Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Bored Druid ThreadFollow

#19552 Jan 10 2013 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
AstarintheDruid wrote:
"It's not ridiculous. I work with sick people all the time and I don't worry or even think about getting whatever they have....and I don't! It's all in the perspective of the mind. Just sayin"

I guess that's why you can debate a dumb person on the internet Astarin, and not get dumb. It's all in the perspective of the mind!

I too never got sick when I worked as a Pharmacist. But I was smart enough to know better than jump to conclusions. The fact that I was in my mid-twenties didn't hurt, nor did the fact that I was around sick people year-round and probably had a pretty healthy immune system built up.

Let's just hope that she's not a very civic-minded individual, and doesn't vote.


____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19553 Jan 10 2013 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You should drink beer instead. As long as it's a beer with low ABV (5% or lower I think) it still hydrates you. Although to be honest, I'm kind of having a hard time finding great beers under 5% ABV that are readily available.

Although if I recall correctly you're at the University of Texas so you'd be in Austin regularly which means you have access to Austin Beerwork's Einhorn which clocks in at 3.5% ABV and as a Berliner Weisse will be refreshing, light and slightly sour (although it seems to only be available during the summer and likely only from the taphouse/by filling a growler).


Reading the reviews, that sounds pretty good, especially once the temperature here gets up. I'll have to have one of my friends pick me some up when it's available (I'd guess it's probably seasonal - looking at the brewer's site they don't mention it at all. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not available right now, though, they might just be displaying some of their more popular stuff).

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 12:39pm by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#19554 Jan 10 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of skyrim though, it is turning out to be a lot like Morrowind for me. I'm on my 5th or 6th character now and trapped in a vicious cycle.

-Started stealth-archer type
-Thought cheekbones were too much, so rerolled the same character with a different face.
-Got tired of sneaking everywhere, so started a sword-n-board type.
-Found out lightning is a lot easier to use than bows; started a mage.
-Decided I liked the look of the ancient nord armor, so re-rolled the mage to wear heavy armor

Still haven't got anyone past level 30 and now I'm thinking it may be fun to play a dual-wielding character... Smiley: lol

I can identify. I started four or five characters, the last two were supposed to be non-stealth and non-archer.

One started out with a two-hander and heavy armor. He soon was stealthing around and trying to crash people over the head with a giant axe from behind. Shortly after that he started using his bow. You know, to get them bleeding.

Soon after, he switched to light armor because you can't stealth in heavy armor. At that point, I saw wut I did thar and started a new character, this one was going to be a battle mage!

Rinse and repeat . . . Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19556 Jan 10 2013 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You should drink beer instead. As long as it's a beer with low ABV (5% or lower I think) it still hydrates you. Although to be honest, I'm kind of having a hard time finding great beers under 5% ABV that are readily available.

Although if I recall correctly you're at the University of Texas so you'd be in Austin regularly which means you have access to Austin Beerwork's Einhorn which clocks in at 3.5% ABV and as a Berliner Weisse will be refreshing, light and slightly sour (although it seems to only be available during the summer and likely only from the taphouse/by filling a growler).
Reading the reviews, that sounds pretty good, especially once the temperature here gets up. I'll have to have one of my friends pick me some up when it's available (I'd guess it's probably seasonal - looking at the brewer's site they don't mention it at all. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not available right now, though, they might just be displaying some of their more popular stuff).

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 12:39pm by IDrownFish
It might be a one time brew, something many breweries do, although if it was popular enough it could be back. Or it's a seasonal and you'll be able to get it again come summer.

And I somehow keep forgetting that you can't legally drink until you're 21, kind of a silly age since pretty much everyone drinks before that anyway. Then again, 16 is just as much of an arbitrary age.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19557 Jan 10 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Well, I know she voted for Romney, but I'm not sure how active she is in regular elections...

She's one of my theater friends, and I've only know her about four months, but I've been hanging out with her at karaoke quite a bit. She's a very sweet lady and optimistic almost to a fault which is difficult for me to say. Sometimes I'm in awe of it, other times I'm just dumbstruck... As to how she got into the field, she actually told me that story on Sunday. It pretty much just fell into her lap. She used to work at the same store I do now, as a checker. She wasn't getting enough hours so to try to get more she transferred to the pharmacy. One day they were really busy and she got frustrated because she couldn't help. All she could do was stand there and answer phones and ring people up once the bottles were filled. So after expressing her frustration to one of the pharmacists they suggested she get licensed as a tech. And the rest is history, as they say.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#19558 Jan 10 2013 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
The age of 21 is one of, if not the highest drinking age in the world. It actually used to be 18 up until 1984, but then they decided that they can trust an 18 year old with voting for the future of our country, but can't trust that same 18 year old with a can of beer.

I actually hate the whole 21 years old thing not because it denies me alcohol - I can get it relatively easily despite the law. I hate the nationwide 21 years old drinking age because of the way it came about.

When Prohibition proved a colossal failure in the 1930s and they repealed the total ban on alcohol, they had to make an amendment to the United States Constitution. Summed up, it legalized booze, but left it up to the individual states to regulate it. That meant that each state could set their own drinking age. While the federal government would probably have preferred to set some more rules when the re-legalized alcohol, they had no Constitutional power to. There's an amendment to our Constitution - the 10th amendment - that says, in short, that the federal government has the powers and only the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Anything else falls to the states. It says nothing about alcohol or the regulation of in the Constitution outside of the amendment banning alcohol and the subsequent amendment repealing the ban. So when they un-banned alcohol, I imagine they would have liked to set some limits on it, but they actually had no legal power to. The states had to come up with their own.

So most states ended up setting their own drinking laws, and most of them set the legal drinking age at 21. This was the voting age of the time, the point when a person would be considered a complete adult with all rights and privileges associated. When they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 with the onset of the Vietnam war and the draft pulling a lot of 18 year olds into military service, most of the states followed suit by lowering their drinking ages to 18, 19, and 20, as was their right.

Well, in 1984, a group called MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) comes along and manages to convince the federal government that not only do we need a uniform drinking age across all the states - we need it to be set at 21. To any politician, I imagine it would be something hard to argue against. Less teens dunk on the road? Stricter control on drunk driving? This means that anyone who doesn't support this initiative must be in favor of dead kids, right? Well, that's the logic they used to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.

But remember how I said above that the federal government doesn't have any power given to them by the Constitution to actually force all states to have a uniform drinking age? Well, technically, they don't. What they did was hold the federal money hostage. Until such time as a state would set their minimum drinking age to be 21, the federal government would withhold up to 10% of the money the government gave to the states for use in highways. This was a very large chunk of change. As you can imagine, most states ended up complying.

So the reason I hate the drinking age of 21 isn't because it denies me access to alcohol. I can still get that anyways. I hate it because in the 80s a special interest group stomped all over both the constitutional powers of the states from the 10th amendment AND the individual rights of legal adult citizens. If I am apparently to be trusted voting for the future of my country - which I did for the first time this past November - AND am considered mature enough to join the army and go to war, risking my life by my choice, why am I not to be trusted with alcohol?
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#19559 Jan 10 2013 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Because your country is filled with religious lunatics.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19560 Jan 10 2013 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
That's what I like about Canada. There's plenty of religious crazies, but they don't really hold a position of power. Also, is the President of the US allowed to be Atheist? You guys don't seem to have many sane people running for positions of power.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19561 Jan 10 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
They'd never get elected. Love God or GTFO. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 12:02pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19562 Jan 10 2013 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
The President is allowed to be whatever he wants to be, be it Atheist, Pastafarian, or just wears a tinfoil hat so the martians don't brainscan him.

However, in practice, we haven't yet had a non-Christian President simply because a large portion of the population would not vote for someone who was not Christian. They don't have to be a regular practitioner that goes to church every Sunday, and most of the country just doesn't care, but a large enough slice of the population (especially in the important swing states) just would not vote for someone if they were Jewish, or God forbid, Muslim. Atheist would actually probably be more likely than Muslim to win right now.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#19563 Jan 10 2013 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
or just wears a tinfoil hat so the martians don't brainscan him.

Our numbers are growing in all 50 states and we just opened a new chapter in Guam. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19564 Jan 10 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, we just had our very first openly Atheist (and bisexual female) Rep get elected. When she got sworn in the other day, she swore on the Constitution instead of a Bible. Cool, huh? Smiley: grin An Atheist President is a long ways away.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#19565 Jan 10 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
cynyck wrote:
Rinse and repeat . . . Smiley: facepalm


Good, its not just me then. Smiley: lol

Always the problem with these games, end up playing it for 2 months and never getting half way through, then moving on to something else. Smiley: rolleyes


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19566 Jan 10 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
For a country that's supposed to have a separation of church and state, you guys don't accomplish that very well.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19567 Jan 10 2013 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
That just means the church leaders can't tell the president what to do. Brainwashing, indoctrination and peer-pressure are still allowed.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 1:03pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19568 Jan 10 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
To be fair, a lot of people don't believe that the country should have a separation of Church and State. The Constitution says that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and has little things here or there which can be read as "You can't deny someone their rights because of their religion," but nowhere does it say that Church and State have to be completely separate. So you have things like the President leading an annual Easter prayer session.

That said, at this point the Supreme Court has essentially made the Separation of Church and State a thing. Basically, the government is not allowed to promote any one religion over others (there's a lot of other requirements too, as it's a very very fine line, but that's the gist of it). From a legal standpoint, the Courts usually try to keep the two separate. But a lot of people these days still believe that Church and State should be unified. They point to the history of the United States frequently, claiming that the Courts have misinterpreted the founding fathers' intentions. For example, in the Declaration of Independence, (which really doesn't hold a lot of legal weight, but is useful for trying to interpret the founding fathers' intentions) they refer to a "Creator" and "Nature's God". One of the most famous written lines in history reads:

The Declaration of Independence wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


The phrase "endowed by their Creator" is pretty obviously religious in nature, though the phrase never appears in the Constitution.

Basically, the whole Separation of Church and State is a relatively modern occurrence, and there's a lot of people (notably the Right) that feel the founding fathers' intentions were not to separate the government and religion so. These same people often feel that a God-fearing, Christian nation is what will set us on the path to happiness, and these are often the people that wouldn't vote for an Atheist president.

Oh my God I'm becoming gbaji.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#19569 Jan 10 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
Well, in 1984, a group called MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) comes along and manages to convince the federal government that not only do we need a uniform drinking age across all the states - we need it to be set at 21. To any politician, I imagine it would be something hard to argue against. Less teens dunk on the road? Stricter control on drunk driving? This means that anyone who doesn't support this initiative must be in favor of dead kids, right? Well, that's the logic they used to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.

Is there something wrong with that logic? I was there at the time. It wasn't just MADD, they simply organized the public feeling of most everyone above the age of 21. There are scholarly studies showing that the raised drinking age has been one factor in the lowering of highway fatalities.

We were all very tired of reading the newspaper accounts of innocent people killed by a drunk teen driver, who walked away from the accident. We were also sick of the older drunk drivers, so we insisted on lowering the alcohol blood level for the definition of "under the influence," and we insisted here in New York State on mandatory jail time for the second offense, and we also insisted on traffic stops. Something had to be done.

IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
But remember how I said above that the federal government doesn't have any power given to them by the Constitution to actually force all states to have a uniform drinking age? Well, technically, they don't. What they did was hold the federal money hostage. Until such time as a state would set their minimum drinking age to be 21, the federal government would withhold up to 10% of the money the government gave to the states for use in highways. This was a very large chunk of change. As you can imagine, most states ended up complying.

So the reason I hate the drinking age of 21 isn't because it denies me access to alcohol. I can still get that anyways. I hate it because in the 80s a special interest group stomped all over both the constitutional powers of the states from the 10th amendment AND the individual rights of legal adult citizens. If I am apparently to be trusted voting for the future of my country - which I did for the first time this past November - AND am considered mature enough to join the army and go to war, risking my life by my choice, why am I not to be trusted with alcohol?

As I said, MADD wasn't a special interest group in the sense we use that term today - it did not represent a small, monied interest. It represented a majority of the people who were sick of reading and experiencing (knowing a close family relative) the senseless deaths.

The federal government has the right to withhold money to further public policy. Also, I would argue that it has the right to legislate a drinking age under the Commerce Clause. If it can legislate the price of corn because it affects interstate commerce, it should be able to legislate the minimum drinking age.

And by the way, as you obviously are aware, "drinking age" is the wrong term for it since the law does not prohibit drinking alcohol, only purchase or possession (on public property).

Sgriob wrote:
For a country that's supposed to have a separation of church and state, you guys don't accomplish that very well.

Separation meaning separation of the ideology, not the people. It does not mean that only atheists can hold government positions.

Some say we do it too well. Hence the protracted lawsuits and appeals over things like nativity scenes on local village property.

PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
An Atheist President is a long ways away.

This scared the **** out of me. Because this is how I first read it:

PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
An Aethien President is a long ways away.


What's next? A Mazra Vice President?
____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19570 Jan 10 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
cynyck wrote:
I too never got sick when I worked as a Pharmacist. But I was smart enough to know better than jump to conclusions. The fact that I was in my mid-twenties didn't hurt, nor did the fact that I was around sick people year-round and probably had a pretty healthy immune system built up.




Same here. As a rule I don't get sick very often, depite people coming in everyday for their antibiotics. Although I seem to do my best to weaken my body by only getting 4-5 hours of sleep a night before heading in to 11 hours of work.

____________________________
RareTrevor - Feral/Resto
Other Rares - RareBertha (90 Mage), RareAgatha (90 Paladin), RareMildred (90 Warlock)
RareGretchen (85 Hunter), RareHelga (85 Shaman), RarePearl (74 Rogue), RareEileen (51 Warrior), RareDorothy (46 Priest)
Rarebeast-Feral Druid. and 9 other Level 80+ Rares [b]R.I.P.
#19571 Jan 10 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
To be fair, a lot of people don't believe that the country should have a separation of Church and State. The Constitution says that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and has little things here or there which can be read as "You can't deny someone their rights because of their religion," but nowhere does it say that Church and State have to be completely separate. So you have things like the President leading an annual Easter prayer session.

That said, at this point the Supreme Court has essentially made the Separation of Church and State a thing. Basically, the government is not allowed to promote any one religion over others (there's a lot of other requirements too, as it's a very very fine line, but that's the gist of it). From a legal standpoint, the Courts usually try to keep the two separate. But a lot of people these days still believe that Church and State should be unified. They point to the history of the United States frequently, claiming that the Courts have misinterpreted the founding fathers' intentions. For example, in the Declaration of Independence, (which really doesn't hold a lot of legal weight, but is useful for trying to interpret the founding fathers' intentions) they refer to a "Creator" and "Nature's God". One of the most famous written lines in history reads:

The Declaration of Independence wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


The phrase "endowed by their Creator" is pretty obviously religious in nature, though the phrase never appears in the Constitution.

Basically, the whole Separation of Church and State is a relatively modern occurrence, and there's a lot of people (notably the Right) that feel the founding fathers' intentions were not to separate the government and religion so. These same people often feel that a God-fearing, Christian nation is what will set us on the path to happiness, and these are often the people that wouldn't vote for an Atheist president.

Oh my God I'm becoming gbaji.

Not trying to be contrary here, it's just working out that way.

The original colonists came here to escape religious persecution. The founding fathers - well, Thomas Jefferson - made certain that the Constitution made it clear that everyone could worship in their own way, without interference from the government. Remember, at the time there were countries that were adopting certain religions as the One (Church of England, anyone?).

The fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to a creator is not a contradiction, because the colonists were religious men, for the most part. It was because of their religious beliefs, and their ancestors' persecution, that they crafted the establishment clause.

So, the establishment clause simply states that the federal government cannot pass any law that favors one religion over another. If it did, that law would certainly have some effect on the "establishment of religion" and "the free exercise" of another. The thing is, what does "favoring" mean? If you want to be a strict constructionist, then what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean?

A lot of people take the view of the fable about the camel and the tent, and draw a bright line with religion on one side and government on the other. Most support their position by saying "it may favor my religion today, but what happens tomorrow?".

As you can see, the separation of church and state is a doctrine that actually protects those people who are constantly attacking it! Their religion may be in the majority today, but who knows what the future holds.


____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19572 Jan 10 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
Like I say, my knowledge of American politics is very limited, so I'm mostly just asking questions to learn more. The thing that ****** me off about the states being full of religious zealots is the fact that it holds back the human race. You're one of the richest countries in the world, with a large mass of brains to pool ideas and scientific research, but when religion comes in the way of that, I find that insanely disgusting. My only notable examples are that Stem Cell research seems to be hindered greatly by a great outcry of religious ******** And you also teach Creationism in a biology class in some states. That's abhorrent.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19573 Jan 10 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Sgriob wrote:
You're one of the richest countries in the world, with a large mass of brains to pool ideas and scientific research, but when religion comes in the way of that, I find that insanely disgusting.

Funny thing about that, a lot of researchers come from outside the states to study at the universities here. It goes a long way towards keeping us competitive in that regard. Our own lab has been about half native-US over the last few years, with people from India, China, New Zealand, etc. rotating through. From my own anecdotal experience it can be fairly rare to see a good paper published with the author list entirely made of U.S. born citizens.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19574 Jan 10 2013 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
I knew that there were a lot of immigrated scientists researching in North America, because it's simply the best place to do it. You have drug companies that dump insane amounts into RND and things like that. America has (had?) so much money that it was difficult for the rest of the world to compete. Then again, I would argue that the reason you have those companies dumping that much money into drug RND is because your health care system is designed to ***** people over and let them die. I remember watching a documentary where an insurance company wouldn't pay out for a guy to have one of his fingers re attached, because it was "experimental surgery". He lost 2 fingers, they stitched the other one back on no problem, but if he wanted his index finger back, he'd have to pay 60k.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19575 Jan 10 2013 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I dunno, House seems to fit you and I can't say I've seen anything of Archer.

Watch Archer. Literally the funniest show I've ever seen.

But yes, back when House was a popular show I got compared to him. I also get compared to Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother and Archer a lot these days.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#19576 Jan 10 2013 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,764 posts
Sgriob wrote:
I knew that there were a lot of immigrated scientists researching in North America, because it's simply the best place to do it. You have drug companies that dump insane amounts into RND and things like that. America has (had?) so much money that it was difficult for the rest of the world to compete. Then again, I would argue that the reason you have those companies dumping that much money into drug RND is because your health care system is designed to ***** people over and let them die. I remember watching a documentary where an insurance company wouldn't pay out for a guy to have one of his fingers re attached, because it was "experimental surgery". He lost 2 fingers, they stitched the other one back on no problem, but if he wanted his index finger back, he'd have to pay 60k.

Would you rather there be no experimental treatment, and the person be told that there is no hope of reattaching his finger? Emergency rooms in the States aren't legally allowed to turn anyone away, for any reason. You're also insinuating that this experimental procedure would have been approved by a state-run provider. My favorite example of how this is often not the case is the premier of a Canadian province opting out of Canada-care and coming to the US to pay privately for a procedure he couldn't get in Canada. The procedure used by the doctors in Canada was described as being several years behind currently available medicine practiced in the US, it came with a lengthy approval process and waiting line, and it was being preformed by doctors with significantly less experience than surgeons available in the US.

RedState.com isn't the most un-biased source available, they were just the first thing to come up on a three-year-old news story.

I don't think there's a single person that likes 100% of the way health care is provided in the US, but there are alternatives to single-payer that preserve the good things in the US, like the availability of experimental drugs, procedures, and devices.
____________________________
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
As a forum admin, you... see things. Things that you can never unsee. Things that make you fervently wish to protect other people from ever seeing those things. This is why forum admins are sometimes cranky.
#19577 Jan 10 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
The documentary was years ago, so I only remember bits and pieces. I just don't see why people are so against universal health care. It seems like such a basic thing. Y'know, provide healthcare for your citizens, so that they don't die. It just seems wrong that a service that's supposed to help people has managed to become a way for people to do nothing but make millions of dollars.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19578 Jan 10 2013 at 10:59 PM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
Sgriob wrote:
It just seems wrong that a service that's supposed to help people has managed to become a way for people to do nothing but make millions of dollars.

Yeah, I get kind of torn sometimes over this, to be sure. But the thing is, it's the profit that draws the investment, and the investment that draws the research. The best minds work tirelessly, not because they are so altruistic, but because there's a chance that they might develop something that will make them rich.

And it isn't all about profit. You cannot work tirelessly at something you aren't good at, or hate. So, there's that. But the potential for profit is a great motivator.

In the end, new things are developed and life is better for it. Sure, some of the cutting edge stuff may not be covered by insurance, but by and large insurance companies are populated by bean counters. They have columns to add and totals to calculate. Everything is reduced to an equation. Risk versus profit, all based on experience. So they don't want to pay for things that aren't proven, because there is no certainty in unproven things, and they have no "experience" to plug into their equations.

The bean counters can tell you how long you will live, what the chance is of you getting a certain disease, what the chance is of you getting married to an Irish girl and having three kids, how many computers you will own in your life, etc.

In the end, it works.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19579 Jan 11 2013 at 12:18 AM Rating: Good
Pretty sure that was from Michael Moore's Sicko, as I own the movie and remember that story pretty vividly. I think getting his ring finger reattached cost him something like 12k. And yeah, he HAD insurance.

What ****** me off most about our healthcare system is that people can go bankrupt when they get sick. That shouldn't happen, ever. Nor should it be possible for health insurance companies to deny claims which can save lives. I support universal healthcare, but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone. I wish more people in the US did as well.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#19580 Jan 11 2013 at 12:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
cynyck wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
An Atheist President is a long ways away.

This scared the **** out of me. Because this is how I first read it:

PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
An Aethien President is a long ways away.


What's next? A Mazra Vice President?
Trust me, that thought scares me more than you. It's not like it would ever happen anyway, politics is a massive social deathtrap for someone on the Autism spectrum. Somehow calling someone an ******* when you think they're an ******* is just not done in politics if you want to get anywhere.

Overlord Theophany wrote:
But yes, back when House was a popular show I got compared to him. I also get compared to Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother and Archer a lot these days.
I'm sure idiggory wouldn't mind you being more like Neil Patrick Harris.

Also, I suspect that you have some people around who desperately want to suck up to you.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19581 Jan 11 2013 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Overlord Theophany wrote:
But yes, back when House was a popular show I got compared to him. I also get compared to Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother and Archer a lot these days.
I'm sure idiggory wouldn't mind you being more like Neil Patrick Harris.

Also, I suspect that you have some people around who desperately want to suck up to you.

Some, yeah. Others just see the similarity and call 'em how they see 'em.

And of course Digg wouldn't mind me being like NPH. NPH is ***. But Barney Stinson is basically the furthest thing from *** possible.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#19582 Jan 11 2013 at 5:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,764 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Pretty sure that was from Michael Moore's Sicko, as I own the movie and remember that story pretty vividly. I think getting his ring finger reattached cost him something like 12k. And yeah, he HAD insurance.

What ****** me off most about our healthcare system is that people can go bankrupt when they get sick. That shouldn't happen, ever. Nor should it be possible for health insurance companies to deny claims which can save lives. I support universal healthcare, but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone. I wish more people in the US did as well.


What if the single-payer alternative is that the treatment that would save your life is too expensive to be on the government's list of approved procedures? Or it was never developed in the first place, because the person that would have invented it went into a different field because there isn't a lot of profit in medical R&D? Also, I don't know if you have much experience with, say, Medicare or Medicaid, but they deny claims all the time. ****, there are lawyers that specialize in appealing claims denied by Medicare and Medicaid.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is not an unlimited supply of medical care to go around. There are only so many doctors, and that care has to be rationed somehow. If the government is in charge, there's a bureaucrat or panel of bureaucrats somewhere that is reviewing procedures and deciding which ones will be on the approved list, and under what conditions. In places like Canada, it's illegal for doctors to provide unapproved treatments, and for citizens to try to privately pay for a medical procedure.

In the US, you have private insurers doing the same thing. However, the individual insurance companies have two motivations pulling them in opposite directions that works in favor of consumers. On the one hand, insurance companies want to keep outlays low, just like government. On the other, they need to provide a better service than their competitors or they risk losing members. Plus, seeking private alternatives when you are denied coverage is still an option.

Is there any proof that this guy that paid $12k for one finger and was told he had to pay $60k for the other could have even had the fingers reattached in another country? Or would they have provided life-saving treatment to stop the bleeding and keep him from going into shock, stitched hi um, and sent him on his way?
____________________________
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
As a forum admin, you... see things. Things that you can never unsee. Things that make you fervently wish to protect other people from ever seeing those things. This is why forum admins are sometimes cranky.
#19583 Jan 11 2013 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Overlord Theophany wrote:
NPH is ***. But Barney Stinson is basically the furthest thing from *** possible.


Barney is a great character, but Neil Patrick Harris makes him awesome.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#19584 Jan 11 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,764 posts
Mazra wrote:
Overlord Theophany wrote:
NPH is ***. But Barney Stinson is basically the furthest thing from *** possible.


Barney is a great character, but Neil Patrick Harris makes him awesome.
____________________________
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
As a forum admin, you... see things. Things that you can never unsee. Things that make you fervently wish to protect other people from ever seeing those things. This is why forum admins are sometimes cranky.
#19585 Jan 11 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
***
2,044 posts
I hate to do this, but I love my daughter so I'm doing it.

Please take a look at this. If you feel comfortable doing it, please sign the petition.

Thank you.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#19586 Jan 11 2013 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
Astarin, from what I remember from the doc, the guy walked into hospital, missing two fingers, and he had them both with him. They stitched one of them on, and that was covered by the insurance. The other finger, he would have had to cover the surgery himself, he couldn't, so he's missing a finger, because he didn't have $60,000. First off, I'm aware that different procedures require different training and cost different amounts, but there's no way in **** that reattaching a finger is experimental surgery, which is kind of obvious, since they just reattached his other finger. Going bankrupt because you want five fingers on each hand is insane.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19587 Jan 11 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
Also, this may make me an absolute ****, but there's something about people with mental disabilities that makes me uneasy. It partially because we used to have a special education wing in our high school, and sometimes they would, for lack of a better term, escape. I got hugged by a naked person with autism once in third year. Freaked me the **** out. It's not that I have a problem with mentally disabled people, I just don't like to be around them, unless I know how do deal with the situation, which I normally don't since I'm a social ******.

I always felt sorry for the kids in that place, the neds in our highschool bullied them relentlessly, it was soul destroying to watch a kid with downs syndrome getting his *** kicked just because he had downs syndrome.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19588 Jan 11 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Sgriob wrote:
The documentary was years ago, so I only remember bits and pieces. I just don't see why people are so against universal health care. It seems like such a basic thing. Y'know, provide healthcare for your citizens, so that they don't die. It just seems wrong that a service that's supposed to help people has managed to become a way for people to do nothing but make millions of dollars.


Welcome to America? Smiley: rolleyes

I'm aware of a few reasons people are opposed to it here:

1)What Astarin said above: there are still people who come here for treatment because they can't get it elsewhere, and we don't want to mess that up.

2)They believe fundamentally that the government shouldn't be involved in health care, period.

3)The current system is screwed up, but it's at least the devil we know, versus facing an unknown system and transition period.

4)Political tribalism (i.e. my side is always right and yours in always wrong).

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 8:50am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19589 Jan 11 2013 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I think getting his ring finger reattached cost him something like 12k. And yeah, he HAD insurance.
Sounds like a fair price to me, considering everything involved.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19590 Jan 11 2013 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
It's shocking when you read about these things. Guy gets his fingers chopped off and has to decide which ones he can afford to have reattached? That's just crazy.

I don't know if Danish people are the most happy in the world, regardless of what studies say, but knowing that you won't ever have to choose between a limb (however small) and bankruptcy does amazing things for the QOL.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#19591 Jan 11 2013 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Mazra wrote:
I don't know if Danish people are the most happy in the world, regardless of what studies say, but knowing that you won't ever have to choose between a limb (however small) and bankruptcy does amazing things for the QOL.


All that and you still have more economic freedom than we do here. Don't tell anyone though. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19592 Jan 11 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
Studies have shown that the happiest places in the world tend to have high suicide rates, too, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical of the quality of life.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19593 Jan 11 2013 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Studies have shown that the happiest places in the world tend to have high suicide rates, too, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical of the quality of life.
Cite?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19594 Jan 11 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
First one I found.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19595 Jan 11 2013 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
584 posts
It's hardly a revelation that depressed people seeing happy people makes them more depressed. You're always going to have depressed people, and depressed people will always want to kill themselves.
____________________________
Kalivha wrote:
We can put on top hats and monocles and make fun of the English.
#19596 Jan 11 2013 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
As an aside I took the numbers between these two pages and did a quick scatterplot of the happiness index versus the suicide rate. I tried a couple of different fits, but couldn't get an R-squared of over 0.02.

Noteworthy though, none of the top 20 or so countries on the happiness list (of the ones that had numbers on both pages, of course) had a suicide rate under 5.0 per 100,000. It was fairly common among the "less happy" countries though, and the less happy ones had a much higher scatter.

Either way I can't upload pictures now so you'll have to take my word for it. Smiley: grin

Edit: Hmmm doing a moving average there a bit of a U-shape, bottoming out around 5.6 or so. Obviously we all need to be more like the Dominican Republic, Albania, or Egypt. Smiley: nod

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 12:31pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#19597 Jan 11 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
It's probably also worth mentioning that the "high" suicide rates are relative. No, Denmark isn't at the bottom, despite having been called the happiest country, but we're below the US and other countries.

Numbers for 2009 show that Denmark had 11 suicides per 100,000 people per year1. The United States had 12 suicides per 100,000 people per year2.

Edit: We do have a lot of suicides, though. Probably because of the darkness and the weather. It's cloudy and rainy most days and from mid-fall to mid-spring the sun comes up after we arrive at work and goes down before we get off work. If you work in an office, you won't see natural sunlight for the majority of winter. Tends to make some people depressed.

1 http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2011/DAF/Doedsaarsager/Doedsaarsager_tal2010.pdf (search "selvmord")
2 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf (search "intentional self-harm")

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 10:03pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#19598 Jan 11 2013 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Aye, I cycle to work when it;s getting light and I go home while it's getting dark. Not much sunlight on workdays aside from coffee and lunch break. Still, even in the dark cycling does feel good.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19599 Jan 11 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Sgriob wrote:
Also, this may make me an absolute @#%^, but there's something about people with mental disabilities that makes me uneasy. It partially because we used to have a special education wing in our high school, and sometimes they would, for lack of a better term, escape. I got hugged by a naked person with autism once in third year. Freaked me the **** out. It's not that I have a problem with mentally disabled people, I just don't like to be around them, unless I know how do deal with the situation, which I normally don't since I'm a social ******.

I always felt sorry for the kids in that place, the neds in our highschool bullied them relentlessly, it was soul destroying to watch a kid with downs syndrome getting his *** kicked just because he had downs syndrome.


I used to feel the same way when I was younger. People with noticeable mental disabilities freaked me the **** out. It was more because you never knew what they would do because they're not like "normal" people. And this was into my early twenties. I got over it eventually though. Not sure what caused me to get over it, I just did. Perhaps because really, you never know what anyone is going to do, mental disabilities or no. It's really not worth the energy to be paranoid about it. Do what you can to keep yourself safe within reasonable limits, but don't stress too much.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#19600 Jan 11 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
http://img.thewhiskyexchange.com/l/lgvob.1993v4.jpg
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#19601 Jan 11 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,764 posts
Sgriob wrote:
Astarin, from what I remember from the doc, the guy walked into hospital, missing two fingers, and he had them both with him. They stitched one of them on, and that was covered by the insurance. The other finger, he would have had to cover the surgery himself, he couldn't, so he's missing a finger, because he didn't have $60,000. First off, I'm aware that different procedures require different training and cost different amounts, but there's no way in **** that reattaching a finger is experimental surgery, which is kind of obvious, since they just reattached his other finger. Going bankrupt because you want five fingers on each hand is insane.


Have you studied surgery, medicine, or basic anatomy and physiology? There are dozens of blood vessels and nerves that go through your fingers, especially your index finger. There could have been significant bone damage, joint damage, tendon and/or ligament damage, muscle damage, etc. The index finger is especially tricky.

You're also ignoring my main point. There just isn't an infinite amount of medical care to go around. Period. Full stop. In places where private coverage and payments are allowed, you have to option to try things that are new and experimental. In many single-payer countries, seeking private care is a criminal offense. Also, just like insurance companies have a list of procedures they will pay for, single-payer plans have a list of approved treatments, and what the criteria is to get them. It's entirely possible that in a government-controlled single-payer plan, he would have been denied one or both procedures.
____________________________
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
As a forum admin, you... see things. Things that you can never unsee. Things that make you fervently wish to protect other people from ever seeing those things. This is why forum admins are sometimes cranky.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (34)