience telling him that if he acted up, he'd get what he wanted (from the other facilities he'd been in). The frustration came in because he *was* smart, and hadn't figured out how to talk yet---and no one had really worked with him on that, because they didn't think he could. I *did* try to work with him on it, as did the regular teachers and speech therapist.

Anyway, after a week, I realized that I was in the wrong job, for two reasons:

1. My own physical limitations were such that I simply couldn't keep up with the pace, and the extremes I sometimes had to go to (I have lower back problems),

2. My emotions were too open, and I was already getting major burnout.

Anyway, after I left, the new girl who replaced me kept up with where I'd left off with him: dealing with him based on the understanding that he *was* smart, that he *could* do things, etc... and I learned that shortly afterwards, he finally accepted it as real and started responding to her big time: he quit having tantrums etc., and began learning to speak. I was so happy for him, and I like to think that, even though he didn't respond to me as well as he did to her, that it was both of us (along with the teachers and other staff) knowing he could do it and talking to him like a human being who could understand, rather than a vegetable who couldn't, that turned the trick. :)

So, even though it was only a week, I got a good taste of the kind of work you do... and I admire the hell out of anyone who can do it. And I wish that such places got better funding... because they need all the staff and resources they can get. I can't believe you deal with TWENTY-FIVE kids and can still stay sane.

You're amazing. :)

EdContradictory

07-13-2007, 06:18 AM

Its funny and sad that you truely believe this stuff your saying about rich folks too. I guess in your world noone works for their money everyone is a victim of luck uh?
I don't think I've said anything about rich people. Maybe Loren can jump in and correct me, though.

You're the one attacking the poor for being poor. Me arguing for universal health coverage is not attacking the rich.

But, yeah, a lot of rich people are lucky or inherit it or are lucky enough to be born into circumstances that others aren't that give them advantages in education and status that help them move up later in life. I know I was.

The Horatio Alger myth is just that, a myth. Most people die in the class they were born into.

Just curious, since you're so against entitlements, you against the GI Bill, too, or are you a hypocrite?

JeffreyWKramer

07-13-2007, 07:03 AM

Well, in his defense, it's only the top top athletes who get the millions... the run of the mill guys get maybe $125-175K per year... ???

I still think it ridiculous that a middle-of-the-road athlete makes vastly more per year than the best teachers and cops and firefighters. I don't blame the athletes, really, though. I blame our society, and its sad lack of priority. I certainly don't begrudge entertainerse of all sorts being able to make a living at what they do - entertainment is a good thing, and those that provide it deserve adequate compensation - but one can't help but wonder how much more society would benefit if we paid those that enforce the law, save lives and provide education at least as well as we pay those that run and knock balls around a field, sing or make fart jokes.

JeffreyWKramer

07-13-2007, 07:05 AM

Actually, I sort of mis-stated what I was saying.

The concept that these guys getting HUGE salaries, they are the ones who are the top-2 top-3 top-5 in the world at what they do.

But ANYONE in the show (and that includes guys making the minimum which is $375,000 I think, up to A-Rod at $25 Million) is one of the very best in the world at what he does.

But yes, the very top-paid guys, like A-Rod, Jeter, Magglio, Vlad, etc., they can all claim that they are among the few best in the whole world at what they do.

That's why they were all All-Stars this year, last year, the year before, etc.

And do you think it makes sense that the top baseball player in the world makes a salary hundreds of times that of the world's best math teacher or firefighter?

LtMarvel

07-13-2007, 07:12 AM

um...Jeffery, what exactly is that Martian babe doing to that green guy in your avatar?

JeffreyWKramer

07-13-2007, 07:49 AM

um...Jeffery, what exactly is that Martian babe doing to that green guy in your avatar?

[neutral psych-testing voice] What do you think she might be doing?

Solaris

07-13-2007, 07:50 AM

[neutral psych-testing voice] What do you think she might be doing?

I'm not sure... but I don't see his right arm from the elbow down...

:D

Spackling Compound

07-13-2007, 07:55 AM

... but one can't help but wonder how much more society would benefit if we paid those that enforce the law, save lives and provide education at least as well as we pay those that run and knock balls around a field, sing or make fart jokes.

It amazes me that there's so much better humor and fart jokes on CBR than an entire DVD series of "King of Queens".

AaronJ

07-13-2007, 08:46 AM

And do you think it makes sense that the top baseball player in the world makes a salary hundreds of times that of the world's best math teacher or firefighter?

Yes, I actually do. Because, for thirty years, I've seen these guys play up close. And it is absurd how good they are.

The market bears what it bears. Ichiro Suzuki, possibly the best baseball player in the whole world, will be signing a 5-year, nearly $100 Million contract today or tomorrow. Now, how do I feel about that? Fine. Ichiro does things that no one else can do. He's a wonder. He's IRREPLACEABLE.

There is no reason whatsoever that the top footballer or baseball player or hockey player shouldn't make an insane amount of money. When you are someone like Thierry Henry or Vladimir Guerrero or Dominik Hasek, you can *honestly* say that you are one of the very best who attempt your profession.

The crowds come to see the stars. They are the ones who buy the beer, the merchandise, the seats. That money is, in sports, redirected to the athletes in some cases. I say, good.

Top authors, top actors, they all make a huge amount of money. A top actress in Hollywood gets something between $20- $30 Million for ONE PICTURE.

It's just the way it is. Someone like Derek Jeter or Nicole Kidman is on top of the world. They are beautiful, talented, and incredibly wealthy. I have NO problem with that.

hellokittykat

07-13-2007, 09:07 AM

Yes, I actually do. Because, for thirty years, I've seen these guys play up close. And it is absurd how good they are.

The market bears what it bears. Ichiro Suzuki, possibly the best baseball player in the whole world, will be signing a 5-year, nearly $100 Million contract today or tomorrow. Now, how do I feel about that? Fine. Ichiro does things that no one else can do. He's a wonder. He's IRREPLACEABLE.

I don't know. I think an incredible teacher or a brilliant surgeon is more irreplaceable than an athlete. I'd be more inclined to give either of them $100 million before I'd give a pro athlete even $1 million.

Dreadstar

07-13-2007, 09:25 AM

Spackling Compound

07-13-2007, 09:35 AM

Nick Soapdish

07-13-2007, 09:35 AM

Who would run it...I'd like a system that is a lot more affordable to those in lower income brackets. I will always believe that when it comes to running something private industry will always be better and more efficent then government. Toss in tax refunds for those in a lower income bracket and try and make healthcare cheaper would two ways I'd go about making it more accessible to those who can't afford it.

So are you talking about having it paid into government, but outsourced to private industry and giving people the choice of various insurance agencies to pick?

Or do you mean that it'd be going to a sole provider that would be administering the whole shebang (possibly without government as a middle man)?

Or something else? Just saying "private industry" is hugely vague.

Rob on the Job

07-13-2007, 09:40 AM

As I watched Mr. Moore going off on his rant, I couldn't believe how utterly thin-skinned he was about criticism.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it.

AaronJ

07-13-2007, 09:41 AM

I don't know. I think an incredible teacher or a brilliant surgeon is more irreplaceable than an athlete. I'd be more inclined to give either of them $100 million before I'd give a pro athlete even $1 million.

You might think that.

But let's look at it: Ichiro is (arguably) the best baseball player on the planet Earth. He draws how many people to SafeCo every night? 5,000? 10,000? Where would the Mariners even be without him?

So, at an average ticket price of $35 (I'm guessing), that's almost $30 Million dollars Ichiro bring in a season, just in ticket sales. Those people buy drinks, hot dogs, etc., as well.

He also gives the Mariners a chance to win. Which other players, or math teachers, couldn't give them.

Ichiro was MVP for 7 straight seasons in Japan. Now that he is in the US, he will end up in the Hall of Fame. That's how incredibly good he is. It's absurd.

No price is too high for Ichiro Suzuki. Like I said before: He's IRREPLACEABLE! And you can't say that about many people in life, no matter how much we wish it were true.

Ichiro Suzuki can say he's the best in the world at what he does, and he's probably right. There are very few people in the world, in any occupation, who can say that.

Spackling Compound

07-13-2007, 09:45 AM

Ichiro Suzuki can say he's the best in the world at what he does, and he's probably right. There are very few people in the world, in any occupation, who can say that.

Meh...never heard of him.

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 10:07 AM

I've seen folks who come from poor backgrounds excel in life, maybe I just don't understand why everyone can't do it.
In my opinion, dirt-scrabbling poverty is the natural condition of man. Anyone who achieves anything more has done an amazing thing. If they can pass that on to their kids, that's nice, provided they also pass on the value of how they got it. Too many don't. If they can pass on some of what they achieved to other people who need help, that's even better. I'm not a fan of forcing people to help others; I'd prefer that we convince them it's a worthwhile thing to do of their own volition.

I disagree with those who say health care is a right. It's not. It's also not a privilege. It's a commodity. Nobody has a right do demand that other people provide them anything, and since health care requires that people with specialized knowledge provide it, it can't be a right. The "health care is a right" canard is another symptom of the major problem of our time, the unwarranted sense of entitlement.

You are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Period. You are not entitled to your next breath. Even if you have a big inheritance coming, you are not entitled to it, it is a gift. You are not entitled to anything but the right to earn whatever you want.

It makes complete economic sense to find a way to provide health care to everyone. By saying it's a right, you enslave everyone who works in health care. It is their moral duty to provide this right to others, regardless of whether or not they want to.

Spackling Compound

07-13-2007, 10:11 AM

You are not entitled to anything but the right to earn whatever you want.

Well said above, Mac.
However, I would amend the quote to "You are not entitled to anything but the right to earn whatever you are worth."

I don't have the right to earn $300,000.00@ year if I do a $10,000.00 job with about $2.00 worth of proficiency.

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 10:13 AM

I don't know. I think an incredible teacher or a brilliant surgeon is more irreplaceable than an athlete. I'd be more inclined to give either of them $100 million before I'd give a pro athlete even $1 million.

Would it be better to let the team owner keep all that money and pay the players a modest salary? If people are willing to spend millions of dollars for tickets to games, TV broadcast rights, merchandise and endorsements, doesn't it make sense for the people who actually perform to get that money?

If there were millions of people willing to pay to watch a teacher in a classroom, or pay to put his/her picture on a t-shirt, then teachers might get paid what they're worth. Sadly, that's not the case.

I say this as somebody who has watched precisely two professional sporting events int he last 10 years, and both of those at somebody else's insistence. I doubt I could name five professional athletes. I don't care abotu them at all, but i'd rather they get their fair share of the proceeds from their efforts rather than the billionaires who own the teams.

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 10:16 AM

Well said above, Mac.
However, I would amend the quote to "You are not entitled to anything but the right to earn whatever you are worth."

I don't have the right to earn $300,000.00@ year if I do a $10,000.00 job with about $2.00 worth of proficiency.

No, but if you want to earn $300,000 a year, you have the right to pursue whatever you need to do to get there. If you want it, you have the right to figure out how to be worth it.

In olden days (and in many places today) birth is destiny. Born a shoemaker, die a shoemaker. you're stuck in whatever class or caste you happened to arrive in. Here, more than 50% of the wealthiest people started out in the bottom 5%. Because you're entitled to take your best shot and do the best you can. With freedom comes risk. The freedom to succeed includes the freedom to fail.

Spackling Compound

07-13-2007, 10:21 AM

No, but if you want to earn $300,000 a year, you have the right to pursue whatever you need to do to get there. If you want it, you have the right to figure out how to be worth it.

In olden days (and in many places today) birth is destiny. Born a shoemaker, die a shoemaker. you're stuck in whatever class or caste you happened to arrive in. Here, more than 50% of the wealthiest people started out in the bottom 5%. Because you're entitled to take your best shot and do the best you can. With freedom comes risk. The freedom to succeed includes the freedom to fail.

You said the right to earn whatever you want. Not pursue the earnings you want.
There's a difference. I don't have a right to a big fat check but, yeah, you're right, I have every right to do what I can to get one.

JeffreyWKramer

07-13-2007, 10:31 AM

It's a CAPITALIST idea. It's what the market will bear.

But that's *NOT* Jeffery's point. His point is NOT that the athlete makes big bucks. He knows it's because of capitalism and market, supply and demand. He's bitching about the society that MADE that supply and demand which doesn't include the teacher in its "demand".

I think teachers should get more, too. If only because it would attract more of the brightest. Right now (and with respect to the teachers at CBR) it only attracts the ones who really WANT to do it and the ones that settle for doing it because of the Peter Principle.

Nor do I agree with Solaris on her view of doctors and lawyers deserving big bucks. I *do* however, believe that a certain amount of standardization should be exerted in the field of medical fees. However, malpractice insurance is a factor I haven't yet figured out how to control. And there is a MAJOR source of exorbitant doctor fees.

I agree with everything noted above.

To add a bit more... I don't have any problem with doctors, lawyers and many other highly-paid professionals making a lot of money, because they do important services and have to have a lot of training, have high costs to doing business, etc. One can quibble with exactly how much some of them make, I have no problem with that, but I really have no problem with an attorney making more than a McDonalds worker, because the attorney has generally had to work his ass off to get where he's at, and a lot fewer people have what it takes to do law than can handle the demands of "Would you like fries with that?"

On the other hand, doctors and attorneys are massively overpaid in comparison to people in many other fields with equivalent amounts of training. After receiving an MA, meeting the demands of licensing and working in this field for 17 years now, and working every day with suicidal, psychotic and severely traumatized individuals, my annual income is still less than the starting pay of any physician in the US. And, I also work in a high-liability area, and one in which I have to buy expensive malpractice insurance (albeit slightly less expensive than medical malpractice insurance). My field isn't unique in that regard, either. The wages made by doctors and attorneys are simply not on the same scale of those made by others with doctorate or other advanced degrees.

I also, once again, have no problem with athletes and other entertainers making a good income. They provide a valuable service. The idea that somebody like A-Rod deserves hundreds of times the pay of your average EMT or teacher or cop, though, I find simply ridiculous, and more than a bit appalling. In many states, starting teacher pay for a single teacher that has a child is low enough to qualify him or her for food stamps and other welfare programs. Despite working an incredibly stressful and occasionally dangerous job, the vast majority of police officers of rank less than "detective" have to work part-time off-duty jobs to make ends meet. Same with firefighters.

Agian, I don't blame the singers and actors and athletes, but I find it ridiculous that our society as a whole values guys that play ball and dance and sing and play-act vastly more than they value people that educate children and protect our lives and property. That's the way it is - it's the market in action - but anyone who thinks that's truly just isn't thinking straight.

The idea that Ichiro Suzuki is so irreplacable that he deserves his wages, while the kindergarten teacher deserves nothing but enough money to afford a bit of meat with the Ramen noodles, is pretty loathesome He's not irreplacable. Let's face it, if he and every other baseball player ceased to exist tomorrow, the only result would be that baseball fans would be unhappy, but find something else to occupy their time.

Loren

07-13-2007, 10:41 AM

No price is too high for Ichiro Suzuki. Like I said before: He's IRREPLACEABLE! And you can't say that about many people in life, no matter how much we wish it were true.

Ichiro Suzuki can say he's the best in the world at what he does, and he's probably right. There are very few people in the world, in any occupation, who can say that.

The same could be said of the world's best juggler, or the world's best playing-card-thrower, or the world's best sandcastle builder. Back on my high school math team, we did cyphering: speed math. I'm sure there are people who are fantastic at that too, but they're not getting paid millions to perform for audiences. Just because someone's talent is exceptional and they are irreplaceable doesn't mean that "no price is too high" for them.

Ichiro gets the big bucks ONLY because there is a big market of people willing to shell out their own money to see him do what he does. It's what the market says he's worth. If the world suddenly lost all interest in baseball tomorrow, and everybody became rabid soccer fans, then Ichiro would find himself out of a job, regardless of how good he is at his job.

Not only is it interesting to actually find a market discussion in a health care thread (even though it's about the market in sports, and not health care), but the result Aaron's arguing for seems a little odd. Athletes, it seems, are deserving of as much money as people are willing to give them. Their going market value. But it's been repeatedly argued in this thread that doctors should not be able to charge what they want for their services. The argument, then, would seem to be that skilled people whose talents are mere entertainment should be entitled to as much as the market will bear, but that skilled people whose talents are actually useful to other people should have their pay controlled and constricted by the state.

hellokittykat

07-13-2007, 11:53 AM

Would it be better to let the team owner keep all that money and pay the players a modest salary? If people are willing to spend millions of dollars for tickets to games, TV broadcast rights, merchandise and endorsements, doesn't it make sense for the people who actually perform to get that money?

If there were millions of people willing to pay to watch a teacher in a classroom, or pay to put his/her picture on a t-shirt, then teachers might get paid what they're worth. Sadly, that's not the case.

I say this as somebody who has watched precisely two professional sporting events int he last 10 years, and both of those at somebody else's insistence. I doubt I could name five professional athletes. I don't care abotu them at all, but i'd rather they get their fair share of the proceeds from their efforts rather than the billionaires who own the teams.

I'd rather the players receive a higher salary than the billionaires who own the teams, but I'd really prefer it if it didn't cost so much to go to go watch a game anymore.

kingdom2000

07-13-2007, 12:02 PM

First of all don't talk down to me, this works a lot better when one of us isn't stuck up. Second, yea I know if I get hurt I'm screwed, it's a decision I made as an individual. So don't lecture me on the pro's and con's of my choice.

Actually you are an example of the problem. You get that broken leg and go to a hospital to get it fixed, but can't pay, do you know who does? The tax payers. The very thing you complained about not being right is the very thing you are depending on if something bad happens to you. And your to dense to realize it. Taking responsibility for yourself is having health insurance. You are doing the opposite of that. Very hypocritical considering your stance. But based on your posts I get the impression you are used to mom and dad bailing you out. BTW, I wasn't talking down you before, but sure as shit am now. You come across as 23 going on 17.

Rob on the Job

07-13-2007, 12:13 PM

... Ichiro Suzuki can say he's the best in the world at what he does, and he's probably right. There are very few people in the world, in any occupation, who can say that.

Then why can't he hit an outside slider thrown by a left-handed pitcher?

AaronJ

07-13-2007, 12:45 PM

Then why can't he hit an outside slider thrown by a left-handed pitcher?

No one's perfect. :)

macul

07-13-2007, 12:53 PM

Meh...never heard of him.

He's the guy who somehow manages to be halfway down the first base line before he even hits the ball. That man is faster out of the box than anyone I've ever seen.

Reverend Smooth

07-13-2007, 12:57 PM

I would read all sorts of negatives in that when she was basically saying, "I actually have given up my life for this. I have no life."The thing is, many other people do this in many other jobs. It's hardly exclusive to doctors.

AaronJ

07-13-2007, 01:03 PM

He's the guy who somehow manages to be halfway down the first base line before he even hits the ball. That man is faster out of the box than anyone I've ever seen.

Yep. And he can do anything with the bat. Anything. It's scary.

On top of it, ask any manager who's seen him in batting practice (most recently Leyland at the All Star Game) and he'll tell you that if Ichiro wanted to be pure HR hitter, he could do it EASILY.

He's incredibly fast, incredibly agile, has possibly the best arm in the game, can hit for insane average, can hit for power, is an excellent outfielder, and has every intangible you can ask for.

The guy's a real life super-hero. He's crazy good.

Paul McEnery

07-13-2007, 05:07 PM

He's the guy who somehow manages to be halfway down the first base line before he even hits the ball. That man is faster out of the box than anyone I've ever seen.

That sounds like such a porno thing.

Paul McEnery

07-13-2007, 05:08 PM

Yep. And he can do anything with the bat. Anything. It's scary.

He's incredibly fast, incredibly agile, has possibly the best arm in the game, can hit for insane average, can hit for power, is an excellent outfielder, and has every intangible you can ask for..

Speaking of which.

Dazzler

07-13-2007, 05:57 PM

Wow, Daz. I sure as hell couldn't do what you do. I know---I tried it for a little while.

So, even though it was only a week, I got a good taste of the kind of work you do... and I admire the hell out of anyone who can do it. And I wish that such places got better funding... because they need all the staff and resources they can get. I can't believe you deal with TWENTY-FIVE kids and can still stay sane.

You're amazing. :)

Don't think that because I snipped your quote that I didn't pay attention, I promise I did. :)
You should think that you made a difference in your student's learning process, because I'm sure you did. Every little bit of kind attentive interaction helps, especially with the kinds of pasts these kids come from. We deal a lot with the abuse cases and especially the "last ditch" kids...so it sounds like we may have worked in very similar facilities. Trust me, my hat's off to you.
Let me reiterate, though: I don't do this alone. There are some amazing teachers I work with that blow me out of the water! I got a shit thrown in my face today and while I was off retching, another teacher managed to get this kid situated without so much as a stifled gag. (Christine, if you read this, and I know you do: You're the bomb!)

But anyway, thanks, I appreciate it.
And, staying sane? What the heck's that? ;)

--Dazz

Solaris

07-13-2007, 06:12 PM

Don't think that because I snipped your quote that I didn't pay attention, I promise I did.
You should think that you made a difference in your student's learning process, because I'm sure you did. Every little bit of kind attentive interaction helps, especially with the kinds of pasts these kids come from. We deal a lot with the abuse cases and especially the "last ditch" kids...so it sounds like we may have worked in very similar facilities. Trust me, my hat's off to you.
Let me reiterate, though: I don't do this alone. There are some amazing teachers I work with that blow me out of the water! I got a shit thrown in my face today and while I was off retching, another teacher managed to get this kid situated without so much as a stifled gag. (Christine, if you read this, and I know you do: You're the bomb!)

But anyway, thanks, I appreciate it.
And, staying sane? What the heck's that? ;)

--Dazz

Well, Daz, I *hope* I had an effect... and I like to think so. A part of me feels a bit of guilt, that I didn't have what it takes to stick out the employment there (and yes, they wanted to keep me)... but it was a case of admitting my own limitations, whether I liked them or not. I didn't have the physical stamina needed; I also am just too damned emotional---which is why I never went into the therapy field, although several (including Jeffrey) have said I'd be a natural at it: I really have difficulty leaving other people's problems at the office, so to speak. When I get so involved in other people's lives that it truly fucks up my own... I know I've hit a wall.

Which is why I enjoy being "a friend to talk to," rather than a therapist---far less people to deal with, and it's not professional... if that makes any sense. I love helping people, but I'm a true empath as well---with all the good things, and vulnerabilites, that term implies. All too often, I internalize other people's pain, and sometimes have trouble distinguishing it from my own.

Anyway... I *knew* this kid was smart, ill-taught, and frustrated out the wazoo. I'm just eternally grateful that the young woman who followed me as his "aide" was so perceptive, and willing to go with him on the same basis. It really made a difference. In terms of what I did, I liken it to "I tilled the ground and removed the weeds... she planted the seeds and watered them, and helped them grow." Even though we never met, it feels like we did a team effort on that kid.

But whether or not I had an effect on him, the bottom line is, he got better, and was being treated like a human being, rather than a baby vegetable. THAT's what's truly important.

Even though it was so short, the experiences I had at that facility (which is a FINE place, with compassionate people) gave me at least some kind of insight into the kind of thankless job you do.... and why you do it.

As for the shit stuff... well, when I was ten, my mom had me washing out my brother's cloth diapers in the toilet before we put them in bleach water to soak (pampers had just been invented back then, and were a crappy product at that point). After you've had your hands in the toilet, washing shit out of a diaper (and Robin Williams is right: few things stink more than baby shit)... well, the "bathroomesque" duties of that job weren't completely intimidating to me. :D There's been times, with my own kids when they'd had something really nasty, that the smell really would trigger the "barf reflex" in me, even so... but most of the time, I could handle it.

And now we all know why Chris will NEVER, EVER have any kind of remote interest whatsover in "felching." :D ;) Heh heh heh.

Loren

07-13-2007, 06:18 PM

Solaris

07-13-2007, 06:21 PM

Samurai

07-13-2007, 06:22 PM

An overdue thought:

It's been said that we should expect a nationalized system to be cheaper because the state will negotiate (i.e., mandate) lower prices. But putting aside whether or not the state should do this, why exactly should we expect that the state will?

After all, exactly what kind of track record does the U.S. federal government have when it comes to making good bargains and deals? Isn't standard operating procedure for the feds to overpay for products and services, in everything from toilet seats to buildings to contractors in Iraq? It's hardly a surprise when a government project runs horribly over-budget; how often do they run under-budget? What's going to change to turn a government that is historically spendthrifty into one that is thrifty?

Good point. The fact is, a company that needs to turn a profit to stay in business will be much more forceful in negotiations than govt bureaucrats who are spending tax dollars that they have no stake in preserving or spending wisely or carefully. Wal-mart, for example, are known to be fierce negotiators when it comes to getting good prices from suppliers. The massive pork barrel projects are another indicator of just how little respect politicians have for the taxpayers' money.

Solaris

07-13-2007, 06:25 PM

He's the guy who somehow manages to be halfway down the first base line before he even hits the ball. That man is faster out of the box than anyone I've ever seen.

Faster out of the box than anyone you've ever seen?

How the hell does he get any dates, then?

;) :D

Trust me: that kind of quote is *not* a dating recommendation to most women... we want a guy who'll "stay in the box" until we're happy. :D Hee.

Solaris

07-13-2007, 06:27 PM

An overdue thought:

It's been said that we should expect a nationalized system to be cheaper because the state will negotiate (i.e., mandate) lower prices. But putting aside whether or not the state should do this, why exactly should we expect that the state will?

After all, exactly what kind of track record does the U.S. federal government have when it comes to making good bargains and deals? Isn't standard operating procedure for the feds to overpay for products and services, in everything from toilet seats to buildings to contractors in Iraq? It's hardly a surprise when a government project runs horribly over-budget; how often do they run under-budget? What's going to change to turn a government that is historically spendthrifty into one that is thrifty?

And our current system is so exact that is never grossly overpays NOW???

Loren, I worked in data entry for a company that did insurance claim evaluations... and trust me: there are CRAPLOADS of "overcharging/overbilling" going on out there, in the precious "private sector."

Solaris

07-13-2007, 06:30 PM

Good point. The fact is, a company that needs to turn a profit to stay in business will be much more forceful in negotiations than govt bureaucrats who are spending tax dollars that they have no stake in preserving or spending wisely or carefully. Wal-mart, for example, are known to be fierce negotiators when it comes to getting good prices from suppliers. The massive pork barrel projects are another indicator of just how little respect politicians have for the taxpayers' money.

And what "massive porkbarrel projects" are you referring to? The military ones?

PUH-lease... just because you find gross negligence and pork-barreling in one branch of the government, doesn't mean it occurs to the same extent in ALL branches of the government!

So tell me: when was the last time you saw a report that Social Services was spending $700 per pencil?

Loren

07-13-2007, 07:14 PM

And our current system is so exact that is never grossly overpays NOW???

Loren, I worked in data entry for a company that did insurance claim evaluations... and trust me: there are CRAPLOADS of "overcharging/overbilling" going on out there, in the precious "private sector."

Trust me, I work in personal injury. I see overcharging too. Especially from one particular brand of "doctor."

But once again, I didn't say that the private sector doesn't overcharge. I didn't say anything about current pricing at all. I was making a point about an argument that was made earlier, I believe by yourself, that budgetary issues wouldn't be a problem because the gov't could set prices. Except, as I point out above, the government always has that power with purchases it makes, and yet the gov't regularly runs over-budget, often by extraordinary amounts.

So allow me to re-present the question, since you didn't answer it and instead changed the subject: if we don't need to worry about there being budget issues because the gov't can set prices, why should we expect the gov't to suddenly demonstrate competence at bargain-making and getting good deals?

Reverend Smooth

07-13-2007, 07:17 PM

So allow me to re-present the question, since you didn't answer it and instead changed the subject: if we don't need to worry about there being budget issues because the gov't can set prices, why should we expect the gov't to suddenly demonstrate competence at bargain-making and getting good deals?I think that there's a difference between 'the government' and 'who's running the government'. Elect people who have as reasonable fiscal records as possible?

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 07:22 PM

So nowadays, SS taxes manage to total more than the traditional savings standard of 10% despite offering so much less in return, and a lot of Americans pay more to Social Security than they do in federal income taxes.

Got my check-stub right here...

Year-to-date payments:
So Sec Tax $1466.76
Medicare Tax: 343.03
Fed Inc Tax: 651.31

Yup.

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 07:26 PM

I think that there's a difference between 'the government' and 'who's running the government'. Elect people who have as reasonable fiscal records as possible?
People get elected in this country by promising to give their constituents a lot of goodies from the public till. It's nearly impossible for a fiscal conservative to get elected now. Add to that the fact that most areas are so gerrymandered as to make it virtually impossible for any given congressional district to change party hands, and even harder for an independent or third-party candidate to get elected, and the chances of getting anybody like you describe drops dramatically.

Everybody is opposed to pork-barrel spending... except in their own district.

Dazzler

07-13-2007, 07:33 PM

No wonder nothing ever gets done in Washington....it's all about arguing to be right rather than doing the best you can to do something right.
Also think it's awful that a reason to argue against universal healthcare is that people will take advantage of the program. Rather than make sure the majority of people truly in need gets what they need, some people actually believe it's okay to deny EVERYONE affordable healthcare to stave off the minority of leeches. I don't get it. Why not make sure everyone's healthy, including me, you, and your mom and then do the best we can to make sure the leeches don't leech?
I would much rather my taxes go to make sure that everyone is healthy than anything else. I saw a major difference in the quality of life in London over San Francisco simply because of universal healthcare. Many mentally ill people here can't get help and end up on the streets adding the homelessness problem and the dirtiness of the city. I saw a DRASTIC reduction in the number of homeless people in London. Of course there were some, but it was nothing compared to san francisco.
Having the care needed helped people get off the streets which helped save money in another area of government spending which deals with homelessness and city upkeep. That's good spending in my mind.
Plus, as for the overweight and the smokers who so very clearly "deserve" to be sick....Outside of my moral stance against anyone suffering no matter what they've done to bring it on themselves, universal healthcare would allow overweight people and smokers get affordable treatment for obesity, the patch, and cessation programs. Which would create less strain later on when a lot of people who would otherwise develop long term difficulties due to those conditions, wouldn't.
When did looking out for others and looking toward the future become things to be debated?

--Dazz

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Well you are perfectly capable of proving me wrong. But I am still waiting on those poverty statistics.

(Also I should note I said "MANY" not most, nor majority. But I would be willing to bet a large majority of the rich happened to have at least one parent who also happened to be making a lot of money thus providing them with greater opportunities.)
More than half of the wealthiest Americans spent some portion of their lives in the poorest 5%. A significant number of them are immigrants.

Dazzler

07-13-2007, 07:48 PM

The wealthier you are, the more opportunities you have in life and the more opportunities people are willing to hand you.
Plus, wealthy kids start out at the top and are launched from the peak of the mountain. Unlike a lot of us, they don't have to climb it first.

"Significant" is kind of nebulous....

--Dazz

Reverend Smooth

07-13-2007, 07:50 PM

The vast majority of those born into poverty never make it out. A few succeed; cool. Most don't. And blaming them for it is not fair.

I often get told by republicans that if I wanted to work, if I worked hard, that I'd make money.

I want to work. I work hard. I'm not making money. Where's my money? Why am I not successful? I don't like being poor. I don't like it at all. I like working.

My brother got to stay home while he went to college. He makes over 80 grand a year. I got kicked out at sixteen. I'm poor. I didn't choose to become homeless or miss out on going to college, that was forced on me. So why is it my fault? Why do I automatically get labeled lazy, stupid, unmotivated? My brother is ostensibly the 'success', but he finished high school in his early twenties while living with his mom. I finished at 19 while living on the street.

Still, he's the motivated one, while I'm the loser.

Great.

(Edit: and no, this is not me flogging a victim complex thing, like some people might try to accuse. It's to point out that stereotypes about poor people are false.)

Paul McEnery

07-13-2007, 07:59 PM

An overdue thought:

It's been said that we should expect a nationalized system to be cheaper because the state will negotiate (i.e., mandate) lower prices. But putting aside whether or not the state should do this, why exactly should we expect that the state will?

After all, exactly what kind of track record does the U.S. federal government have when it comes to making good bargains and deals? Isn't standard operating procedure for the feds to overpay for products and services, in everything from toilet seats to buildings to contractors in Iraq? It's hardly a surprise when a government project runs horribly over-budget; how often do they run under-budget? What's going to change to turn a government that is historically spendthrifty into one that is thrifty?

Here's two other thoughts for you:

1) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why shouldn't we give that a go?

2) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why do you assume that it wouldn't work in America?

MacQuarrie

07-13-2007, 08:08 PM

Here's two other thoughts for you:

1) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why shouldn't we give that a go?

2) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why do you assume that it wouldn't work in America?
I'm perfectly willing to give it a go, on one condition:

We make damn sure nobody thinks for a second that it's free. We stress at every opportunity that the medical care is provided by the people of the United States because we believe it's important to care for the needs of the disadvantaged. We remind everybody that we agreed that there is a social contract, that those who can afford to pay in do so, so that those who can't afford it can live healthy and dignified lives.

But it sure as hell ain't free, and it sure as hell ain't because somebody is entitled to it. We do it because it's right, not because it's a right.

Get the people pushing for universal care to sign off on that, and I'm good to go with it.

Reverend Smooth

07-13-2007, 08:11 PM

I disagree with one part of that, but I find it a reasonable compromise. :3

Nick Soapdish

07-13-2007, 10:33 PM

More than half of the wealthiest Americans spent some portion of their lives in the poorest 5%. A significant number of them are immigrants.

The wealthiest "what" Americans? 5%? 1%? 12 Americans?

That's a statistic that's really difficult to believe. I know that it's not saying it outright, but it sounds a lot like half the wealthiest people come from the poorest 5% and the other half come from the other 95%.

Loren

07-13-2007, 11:22 PM

People get elected in this country by promising to give their constituents a lot of goodies from the public till. It's nearly impossible for a fiscal conservative to get elected now. Add to that the fact that most areas are so gerrymandered as to make it virtually impossible for any given congressional district to change party hands, and even harder for an independent or third-party candidate to get elected, and the chances of getting anybody like you describe drops dramatically.

Everybody is opposed to pork-barrel spending... except in their own district.

Back when Michael Moore was doing TV Nation, he had a funny little bit on this. Newt Gingrich was Speaker at the time, and was talking a hard line on pork. So Moore came to Newt's district (here in Georgia), and spearheaded a whole anti-pork parade. The specific pork being targeted and named being located, naturally, in Newt's district.

Not surprisingly, a number of Newt's constituents stated that they thought the feds should stop giving so much money to projects in other districts, but they were perfectly OK with the money being funneled into THEIR district.

Heck, my own Rep practically played this inconsistency in the election. IIRC, he talked about bringing fiscal responsibility back to DC, but one of his bigger campaign pledges was that he promised to bring more federal money to the district. (If I'd ever gotten in a real debate, I would have used this as an issue.)

Loren

07-13-2007, 11:45 PM

Here's two other thoughts for you:

1) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why shouldn't we give that a go?

When the proposition on the table is federalizing a significant chunk of the US economy, I'm rather hesitant to simply "give that a go." If it turns out to be a boondoggle, it's not exactly a change that can be easily undone. Social Security is prepped to screw over my entire generation, and it's going to take a virtual revolution to enact change, simply because of inertia.

2) Every other developed nation has a universal healthcare system, and they provide better health care than America for less money. So why do you assume that it wouldn't work in America?

Why? Haven't I already identified several reasons why in this thread? The US federal government is notoriously inefficient and problematic when it comes to operating social programs. I've asked twice for examples of where the feds have taken over a private sector and actually improved upon it (as is being claimed the feds will be able to do with health care), but no one seems to be able to provide any historical examples of such success. And I maintain that the insurance mentality (e.g., approving or not approving tests and procedures) will continue under the feds, who will still have to operate under a budget. It's been argued that the feds will suddenly become very pennywise when it comes to setting the prices it will pay, despite decades of the government being pound-foolish in virtually every other area of the budget. Even when the feds had their own little medical microcosm, they didn't create a health care utopia; they offered up the V.A. Regardless of what other countries have done, history has repeatedly demonstrated that the U.S. government is unlikely to be nearly as competent at running health care as a lot of people apparently expect it to be.

Why assume that what works elsewhere won't work here? For the simple reason that we aren't them. We have a different culture, a different national mindset, and a different political ethos. This was acknowledged as far back as de Tocqueville. There are multiple other economic factors, from unemployment to immigration, that affect different countries differently. A lot of other developed countries don't have term limits for their executives. A lot, as best I can tell, don't have a Bill of Rights. I suppose that works for them, but the mere fact that it does is no reason to say that we should adopt their ways too.

Paul McEnery

07-13-2007, 11:58 PM

When the proposition on the table is federalizing a significant chunk of the US economy, I'm rather hesitant to simply "give that a go." If it turns out to be a boondoggle, it's not exactly a change that can be easily undone. Social Security is prepped to screw over my entire generation, and it's going to take a virtual revolution to enact change, simply because of inertia.

Why? Haven't I already identified several reasons why in this thread? The US federal government is notoriously inefficient and problematic when it comes to operating social programs. I've asked twice for examples of where the feds have taken over a private sector and actually improved upon it (as is being claimed the feds will be able to do with health care), but no one seems to be able to provide any historical examples of such success. And I maintain that the insurance mentality (e.g., approving or not approving tests and procedures) will continue under the feds, who will still have to operate under a budget. It's been argued that the feds will suddenly become very pennywise when it comes to setting the prices it will pay, despite decades of the government being pound-foolish in virtually every other area of the budget. Even when the feds had their own little medical microcosm, they didn't create a health care utopia; they offered up the V.A. Regardless of what other countries have done, history has repeatedly demonstrated that the U.S. government is unlikely to be nearly as competent at running health care as a lot of people apparently expect it to be.

Why assume that what works elsewhere won't work here? For the simple reason that we aren't them. We have a different culture, a different national mindset, and a different political ethos. This was acknowledged as far back as de Tocqueville. There are multiple other economic factors, from unemployment to immigration, that affect different countries differently. A lot of other developed countries don't have term limits for their executives. A lot, as best I can tell, don't have a Bill of Rights. I suppose that works for them, but the mere fact that it does is no reason to say that we should adopt their ways too.

I was trying to go for a deeper question here.

Why shouldn't we change so it does work here?

Dazzler

07-14-2007, 12:01 AM

oh, piddle. so we just do nothing then and let everyone get screwed.
awesome.
we're such a country of moral wimps.

--Dazz

Ian Boothby

07-14-2007, 04:57 AM

Not to get too basic but if you've got the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness what does the right to life entail? When someone withholds a treatment that can stop you from dying aren't they denying you a right?

As long as corporations are legally bound to put the profit of their shareholders first and health care is run by corporations then the shareholders are going to come before a person's right to live.

I just saw the film today and damn I hope it wakes folks up.

Samurai

07-14-2007, 09:12 AM

Not to get too basic but if you've got the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness what does the right to life entail? When someone withholds a treatment that can stop you from dying aren't they denying you a right?

As long as corporations are legally bound to put the profit of their shareholders first and health care is run by corporations then the shareholders are going to come before a person's right to live.

I just saw the film today and damn I hope it wakes folks up.

By law, hospitals must treat any emergency patients with serious, life-threatening injuries, no matter their ability to pay. So the right to life is already covered.

EdContradictory

07-14-2007, 11:13 AM

By law, hospitals must treat any emergency patients with serious, life-threatening injuries, no matter their ability to pay. So the right to life is already covered.
Except that patient then gets a bill that will ruin them financially.

Reverend Smooth

07-14-2007, 11:21 AM

Funny, it took a half hour of choking on my own throat hives and my mother-in-law yelling at them while my nose, eyes, mouth, and ears swelled shut for them to decide that I wasn't a hypochondriac and give me a steroid shot.

No insurance = not worth saving. That was made patently clear on several occasions.

I still have nightmares about this shit. And I know that calling an ambulance won't save me next time, it almost didn't the last few.

Not that anti-healthcare proponents give a damn about that kind of thing. (The fact that I have to repeat it makes that clear enough.)

Samurai

07-14-2007, 12:19 PM

Not that anti-healthcare proponents give a damn about that kind of thing. (The fact that I have to repeat it makes that clear enough.)

Anti-socialized medicine, not anti-healthcare. Cute attempt at demonization, though.

Dazzler

07-14-2007, 01:08 PM

Patients in the emergency room have to be treated by law, sure, but what about patients with non-life threatening serious illnesses that make their quality of life close to unliveable. Such as those with mental illness. There's more to life than just living. If someone's physically unable to pursue happiness, what good is their right to life and liberty?
I see people everyday that are clearly severely mentally ill living on the streets that could easily be taken care of and could make marked progress out of their situation IF there were universal healthcare available.

--Dazz

MacQuarrie

07-14-2007, 01:16 PM

Not to get too basic but if you've got the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness what does the right to life entail? When someone withholds a treatment that can stop you from dying aren't they denying you a right?
That depends. If "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" include the right to profit from one's efforts and talents, then being compelled to treat somebody without proper compensation is a violation of both those rights.

That's why health care is not a right.

Rights are the things everyone has or should have equal and free access to, such as the air. Things that require another person to provide are commodities, and in order for people to provide those things, they need to be compensated for them. Food doesn't just magically appear; it has to be planted, cultivated, harvested, and somebody has to be paid for that. Health care is the same; somebody has to do it, and they need to be paid.

In a free market economy, too much control over prices and fees will result in people quitting the field. What then? Do we force a certain portion of the population to become doctors?

My suggestion: establish a tax-supported scholarship program for medical schools. You're on your own for your Bachelor degree, but if you want to be a doctor, and agree to work a certain number of years as hospital staff, your med school costs are covered.

And so on....

Sabrinaset

07-14-2007, 01:30 PM

My suggestion: establish a tax-supported scholarship program for medical schools. You're on your own for your Bachelor degree, but if you want to be a doctor, and agree to work a certain number of years as hospital staff, your med school costs are covered.

And so on....

I believe there is such a program in place that requires you to work as a GP in a rural area for ... ten years? Basically in some place where there is an acute shortage of doctors. Don't remember the details.

Spackling Compound

07-14-2007, 02:54 PM

I believe there is such a program in place that requires you to work as a GP in a rural area for ... ten years? Basically in some place where there is an acute shortage of doctors. Don't remember the details.

Yeah, I thought so too. Wasn't that how Dr. Fleischman got to that little quaint town in Alaska?

Another alternative that has almost died out completely is religious hospitals. Catholic religious orders used to be able to staff and administrate hospitals where the poor could get treated without the costs associated with other, even public, hospitals.
However, they don't function this way much anymore for a myriad of reasons.

Sabrinaset

07-14-2007, 04:58 PM

Another alternative that has almost died out completely is religious hospitals. Catholic religious orders used to be able to staff and administrate hospitals where the poor could get treated without the costs associated with other, even public, hospitals.
However, they don't function this way much anymore for a myriad of reasons.

Really? I heard they were still going strong in South America. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that was no longer the case.

Sabrinaset

07-14-2007, 07:11 PM

Oh, looks like Michael Moore has decided to strike back against CNN. From his website ... (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=216)

An Open Letter to CNN from Michael Moore

Dear CNN,

Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.

I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.

Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.

You have an occasional segment called "Keeping Them Honest." But who keeps you honest? After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. And boy, judging from the mail both you and I have been receiving, the evidence I have posted on my site about your "Sicko" piece has led millions now to question your honesty.

I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are. What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. It not only makes you a better person, it helps prevent you from screwing up again. Imagine how many people will be drawn to a network that says, "We made a mistake. We're human. We're sorry. We will make mistakes in the future -- but we will always correct them so that you know you can trust us." Now, how hard would that really be?

As you know, I hold no personal animosity against you or any of your staff. You and your parent company have been very good to me over the years. You distributed my first film, "Roger & Me" and you published "Dude, Where's My Country?" Larry King has had me on twice in the last two weeks. I couldn't ask for better treatment.

That's why I was so stunned when you let a doctor who knows a lot about brain surgery -- but apparently very little about public policy -- do a "fact check" story, not on the medical issues in "Sicko," but rather on the economic and political information in the film. Is this why there has been a delay in your apology, because you are trying to get a DOCTOR to say he was wrong? Please tell him not to worry, no one is filing a malpractice claim against him. Dr. Gupta does excellent and compassionate stories on CNN about people's health and how we can take better care of ourselves. But when it came time to discuss universal health care, he rushed together a bunch of sloppy -- and old -- research. When his producer called us about his report the day before it aired, we sent to her, in an email, all the evidence so that he wouldn't make any mistakes on air. He chose to ignore ALL the evidence, and ran with all his falsehoods -- even though he had been given the facts a full day before! How could that happen? And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made.

You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away.

Well it isn't. We are now going to start looking into the veracity of other reports you have aired on other topics. Nothing you say now can be believed. In 2002, the New York Times busted you for bringing celebrities on your shows and not telling your viewers they were paid spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies. You promised never to do it again. But there you were, in 2005, talking to Joe Theismann, on air, as he pushed some drug company-sponsored website on prostate health. You said nothing about about his affiliation with GlaxoSmithKline.

Clearly, no one is keeping you honest, so I guess I'm going to have to do that job, too. $1.5 billion is spent each year by the drug companies on ads on CNN and the other four networks. I'm sure that has nothing to do with any of this. After all, if someone gave me $1.5 billion, I have to admit, I might say a kind word or two about them. Who wouldn't?!

I expect CNN to put this matter to rest. Say you're sorry and correct your story -- like any good journalist would.

Then we can get back to more important things. Like a REAL discussion about our broken health care system. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. If you also want to apologize for not doing your job at the start of the Iraq War, I'm sure most Americans would be very happy to accept your apology. You and the other networks were willing partners with Bush, flying flags all over the TV screens and never asking the hard questions that you should have asked. You might have prevented a war. You might have saved the lives of those 3,610 soldiers who are no longer with us. Instead, you blew air kisses at a commander in chief who clearly was making it all up. Millions of us knew that -- why didn't you? I think you did. And, in my opinion, that makes you responsible for this war. Instead of doing the job the founding fathers wanted you to do -- keeping those in power honest (that's why they made it the FIRST amendment) -- you and much of the media went on the attack against the few public figures like myself who dared to question the nightmare we were about to enter. You've never thanked me or the Dixie Chicks or Al Gore for doing your job for you. That's OK. Just tell the truth from this point on.

Whoa. CNN is responsible for the war. You heard it here first! So stop blaming W, it's all Wolf Blitzer's fault! :eek:

So, any takers that Moore's next movie is gunna be about CNN?

Loren

07-14-2007, 09:15 PM

That depends. If "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" include the right to profit from one's efforts and talents, then being compelled to treat somebody without proper compensation is a violation of both those rights.

That's why health care is not a right.

Rights are the things everyone has or should have equal and free access to, such as the air. Things that require another person to provide are commodities, and in order for people to provide those things, they need to be compensated for them. Food doesn't just magically appear; it has to be planted, cultivated, harvested, and somebody has to be paid for that. Health care is the same; somebody has to do it, and they need to be paid.

Good explanation, but I'd like to add an illustration to this. If we were to assume that health care is a natural right, then it didn't suddenly become one because of modern conveniences. That would rather betray the idea that it's a natural right. So it wouldn't just be a right today, it would've been a right (albeit an unrecognized one) in the past as well.

So let's pick a point in the past. Say, Georgia in 1880. My great-great-great granddaddy, Andrew Collins, was a farmer in Lumpkin County at the time. Let's say that one day while plowing the fields, he hits an unexploded Civil War mine. It blows up, and he's messed up pretty bad. He's liable to lose a limb or two, and possibly die, if he isn't operated on by a doctor.

Now 1880 Georgia is well before the days of health insurance or modern hospitals. And frankly, Lumpkin County ain't exactly flush with doctors. But, under Ian's rationale, Andrew has a right to health care.

So, how exactly is this right exercised? Is it Andrew's obligation to travel to the doctor, or does his right to health care include the right to be transported by someone else, or to have the doctor come to him? Does Andrew send someone to find a doctor and demand that he be treated, immediately and for free? If he can't find a doctor, are his rights being violated? If the nearest doctor they find is in Hall County, and the doctor declines to come (maybe the weather is bad, maybe he has his own family to attend to, etc.), are Andrew's rights being violated? If it turns out that his particular wounds require a specialist, and the only specialist in the state is in Atlanta, does he have the right to be treated by that specialist?

And if there is a violation, then how are his rights enforced? Does a Pinkerton man drop by the doctor's house and force him to go treat Andrew? Does he get to force the specialist too? Does Andrew sue somebody for failing to drop everything they were doing to travel to his farm and treat him for free? Does Andrew have a claim against the county or the state or the federal government (or all of them) for failing to provide him with a doctor at no cost to himself?

Reverend Smooth

07-14-2007, 09:28 PM

Oh, looks like Michael Moore has decided to strike back against CNN. From his website ... (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=216)

Whoa. CNN is responsible for the war. You heard it here first! So stop blaming W, it's all Wolf Blitzer's fault! :eek:

So, any takers that Moore's next movie is gunna be about CNN?
They do share the blame. They themselves have said that the editors deliberately did not run stories critical of the war prior to and during, when they should have.

TheLazy

07-14-2007, 09:40 PM

Good explanation, but I'd like to add an illustration to this. If we were to assume that health care is a natural right, then it didn't suddenly become one because of modern conveniences. That would rather betray the idea that it's a natural right. So it wouldn't just be a right today, it would've been a right (albeit an unrecognized one) in the past as well.

So let's pick a point in the past. Say, Georgia in 1880. My great-great-great granddaddy, Andrew Collins, was a farmer in Lumpkin County at the time. Let's say that one day while plowing the fields, he hits an unexploded Civil War mine. It blows up, and he's messed up pretty bad. He's liable to lose a limb or two, and possibly die, if he isn't operated on by a doctor.

Now 1880 Georgia is well before the days of health insurance or modern hospitals. And frankly, Lumpkin County ain't exactly flush with doctors. But, under Ian's rationale, Andrew has a right to health care.

So, how exactly is this right exercised? Is it Andrew's obligation to travel to the doctor, or does his right to health care include the right to be transported by someone else, or to have the doctor come to him? Does Andrew send someone to find a doctor and demand that he be treated, immediately and for free? If he can't find a doctor, are his rights being violated? If the nearest doctor they find is in Hall County, and the doctor declines to come (maybe the weather is bad, maybe he has his own family to attend to, etc.), are Andrew's rights being violated? If it turns out that his particular wounds require a specialist, and the only specialist in the state is in Atlanta, does he have the right to be treated by that specialist?

And if there is a violation, then how are his rights enforced? Does a Pinkerton man drop by the doctor's house and force him to go treat Andrew? Does he get to force the specialist too? Does Andrew sue somebody for failing to drop everything they were doing to travel to his farm and treat him for free? Does Andrew have a claim against the county or the state or the federal government (or all of them) for failing to provide him with a doctor at no cost to himself?

Heh, legend.

Solaris

07-14-2007, 11:21 PM

By law, hospitals must treat any emergency patients with serious, life-threatening injuries, no matter their ability to pay. So the right to life is already covered.

Really?

Are you sure about that, Sam?

My friend with the cancer was an experimental subject: first wave of humans being tested with a new "drug cocktail" to treat cancer. He was one of four people on it. He opted for this in part because conventional treatments offered no hope---but also because by doing so, he would be helping others.

The side-effects were severe. He had several episodes of passing out (often hitting his head on something), diarrhea, and vomiting. One night (two days before he died), he'd fainted after going at both ends all over himself in the bathroom. His wife rushed him to the hospital.

They left him on the *floor* of the waiting room, as he continued throwing up and shitting himself, and going in and out of consciousness, for TWO hours. He was severely dehydrated. During all that time, no one came out to check on him, and the nurses at the station kept telling his wife "well get to you."

So, after two hours, they come out to his wife and tell her "You'll have to take him somewhere else: we don't have room for him."

"What? WHY?"

"We don't have any beds for him. You'll have to take him somewhere else."

No "We'll call around and find another hospital, and get an ambulance to transport you," just "leave and go somewhere else."

His wife was, of course, furious. She made them give her some bags of fluid, took him home, and hydrated him herself through his IV port (she's a former EMT).

Two days later, he went through the same thing again. This time, she called an ambulance. (By the way, when he fell this time she tried to catch him, and he fell on her, and she severely injured her knee in the process.) So, she tells the driver "Don't take him to 'x" hospital---they wouldn't take him two nights ago, and treated us like shit. Take us to "y" hospital instead---that's where he's being treated for his cancer."

So, they head down that way. The EMT's are on the radio with the hospital... and all the way down, the hospital is arguing with them over bringing him in, and just like the other place, trying to say that "we have no beds available." By the time they get there and get him out of the ambulance, the hospital finally says, "Okay, bring him on down here."

And the EMTs say "Look we're here---come open the doors!" (The hospital locks the Emergency Room doors at night, to prevent homeless people from wandering in---so they have to unlock the doors every time an ambulance shows up.)

So, somehow this "full hospital" finds a space for him (among the several spaces available in the Intensive Care Unit).

The other point of note about his experiences, versus the law, is that he had a "Do Not Resusitate" Order. It's illegal to ignore a DNR... yet when he "coded" in the Emergency Room, shortly after he got there, they resusitated him. His wife was out of the room at the time... and was extremely furious with them, for ignoring his wishes.

Further, I won't go into the all kinds of runaround they gave her, or how they kept her away from him for over TWO HOURS after he was sent up to the ICU... but she did notice that the first 3 times she got a look at his chart, the DNR was clipped to it---but on the 4th time, it was missing... and they tried to claim that they had never even SEEN one on his chart, and that it hadn't been there. Basically, someone was trying to cover their asses.

So... are you CERTAIN that, just because the law says they can't turn anyone with a serious, life-threatening condition... that all hospitals OBEY that law? You might have said the same thing about DNR's, too, right?

One hospital turned him away. Another hospital *tried* to turn him away... and then later ignored his DNR. And these are two major hospitals in Atlanta or in the metro area (one is in each place).

Samurai

07-14-2007, 11:31 PM

Really?

Are you sure about that, Sam?

My friend with the cancer was an experimental subject: first wave of humans being tested with a new "drug cocktail" to treat cancer. He was one of four people on it. He opted for this in part because conventional treatments offered no hope---but also because by doing so, he would be helping others.

The side-effects were severe. He had several episodes of passing out (often hitting his head on something), diarrhea, and vomiting. One night (two days before he died), he'd fainted after going at both ends all over himself in the bathroom. His wife rushed him to the hospital.

They left him on the *floor* of the waiting room, as he continued throwing up and shitting himself, and going in and out of consciousness, for TWO hours. He was severely dehydrated. During all that time, no one came out to check on him, and the nurses at the station kept telling his wife "well get to you."

So, after two hours, they come out to his wife and tell her "You'll have to take him somewhere else: we don't have room for him."

"What? WHY?"

"We don't have any beds for him. You'll have to take him somewhere else."

No "We'll call around and find another hospital, and get an ambulance to transport you," just "leave and go somewhere else."

His wife was, of course, furious. She made them give her some bags of fluid, took him home, and hydrated him herself through his IV port (she's a former EMT).

Two days later, he went through the same thing again. This time, she called an ambulance. (By the way, when he fell this time she tried to catch him, and he fell on her, and she severely injured her knee in the process.) So, she tells the driver "Don't take him to 'x" hospital---they wouldn't take him two nights ago, and treated us like shit. Take us to "y" hospital instead---that's where he's being treated for his cancer."

So, they head down that way. The EMT's are on the radio with the hospital... and all the way down, the hospital is arguing with them over bringing him in, and just like the other place, trying to say that "we have no beds available." By the time they get there and get him out of the ambulance, the hospital finally says, "Okay, bring him on down here."

And the EMTs say "Look we're here---come open the doors!" (The hospital locks the Emergency Room doors at night, to prevent homeless people from wandering in---so they have to unlock the doors every time an ambulance shows up.)

So, somehow this "full hospital" finds a space for him (among the several spaces available in the Intensive Care Unit).

The other point of note about his experiences, versus the law, is that he had a "Do Not Resusitate" Order. It's illegal to ignore a DNR... yet when he "coded" in the Emergency Room, shortly after he got there, they resusitated him. His wife was out of the room at the time... and was extremely furious with them, for ignoring his wishes.

Further, I won't go into the all kinds of runaround they gave her, or how they kept her away from him for over TWO HOURS after he was sent up to the ICU... but she did notice that the first 3 times she got a look at his chart, the DNR was clipped to it---but on the 4th time, it was missing... and they tried to claim that they had never even SEEN one on his chart, and that it hadn't been there. Basically, someone was trying to cover their asses.

So... are you CERTAIN that, just because the law says they can't turn anyone with a serious, life-threatening condition... that all hospitals OBEY that law? You might have said the same thing about DNR's, too, right?

One hospital turned him away. Another hospital *tried* to turn him away... and then later ignored his DNR. And these are two major hospitals in Atlanta or in the metro area (one is in each place).

I'm not going to comment on your specific case... you saw where that got me before.

But I said by law, hospitals are required to do what they can for people in a life-threatening situation, whether they can pay or not. I didn't say each and every hospital always follows the law 100% or never tries to get out of their responsibilities. Similarly, it's against the law to murder someone... doesn't mean everyone always obeys that law.

Solaris

07-14-2007, 11:42 PM

I'm not going to comment on your specific case... you saw where that got me before.

But I said by law, hospitals are required to do what they can for people in a life-threatening situation, whether they can pay or not. I didn't say each and every hospital always follows the law 100% or never tries to get out of their responsibilities. Similarly, it's against the law to murder someone... doesn't mean everyone always obeys that law.

No, you said:

By law, hospitals must treat any emergency patients with serious, life-threatening injuries, no matter their ability to pay. So the right to life is already covered.

Now, your first statement is absolutely correct. But the second statement, the one I bolded, you said in such a way that it's a "foregone conclusion" that the right to life is covered... when it isn't. The first statement is a fact; the second statement is an assumption stated as if it were fact.

There *is* no guarantee that a hospital will not "turn away" a person under such circumstances... in fact, part of the medical care debate today is that apparently it happens all too often---perhaps because no patient in that situation can *afford* to sue the hospitals? And whatever agency it is that is supposed to be doing an oversight on the hospitals regarding such patients (if there even IS one) is apparently doing a damned lousy job of it.

Oh, and btw, here's the real kicker:

My friend actually HAD medical insurance. In fact... he was enrolled in a program sponsored by the second hospital, the very hospital that he'd been going to all along for his treatments, that tried to turn him away and DID ignore his DNR. Under their program, they paid around $10K per month to keep him insured... and were making around $130K per month on his bills. That's $120K profit for them.

So... there's absolutely no WAY they didn't know he WAS an "insured" person... but because he was a "dying" person, they wanted to turn him away.

Sabrinaset

07-15-2007, 12:00 AM

Solaris, that's not an example of bad health care, it's an example of incompetant staff who really ought to have a CAT-scan done on their skulls to see if they can find anything, if you see the distinction I'm making here.

And granted, I have no experience with experimental test subjects, but there's something about that story ... you mean they were experimenting on him and NOT monitoring the results? No, something's not right. No one is THAT incompetant.

Sam is right, someone comes into the ER, we gotta treat 'em whether they have insurance or not, whether they can pay or not. It's not just the right thing to do ... it's the law. We're not McDonalds, you don't pay first, THEN get your health care. The problem starts when you have too many people coming in and not enough doctors. That's when we know the gangs are acting up again where I am. Then the people in the front do their own little triaging and we get the more serious cases first, and the people with paper cuts (yes, we get those) at the end of the line. Except for Lindsey Lohan, we just hand her the placebos when she walks in.

We either need more hospitals, or less patients, or both.

stealthwise

07-15-2007, 12:09 AM

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be dealt with like Asimov's three laws of robotics.

LIFE comes first. Always.

Our health care (Canadian) is far from perfect, there's a lot of room for improvement, but I'm really glad that I don't have to put with some of the shit that the Americans do. I haven't seen Sicko, likely won't, given that I don't care for Moore's misdirection style, but it's pretty obvious, and has been for decades, that America's health care system needs a massive overhaul.

How about shifting several weeks, or even DAYS worth of that war expenditure over to taking care of the sick and suffering?

Solaris

07-15-2007, 12:21 AM

But Sab, the first hospital didn't even triage him. They took the info from his wife at the desk... but never sent anyone out to look at him, never took a bp or anything, never called him back (or really, carried, since he was on the floor) to see a nurse for triage... and then after 2 hrs of this and telling his wife "we'll get to you," they came out and told her "we can't see him; you'll have to leave."

And the second hospital tried to turn him away while he was still in the ambulance (he was en route, but they thought the EMT's still had him at home)... and like the first hospital, tried to say "we have no beds" when there were several vacant beds in ICU when they got up there---and those beds stayed empty all night, so it's not like someone was supposed to be coming in to take them.

As for the testing, yes, the people doing the study were monitoring him and the three other subjects... but basically it was to see how well they'd weather the treatment, and if the treatment was effective or not. All of the subjects experienced throwing up and diarrhea, with one other person having it as severe as my friend... but also, all four people were terminally-ill with cancer, and no conventional treatments were going to help. Basically, they were monitoring the subjects' reactions to the drugs... but if a subject had life-threatening issues related to it, the subject was supposed to go to the ER. Which they did.

So, while I'll certainly agree that the first hospital has incompetent staff (I've been to their ER myself, and they're stupid jerks; and I've heard many others who've had bad experiences there), the second hospital is one of the most highly-regarded in the Southeast---so it's a bit tough to say that their staff is incompetent, when they have such a rep (and promote it widely, too) and still lied about the bed space as being the reason "they couldn't take him."

***

And btw, I don't use terms like "stupid jerks" about ER staff lightly. I've been to many different ERs, between my own visits, and going with my kids and/or my husband for their ailments... and I'm a very patient patient, so to speak. :D I know all about how they can get hit hard, and about triage, and the only reason I'm gonna get insistent or nasty is if the situation is truly life-threatening and I'm being ignored. The last time I was in one, I'd torn ligaments in my ankle, and wasn't sure if I'd broken it or not... so hello, ER. (And this is a 3rd hospital down here, not either of the first two---this one is one of my two favorites to go to, because not only are the staff competent, they do their jobs well, and are pretty darned nice, to boot.) :D

When we got there, they were pretty full. As we continued waiting, they got a rush of several ambulances AND a life-flight copter. It was around 8 hrs. from the time we got there until the time we left... and I was fine with the wait: my injury *did* need x-rays and checking, but it certainly wasn't life-threatening, while there were other people who *did* have life-threatening injuries who needed the help first. In fact, I did my best to joke around and cheer up the staff, when I finally got back there---because they were obviously harried, and a few of the "not so injured" patients were complaining loudly. I think they enjoyed my visit, and were really nice apologizing about the wait (well, they were apologizing to everyone, but hey, I understood).

So, when I say a hospital's ER staff is crap, they truly ARE crap. And that one hospital (the first one my friend went to) is a place I warn everyone away from, because I've not only had bad experiences there, but others have had much worse ones than I have. My friend was just one of many who've gotten bad treatment there.

MacQuarrie

07-15-2007, 12:29 AM

How about shifting several weeks, or even DAYS worth of that war expenditure over to taking care of the sick and suffering?

Why do you hate freedom?

(insert sardonic smiley here)

stealthwise

07-15-2007, 12:31 AM

Why do you hate freedom?

(insert sardonic smiley here)

It makes me itchy. 8)

Ian Boothby

07-15-2007, 12:36 AM

It makes me itchy. 8)

You can get that treated for free.

Night Swordsman

07-15-2007, 12:39 AM

I thought we hated freedom if we liked Godzooky? http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/g/godzooky.htm

Does this change on a regular basis,and if so can i see where those changes are posted please?

Can i go back to liking Godzooky now?
And i am REALLY scared of hospitals now...:(

Samurai

07-15-2007, 12:50 AM

No, you said:

Now, your first statement is absolutely correct. But the second statement, the one I bolded, you said in such a way that it's a "foregone conclusion" that the right to life is covered... when it isn't. The first statement is a fact; the second statement is an assumption stated as if it were fact.

There *is* no guarantee that a hospital will not "turn away" a person under such circumstances... in fact, part of the medical care debate today is that apparently it happens all too often---perhaps because no patient in that situation can *afford* to sue the hospitals? And whatever agency it is that is supposed to be doing an oversight on the hospitals regarding such patients (if there even IS one) is apparently doing a damned lousy job of it.

Oh, and btw, here's the real kicker:

My friend actually HAD medical insurance. In fact... he was enrolled in a program sponsored by the second hospital, the very hospital that he'd been going to all along for his treatments, that tried to turn him away and DID ignore his DNR. Under their program, they paid around $10K per month to keep him insured... and were making around $130K per month on his bills. That's $120K profit for them.

So... there's absolutely no WAY they didn't know he WAS an "insured" person... but because he was a "dying" person, they wanted to turn him away.

The governments role in protecting the Right to Life is to pass laws that safeguard it (such as laws against murder and hospitals not being able to legally turn away patients who can't pay) and enforcing the law when they find out it has been violated. It is NOT a 100% ironclad guarantee that no one will ever break the laws. That is unrealistic and flat out impossible.

Reverend Smooth

07-15-2007, 12:56 AM

Sam is right, someone comes into the ER, we gotta treat 'em whether they have insurance or not, whether they can pay or not. It's not just the right thing to do ... it's the law.
Which gets ignored. Frequently.

It must be nice to live in whatever land you guys live in, though. But it only confirms the fact that many doctors themselves are sheltered and defensive about the problems in their industry--it's easier to blame the patients, illegals, anyone, but themselves.

If they did, they'd make less money. Unacceptable, so it's better to blame everyone else.

TheLazy

07-15-2007, 01:02 AM

EdContradictory

07-15-2007, 01:05 AM

But I said by law, hospitals are required to do what they can for people in a life-threatening situation, whether they can pay or not.

I think you're mischaracterizing that.

They have to provide service regardless if the person can show proof that they can pay (like insurance), but the person still get a financially crippling bill once it's all said and done.

Reverend Smooth

07-15-2007, 01:11 AM

I think you're mischaracterizing that.

They have to provide service regardless if the person can show proof that they can pay (like insurance), but the person still get a financially crippling bill once it's all said and done.This would be why the majority of the country now wants universal healthcare, I do believe that the majority of bankruptcy cases are due to medical bills.

Not to mention that it doesn't need to cause bankruptcies to screw your family. I got so sick that Larime had to stay home with me, and that cut into his paycheck; we had to finally move away and with his parents, to an area where there is practically no work.

My GF's credit is shot because of her medical bills, ours is, too. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find good housing when your credit is so bad. We've been at the mercy of slum lords because of that.

Edit: Try living in the middle of the desert with no ac, no insulation, no plumbing, holes in the walls that let vermin through, live electrical current through parts of the house, etc. I almost died. I was so sick by the time I was removed from there that I could barely move, among other things that I'll spare the details.

Landlord, btw, was a respected conservative politician in this area.

But hey, it's all those mexicans who're the problem. (Larime just reminded me that he was a conservative christian minister, in fact.)

Solaris

07-15-2007, 01:50 AM

Double post, sorry.

Solaris

07-15-2007, 01:53 AM

The governments role in protecting the Right to Life is to pass laws that safeguard it (such as laws against murder and hospitals not being able to legally turn away patients who can't pay) and enforcing the law when they find out it has been violated. It is NOT a 100% ironclad guarantee that no one will ever break the laws. That is unrealistic and flat out impossible.

Yes, that's true Sam.

But you mentioned "murder" earlier as well, as in "Murder is against the law... but that's no guarantee that no one will ever murder."

So let's look at that:

People get murdered on a daily basis. The cops go after murderers on a daily basis. In the news, we see stories about murder on a daily basis. And, most of the time, sooner or later, the cops catch murderers, and it goes to trial.

When was the last time you heard of a hospital getting fined by the government for breaking the law and turning people away who had a life-threatening condition? When was the last time the media covered it? Do you think the reason we never hear such stories in the media is because they're so rare... or is it because no one's enforcing the law, and even if someone reports it, nothing gets done or investigated?

Going by the things I've heard from people, I think it happens quite frequently... but since the majority of the victims are poor and have little to no credibility with the government or the media, nothing gets done about it.

I would like to know just what government agency works as an oversight agency to hospitals. I would like to know which agency is, by what I've heard, not doing their job at all.

And yes Sam, I know that my suppositions there are relying in part on "word of mouth" and people's experiences, rather than some official poll or study. That doesn't make it any less of a concern, and I would imagine others (like Rev) probably *do* have study info, etc. on the problem.

At any rate, the "murder" analogy isn't a very good one---because while people murder even though it's against the law... the police pursue murderers quite avidly, and a fair amount of court time is taken up with trying murderers, and a chunk of airtime is given by the media to covering murder cases.

I haven't seen any evidence that the "cop" (whatever oversight agency there is) does diddly squat in pursuing *their* lawbreakers.

Solaris

07-15-2007, 01:56 AM

This would be why the majority of the country now wants universal healthcare, I do believe that the majority of bankruptcy cases are due to medical bills.

Not to mention that it doesn't need to cause bankruptcies to screw your family. I got so sick that Larime had to stay home with me, and that cut into his paycheck; we had to finally move away and with his parents, to an area where there is practically no work.

My GF's credit is shot because of her medical bills, ours is, too. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find good housing when your credit is so bad. We've been at the mercy of slum lords because of that.

Edit: Try living in the middle of the desert with no ac, no insulation, no plumbing, holes in the walls that let vermin through, live electrical current through parts of the house, etc. I almost died. I was so sick by the time I was removed from there that I could barely move, among other things that I'll spare the details.

Landlord, btw, was a respected conservative politician in this area.

But hey, it's all those mexicans who're the problem. (Larime just reminded me that he was a conservative christian minister, in fact.)

I wouldn't want to be in HIS shoes, when his karma catches up with him...

Reverend Smooth

07-15-2007, 02:10 AM

Samurai would just say that it's oversampled, etc, like he does any study that disagrees with him. It really is a waste in his case, and I think he likes making people to to the trouble of digging stuff up only to shoot it down.

I tend to only cite sources when I know the person I'm talking to is actually going to seriously consider them. There is no point in doing extra work otherwise when I've got enough work to do.

There are studies showing the state of american healthcare and ho the poor and, increasingly, the middle class struggle, how it is causing people to fall in class, and how much harder it is to rise than in other countries. That's how pervasive the problem is.

TheLazy

07-15-2007, 02:28 AM

I haven't seen any evidence that the "cop" (whatever oversight agency there is) does diddly squat in pursuing *their* lawbreakers.

Except back in pre-civil rights Mississippi, where the people reasoned that not doing anything was better than risking a worse status quo. Well 50 years later and thinks arent rosey, but they're better than they were. Theres an analogy for Samurai

Sabrinaset

07-15-2007, 09:29 AM

Solaris

07-15-2007, 11:14 AM

Then all I can say is that there are either a bunch of interns running the place, someone hooked the nitrous oxide into the air conditioners, or the people running those hospitals are criminals. I've seen it before, incompetant administrators, incompetant hospitals. Seriously, these guys broke the law, and there's plenty of oversight for that. What, has the hospital system broken down completely there?

The only times I've seen people bleeding in the lobby without immediate attention is right after the gangs act up where I am, and then the place just fills up with them all at once, and then what can you do but triage and do the best you can? But your example ... I'm sorry, but unless the place was filled with people in worse shape than this guy ... I'm amazed someone didn't shut the place down the next day, or at least have someone suspended pending administrative review. They take that kinda stuff pretty seriously where I am.

I wish they did here. :( His isn't the first, or the only horror story I've heard about that hospital.

And, they try to advertise their services for pregnant women deciding on a hospital for their childbirth---I particularly advise any local pregnant woman to avoid that place like the plague. *shudders*

Whereas, other than the fact that they were so full I had to take a semi-private room (and never got much sleep, because my roomate had um, some personal issues going on), I was totally happy with the hospital I chose, when I had Finn. And y'know, dem's de breaks---sometimes maternity wards just fill up really fast, when all the lil' darlin's decide at the same time that it's their birthday. :D

Outside of an ER, I think the maternity ward has got to be the most hectic section of a hospital... and the one most likely to "fill up and overflow real fast." And the one thing both areas have in common, in sharing the "get mama into the system" thing is that, no matter how loud you say it, a baby ain't gonna wait for nuthin'. :D Hee. (And sometimes they come reallly fast, for all that lots of others take many hours. My aunt's labor went so fast (about 45 min. to an hour) that the baby literally dropped out onto the floor, as her husband was carrying her into the local hospital (it was happening too fast for him to wait for them to get a wheelchair out to her, and even then, he wasn't fast enough). Fortunately, the baby was fine.

Sabrinaset

07-15-2007, 11:57 AM

I'm almost never in maternity unless we have a hearing impaired person in there, because apparently I'm the only one around who knows sign language. It can be a madhouse in there, but the ladies running that wing always seem to have it under control no matter how busy it gets. Really, we oughtta send those ladies over to Atlanta to run your hospitals.

DungeonmasterJim

07-15-2007, 03:55 PM

While looking through my local newspaper today I noticed the promo poster for Sicko under movie listings. It has Michael Moorer holding Bush's head or something like that. I know the guy hates Republicans for the most part but it seems a bit ridiculous to use Bush's image for the poster considering how many politicians have blown it on nationalized healthcare. Of course, (and I'm no Bush fan) it's easy to kick an unpopular president to get a few extra bucks for his flick.

DM Jim

Magneto_X

07-15-2007, 06:32 PM

Samurai

07-15-2007, 06:43 PM

Georgie is the official symbol of the Republican party for better or worse. I think that's why he did it. (Just speculation on my part.)

And what does "the Republican Party" have to do with a critique of the nation's healthcare? Face it, Moore has Bush Derangement Syndrome, and thinks everything bad in the world is Bush's fault.

Cam63

07-15-2007, 06:47 PM

And what does "the Republican Party" have to do with a critique of the nation's healthcare? Face it, Moore has Bush Derangement Syndrome, and thinks everything bad in the world is Bush's fault.

I'm sure he didn't kill OJ's ex wife, create light beer or give Posh Spice a show biz career, but yeah... he sure has fucked up in other areas.

You know... Important areas.

MacQuarrie

07-15-2007, 06:55 PM

Cam63

07-15-2007, 06:58 PM

Dubbya may as well go harpoon a kitten in the eye.

stealthwise

07-15-2007, 06:59 PM

And what does "the Republican Party" have to do with a critique of the nation's healthcare? Face it, Moore has Bush Derangement Syndrome, and thinks everything bad in the world is Bush's fault.

Even you have reason to hate Bush, as he's Moore's main target, and thus the main reason for Moore's popularity, particularly when you look at the success of Farenheit 9/11.

Solaris

07-15-2007, 07:36 PM

Loren

07-15-2007, 07:53 PM

While looking through my local newspaper today I noticed the promo poster for Sicko under movie listings. It has Michael Moorer holding Bush's head or something like that.

If that's the same ad that ran in my paper, it's not Moore holding Bush's head. It's Dubya in a full-body cast, with Moore holding a thermometer in his mouth.

And it's perfectly fair game to use such an image of Bush. Agree with it or not, it's a movie that's trying to make a national policy statement. Showing the national leader 'sick' in an ad for "Sicko" isn't anything to get up in arms about. (On the other hand, it might be a different matter if the ad depicted something more tasteless.)

MacQuarrie

07-15-2007, 07:54 PM

I love you, Jim.

:)

I hadn't considered it in that light before, but you're right. Tricky Dicky was paranoid and broke the law... but in terms of foreign policy, economy, and some other issues, he was a damn sight better. Yes, he kept us in Viet Nam for a while longer... but at least he didn't *start* that mess, as Bush did with Iraq. Heh.

He said he'd get us out of it, and he did. And he wrote the GOP's policy statement on racial equality back in the late '50s when he was VP under Eisenhower. The later Civil Rights Act drew heavily on his work. At the time he wrote it, the Democratic Party position was still "segregation now, segregation forever."

It's really a Shakespearean tragedy; Nixon's paranoia about his reputation utterly destroyed it and wiped out all memory of the many good things he did, which would have been his legacy.

I wonder if Dubya thought he was building a legacy...

Anyway, back to health care.

The GOP has a chance to redefine themselves on this issue. Let's see if they blow it. (Of course they will. So will the Dems.)

Loren

07-15-2007, 07:56 PM

On the up-side, at least Bush is helping to make Nixon look not so bad. Certainly Nixon was better on the economy, labor, the environment, civil rights, international affairs... If he hadn't been a raving paranoid, Watergate wouldn't have happened and today Nixon would be considered one of the better presidents of the 20th century.

Now nobody can say Nixon is the worst Republican president.

I imagine a future president will have to resort to cannibalism to be considered worse than Bush. Hopefully we'll have the worst president of the 21st century out of the way soon.

I'd always heard that Harding was the worst Republican President, and thus Nixon was already spared the title.

Anyhow, as to the overall competency of the Bush administration, y'all might find this funny (http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/07/why_again.html). A sampling:

I was recently watching Reno 911!: Miami, when the answer came to me in a jolt of inspiration. Bush and his senior advisers are not, in fact, stubborn and isolated neoconservatives. They are a highly dedicated and creative troupe of improvisational Surrealist performance artists*. Rather than following some ideological agenda, every aspect of this White House seeks to top the previously held conceptions with ever more outlandish behaviour and policy decisions.

Samurai

07-15-2007, 07:58 PM

On the up-side, at least Bush is helping to make Nixon look not so bad. Certainly Nixon was better on the economy, labor, the environment, civil rights, international affairs... If he hadn't been a raving paranoid, Watergate wouldn't have happened and today Nixon would be considered one of the better presidents of the 20th century.

Now nobody can say Nixon is the worst Republican president.

I imagine a future president will have to resort to cannibalism to be considered worse than Bush. Hopefully we'll have the worst president of the 21st century out of the way soon.

Yeah, because the economy is doing so terribly under Bush... oh wait, record highs in the stock market left and right. "Labor"? Low unemployment. The environment? It's doing very well, animals like the Bald Eagle are coming off the endangered species list. Civil Rights? We are a freer society than almost any in the world. International affairs? Yeah, Bush could certainly be doing better there, Nixon beats him on that one.

Samurai

07-15-2007, 08:01 PM

He said he'd get us out of it, and he did. And he wrote the GOP's policy statement on racial equality back in the late '50s when he was VP under Eisenhower. The later Civil Rights Act drew heavily on his work. At the time he wrote it, the Democratic Party position was still "segregation now, segregation forever."

It's really a Shakespearean tragedy; Nixon's paranoia about his reputation utterly destroyed it and wiped out all memory of the many good things he did, which would have been his legacy.

I wonder if Dubya thought he was building a legacy...

Anyway, back to health care.

The GOP has a chance to redefine themselves on this issue. Let's see if they blow it. (Of course they will. So will the Dems.)
They already passed prescription health care, and it turned out way over budget and unnecessarily complicated. I predict more of the same if they try to take over health care. They need to leave it in the private sector, maybe just help nudge things a little.

LtMarvel

07-15-2007, 08:08 PM

The current issue of People (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20045899,00.html)has dozen or so case histories of insured people who were denied healthcare.

The system is broken, and criticism of all the current political leaders are fair game. Bush is the current leader of the USA.

Magneto_X

07-15-2007, 08:20 PM

DungeonmasterJim

07-15-2007, 09:42 PM

If national healthcare is not passed in some form before too long, I would hope that somehow current insurance could be taken along to new jobs. A friend of mine got screwed over when our employer changed insurance companies. My friend, covered by the first insurer, lost her coverage for the same affliction under the new insurance because it was a 'pre-existing condition' or some garbage. I think she eventually got her coverage but it took several rounds of fighting with the new insurer.

DM Jim

Solaris

07-15-2007, 10:11 PM

The economy is not as good as you think.

If you hadn't noticed it was under Bush's watch that America now has the biggest dept in the country's history. The only reason the nation hasn't gone into a major depression is because China, Japan etc haven't called in their depts.

You can bet once they do and America's dollar drops like a stone the G.O.P will blame it on a Dem (if they're in power) while completely ignoring that it was their party, and Bush's administration, that started this mess in the first place.

*sits back and waits for Sam to once again, "show" how the budget was *not* balanced under Clinton, but rather was balanced at that time because of prior Republican moves... and how, of course, the current deficit is because Clinton's policies messed up the balance and Bush inherited it*

Wait... now he's saying our economy is great! Oh yeah, I forgot: all those people who lost good-paying jobs in the tech industry because of downsizing and outsourcing to oversees, got WalMart and McDonalds jobs... oh yeah, THAT's why "unemployment is low." :rolleyes:

And the Bald Eagle is coming off the endangered species list? Hmmm. Of course that's due to BUSH, NOT due to over 30+ years of conservation efforts. Boy, those eagles have been breeding like rabbits in the last seven years---they must really love Bush, to repopulate themselves so fast.

And yeppers, since the Bald Eagle is our national symbol, and hey, it's doing hunky-dory, of COURSE that means our environment is doing GREAT! Yay! What? All those national parklands Bush opened up to industries to use? Nah, that's just a minor detail.

As for the stock market... ooh! Maybe we're getting close to another dotcom market! Wow, wouldn't that be great?

Sam, I like you and respect you as a person... but sometimes, your predilection to find one thing that's positive, attribute it to Bush and Co., and call it a day on the whole shebang... well, perhaps "naive" isn't the right word... Unless of course, you're believing "analysts" like Neal Boortz "hook, line, and sinker"... but even *I* can see holes in your argument that you could drive a Mac truck through---with a double trailer attached.

Kyuubi

07-15-2007, 11:02 PM

OzBat!

07-15-2007, 11:41 PM

One Word: RoboCheneyDuuuuuuude.... Nixon's Head!

MacQuarrie

07-16-2007, 12:21 AM

Yeah, because the economy is doing so terribly under Bush... oh wait, record highs in the stock market left and right. "Labor"? Low unemployment. The environment? It's doing very well, animals like the Bald Eagle are coming off the endangered species list. Civil Rights? We are a freer society than almost any in the world. International affairs? Yeah, Bush could certainly be doing better there, Nixon beats him on that one.
Economy: Record highs in the stock market is not the sole factor in a healthy economy. Remember back in the Clinton administration where it was estimated that our children would be paying 80% tax rates due to the national debt? There was a lot of talk back then about reducing deficit spending in order to avoid that; remember, that was the impetus behind the "Contract With America"? That GOP-led Congress reversed the trend, and that was good, even if Clinton got the credit. Guess what? Bush pissed that away, spending like a flock of Kennedys in a Tijuana cathouse.

"Labor": Nixon was the last GOP presidential candidate to be endorsed by the AFL-CIO. Watergate pushed the labor unions into the arms of the Democrats where they've been pandered to ever since.

The environment: You're giving Bush credit for stuff that's been decades in the making, and that the Bush administration has been trying to undo.

Civil rights: We're talking about a lot more than just race and gender issues. Things like the First Amendment, the administration's assertion that dissent is treason, the human rights abuses against anyone the administration deems a threat, etc. and so on.

Two words: Executive privilege. I didn't like it when Clinton asserted it, and I don't like it now. The current White House resident believes he's above the law. He's pulled too many fast ones. I'm not calling for his impeachment, mostly because I don't want to go through that again and don't want to deal with the polarizing waste of time, but I'll be glad when he's gone. If Cheney runs, I will actively campaign against him.

I'm supporting Ron Paul, even though he hasn't a hope.

Samurai

07-16-2007, 02:44 AM

Economy: Record highs in the stock market is not the sole factor in a healthy economy. Remember back in the Clinton administration where it was estimated that our children would be paying 80% tax rates due to the national debt? There was a lot of talk back then about reducing deficit spending in order to avoid that; remember, that was the impetus behind the "Contract With America"? That GOP-led Congress reversed the trend, and that was good, even if Clinton got the credit. Guess what? Bush pissed that away, spending like a flock of Kennedys in a Tijuana cathouse.

"Labor": Nixon was the last GOP presidential candidate to be endorsed by the AFL-CIO. Watergate pushed the labor unions into the arms of the Democrats where they've been pandered to ever since.

The environment: You're giving Bush credit for stuff that's been decades in the making, and that the Bush administration has been trying to undo.

Civil rights: We're talking about a lot more than just race and gender issues. Things like the First Amendment, the administration's assertion that dissent is treason, the human rights abuses against anyone the administration deems a threat, etc. and so on.

Two words: Executive privilege. I didn't like it when Clinton asserted it, and I don't like it now. The current White House resident believes he's above the law. He's pulled too many fast ones. I'm not calling for his impeachment, mostly because I don't want to go through that again and don't want to deal with the polarizing waste of time, but I'll be glad when he's gone. If Cheney runs, I will actively campaign against him.

I'm supporting Ron Paul, even though he hasn't a hope.

Wait, you admit that it was the Republican-led Congress that cut spending during Clinton's years, yet blame current spending on Bush? MacQ, you're smart enough to know that Congress has the power of the purse. They decide what to spend. It has been one of my biggest complaints that the Rep-led Congress had been spending like mad. Bush didn't try to veto the budget, but that's his only responsibility for the spending.

Labor: No way in hell I'd want the AFL-CIO endorsing a candidate. They're a bunch of crooks, and if they endorse someone, it's a good bet I won't like them.

Environment: Bush has been trying to undo Bald Eagle mating? And I support opening Anwar and other places to limited and responsible use for drilling, forestry, etc. It's necessary for helping gain energy independence, and the footprint on the massive park will be very minor. And too much has been given to the Spotted Owl, that was a crazy scam that we now know was unnecessary, they don't need well over 1000 acres per pair of owls. We should use the environment carefully and responsibly, not fence it all off and never set foot in it.

Civil Rights: Those are crazy exaggerations... when has Bush said "dissent is treason"? That's just silly. And why is Olbermann, Moore, Reid, Pelosi, and all the other Bush critics still running around free if he's locking up anyone who criticizes him? Also, the Patriot Act does not curtail civil liberties, that's urban myth. It makes common sense changes to aid law enforcement against terrorists. Many of the provisions are less far-reaching than RICO and other special laws for combating organized crime and drug runners. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm What's more, when it was reauthorized in 2006, 30 additional civil liberty safeguards were added. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_opa_682.html

Executive Privilege: I'm not a fan of it either, but the Dems in Congress have initiated over 300 separate investigations into Bush and the administration. They can't waste all their time answering questions from dirt-diggers.

Oh man, you're a Paulian? Wow.

TheLazy

07-16-2007, 03:18 AM

Samurai

07-16-2007, 03:39 AM

Ron Paul = The only true Republican on the ballot;)

I want to see a rematch of the Republican debate and see him smack Gulliani down into a thousand pieces.

Ron Paul is no Republican.

TheLazy

07-16-2007, 03:50 AM

Wait, you admit that it was the Republican-led Congress that cut spending during Clinton's years, yet blame current spending on Bush? MacQ, you're smart enough to know that Congress has the power of the purse. They decide what to spend. It has been one of my biggest complaints that the Rep-led Congress had been spending like mad. Bush didn't try to veto the budget, but that's his only responsibility for the spending.

Labor: No way in hell I'd want the AFL-CIO endorsing a candidate. They're a bunch of crooks, and if they endorse someone, it's a good bet I won't like them.

Environment: Bush has been trying to undo Bald Eagle mating? And I support opening Anwar and other places to limited and responsible use for drilling, forestry, etc. It's necessary for helping gain energy independence, and the footprint on the massive park will be very minor. And too much has been given to the Spotted Owl, that was a crazy scam that we now know was unnecessary, they don't need well over 1000 acres per pair of owls. We should use the environment carefully and responsibly, not fence it all off and never set foot in it.

Civil Rights: Those are crazy exaggerations... when has Bush said "dissent is treason"? That's just silly. And why is Olbermann, Moore, Reid, Pelosi, and all the other Bush critics still running around free if he's locking up anyone who criticizes him? Also, the Patriot Act does not curtail civil liberties, that's urban myth. It makes common sense changes to aid law enforcement against terrorists. Many of the provisions are less far-reaching than RICO and other special laws for combating organized crime and drug runners. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm What's more, when it was reauthorized in 2006, 30 additional civil liberty safeguards were added. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_opa_682.html

Executive Privilege: I'm not a fan of it either, but the Dems in Congress have initiated over 300 separate investigations into Bush and the administration. They can't waste all their time answering questions from dirt-diggers.

Oh man, you're a Paulian? Wow.

Bush's idea of freedom of speech (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/)

TheLazy

07-16-2007, 04:18 AM

Ron Paul is no Republican.

And I suppose Bush is?

Broad definition of American Republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States)

Here's a few things that Ron Paul believes inbelieves in, a) (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121254.html), b) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8), c) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs)

And here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) a nice way to spend 20 minutes

Against big government...check, against corrosion of civil liberties....check, understands the idea of a god given right to freedom...check, for keeping leaders in check....you get the image.

Now lets look at the "republican party" or as I like to call them the "if your not extreme, you're not on this team" party.

Freedom of speech (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/170507banronpaul.htm) ....check, against big government (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html) ...check, against corruption (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/320876_cheney22.html) which also entails fair checks against corruption too ...check, against corrosion of civil liberties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4494246.stm) ...check.

Now you mention it, Ron Paul does seem like the real RINO here.

MacQuarrie

07-16-2007, 08:50 AM

Ron Paul is no Republican.

That is one of his best qualities.

I loathe party politics. Party politics is for people who don't like sports. I think it's insane and idiotic to support a candidate just because he's "on your side." It's not a sporting event, you don't need a team. About all political parties accomplish is convincing otherwise-moral people to condone shockingly immoral conduct because the person committing it happens to wear their color jersey.

I didn't like it when the Democrats excused Clinton's constant lies and criminal behavior, and I don't like it when the GOP condones Bush & Cheney's constant abuses of power.

That's why I'm a registered Bull Moose.

Loren

07-16-2007, 09:29 AM

That is one of his best qualities.

I loathe party politics. Party politics is for people who don't like sports. I think it's insane and idiotic to support a candidate just because he's "on your side." It's not a sporting event, you don't need a team. About all political parties accomplish is convincing otherwise-moral people to condone shockingly immoral conduct because the person committing it happens to wear their color jersey.

I didn't like it when the Democrats excused Clinton's constant lies and criminal behavior, and I don't like it when the GOP condones Bush & Cheney's constant abuses of power.

That's why I'm a registered Bull Moose.

The elephant's tired and thin.
The donkey, he thinks he'll move in.
They bicker and fuss, but they're not fooling us.
They're sisters under the skin.

Because it's the same ol' merry-go-round.
Which one will you ride this year?
The donkey and elephant bob up and down,
On the same, old merry-go-round.

The donkey may come from the North.
The elephant comes from the South.
If you look you'll find, the donkey's behind,
But they've got the same bit in their mouth.

Because it's the same ol' merry-go-round.
Which one will you ride this year?
The donkey and elephant bob up and down,
On the same, old merry-go-round.

If you want to end up same and sound.
Get off of the merry-go-round.
To be a real smarty, just join a new party,
And keep your two feet on the ground.

Because it's the same ol' merry-go-round.
Which one will you ride this year?
The donkey and elephant bob up and down,
On the same, old merry-go-round.

Reverend Smooth

07-16-2007, 09:53 AM

Guess what? Bush pissed that away, spending like a flock of Kennedys in a Tijuana cathouse.Never vetoed a republican-backed spending bill during the republican majority, as I recall. Not once.

Republicans are not better than democrats at fiscal responsibility and have not been for decades. If you want a tight hand on the purse strings, go Libertarian, Bull Moose, whatever, yeah.

Loren

07-16-2007, 10:06 AM

Samurai

07-16-2007, 07:02 PM

What you describe is only really significant during times of divided government. The President is not only the head of state, he's also the head of his party. Members of Congress from his party tend to listen to him. And if his party controls the legislature, he can't throw his hands up and say "Not my fault" if the legislature goes crazy with the purse. Especially if he OKs it all, and never so much as threatens a veto.

If Bush and the Congress had at least seriously feuded over spending, then he'd be able to say "I tried my best, but the other Republicans in the party are fiscally irresponsible and wouldn't listen." That, however, never came to pass.

True, but all the pork that inflated the budget was put in by the Congress, not Bush. He could and should have taken a stronger stand against it, even vetoed it and said "Try again, this time without the pork." But the fact remains that it was ultimately Congress who created the budget, passed the budget, and are responsible for it. Blaming the President for more than meekly allowing it to happen is like saying "Yes, I robbed the bank, but the Security Guard and bank tellers didn't do a thing to even try and stop me! They are partly to blame too!" Honestly, he should have been using the veto FAR more than he did (and not used it the times he finally did do it!)

Citizen V

07-16-2007, 07:06 PM

Is Michael Moore...related to Alan Moore?

Sabrinaset

07-16-2007, 09:30 PM

Is Michael Moore...related to Alan Moore?

No. That Which is Alan Moore has no relatives, as Alan willed himself into existence through sheer creative force.

Michael Moore might be related to Mogo, though.

Kyuubi

07-16-2007, 09:34 PM

I'm just glad him and Ann Coulter hate each other so much they would never breed.

Ugliest. Babies. Ever.

Sabrinaset

07-16-2007, 09:53 PM

...Coulter?

Kyuubi

07-16-2007, 09:58 PM

Yeah, coulter. You know: Tall, blonde, looks like a female Frankenstein's Monster.

Sabrinaset

07-16-2007, 10:01 PM

Coulter? As in ... derail thread Coulter?

Loren

07-16-2007, 10:04 PM

True, but all the pork that inflated the budget was put in by the Congress, not Bush. He could and should have taken a stronger stand against it, even vetoed it and said "Try again, this time without the pork." But the fact remains that it was ultimately Congress who created the budget, passed the budget, and are responsible for it.

Hey, Congress deserves its full share of blame too. But Bush's failure here isn't simply in his role as President. It's in his role as the leader of the Republican Party. In that role as leader, he totally failed to advocate for or demand fiscal responsibility from within his party.

Don't forget, too, that Bush proposed those budgets before Congress got its hands on 'em. And those budgets already had huge deficits (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/politics/main605544.shtml) before Congress added even the first pork amendment. Since Bush was himself proposing deficit spending, he can't wash his hands of fiscal irresponsibility by claiming that Congress should've cut more of the spending that he himself had proposed and endorsed.

Blaming the President for more than meekly allowing it to happen is like saying "Yes, I robbed the bank, but the Security Guard and bank tellers didn't do a thing to even try and stop me! They are partly to blame too!"

That analogy kinda falls apart when you consider the difference between the President's relationship with a Congress controlled by his own party, and the bank teller's relationship with the robber.

Kyuubi

07-16-2007, 10:10 PM

Coulter? As in ... derail thread Coulter?

Uh oh. . .

um. . .

JOAN JETT AND CARMEN ELECTRA ARE RUMORED TO BE A COUPLE!

Sabrinaset

07-16-2007, 10:14 PM

Uh oh. . .

um. . .

JOAN JETT AND CARMEN ELECTRA ARE RUMORED TO BE A COUPLE!

They are? OOOooooohhh ...

*ka-boooom*

(Thread re-rails)

Darediva

07-16-2007, 10:55 PM

I would like to interrupt this thread, with a personal anecdote about Ron Paul, who MANY years ago was my gynocologist.

He was running for congress, and came through my place of business gladhanding everyone. He introduced himself to me, and I said something to the effect, "Yes, I know who you are, but I'm sure you wouldn't remember my FACE." I turned and walked away at that point, leaving him stuttering to the guys at the parts counter. Priceless.

Samurai

07-17-2007, 02:06 AM

Hey, Congress deserves its full share of blame too. But Bush's failure here isn't simply in his role as President. It's in his role as the leader of the Republican Party. In that role as leader, he totally failed to advocate for or demand fiscal responsibility from within his party.

Don't forget, too, that Bush proposed those budgets before Congress got its hands on 'em. And those budgets already had huge deficits (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/politics/main605544.shtml) before Congress added even the first pork amendment. Since Bush was himself proposing deficit spending, he can't wash his hands of fiscal irresponsibility by claiming that Congress should've cut more of the spending that he himself had proposed and endorsed.

That analogy kinda falls apart when you consider the difference between the President's relationship with a Congress controlled by his own party, and the bank teller's relationship with the robber.

Unlike Reagan, Bush has never really acted like the leader of the Republican Party, IMO. He may be the President, but his oratory skills have prevented him from using the bully pulpit with any effectiveness. He didn't forge strong ties to the Congressional Republicans, and hasn't been the "voice of Republican leadership". He has always sort of done his own thing.

Sabrinaset

07-17-2007, 06:24 AM

I would like to interrupt this thread, with a personal anecdote about Ron Paul, who MANY years ago was my gynocologist.

A male gynocologist is like a car repairman who's never owned a car.

Loren

07-17-2007, 08:26 AM

Unlike Reagan, Bush has never really acted like the leader of the Republican Party, IMO. He may be the President, but his oratory skills have prevented him from using the bully pulpit with any effectiveness. He didn't forge strong ties to the Congressional Republicans, and hasn't been the "voice of Republican leadership". He has always sort of done his own thing.

So the excuse for Bush's failure to lead his party down the path of fiscal responsibility is that he's a lousy orator? He's still the head of the Republican Party. Although it's fading now, throughout most of his term of office, Congressional Republicans have displayed a rather high degree of loyalty to him.

And what example did he set for the rest of the party to follow? He proposed budgets that weren't balanced to begin with. Budgets that already had huge deficits before Congress made a single change. He proposed fiscal irresponsibility, and, surprise, the Congress followed suit.

MartinRedmond

07-17-2007, 09:28 AM

if yer gunna make a documentary about health care, start losing some weight yourself.

LMAO!!!!!!

MacQuarrie

07-17-2007, 09:37 AM

Solaris

07-17-2007, 12:03 PM

True, but all the pork that inflated the budget was put in by the Congress, not Bush. He could and should have taken a stronger stand against it, even vetoed it and said "Try again, this time without the pork." But the fact remains that it was ultimately Congress who created the budget, passed the budget, and are responsible for it. Blaming the President for more than meekly allowing it to happen is like saying "Yes, I robbed the bank, but the Security Guard and bank tellers didn't do a thing to even try and stop me! They are partly to blame too!" Honestly, he should have been using the veto FAR more than he did (and not used it the times he finally did do it!)

Can I quote you on that, when I'm referring to the Clinton years?

:D LMAO

Sam, I can't help but find your inconsistencies and the way you contradict yourself to be highly amusing, heh. After Bush was in the 2nd year of his term, and the budget was really starting to screw up, we had a discussion about it on the Comm Forum... and I remember clearly how, when people compared Bush's budget fuckups with how the budget got balanced under Clinton, you said that Clinton had merely inherited the good budget from Bush Sr.---that it was the former president's actions which had balanced the budget for Clinton. Further, you said that the reason the budget was fucking up under Dubya was that he, in turn, had inherited the "bad policies" Clinton had put into place... which apparently took a while to hit the budget, according to you.

So, first, by that logic shouldn't you be saying that Dubya inherited a broken budget from the prior president? Oh wait---that was Dubya, too.

Second, now that Bush is taking some serious accountability for the broken budget he endorsed, you're trying to blame Congress for *all* of it, and hold Bush "ineffective but blameless."

When will you wake up about the man? Or has he offered you something you can't refuse, to keep supporting him?

Reverend Smooth

07-17-2007, 12:47 PM

Re: health care stuffs that were touched upon, here are a couple links discussing comparisons between other countries. I found them while browsing today.

US health care is expensive and inefficient. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/)

Working families are getting squeezed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18809784/) (they note that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills).

This is an opinion piece, but it does cite stats (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18785138/) accurately:

Most people have heard the statistics that we pay ridiculously more for our health than other industrialized countries (twice as much per person as Germany, for example) and that our outcomes are far worse (the U.S. is 45th in the world in life expectancy, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook).

It notes that most americans who have healthcare are satisfied with it, but also points out that care is substandard and that americans pay more for less.

The CIA, as mentioned above, does keep stats on longevity, infant mortality, etc, etc, by country. I'm too x.x to go digging for it again, but people certainly can and the info is out there.

Nick Soapdish

07-17-2007, 02:41 PM

Environment: Bush has been trying to undo Bald Eagle mating? And I support opening Anwar and other places to limited and responsible use for drilling, forestry, etc. It's necessary for helping gain energy independence, and the footprint on the massive park will be very minor. And too much has been given to the Spotted Owl, that was a crazy scam that we now know was unnecessary, they don't need well over 1000 acres per pair of owls. We should use the environment carefully and responsibly, not fence it all off and never set foot in it.

Opening up drilling in the ANWR doesn't really qualify as "responsible use". At least, what they've released so far. And considering that in about 10 years, it'll give us about 1% of our annual energy use (up to about 3% if we're really lucky), it's not gonna do that much for energy independence. Energy conservation, which the Bush administration has alternately mocked and touted, would be much more effective.

Opening up the National Wilderness Areas and more of the National Forests is a much better idea though. The Forest Service doesn't even get enough money from current logging operations to maintain the current roads and we're supposed to have them start building more? I guess it's not welfare if it's for corporations. The roads are an erosion problem for the forests as well as an access point for introducing invasive species (because it becomes a fringe habitat and because people move along those roads). And that's even if they're well-maintained which these aren't.

BTW, the point behind preserving the spotted owl is that they use a specific type of habitat - old growth forest. If you wipe out that habitat, you wipe out everything that relies exclusively on that habitat. Although one of the points that people have been missing is that if you preserve the old growth forest, but cut down the mid-growth forest, there isn't any forest to turn into old growth forest when those trees finally die.

Sabrinaset

07-17-2007, 02:45 PM

If we really want to increase our oil supply, we should go straight to the Mother Lode and start harvesting the skin of teenagers.

Nick Soapdish

07-17-2007, 03:37 PM

If we really want to increase our oil supply, we should go straight to the Mother Lode and start harvesting the skin of teenagers.

I've seen a skit for that. Kids in the Hall, maybe?

Sabrinaset

07-17-2007, 05:47 PM

Actually, I just want my lil bratty brother skinned.

Samurai

07-17-2007, 06:59 PM

BTW, the point behind preserving the spotted owl is that they use a specific type of habitat - old growth forest. If you wipe out that habitat, you wipe out everything that relies exclusively on that habitat. Although one of the points that people have been missing is that if you preserve the old growth forest, but cut down the mid-growth forest, there isn't any forest to turn into old growth forest when those trees finally die.
Actually, it has now come out that Spotted Owls don't need huge tracts of old growth forest. The real reason their numbers are declining is competition from the Barred Owl.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/02/stupid-human-tricks-the-sad-case-of-the-spotted-owl/

Stupid Human Tricks: The Sad Case of the Spotted Owl
By Tom DeWeese | View comments

A decade and thousands of broken dreams later, comes this report from the federal government on the real reasons for the spotted owl's endangerment: "Oops."

Environmentalists are quick to lecture the rest of us about the ways of nature. Don't clean the dead trees off the forest floor, it's natural. Cattle and horses on the range aren't native, so let the grizzlies and wolves devour them, it's natural. Man isn't part of the ecology, lock him out of vast areas of land, it's natural. It's interesting to note how the "natural" argument only applies when it is used to impose the radical environmental agenda. Case in point, the Northern Spotted Owl.

Spotted owls, we were told a decade ago, were disappearing because big bad timber companies were cutting down "old growth" forests. So the environmental movement rushed to the forests, hugged the trees and issued news releases to decry the evils of the logging industry. Save the owl. Save the trees. Kill the timber industry.

Of course, that was exactly the point. Kill the timber industry. As a result of the hysteria to save the "endangered" owls, U.S. timber sales were reduced by 80-90%, forcing saw mills to close, loggers to go broke and whole towns which depended on the industry to literally disappear. The federal crackdown on the industry caused a shift in U.S. domestic lumber supplies to foreign soils. In short, American industry suffered in the name of protecting the spotted owl. Turns out it wasn't true.

A decade and thousands of broken dreams later, comes this report from the federal government on the real reasons for the spotted owl's endangerment: "Oops."

According to a new government draft plan to save the species, scientists are no longer saying the greatest threat to the Spotted Owl is logging activity. "The draft recovery plan recognizes the primary threat to northern spotted owls as competition with barred owls." According to the report, barred owls are less selective about the habitat they use and the prey they feed upon and are out-competing northern spotted owls for habitat and food, causing its decline.

In fact, for the entire decade since the issue emerged on the political scene, the property rights and land use movements have been reporting the fact that the spotted owl is only a sub-species of Mexican spotted owls, which are not endangered at all. Some experts will say the only way to tell the difference between the two is by their accents. (OK, I'm kidding, but this ridiculous story needs some humor). It was no secret that the spotted owl didn't need "old growth forests" to survive, since spotted owls were found living under bridges and in McDonalds signs. What it needed was a good food source like any other species. Now we know it was undercut by another owl – a completely natural occurrence.

What was accomplished during the ten-year fight besides the destruction of an entire industry? The establishment of a very radical and dangerous political agenda called the environmental movement. Its power is now so great that no politician dares to oppose them. Yet, that power, we now know for certain, was built on a lie. Some in the movement have even candidly admitted that if they didn't have the spotted owl they would have invented something like it to drive their agenda. In fact they did invent it and the purpose was to destroy the timber industry and private property rights. They called it an environmental emergency.

Now the truth has come out. So, will the same federal government which rushed to impose harsh treatment of innocent property owners and industry now roll back those stifling regulations and let freedom breath? Of course not. Agendas are agendas, regardless of the facts.

So instead, after the nation spent millions of dollars to destroy an industry's private property rights, still, the government plans to spend $200 million more on a "barred owl removal plan" in order to save the spotted owl.

And as usual, when a new government debacle is rolled out, there is always an emergency to drive the policy. Now, according to Ren Loheofener, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Pacific Region, "Because the range and numbers of barred owls are expanding rapidly, our effectiveness in addressing this threat depends on immediate action . . ."

Here's an immediate action sane folks could recommend: Let the barred owls alone to do what comes natural to them. If the Spotted Owl can't keep up – then good riddance. It's been used to cause enough pain and obviously its time is up. It's a natural process. Species come and go. We've got plenty of Mexican spotted owls to play with if we get homesick for them.

Of course, the final chapter is yet to be written. Soon, if the new "recovery plan" is successful, it won't be long before the environmental movement has a new emergency – man's wanton destruction of the barred owl. Creating false environmental disasters just comes natural for some people.

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/7/8/22839

# 20 years ago the spotted owl decline caused a significant uproar all over the west, pitting logging communities and companies against environmentalists who said the spotted owl would go extinct soon without protection. Fast forward, the owl got the protection, a lot of old growth forest was locked in and kept from being logged, but the owl is still in decline. Recent research has shown it doesn't necessarily need old growth forest for protection, but it sure might need protection against another owl species, the barred owl, that is invading it's turf. So, shoot one endangered or threatened species to protect another?

# ..."So far, federal agencies have proposed new recovery plans, though none are yet approved. At the same time, the Bush administration wants to lift restrictions on logging and other human activity in 23 percent of the land now designated as critical habitat for the spotted owl, citing research indicating that the species does not always require vast tracts of old-growth forest. Then, too, something would have to be done about a feathered intruder into spotted-owl territory – the bigger, tougher barred owl originally from back East, whose arrival in Western forests presents a new and potentially deadly threat to its diminutive cousin."

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=118038427464358600

That remains the case as the Fish and Wildlife Service brings to the table a proposal containing two options for recovery and begins to address a new threat to the spotted owl: invading barred owls that are moving into spotted owl territory.

Barred owls are native to a large swath of eastern North America. Named for the “barred” feather patterns on their bodies, these owls have been expanding their range.

In California and the Northwest, the invaders are increasingly displacing spotted owls from nesting spots. Sometimes they kill spotted owls outright. The new draft plan calls barred owls “the most important threat currently facing the spotted owl.”
Draft looks at federal land

The draft plan also offers two options for creating spotted owl reserves. Both options focus on federal land. State and privately owned land would not be affected, unless land managers choose to use the guidelines in making land-use decisions of their own, according to Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Option 1 of the draft plan includes a map of forests that would be reserved for spotted owl habitat.

“In many cases those locations are overlaid on the current reserve system in the Northwest Forest Plan,” Jewett says, referring to the comprehensive forest management plan that has stood in for specific owl protections since 1994.

Option 2 of the draft plan, on the other hand, gives decision-making power to forest managers – meaning, for the most part, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. It provides guidelines they would have to follow to set aside reserves for spotted owls.

“They would have more flexibility in deciding where those areas are going to be as they go through the process of revising their forest management plans,” Jewett says.

The American Forest Resource Council, a group that represents privately owned timber companies in the Northwest, is solidly behind Option 2.

“The problem is, lines on the map in Option 1 are still based on the old paradigm that the owl is purely dependent on old growth,” says Chris West, the group’s vice president. “Option 2 allows them to put the lines on the map based on where the owls really are, and what they’re using.”

He argues for a more locally based, ground-level approach to managing the owls.

“But if your goal is to continue to use the owl for other purposes, like the halting of timber harvesting, then you’re not going to be happy with Option 2,” he says.

“And that’s why some are squawking, because the owl’s never the issue, it’s been a whole bunch of other things. … When you use the owl as a surrogate for something else, that does a disservice to the environment.”

Francis

07-18-2007, 02:50 AM

Working families are getting squeezed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18809784/) (they note that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills).

If that statistic is based on the study I think it is (it may not be but they don't source it), the medical conditions included by the study as causes of bankruptcies include both gambling addiction and alcohol addiction.

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 05:44 AM

If that statistic is based on the study I think it is (it may not be but they don't source it), the medical conditions included by the study as causes of bankruptcies include both gambling addiction and alcohol addiction.
Dunno, but genuine addiction is generally a medical condition, since it messes with the physical hardwiring of the brain.

Also depends on how much of the medical conditions cited were alcohol addiction and gambling, too.

Francis

07-18-2007, 06:52 AM

Dunno, but genuine addiction is generally a medical condition, since it messes with the physical hardwiring of the brain.

Also depends on how much of the medical conditions cited were alcohol addiction and gambling, too.
Oh, absolutely. On the other hand neither of those conditions mean that the bankruptcy has that much to do with how the healthcare is paid for. (Meaning that I'm not disputing the truth of the study - but I do dispute its applicability to the government provided healthcare debate for this reason).

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 06:57 AM

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand neither of those conditions mean that the bankruptcy has that much to do with how the healthcare is paid for. (Meaning that I'm not disputing the truth of the study - but I do dispute its applicability to the government provided healthcare debate for this reason).If it's the same one, anyway.

Nick Soapdish

07-18-2007, 08:36 AM

Actually, it has now come out that Spotted Owls don't need huge tracts of old growth forest. The real reason their numbers are declining is competition from the Barred Owl.

But they're best adapted to the old growth forest. The other forests seem to be marginal habitat for them, but great habitat for barred owls (which also do fine in old growth forest).

And the expansion of the barred owl's range is due to man's activity. Unless you think that it's just coincidence that they've lived on the Eastern seaboard for millions of years and started quickly expanding the last century. Although it seems that it's mostly due to our previous insane fire management strategy that we're still getting our butts kicked over.

Except for your article in the Intellectual Conservative, none of the sources assert that the only cause of decline is barred owls. I found it interesting that the Intellectual Conservative bashed environmentalists for the panicked decision by the US Fish & Wildlife Service to cull owls while environmentalists are also bashing the decision.

Sabrinaset

07-18-2007, 09:14 AM

I was wondering where all those owls had gone. I'd go into a bar and they were nowhere to be found. Seems they were all off hunting the spotted owls. No more Happy Hour for the barred owls? What does Cam63 know about this?

Let's get them back in the bars where they belong.

Paul McEnery

07-18-2007, 12:07 PM

snip

And how exactly does one describe oneself as intellectual when this is what one thinks:

"Of course, that was exactly the point. Kill the timber industry."

What a complete arsehole.

Cam63

07-18-2007, 12:12 PM

MacQuarrie

07-18-2007, 02:14 PM

And how exactly does one describe oneself as intellectual when this is what one thinks:

"Of course, that was exactly the point. Kill the timber industry."

What a complete arsehole.

It's called 'demonizing the opposition.' Environmentalists want to destroy industries, put people out of work and cause misery. It's not that they love the environment, it's that they hate people.

On the other side, Conservatives want to pollute the air and water, throw poor people out into the street, deprive old people of food and medicine....

It's much easier (and makes for better fundraising) if you can cast the other side as evil monsters. Looking at them as people with different priorities might lead to some understanding and maybe even a compromise or two, and we can't have that, not when we're trying to grab power and money by shrieking "if you're not with us you're against us" or "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" or some other divisive and antagonistic doggerel.

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 03:24 PM

On the other side, Conservatives want to pollute the air and water, throw poor people out into the street, deprive old people of food and medicine....While I understand what you're trying to say, I think the example is flawed.

'Poor people don't want to work' or, 'sick people are a drain on society', or even 'You should be euthanized' (I've gotten this one often enough), 'surviva of the fittest', or any other social darwinist crap seems much worse to me than, 'You're polluting the environment,' or, 'you're selfish'.

While you haven't said such things, it's said often enough to make me feel even more sick.

Paul McEnery

07-18-2007, 04:41 PM

It's called 'demonizing the opposition.' Environmentalists want to destroy industries, put people out of work and cause misery. It's not that they love the environment, it's that they hate people.

On the other side, Conservatives want to pollute the air and water, throw poor people out into the street, deprive old people of food and medicine....

It's much easier (and makes for better fundraising) if you can cast the other side as evil monsters. Looking at them as people with different priorities might lead to some understanding and maybe even a compromise or two, and we can't have that, not when we're trying to grab power and money by shrieking "if you're not with us you're against us" or "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" or some other divisive and antagonistic doggerel.

This is true. There are in(s)ane lefties like the SWP, there are nutty environmentalists. However, the vast majority of noisy bugfuck commentators are on the far right. And it's not like the lefties or greens, who are getting carried away about a necessary cause. These people have no cause -- unless you call tripping up the left/greens a cause.

And of course, a lot of them are in the pay of corporations as disinformation campaigns. And then the far right fanboys leap right in along with it, despite not in fact actually having any interest in the issue at hand.

I mean, exactly what is Samurai's interest in spouting disinformation about global warming? None, that I can see (unless he's got a stockpile on rowboats or something). What the hell is the point of this?

So this isn't a level playing field at all. You've got good people trying to get the information across. And you've got bastard liars trying to shoot them down for their own profit. On both sides, you've got idiot cheerleaders. But a helluva lot more - and more active - idiot cheerleaders on the right.

Sabrinaset

07-18-2007, 05:06 PM

I mean, exactly what is Samurai's interest in spouting disinformation about global warming? None, that I can see (unless he's got a stockpile on rowboats or something). What the hell is the point of this?

So this isn't a level playing field at all. You've got good people trying to get the information across. And you've got bastard liars trying to shoot them down for their own profit. On both sides, you've got idiot cheerleaders. But a helluva lot more - and more active - idiot cheerleaders on the right.

Perhaps Sam actually believes that Global Warming is either based on either inconclusive evidence or is wrong? It's not something I really have an opinion about one way or another personally ... you know the five political topics I care about, and this ain't one of them ... but the nuts I've seen are on the left on this one, and I don't know how you could prove there are more crazy people on the right than the left. I haven't seen any wierdo anti-global warming theory people staging protests anywhere, but I have seen them from the left.

I mean ... I remember yeaaarrrs ago when I was at some GLAAD event and there were a ton of Gore supporters/Green people/Global Awareness people there, and I was like "What the hell are THESE people doing here! They're not even gay!!!" And I know that because I'd hit on one of the women there and she was like totally repulsed!

Which was too bad because she was really hot!

So in conclusion, anyone who likes comic books should be AGAINST the Global Warming people, because they are so aligned with the Green party. And what does the Green Party want? No more trees cut down! And what are our comic books made from? TREES!!!

SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING LEFTISTS AND KEEP YOUR COMIC BOOKS SAFE!!! JUST SAY YES TO WONDER WOMAN! WHY DO YOU HATE GAIL SIMONE???

MacQuarrie

07-18-2007, 05:24 PM

I mean, exactly what is Samurai's interest in spouting disinformation about global warming? None, that I can see (unless he's got a stockpile on rowboats or something). What the hell is the point of this?
It might be that some on the left use environmentalism as an excuse to force a socialist "solution." We call them "watermelons" (Green on the outside, red on the inside.). The Kyoto Treaty had a lot of stuff in it that smelled like socialist policy, and a lot that smelled like forcing nations to give up sovereignty to some global oversight group (like, say, the UN) as being somehow the answer to global warming, despite the fact that socialist nations (such as the former USSR) have a much more abysmal record on environmental issues). Only by ignoring emissions per capita in favor of total emissions per nation is the case made for the West being the bad guys.

It's easier for those on the right to deny the problem than to articulate their objections to the proposed solutions.

MacQuarrie

07-18-2007, 05:24 PM

While I understand what you're trying to say, I think the example is flawed.

'Poor people don't want to work' or, 'sick people are a drain on society', or even 'You should be euthanized' (I've gotten this one often enough), 'surviva of the fittest', or any other social darwinist crap seems much worse to me than, 'You're polluting the environment,' or, 'you're selfish'.

While you haven't said such things, it's said often enough to make me feel even more sick.
It makes me feel sick too.

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 05:27 PM

It makes me feel sick too.Well you're a good guy.

You know, I think it would be interesting to try to back 'green' ways of producing paper without incurring too much cost. Hemp's a good paper source, and would be cheaper to grow and process, though it might be more expensive now because there's so much less supply since it was phased out.

beetlebum

07-18-2007, 07:09 PM

Agreeing with Rev. Smooth again....it makes me sick too. It's okay to have your opinions but to be puerile and adjudicate the other side as evil does not help. Even though I voted for John Kerry in the last election I have some conservative tendencies, I have much more in common with Barry Goldwater than Hillary Clinton. And I also am quite skeptical about climate change, I think it is just an over inflated myth(and I am so glad Live Earth tanked, what a display of hypocrisy and a waste of money) I'm glad Moore took the mick out of CNN they and all of the other lazy greedy self absorbed media deserve it. I've had it in for the network ever since 2003, when they took the word of spotty Rebbecca Sommers and portrayed a conflict between the Lao government and Hmong insurgents left over from the Vietnam war as "genocide". If they had bothered to do any research, they would have discovered the situation is no different than what is going on in Sri Lanka or Nepal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal_Civil_Waren.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka
http://www.nnn.se/n-model/foreign/hmong.htm. www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2003/19086.htm

Although his report may have exaggerated a few details (especially when he portrays Canada and Britain's health care system as flawless) I for the most part feel he is spot on. I don't think complete government overhaul is the best solution for our system, I do think it needs to be changed. And I will trawl through those bars to look for those owls.:D

beetlebum

07-18-2007, 07:15 PM

Perhaps Sam actually believes that Global Warming is either based on either inconclusive evidence or is wrong? It's not something I really have an opinion about one way or another personally ... you know the five political topics I care about, and this ain't one of them ... but the nuts I've seen are on the left on this one, and I don't know how you could prove there are more crazy people on the right than the left. I haven't seen any wierdo anti-global warming theory people staging protests anywhere, but I have seen them from the left.

I mean ... I remember yeaaarrrs ago when I was at some GLAAD event and there were a ton of Gore supporters/Green people/Global Awareness people there, and I was like "What the hell are THESE people doing here! They're not even gay!!!" And I know that because I'd hit on one of the women there and she was like totally repulsed!

Which was too bad because she was really hot!

So in conclusion, anyone who likes comic books should be AGAINST the Global Warming people, because they are so aligned with the Green party. And what does the Green Party want? No more trees cut down! And what are our comic books made from? TREES!!!

SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING LEFTISTS AND KEEP YOUR COMIC BOOKS SAFE!!! JUST SAY YES TO WONDER WOMAN! WHY DO YOU HATE GAIL SIMONE???

Precisely the reason I am not an environmentalist!:D And how can anyone hate Gail Simone and post in You'll be sorry?:confused: :mad: That should be a crime.:p Is that alright with you...

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 07:15 PM

Sabrinaset

07-18-2007, 07:19 PM

Precisely the reason I am not an environmentalist! And how can anyone hate Gail Simone and post in You'll be sorry?:confused: :mad: That should be a crime.:p Is that alright with you...

Yeah, hating Gail Simone is like a felony in some parts of the country!Precisely why we should be cutting down even MORE trees so that we can print more Gail comics goodness :p

beetlebum

07-18-2007, 07:20 PM

You sound like the new wave of western democrat/libertarian, the latter of which Goldwater'd probably most comfortably find himself nowadays.

And that I am.

beetlebum

07-18-2007, 07:21 PM

Yeah, hating Gail Simone is like a felony in some parts of the country!Precisely why we should be cutting down even MORE trees so that we can print more Gail comics goodness :p

Hear, Hear!

TheLazy

07-18-2007, 07:28 PM

This is true. There are in(s)ane lefties like the SWP, there are nutty environmentalists. However, the vast majority of noisy bugfuck commentators are on the far right. And it's not like the lefties or greens, who are getting carried away about a necessary cause. These people have no cause -- unless you call tripping up the left/greens a cause.

And of course, a lot of them are in the pay of corporations as disinformation campaigns. And then the far right fanboys leap right in along with it, despite not in fact actually having any interest in the issue at hand.

I mean, exactly what is Samurai's interest in spouting disinformation about global warming? None, that I can see (unless he's got a stockpile on rowboats or something). What the hell is the point of this?

So this isn't a level playing field at all. You've got good people trying to get the information across. And you've got bastard liars trying to shoot them down for their own profit. On both sides, you've got idiot cheerleaders. But a helluva lot more - and more active - idiot cheerleaders on the right.

Don't tell me your a dirty commie! Heck, I'll even admit the above is somewhat true, but the irony is that it falls into its own arguement

Solaris

07-18-2007, 08:31 PM

It might be that some on the left use environmentalism as an excuse to force a socialist "solution." We call them "watermelons" (Green on the outside, red on the inside.). The Kyoto Treaty had a lot of stuff in it that smelled like socialist policy, and a lot that smelled like forcing nations to give up sovereignty to some global oversight group (like, say, the UN) as being somehow the answer to global warming, despite the fact that socialist nations (such as the former USSR) have a much more abysmal record on environmental issues). Only by ignoring emissions per capita in favor of total emissions per nation is the case made for the West being the bad guys.

It's easier for those on the right to deny the problem than to articulate their objections to the proposed solutions.

Here's one big problem:

China has become rapidly industrialized... and not only is it causing social/economic problems, it's causing environmental problems as well. I watched a special on China, and there's a problem with development and industrial waste in the Yellow (Yang Tze I think it's spelled) River... not to mention the projected figures on number of drivers in China over the next few years, as more and more people gravitate to the cities and buy cars. By and large, China has been a mainly agrarian society for years... and it's going through a very compressed "industrial revolution." There are people there who are trying to find answers, slow things down a bit, etc... but there are also those who are making a nice profit off of current development, and many more who see opportunity in the cities; often poor farm folk.

Considering that they have the largest population of any country, and one of the largest landmasses... that's a pretty hefty problem for the entire world.

I don't know what the solution is, but I *do* for the most part back those in that country who are trying to exert some common sense and social/environmental care into the system.

As to us, we could certainly stand to "be more green" in how we do things, and honestly, as resources become less plentiful, more and more companies are forming to do things like recycle, etc. Car companies are finally looking at fuel alternatives (or rather, they're finally starting to market them---they've had alternatives for years, but IMO were in cahoots with the oil industry on suppressing and controlling such technology). Anyway, in some respects our "green" efforts are increasing. In other ways, it's long past due. I remember in the '70's predictions being made about things like people buying bottled water, wearing breathing masks, etc.... and they're starting to come true. Back then, the only people who bought bottled water were the rich drinking Perrier, or survivalists... but now, bottled water and water filters are big business. As to the masks, while most people don't wear them, there are many more who now have asthma and other breathing conditions that are aggravated by our air, who have to wear such masks more often, if not constantly.

My point is, while in some ways we're starting to see some real progress environmental issues (recycling of tires, for instance, into yard mulch and playground rubber), in other ways we still aren't batting 1000 for things like air and water pollution---and while individuals *are* facing more stringent requirements on stuff like that (catalytic converter inspections, for instance), many manufacturers and commercial transport vehicles still fly way under the bar... sigh.

Reverend Smooth

07-18-2007, 09:04 PM

I and my girlfriend regularly get sick when the air quality goes to shit out here, and actually, asthma rates are rising.

The rise in adrenal disease, chronic fatigue, and asthma can pretty easily be trased to the rise in environmental pollution and chemical exposure. Heck, part of what did me in was moving to the US and being expose to much more toxic crap.

I guess part of why I'm so gung-ho about environmental issues is that it affects my family firsthand, and I know it affects others, too. If it gets too hot, I'll die. If I'm exposed to chemicals, I'll die. My girlfriend too, she was dying when I got her out to stay with me and in a mostly chemical-free environment. But if she goes out in public? She has to wear a mask or she can't breathe when she gets home. I can't go out at all.

The people next door moved out. I think they're repainting or they might have sprayed for bugs, because my girlfriend and I have been extremely sick for the past two weeks. Nausea, vomiting, other fun things, migraines, etc. I mean, I feel like shit all the time, but this is above and beyond that.

So, firsthand, of course I think that what's going on is getting out of hand. I'm sick, I've had to deal with heavy metal and pesticide poisoning, others are getting sick, my GF is sick. The water out here is contaminated with rocket fuel; I have to drink and bathe with bottled water or I get extremely ill. THe smog and ozone get so bad, etc, etc.

Yes, I'm emo about the animals. I think that the world is much more boring when diversity is gone. But I also know that from a purely practical standpoint, there is no good reason to shit in our own backyard when it does nothing but fuck our health up. I don't care about Al Gore or interest groups; I don't need them to tell me that releasing lots of pollutants into the air, water, and soil makes me and others sick.

I used to like having hair. I have to shave off what's left on my head because it's so contaminated with heavy metals and chemicals that my immune system attacks anything that touches it. I used to like going out in public, but I can't (unless I stay away from people and I can't go inside buildings or stand in front of open building doors or cars or...), because gasoline fumes and perfume and the shit they put in soap makes me stop breathing.

How is that good for anyone? All it does is drag peoples' immune systems down and makes them feel assy and tired, at best, and at worst, it helps to destroy the endocrine system. So why is it fine to just keep spewing that stuff out into the environment?

It's not a liberal or a conservative thing. It's about making sure you, your kids, and your fellow americans don't get sick. It's about making sure drought doesn't make your water and food bills go up, and that forest fires don't burn down you or your neighbor's house, or that the water doesn't come up and flood your house, or your neighbor's.

In fact, that sounds a lot like a conservative kind of thing, because it's protecting your security, health, and way of life.

I'm sorry I'm making this post about me, but at some point, this stuff is personal, and most people seem to feel disconnected from the effects of pollution. If things get worse, you'll see more people with my medical problems turning up, I'm sure. (Edit: considering most pesticides are endocrine disruptors.)

beetlebum

07-19-2007, 03:40 PM

While I do agree that environmental issues are of the utmost importance, I just don't believe in global warming. I think the people who believe in global warming today are like the same people who back in the 70's claimed that by the year 2000, there would be no more food. Some in the movement use the same unnecessary, hyperbole prone scare tactics. "Oh, the polar bears are drowning, oh the polar ice caps are melting and the whole world is going to drown." It is, to paraphrase G. Gordon Liddy, a reversal of the "third rate burglary", making a big deal out of something small. I will admit I don't like carbon emissions,(who does) and that is part of the reason I will not live in Los Angeles (well that and the people suck )
Also, I believe in preserving historical landmarks and I am an avid believer in alternative sources of energy esp. ethanol. I would like to be able to spend less than 40$ filling up my gas tank, and I wish the US would engage in "Fair Trade" instead of "Free Trade" (which by the way does not exist) and open up our markets to ethanol from Brazil. The U.S imposes an import tariff of 54 cents a gallon on Brazilian supplies. In addition to tariffs, industrialized nations currently spend about $350 billion a year assisting their farmers. Flipping the script, if developing countries were able to increase their share of world exports by just 5 percent, this would generate $700 billion. The potential for this to translate into poverty reduction for hundreds of millions of people is enormous. Economic modeling by Oxfam indicates that if Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America were each to increase their share of world trade by 1 percent, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty. What does this have to do with the environment? To quote Gahndi's wife, "Poverty is the biggest polluter of them all."Our politicians and the lobbies that support them are denying us cheaper fuel and the chance to lift people out of poverty. And the main reason why I don't support global warming is because, I fear that by putting a cap on carbon emissions, we will hamper sustainable development. And sorry to be honest here, but you have to burn some fuel in order to build things, especially a country. If I had a choice between saving a tree and helping a poor person, I am going to cut down that tree. Well that, and that's how I get all of my Gail Simoney goodness!:D After all, as my new best mate Sabrinaset sez, does not comic books come from trees? I love me some Gail Simone, so I don't care if trees produce oxygen or whatever. I'll gladly breathe carbon through masks if it means I can read the latest issue of Wonder Woman.;) :p BTW, how did this thread go from Michael Moore making CNN his bitch to the environment?:confused:

Reverend Smooth

07-19-2007, 03:55 PM

If I had a choice between saving a tree and helping a poor person, I am going to cut down that tree.Except it's not about 'saving poor people'-- and as a poor person, I really don't appreciate being used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

Evan Waters

07-19-2007, 10:12 PM

beetlebum

07-20-2007, 12:33 PM

Except it's not about 'saving poor people'-- and as a poor person, I really don't appreciate being used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

I was not using you as an excuse for irresponsibility. I'm not rich either. I work two jobs, looking for a third cause these two don't pay enough.I was just stating my opinion. I just don't believe in global warming. Where I live it can usually get up to 120 degrees during the summer. It has not so far this year. In the words of Bob Dylan, What Global Warming?And it does have something to do with "poor people" if it limits the growth of industry, which is the best way towards self sufficiency, which is the best way to help them.

beetlebum

07-20-2007, 12:36 PM

Except we have, you know, a broad scientific consensus.

Most of the various doomsday scenarios of the 70s were popularized by the media, but weren't ever completely accepted by the entire scientific community- it was more a few scientists here thought a new ice age was the worry, others said food and overpopulation were the problem, etc.

Global warming has shown "legs", for want of a better word. It's been borne out further the more data we collect. Inconsistencies in the original hypothesis have been filled in. Other causes are being systematically ruled out (the "increased sun temperature" hypothesis recently being smacked down, for one.) This is pretty likely to be real.
That's true, but we also have a broad consensus against it.
www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015
www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm -

Evan Waters

07-20-2007, 12:40 PM

That's true, but we also have a broad consensus against it.
www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015
www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm -

No, that's the minority.

If you look at peer-reviewed scholarly literature, the consensus FOR it is very very solid.

Reverend Smooth

07-20-2007, 12:53 PM

And it does have something to do with "poor people" if it limits the growth of industry,There have been plans put forth that would not significantly damage productivity, actually. You'll end up paying more if you do nothing at all.

Like I said, don't use poor people as an excuse. Nations don't have to cripple their economies to do something.

And no, there is no broad scientific consensus.

beetlebum

07-20-2007, 01:41 PM

There have been plans put forth that would not significantly damage productivity, actually. You'll end up paying more if you do nothing at all.

Like I said, don't use poor people as an excuse. Nations don't have to cripple their economies to do something.

And no, there is no broad scientific consensus.

Again, I am not using poor people, I am just stating my opinions. But thank you for acknowledging there is no broad scientific consensus, considering the fact that you seem to be passionate about this issue, as I am equally as passionate to extolling succour to others.

Reverend Smooth

07-20-2007, 01:58 PM

Again, I am not using poor people, I am just stating my opinions. But thank you for acknowledging there is no broad scientific consensus, considering the fact that you seem to be passionate about this issue, as I am equally as passionate to extolling succour to others.There is no broad scientific consensus against it.

And it's not about passion, it's about fact. There's no point in being passionate about things without facts to support those feelings.

Reverend Smooth

07-20-2007, 02:10 PM

Oh, speaking of healthcare: L may not be able to attend SDCC after all or, if so, for much less time than otherwise.

Because he has no use of his limbs, and because his aide -- my gf -- cannot leave me alone in the house for a week -- my health problems are too severe to be left unsupervised for more than a few hours, his brother was going to fly over from NC.

Well, his mom just broke her wrist. The hospital will only perform outpatient surgery if they pay in full beforehand; if not, no surgery, and she will permanently lose function in that hand.

So the money that was going to be used to send him over is no longer available, which means that Larime now has no aide, which means that our ability to increase promotion and sales of the book is being hampered unless he somehow finds someone willing to assist with inconvenient bodily functions, dressing, and washing up, for several days, without pay.

Thanks, expensive medical system that helps keep its citizens in a lower financial bracket. Thanks a lot.

beetlebum

07-20-2007, 04:46 PM

There is no broad scientific consensus against it.

And it's not about passion, it's about fact. There's no point in being passionate about things without facts to support those feelings.

I just presented you with links to facts!!Whether you choose to read them or not is up to you. Look let's call a truce. I respect you to much to let a pointless row go on. I am intransigent, I just do not believe it is happening, you will never convince me otherwise. I will try not to post about this anymore.And to get the thread back on topic, I think reform and a complete overhaul of our health care system is needed, I could not tell you where to begin though, though I am curious as to see how this single payer plan Moore wants to implement will work.

Sup up your beer and collect your face,
Theres a row going on down near slough,
Get out your mat and pray to the west,
Ill get out mine and pray for myself.
Thought you were smart when you took them on,
But you didnt take a peep in their artillery room,
What chance have you got against a tie and a crest.
Compose a revolutionary symphony,
We came out of it naturally the worst,
Beaten and bloody and I was sick down my shirt,
We were no match for their untamed wit,
Though some of the lads said theyll be back next week.
What a catalyst you turned out to be,
Loaded the guns then you run off home for your tea,
Left me standing - like a guilty (naughty) schoolgirl
Hello-hurrah - theres a price to pay - to the eton rifles,
Hello-hurrah - what a nice day- for the eton rifles.
ETON RIFLES ETON RIFLE by Paul Weller and The Jam

song lyrics posted for the arbitrary reason to describe the way i feel during rows

Reverend Smooth

07-20-2007, 04:51 PM

It's not a row, we're cool. We seem to agree on a lot of other things. <3

LIKE SWAPPING.

beetlebum

07-21-2007, 01:57 AM

It's not a row, we're cool. We seem to agree on a lot of other things. <3

LIKE SWAPPING.

Swinging is fun!!Trust me I would know. ;) I especially like it when they keep pushing me higher.

Christopher Cross Is God

07-24-2007, 11:58 AM

About a decade ago, but I keep tabs on things.
NB seems to be doing ok.

New Brunswick has a lower population count than the bigger provinces, so that probably has something to do with it. And I've heard the Maritimes is a good general area to live in. What I was told long ago is it's good for property investments, and the quality of life is supposed to be nice as well.

I'm in california; the local hospital is a death trap. I've also had notably poor service in az from both private clinics and hospitals. Wait times are extremely long, endocrinologists are morons, clinics charge you for work you don't need done, they'll withold treatment arbitrarily.

Sounds like fun......I could assume the problems with health care in the parts of Cali & Arizona you've been to has to do with large illegal Hispanic populations, but then I'm in Texas and the general Dallas area seems to do alright.

I have NEVER gotten wait times of less than six hours out here unless I was being carted in by ambulance... but they did make me wait hours for treatment after the ambulance dropped me off..

Just the other day my wife went into a clinic. For her and our two kids, it took less than 20 minutes to be attended to.......We're in an OK area, though, so that might have something to do with it. Perhaps if we lived in a bad part of Dallas we would have horrid wait-times, I dunno.

I do remember, when we first moved to Texas from Canada, we had to apply for free health care due to my wife needing to wait on her visa and me looking for work. I don't know if all states have this, but Texas allows free health care for the underprivileged. I can't remember if this was only for our kids, or for all of us, as my wife & I didn't need any health care at the time........Our kids never had to get any sort of surgery, but they got vaccinations, and treatments for bad colds, without us paying a penny.

I stayed in the hospital over a week after knee surgery.

That was probably before the Canadian government did all the cutbacks on health care. I believe they started doing such sometime around Chretien's reign as Prime Minister.

They just let you die out here or make you wait.. and wait and wait. My GF's gone to the hospital at 5 pm and come back at 11 am the next day-- on multiple occasions.

Never happened to anyone I know (Such a long wait), but, again, it might have to do with the area you're receiving health care from.

I got misprescribed steroids in two states and my immune sstem nearly ate me. x.x .

My uncle's ex-wife is a pharmacist in the area I live, and she has told us horror stories of doctors misprescribing drugs to patients. One of the worst stories was a kid who kept getting worse each prescription visit, and my uncle's ex was pleading with the parents to not have their kid take the specific drug, but they blindly followed the doctor's orders.

A funny Canadian story is a guy I knew who had some sort of major ailment, and the doctors kept telling him it's due to a bad tooth. He had two different teeth pulled at two separate times/visits, yet he still had problems afterwards......His doctor figured out afterwards it was something else entirely (Nothing to do with his teeth), so he eventually had the ailment corrected.

As opposed to most people in the US who'd never get it at all.

For low-income families, that would most likely be true, but for the middle class & up they'd receive treatment fairly quickly compared to the Canadian wait. It's definitely fucked up that lower-income families get treated that way, but it's a fact of life and will continue to be such until things change.

Go elsewhere? I had to wait a few months, but I got mine as a teenager.

Could've been your age, but I would assume it's due to cutbacks that didn't exist back when you had your knee surgery.

She should go elsewhere for the surgery (America or the Middle East, since she travels to the Middle East a lot), but I think she's being cheap and wants it for free, so she's waiting for the Canadian health care system to do it for her.

I never had a problem getting prescriptions in canada, neither did anyone I knew.

We always did have problems getting prescriptions, until the cold/illness became extreme......And it's not good to wait on an illness to go extreme, where kids are concerned, as they have weaker immune systems. I thought it was a bit whacked that they'd keep sending us off to get over-the-counter medicine until the kids got worse......So, as I alluded to earlier, my wife would just lie to the doctors and claim our kids had their fevers for a longer time than they really did, so the doctors would give a damn prescription.

That's not due to taxes or the exchange rate. Book publishers just charge you more. Clothes and food are generally cheaper.

I didn't say it was due to taxes or exchange rate......I'm just saying things are expensive in Canada. Books, magazines, gasoline, electronics, cars, etc....I didn't find clothes or food to be that cheap. Groceries could be found fairly cheap if you go to the cheaper chains (I forget the names of these grocery stores, but they were pretty crappy).......In Dallas, we're able to get good quality ground beef for $1.99/lb ......We just bought good quality, fresh mangoes for 25 cents each. I never saw any grocery prices in Canada to be anywhere near those prices.

The only things I remember distinctly being cheaper in Canada, in terms of groceries, were cans of tuna and those crappy Asian noodles.

No, you can't. If you are born low- to middle-income, you have less of a chance of getting out of that bracket, and it's harder to climb back up if you drop. That's supported by multiple studies..

If that's supported by multiple studies, then it has more to do with America having more slums (Compton, Houston's 5th Ward, etc...) compared to Canada. If you grow up in an area like that, then it would be very difficult to go up the ladder, in one part due to the shitty quality of life keeping you in. Those are areas where you worry about getting physically assaulted, there's too much on your mind to focus freely on improving your life.......

America, simply put, if you live in a "normal" area, and you have dedication, you're far more likely to succeed.

Honestly, you're the first Canadian I've ever seen who has claimed it's easier to go up the ladder in Canada than the US.......Income-wise, the only advantage Canada has is in jobs such as teaching. My wife's friend was making $60,000/yr in Canada after just a couple years of being a teacher. Teachers in the US will not make anywhere near that much in the public school system, which is why a lot of the higher quality American teachers move abroad. That's another thing that needs to be corrected in America, because if such an important foundation as teaching/school is weak, then the newer generations of kids will suffer as a result.

My wife makes double, in America, compared to what she used to make in Canada. And it's not due to more experience making her gain higher income, she actually changed fields when she got to America.

My sister-in-law lived in both America and Canada, and even though she grew up in Canada, she hates living there due to the lower amount of income made. She makes about $40,000/yr in Canada right now, she was making $80,000/yr in America. She says there is far less access to good jobs in Canada.

I apologize for taking so long to respond, and I'm not done with the rest of your response, but I've been too busy to respond to such a long post, and I can't even finish this one right now. Gotta go!

Reverend Smooth

07-24-2007, 12:39 PM

Honestly, you're the first Canadian I've ever seen who has claimed it's easier to go up the ladder in Canada than the US.......Income-wise, the only advantage Canada has is in jobs such as teaching. My wife's friend was making $60,000/yr in Canada after just a couple years of being a teacher. Teachers in the US will not make anywhere near that much in the public school system, which is why a lot of the higher quality American teachers move abroad. That's another thing that needs to be corrected in America, because if such an important foundation as teaching/school is weak, then the newer generations of kids will suffer as a result.

My wife makes double, in America, compared to what she used to make in Canada. And it's not due to more experience making her gain higher income, she actually changed fields when she got to America.

My sister-in-law lived in both America and Canada, and even though she grew up in Canada, she hates living there due to the lower amount of income made. She makes about $40,000/yr in Canada right now, she was making $80,000/yr in America. She says there is far less access to good jobs in Canada.

I apologize for taking so long to respond, and I'm not done with the rest of your response, but I've been too busy to respond to such a long post, and I can't even finish this one right now. Gotta go!It's cool, I'm too wasted to detail out yours anyway.

Re: social mobility: some reputable studies came out, uh. At the start of last year? Googling something might still turn them up. That canadian social mobility was better. I remember being startled by it, which is why it stuck in my mind.

Re: middle-class: wait time comparions to see doctors/get appointments/whatever seem about the same as in canada, actually. People in higher income brackets don't get as good-quality care, that's part of why their health is lousier than, say, low-income canadians.

Like in the US, location is key to jobs and sevices.

Loren

07-27-2007, 10:46 AM

If that statistic is based on the study I think it is (it may not be but they don't source it), the medical conditions included by the study as causes of bankruptcies include both gambling addiction and alcohol addiction.

Drug addition too. And adoption.

Also, although the study claimed that 46.2% of bankruptcies have a "major medical cause," their standard for "major medical cause" was if the person had accumulated more than $1000 in medical debt over two years. It didn't matter how small a percentage medical debt might have been in comparison to non-medical debt.

A more recent study examined over 5,200 bankruptcies, and found that 54% of them listed no medical debt at all. Of the remaining group, 78% reported less than $5,000 of medical debt, with an average among them of a little over $1,000. Leaving only 10% of bankruptcy filers with medical debt over $5,000.

Paul McEnery

07-27-2007, 11:13 AM

Drug addition too. And adoption.

Also, although the study claimed that 46.2% of bankruptcies have a "major medical cause," their standard for "major medical cause" was if the person had accumulated more than $1000 in medical debt over two years. It didn't matter how small a percentage medical debt might have been in comparison to non-medical debt.

A more recent study examined over 5,200 bankruptcies, and found that 54% of them listed no medical debt at all. Of the remaining group, 78% reported less than $5,000 of medical debt, with an average among them of a little over $1,000. Leaving only 10% of bankruptcy filers with medical debt over $5,000.

That strikes me as false statistics, too.

The effects of medical debt, and of persistent medical conditions you can't afford to take care of, go far further than the dollar value in a bankruptcy court.

Adam C

07-27-2007, 11:27 AM

song lyrics posted for the arbitrary reason to describe the way i feel during rows

I just popped in here and this is the first I heard of this row.

You win simply for posting Jam lyrics. ;)

Corrina

07-27-2007, 12:14 PM

That strikes me as false statistics, too.

The effects of medical debt, and of persistent medical conditions you can't afford to take care of, go far further than the dollar value in a bankruptcy court.

Yes, such as lost income when you can't work because you have to play caretaker. I'm in somewhat of that situation now--with the special needs kid, I need to be home for her. I could try and find a caretaker if I went to work but then I'd probably make whatever I had to pay the caretaker. Not exactly a win/win situation.

My mom kept her job at a local school when my stepfather was dying from a brain tumor. But she couldn't afford in-home care, the medical insurance didn't cover it. Hospice helped out during the day but she took care of him at night, lifting him, washing him, etc.

And doing both jobs nearly killed her, quite literally. She came down with diabetes not long after he passed away. She talks insulin and other meds now, to stay healthy and she's doing well, but the fact that she got sick means another cost to the health care system. I'm convinced if she'd had the help she needed, then the diabetes wouldn't have developed until she was much older--plus, her weight was down to 90 lbs, and she's five foot five--that's how much caretaking cost her.

And treating her is another medical cost.

It would have both been cost-efficient and more humane if medical insurance had just covered in-home care in the first place.

Loren

07-27-2007, 04:43 PM

That strikes me as false statistics, too.

Got 'em from here (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:_HVm8WWvQacJ:mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Medical%2520Bankruptcies%2520Testimony%2520July%25 2017%25202007.doc+%22executive+office+of+the+unite d+states+trustee%22+%2B+5203&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a).

And what do you mean by "too"? He doesn't say the statistics are falsified; just that the definitions they used paint a misleading picture. Where do you think the USTP's numbers went wrong?

The effects of medical debt, and of persistent medical conditions you can't afford to take care of, go far further than the dollar value in a bankruptcy court.

That can happen, as Corrina illustrates. Of course, how common that is, and to what extent it affects bankruptcies, is entirely speculation on our part. The fact remains that Smooth's original claim that a study showed "half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills" simply isn't true.

DungeonmasterJim

07-27-2007, 05:55 PM

The fact remains that Smooth's original claim that a study showed "half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills" simply isn't true.

I think it was Frontline on PBS with a show about why a number of people fall into problems with credit cards that I had seen. The show sited massive medical bills were a major cause of bankruptcies caused by credit card debt. So I doubt it's the same source as Smooth's but I've also heard of a lot of bankrupctices being caused by major medical problems.

DM Jim

Reverend Smooth

07-27-2007, 06:06 PM

I think I mentioned that, since I couldn't remember if it was that study, I had no problem being corrected. :3

Anecdotally, I can say that my illness fucked my family.

THere are a lot of anecdotes like that out there, I can also say.

kingdom2000

07-27-2007, 06:08 PM

credit card companies are also also a source of bankruptcy with their 20% plus interest rates, charges for everything under the sun, small payback windows and other issues. Sadly people are ignorant on the problems of credit cards and if you paying the minimium amount, you can often pay as much in interest as the orginial debt incurred. I saw one study on Consumerist (too lazy to find) that showed how a person paying the min amount on $5000 would end up paying something like $9500 when finally paid it off. 5k for the orginial debt, 4.5k for the interest.

That kind of crap then feeds into the medical bill theory where the debt for a procedure is often in the 10s of thousands. Really one bad fall could cost as much in medical bills as a new car. I think most people think of "medical bills" in the improper context of sniffs and sneezes, a docs visit to get a antibiotic. By "medical bills" most people really mean emergency medicine that required a hospital stay, expensive specialists, and lots of after care. All that piles up hard and fast even if you have decent insurance. Sniff and sneezes bill may mean a bit of belt tightening, an emergency bill means prospect of bankruptcy. Huge freaking difference that it seems most don't recognize because of their lack of real world perspective.

Reverend Smooth

07-27-2007, 06:46 PM

There's a reason I refuse to allow credit cards into my house. We'd have to use them to cover meds, food, and rent, and we'd never get out of debt.

Sabrinaset

07-27-2007, 07:00 PM

There's a reason I refuse to allow credit cards into my house. We'd have to use them to cover meds, food, and rent, and we'd never get out of debt.

I refuse to have credit cards in my house, but for a different reason. They have no sense of class at all. For instance, a couple years ago, we had a Discover Card come over, and all was well, until it insisted on having red wine with pork, when everyone KNOWS you serve red wine with a NY Strip or a Filet Mignon. And don't even get me started on what the Visa wanted to have with its Chardonnay.

LtMarvel

07-27-2007, 07:49 PM

beetlebum

07-29-2007, 02:29 AM

I would hesitate before going with Loren's analysis. The statistics Loren cited didn't take into account what bills were paid, nor how. Some of the people cited might have paid their medical bills (at least in part) and put other debt on credit cards or not pay the other debts.

Good point Lt. Marvel. Those credit cards were sent to your house, no one told you to spend them.I keep one credit card with me. Thats it. When I was 16, I took an economics class where I learned about the ways credit card companies try to lure you into debt. That is why I am so apprehensive in using them. Also, growing up, I watched my mother get herself into $10,000 worth of debt. That was due to several factors. My dad's inability to keep a steady job, and my lousy irresponsible half-sisters who constantly borrowed money from her to fuel their gambling addictions, amongst other things. I don't gamble either. I will never forget the sight of seeing Vietnamese gangsters knocking on our front door, demanding payment. It should also be noted that credit card debt was a relatively rare phenomena before the 1980's . It wasn't until the 1978 landmark ruling Marqutte vs First of Omaha did that change. That ruling allowed the "exportation" of interest rates from state to state. It allowed banks to issue credit cards out of states like South Dakota, where legislators struck down usury laws, allowing the states unbearably high interest fates to be used all over the country. In other words, if you want to know why interest payments are as high as 30%, that is why. That, and America's ridiculous notion of keeping up with the Joneses, a ridiculous concept that was invented int the 1950's, (I recommend reading David Halberstam's The 50's, which is an excellent book, to see how it all works.) I am a capitalist, but I am no Gordon Gekko or Neil Cavuto, I have much more in common with Theodore Roosevelt who once famously said "The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price,the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."