Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

That some Gallente swear by Fortune?

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

Author Topic: The Little Cough That Could  (Read 16321 times)

orange

  • Dex 1.0
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1930
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #120 on: 15 Oct 2013, 22:40 »

Newt Gingrich did almost precisely the same thing for precisely the same reason (though he cited Medicare as the reason for the shutdown).  Clinton refused to pass a Republican budget and the government went into a shutdown in the mid 90s.  It didn't turn out well for the Republicans, as Clinton then went on to win the following election with his highest approval rating since his first election (it did drop into the 40% range during the crisis though, nobody likes anyone during one of these shutdowns).

And yet, for some reason the budgets for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001 were all balanced.  While the Republicans may not have won the political chess game of seats and the White House, they somehow managed to achieve the aim of slowing the rate of government spending (at least in comparison to revenues).

At this juncture it is however appropriate to blame the Bush administration and the 2001 Congress for not continuing to maintain balanced budgets into 2002 and beyond.

Edit: This does not change the fact that the Republican extremist are being retarded and playing exactly the tune set for them by Rupert Murdoch and a bunch of Saudi princes.   :evil: :evil: :bash: :bash:
« Last Edit: 15 Oct 2013, 22:42 by orange »
Logged

Repentence Tyrathlion

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • RIP?
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #121 on: 16 Oct 2013, 05:47 »

Ollie, I wasn't specifically pointing at you with the 'euthanasia is bad' comment, more of a general remark on the conventional wisdom which the law seems to be based upon.  Honestly, from what I'm hearing from you there's something of a system of loopholes already being used (I might be misinterpreting you, of course) which makes the entire thing even more silly.  You already hear stories about people specifically going abroad to countries where it is legal just so that they can die.

I feel that I should also point out that your remark about the dangers about lack of knowledge and such wouldn't be present if it wasn't illegal for people who do know such things to be involved.  It's a little like one of the arguments one hears about drug laws - one of the reasons so many people end up so fucked up by drugs is that they have no legal and safe recourse to use them.  Not to mention that as a result, we also end up with nightmares like Krokodil... but that's another topic.

Also, Vik re: marketing; I was joking.  Somehow I'm not at all surprised that that's your line of work. :P
Logged

Nmaro Makari

  • Nemo
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 605
  • SHARKBAIT-HOOHAHA!
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #122 on: 16 Oct 2013, 07:02 »




I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it does not address a single issue I raised. I have not argued anywhere that we should dump Obamacare or that Britain should dump the NHS.


Then you should practice your appreciation of context, and also avoid sounding like you're comparing an exclusively fee-paying system versus an exclusively tax funded system as if they were equal arguments. I think Anslo put it rather well; inference.
« Last Edit: 16 Oct 2013, 07:05 by Nmaro Makari »
Logged
The very model of a British Minmatarian

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3427
    • Lagging Behind
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #123 on: 16 Oct 2013, 07:09 »

I had no idea people felt emotional about healthcare issues. I'm honestly surprised.  :|
That you can say this is a genuinely scary thought.

What deep, dark, internet-proof hole have you been living in for the last several years?
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Repentence Tyrathlion

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • RIP?
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #124 on: 16 Oct 2013, 07:17 »

I had no idea people felt emotional about healthcare issues. I'm honestly surprised.  :|
That you can say this is a genuinely scary thought.

What deep, dark, internet-proof hole have you been living in for the last several years?

To be fair, there's a difference between knowing something and comprehending it.  There's a lot of stuff out there that I know people theoretically get wound up about, but that doesn't mean that I'm any less surprised when I run into it.

...although Morwen still has a point here.
Logged

Vikarion

  • Guest
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #125 on: 16 Oct 2013, 09:52 »

I had no idea people felt emotional about healthcare issues. I'm honestly surprised.  :|
That you can say this is a genuinely scary thought.

What deep, dark, internet-proof hole have you been living in for the last several years?

Oddly, now that I think about it, I'd mostly attributed the uproar to people hating the other "side", the other party, or the president. It just hadn't occurred to me that how one distributes medical care had emotional content for people, or that it should.
Logged

Vikarion

  • Guest
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #126 on: 16 Oct 2013, 10:05 »




I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it does not address a single issue I raised. I have not argued anywhere that we should dump Obamacare or that Britain should dump the NHS.


Then you should practice your appreciation of context, and also avoid sounding like you're comparing an exclusively fee-paying system versus an exclusively tax funded system as if they were equal arguments. I think Anslo put it rather well; inference.

From Page 3:
Quote from: Vikarion
I'm not actually opposed to the ACA...yet. I certainly don't care for Republican policies either.

Page 4:
Quote from: Vikarion
Or if you do want to place a limit, what better spot than at the point of sustainability, the point at which the cost of treating someone is less than their further contribution to society? Of course, our current system in the U.S. does far less than this (emphasis added) .

Page 6:
Quote from: Vikarion
I'm not actually for a specifically privatized health care system. I'm generally of the opinion that most of the options we have right now are all bad. What I want to see is a system that provides care for reasonable causes (accident, injury, sickness) without providing care that essentially subsidizes the useless or stupid at a cost to everyone else.

Page 6 again:
Quote from: Vikarion
My biggest concern is that it be an efficient and innovative system. The system in the United States is fairly innovative, possibly the most innovative, but it sure as hell is not efficient. That is to say, it is not providing good care for the majority of the citizenry...Right now, that occurs in the U.S. privately - you don't have enough money, you die...

Page 7:
Quote from: Vikarion
First, let me clarify what I'm not in favor of. I'm not in favor of simply letting people die because they don't have enough money. Were it up to me, people like Kat would get treatment. An efficient use of resources is to distribute them where they do the most good. When the private market accomplishes this (as in most goods) the private market is best. However, there are areas where services and some goods are best allocated using other models, such as government.

Now, you guys must have a pretty special form of "inference" to get "Vikarion loves the current system and wants people to die" from that. As for arguing for a private system, I hardly think that trying to point out that we are still going to have to not treat some people under any system is a claim that a fee-based system is best. It really sounds like some people are reading what I've written more with an eye to assigning pre-determined meanings to it than actually absorbing the words on the screen.

Logged

Katrina Oniseki

  • The Iron Lady
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
  • Caldari - Deteis - Tube Child
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #127 on: 16 Oct 2013, 10:12 »

Well, Vikarion - I at least understand what you're trying to say. You once mentioned that you lack empathy and emotional attachment to situations, and I think that may be colouring your words a bit.

I still understand what you're saying though, and I for one don't think you're a horribly evil person. I've wanted to slap you a few times in this thread, but that's normal in political discussions.  :D

Arista Shahni

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #128 on: 16 Oct 2013, 12:30 »

Well, Vikarion - I at least understand what you're trying to say. You once mentioned that you lack empathy and emotional attachment to situations, and I think that may be colouring your words a bit.

I still understand what you're saying though, and I for one don't think you're a horribly evil person. I've wanted to slap you a few times in this thread, but that's normal in political discussions.  :D

Yeh.  Wandering throught thread incoming!

In my fourth grade way of arguing a point, ;) people who get emotionally attached to a healthcare argument are people who have been emotionally effected /affected by the system - at some point it evoked a standing existing emotion.

A family member or friend couldn't afford care and suffered, and this makes someone angry and sad.  Or they themselves are suffering, and this makes them angry or sad.  That's basically how people get knee-jerk/emotionally invested in anything. 

Healthcare can end up extremely personal, I almost want to use the word 'intimate' -  as at the end of the day you are allowing someone else into your personal space and assigning trust to them over your body.  You may not know what all those words on that patient information slip for all those drugs mean, you may only be readying the little colored tags hanging off of the bottles or boxes from the pharmacist/chemist, you might only have eyes for their white coat. (which for me better not be a short one, or I will degrade you openly in front of the nurses when you try and make a call in front of me -- research specialists/scientists are the WORST PATIENTS cause we dealt with those residents mussing up our labs.)

Though it is often said  in the US that a patient should always remain in charge of their healthcare, especially these days -- like a puppy or kitten dropped onto a metal table at a vets office, most people flop out and surrender.  The doctor knows something they do not, the patient is investing their trust, hopes, and future health in that doctor's care.  We shop carefully for primary care providers.  We research our surgeons and specialists - whether 'research' means looking up any work they may have done, or asking around in family and social groups for 'a good X-kind of specialist' - but that's as far as it goes, usually, as we have been slowly 'negatively reinforced' to avoid going further than a second opinion as such things start getting called 'doctor shopping' -= and then the doctors see that and go 'I'm already overworked, I'm not doing to deal with this asshole's internet phd.'  The only reason I get away with openly challengng any of my doctors is when I tell them to look me up on Medline.

A major issue is that people aren't statistics - each person, though you can look at a list of symptoms and prescribe drug a,b,c for highest chance of success, until that 'statistical die' is rolled, which includes not only the drug itself, but the patient's biological system itself (which as I was taught, any biological system is 95% science and 5% witchcraft, as my mentor lovingly put it to cover that 'what the hell' that happens in any living system response to stimuli).  at the end of the day, sometimes, medecine does not work.

And a medical diagnosis, holistically, is not simply symptoms.  It is also the patient themselves as en entity, their social situation, their metal stability.

Yep.  By that multi-axis disagnosis system, the meth-head was "unwell" before they took their first hit of meth.  (watch things like The First Circle on Netflix for an idea of what I mean).

So yeh.  We're stuck with a sieve method of who to treat and who to not treat because the healthcare system can't care for people it does not know are sick, or people who are "sick" one day and "well" the next (eggs are bad for you / no, eggs are good for you types of research), so people basically need to drop out of a pretty huge range of normal to be considered 'unwell' -- and once you're out of that range to get care in the US that isn't considered elective, you're actually pretty damned sick.

And as an aside, yikes people, I'm in palliative care.  It's actually pretty damned good these days, despite my bitching, and I don't wanna die - i just wanna bitch about being stuck in it sometimes ;).  I still have a life to live, lol.


EDIT:  I also want to add - I've also been treated by the NHS, when I spent 5 months in London.  I'm not sure which I prefer, to be honest.  The NHS feels like an HMO equivalent to me, which even in my state lends me a sensation of 'okayness'.  You'll wait a lot for a specialist but you'll get treated.  Dental is NHS subsidized, which is even better (as in the US Dentists are pretty much cowboys, and it isn't included in medical, for those who don't know - it is its own separate insurance plan.  For all the dumb teeth jokes, Brits are better covered in Dental than Americans without dental are.)
« Last Edit: 16 Oct 2013, 12:41 by Arista Shahni »
Logged

Vic Van Meter

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #129 on: 16 Oct 2013, 15:47 »

Newt Gingrich did almost precisely the same thing for precisely the same reason (though he cited Medicare as the reason for the shutdown).  Clinton refused to pass a Republican budget and the government went into a shutdown in the mid 90s.  It didn't turn out well for the Republicans, as Clinton then went on to win the following election with his highest approval rating since his first election (it did drop into the 40% range during the crisis though, nobody likes anyone during one of these shutdowns).

And yet, for some reason the budgets for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001 were all balanced.  While the Republicans may not have won the political chess game of seats and the White House, they somehow managed to achieve the aim of slowing the rate of government spending (at least in comparison to revenues).

At this juncture it is however appropriate to blame the Bush administration and the 2001 Congress for not continuing to maintain balanced budgets into 2002 and beyond.

Edit: This does not change the fact that the Republican extremist are being retarded and playing exactly the tune set for them by Rupert Murdoch and a bunch of Saudi princes.   :evil: :evil: :bash: :bash:

I should point out that the reason the budget was balanced didn't have anything to do with the Republican Congress.  I'd say that had to do with the tax hike that Clinton pushed through on high income earners coupled with his spending cuts.  When the Republicans took over, they "cut" taxes and spending, but not nearly enough to go back to the way things were.  Clinton vetoed the laws that would do that and essentially made sure they remained in some form or another.

It was weird, during the Gore/Bush campaigns, when we started talking about what to do with all of the surplus money we had.  I remember everyone from Congress to SNL getting on Gore's case about putting that money away as savings in case something happened and we needed the capital.  I remember wondering what the Hell he was on about during that campaign.  Then, not long after, we seriously, seriously needed the money.  And since we didn't have a surplus anymore, we just started borrowing.  It's been that way ever since.

Between us and the EU, I think it's becoming clear that with the international economy growing more and more integrated, it's probably time to start working more collaboratively.  We can't really look at our economies in our countries as their own little stand-alone islands; we're just too interdependent.  A crash in China would wreak havoc on everyone's economies.  So it's probably time to stop worrying about ourselves and to start really working on somehow working towards a better regulated international exchange.  I think the EU's problem is that they just haven't gone far enough yet and need to start sort of combining their economies together more thoroughly.  Right now, you have some countries that just aren't managing their euros well enough and it's hurting everyone else.

That's just my end though.  I see that from afar, and it's not like the dollar isn't having its own problems right now.
Logged

Vikarion

  • Guest
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #130 on: 16 Oct 2013, 21:02 »

Republicans folded. And this is why you don't pick fights that are both stupid and unwinnable.
Logged

Vic Van Meter

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #132 on: 16 Oct 2013, 22:35 »

Republicans folded. And this is why you don't pick fights that are both stupid and unwinnable.

I think I was kind of shocked that it went down the way it did.  I can't imagine why the Republicans thought this would work when they had a recent example of it not working.  When even members of their own party were pulling a WTF face.

I wonder if this dents the Tea Party influence on the House, since they're eating the brunt of the fallout.  I think Mitch McConnell and the Republican senators will probably not come out of this as badly.

Maybe they just got a little too cocky, but I think that very vocal extreme wing of the Republican party thought they could do whatever they wanted.  Kind of glad the rest of the party didn't line up to present face even when they knew it would be disastrous.  This was really, REALLY not a good fight to pick and the absolute worst way to pick it.

I guess at least Congress has bought themselves another few months.  Maybe we can look through all the shit we spend money on here and prioritize a little.  We spend so much time fighting over health care and taxes because the parties both have some sacred golden cows they're not willing to sacrifice yet.  I kind of figure the time when we could do that is over.  We need to figure out what we need that we don't have, what we have that we don't need, and realign the balances.  It's not like the government should be in debt, considering the sheer amount it takes in as revenue.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #133 on: 17 Oct 2013, 04:59 »

\o/
Logged

Repentence Tyrathlion

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • RIP?
Re: The Little Cough That Could
« Reply #134 on: 17 Oct 2013, 06:20 »

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10