These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Really.. REALLY?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#61 - 2012-02-25 23:17:12 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Would this be the same sort of budget that has not been passed in the Senate for three years, going on its forth? You know, the Senate, that body of 100 that only needs a 51 vote majority to pass a budget, a majority held by the same party for that entire duration ... that kind of budget?


And this is a case of government not working.

Quote:
As for what is important to a politician, the most important thing to most politicians is getting reelected. If your constituents want X and you compromise for Y, that politician might loose his job, that's what politicians care about.


Let me make this nice and simple.

You are elected representing people who want X,Y,Z.

I am elected representing people who want A,B,C.

Now, we can either agree to, say, do both X and A, giving both groups some of what they want, or you can refuse to compromise and get nothing at all. The only reason this works at all is because there is a huge block of idiot conservatives who care more about not letting their "enemies" get anything than they care about actually getting constructive things done. And guess what: everyone who isn't a tea party moron is getting sick of it.

Merin Ryskin wrote:
You your self admit the 'need' as you see it. You say, "We should ...". Who is we? It's not our choice. It is the choice of the individual. So long as those choices do not infringe upon my life, liberty and property, who are "we" to make that choice?


Hint for the clueless: everything doctors do is regulated by the government. That's why when you go to a hospital you're far more likely to get good treatment than you are to get an incompetent doctor that will kill you with his stupid ideas.

And of course none of this changes the fact that everyone who talks about "death panels" is either a gullible moron, or blatantly lying to get elected by gullible morons. The only people advocating "death panels" are imaginary strawmen created by conservatives to make a political point.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2012-02-25 23:34:09 UTC
Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#63 - 2012-02-26 00:58:19 UTC
Oh, Gods, don't even get me started...!

(Must...resist..temptation...)

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#64 - 2012-02-26 00:59:59 UTC
Selinate wrote:
Republicans have really gone off the deep end for this election year...


They went off the deep end 30+ years ago. This time, they've dived into the bottomless pit.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-02-26 01:01:22 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.


Out of curiosity what makes the PPACA bill unconstitutional? I don't know much about the finer points of the US constitution.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2012-02-26 01:09:40 UTC
Ahem!
The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.

British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.

Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: "A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation."

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

Dr Peggy Norris, chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia group Alert, said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled."

"I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2012-02-26 01:18:56 UTC
Now I am not a Santorum supporter, however he is correct about there being a lot of issues with euthanasia in Holland. Maybe if a couple of you took five minutes away from calling a nation of 320 million people stupid you could in fact learn something. Of course that would actually require effort
Liam Mirren
#68 - 2012-02-26 01:26:59 UTC
All those numbers you mentioned are all blurted out by Christian bible thumpers and and people who seem to have a vested interest in the numbers being "scary". Google each and everyone of them and you find that they are exactly as i stated.

I live in the Netherlands, I regularly have to deal with older folks including my mother who has had an incurable disease for years (she's 78) and I can tell you what you describe is all bogus.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-02-26 02:02:35 UTC
Riedle wrote:
post


Most of those quotes come from polarised lobby groups and represent their biases though, taking info from either side of the debate doesn't help much. The info would be much better coming from independent research. (if there is any)
Adunh Slavy
#70 - 2012-02-26 02:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Merin Ryskin wrote:

And this is a case of government not working.


Good. The less those people can accomplish, they less they harm they will do.


Merin Ryskin wrote:

Let me make this nice and simple.

You are elected representing people who want X,Y,Z.

I am elected representing people who want A,B,C.

Now, we can either agree to, say, do both X and A, giving both groups some of what they want, or you can refuse to compromise and get nothing at all. The only reason this works at all is because there is a huge block of idiot conservatives who care more about not letting their "enemies" get anything than they care about actually getting constructive things done. And guess what: everyone who isn't a tea party moron is getting sick of it.


So your solution is to allow partial bits of two marginal ideas and combine them into one really bad idea, is that it?

Take the US for example, if the clowns in party X want a war to go kill and rob other countries, and party of clowns Y want more taxes to rob from its own citizens, then by your method, they should have both theft and murder over there and over here. Oh wait, that's exactly what the US have been doing since the late 1800s. Compromise is lovely isn't it?

Merin Ryskin wrote:

Hint for the clueless: everything doctors do is regulated by the government. That's why when you go to a hospital you're far more likely to get good treatment than you are to get an incompetent doctor that will kill you with his stupid ideas.

And of course none of this changes the fact that everyone who talks about "death panels" is either a gullible moron, or blatantly lying to get elected by gullible morons. The only people advocating "death panels" are imaginary strawmen created by conservatives to make a political point.


Hint for the misguided statist do-gooder: The US government has no business being involved in health care at all. If private property and contracts were respected, instead of the government attempting to regulate everything, then a quack doctor would get his ass sued off in less time that it can take to write a prescription for high velocity lead enemas.

Instead we have a Byzantine arrangement of health care, insurance, lawyers and government all peddling their solutions to the problems they created. More and more of your choices as an individual are removed from you and your doctor. Choices about what, how much, when are being decided by someone else. This is the situation "death panel" sums up. But of course other politicians and parties have to demagogue the term instead of address the issue it self.

Call it a strawman, bleat out your petty insults about this political party or that, but it does not change the fact that government is far outside its enumerated powers.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2012-02-26 07:10:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.


Out of curiosity what makes the PPACA bill unconstitutional? I don't know much about the finer points of the US constitution.



The Solicitor General is before the Supreme Court arguing the mandate that forces people to buy health insurance is a tax when his boss Obama and other officials like the White House's own budget director have testified to Congress that it is a penalizing fine. And it is clearly a fine - arguing that it is a tax was an act of desperation to begin with.

The government can tax you for simply living and breathing and being a citizen of the United States. But they can't fine you for not purchasing a service. The only way they get away with it on car insurance is because driving has never been recognized as a right - it is a licensed privilege. If you don't drive, you don't have to have it. But the mandate applies to everyone by way of them simply living - and that's why they're arguing it's a tax.

All the accounting for Obamacare unravels once the individual mandate is tossed out. If you can't force people to pay for health insurance, insurance companies won't have the money to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

This is the problem with Obama -- and his supporters' -- way of thinking. Everything has to be controlled from the top in impossibly complex schemes. It's never going to work as planned and too much of the scheme is interdependant.

By the way, the individual mandate was originally supported by Republicans long before Obama ever got into politics but was dropped for this very reason. It might sound like you're making people be responsible, but it's impossible to defend constitutionally.

But there are ways to legally penalize people who aren't insured and who refuse to pay. That is a theft of service and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate that.

Create a low cost insurance pool that is not mandated but that affords legal protection from seizure of property to pay for your services so long as you participate. The nasty secret is people can afford health insurance. They simply don't want to buy it. They want internet on their phones, cable TV, and spinners on their wheels instead.

Further, stop allowing illegals to waltz into emergency rooms and steal service. Report and deport those who do.

This is simply enforcing existing laws. Beyond that, allow insurers to compete across state lines and set up loser-pays in malpractice lawsuits and you would have a pretty nice bit of reform based on the free market and personal responsibility instead of the government micromanagement of Obamacare.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-02-26 08:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jhagiti Tyran
Adunh Slavy wrote:
The US government has no business being involved in health care at all. If private property and contracts were respected, instead of the government attempting to regulate everything, then a quack doctor would get his ass sued off in less time that it can take to write a prescription for high velocity lead enemas.


Victims of incompetence or malpractice being able to file lawsuits isn't enough, there are issues like someone dying and having no next of kin and the fact that sometimes money cannot really compensate but those are secondary to the main reason. Industry regulation, in any industry doesn't simply provide consequences for when things go wrong it also attempts to stop things from going wrong in the first place. Victims suing only provides consequence and deterrent, when peoples quality of life or even thier lives are at stake that's not enough there needs to be as many ways to ensure patient safety as possible.

You do have a point about regulation being a mess, I am from the UK so I have personal experience of US health care but I would imagine its regulations are the same as most places and is inefficient, outdated, over complicated and in many cases simply not fit for purpose. But that doesn't mean it should be abandoned, just that it needs more work and possibly more investment.


Jada Maroo wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.


Out of curiosity what makes the PPACA bill unconstitutional? I don't know much about the finer points of the US constitution.
snipped for length.


Thanks, that was a pretty thorough explanation.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-02-26 09:04:58 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
Man, we're all gonna be at a loss for things to argue about once Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional at the end of the year.


Out of curiosity what makes the PPACA bill unconstitutional? I don't know much about the finer points of the US constitution.



The Solicitor General is before the Supreme Court arguing the mandate that forces people to buy health insurance is a tax when his boss Obama and other officials like the White House's own budget director have testified to Congress that it is a penalizing fine. And it is clearly a fine - arguing that it is a tax was an act of desperation to begin with.

The government can tax you for simply living and breathing and being a citizen of the United States. But they can't fine you for not purchasing a service. The only way they get away with it on car insurance is because driving has never been recognized as a right - it is a licensed privilege. If you don't drive, you don't have to have it. But the mandate applies to everyone by way of them simply living - and that's why they're arguing it's a tax.

All the accounting for Obamacare unravels once the individual mandate is tossed out. If you can't force people to pay for health insurance, insurance companies won't have the money to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

This is the problem with Obama -- and his supporters' -- way of thinking. Everything has to be controlled from the top in impossibly complex schemes. It's never going to work as planned and too much of the scheme is interdependant.

By the way, the individual mandate was originally supported by Republicans long before Obama ever got into politics but was dropped for this very reason. It might sound like you're making people be responsible, but it's impossible to defend constitutionally.

But there are ways to legally penalize people who aren't insured and who refuse to pay. That is a theft of service and it's perfectly reasonable for the government to regulate that.

Create a low cost insurance pool that is not mandated but that affords legal protection from seizure of property to pay for your services so long as you participate. The nasty secret is people can afford health insurance. They simply don't want to buy it. They want internet on their phones, cable TV, and spinners on their wheels instead.

Further, stop allowing illegals to waltz into emergency rooms and steal service. Report and deport those who do.

This is simply enforcing existing laws. Beyond that, allow insurers to compete across state lines and set up loser-pays in malpractice lawsuits and you would have a pretty nice bit of reform based on the free market and personal responsibility instead of the government micromanagement of Obamacare.

so the issue is not the "free" healthcare itself but how it's done?

pete's sake you guys never do it right, now do you?Ugh

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Landrae
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-02-26 09:32:21 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Not trying to make this into a political thing, even though it concerns one of the US president candidates, but do people in the US really believe this sort of nonsense?


The republitard party does not speak for or in any way represent the intelligent part of America.

Welcome to Eve Online
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2012-02-26 09:38:29 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:

And this is a case of government not working.


Good. The less those people can accomplish, they less they harm they will do.




Actually the exact opposite is happening.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-02-26 13:41:16 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
All those numbers you mentioned are all blurted out by Christian bible thumpers and and people who seem to have a vested interest in the numbers being "scary". Google each and everyone of them and you find that they are exactly as i stated.

I live in the Netherlands, I regularly have to deal with older folks including my mother who has had an incurable disease for years (she's 78) and I can tell you what you describe is all bogus.


Quote:
The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent.


i bolded the important part for you.

You will have to forgive me if i take a published, respected medical journal over your personal anecdote.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2012-02-26 13:46:21 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
Riedle wrote:
post


Most of those quotes come from polarised lobby groups and represent their biases though, taking info from either side of the debate doesn't help much. The info would be much better coming from independent research. (if there is any)



Quote:
The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.


Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.


I bolded the relevant part for you. This was independant research. Understandably - people against Euthenasia rallied around it.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-02-26 14:22:08 UTC
my take in the issue is: both sides are deluded.

- the side for euthanasia is deluded because there are doctors that do it without consent.
- the side against euthanasia is deluded because they are making a storm in a teacup.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2012-02-26 16:05:06 UTC
Riedle wrote:


I bolded the relevant part for you. This was independant research. Understandably - people against Euthenasia rallied around it.


And I suppose they also gave the case by case reason as to why the doctors made their choice?
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2012-02-26 17:11:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Riedle wrote:


I bolded the relevant part for you. This was independant research. Understandably - people against Euthenasia rallied around it.


And I suppose they also gave the case by case reason as to why the doctors made their choice?


Does it matter if they did? You would just make another excuse for it anyways.