signs of change

[vox8]

Or does he mean that US insurance companies will build their own super-hospitals, in Costa Rica, that are only for rich Americans who hate socialism?

Precisely.

[flipper]

He already addressed the issue, shortly after he made the statement.

The clarification was that he wasn't going to move to Costa Rica, but that he had it on good authority that the insurance companies were going to set up Medical facilities in Costa Rica. These facilities would be available to those who have enough money to get there and they would get the "high quality" health care that will no longer be available in the US after the Socialization of Health Care.

When he said he would "Go to Costa Rica" he meant for his health care.

So there is no reason for his people to doubt him. His integrity is intact.
















Assuming he had any to begin with.

So what he's saying is it's easier for him to send one of his people down to Costa Rica to procure his Oxy-Contin and smuggle it back then having to bribe US doctors to give him prescriptions.

[mo]

Am I the only one wondering if there might be a problem with the assumption that saving/extending lives is always a good thing?

I know that sounds cold, but I can't shake the feeling that maybe we're supposed to be disposable or something.

Sometimes it seems to me that we've over-valued Life. Why is it always a good thing to extend someone's life? Why is it such a tragedy when someone dies young by today's standards, yet outlived most people that have ever lived?

I'm not saying there aren't good answers to these questions, just that we seem to have stopped asking them because the answers are sort of given. Like Life = Good. Always. End of discussion. My hatred of absolutes gets twitchy with that sort of thinking.

...Maybe I just need to get laid.

Touchy subject, but yeah, being around the elderly, like visiting hospitals and assisted living facilities and the like, it's hard not to think about the issue. It could very easily be argued that that ain't livin'. It almost feels like the facility is some kind of huge parasite, feeding off the bodies.

*shudder*

[random axe]

Precisely.

OK, that is officially the most stupidcrazy thing I've ever heard from him.  Which is saying something.

Out of everything that's clown-garglingly wrong with that, what gets me to the most is the confusion about what insurance companies want.  They don't want to build you a hospital.  They don't even want to send you to a hospital.  Their preference is that you're shit out of luck.

On the other hand, maybe he is just trying to establish a cover story for getting drugs.  That's actually more plausible than whatever else.

[random axe]

It almost feels like the facility is some kind of huge parasite, feeding off the bodies.

Well, it is, but there's also a certain amount of commensalism going on.  Your better companies are better for the folks in their care, and the worse ones . . . well, not so much.


Defect, the main problem is overpopulation, really.  But the better way to fix it is to stabilize the birth rate, not lower life expectancy.  In any case, most of the changes in actual care will probably affect quality of life more than actual life span.  No harm in that.

You're right about the general case, that Life isn't necessarily automatically the best thing, but this is still mostly about comforting the afflicted.

[Psidefect]

Yeah, euthanasia and overpopulation are definitely part of it. It's a vague concept that hasn't decided to precipitate into anything solid in my mind yet. I'm not suggesting that Life is worthless either, just that it doesn't seem to be one of the things we value rationally.

I definitely agree about controlling the birth rate rather than life expectancy and certainly I can get behind improvements in health care, I just find myself wondering if anyone ever even questions these types of assumptions any more.

[mo]

I'm speaking from a quality-of-life standpoint, not debating whether it's fiscally wise to maintain life.

There's a social standard that demands that life must be maintained at whatever expense, whether that expense be financial or deductions in the quality of life for the patient or the family.

Being stuck in a bed 24/7, not able to go to the bathroom by yourself, is not what I want for myself or anyone else.

[Talix]

Am I the only one wondering if there might be a problem with the assumption that saving/extending lives is always a good thing?

The only reason I don't wonder is that I've already made up my mind that it's a bad assumption.  It is relatively easy to make more life by either extending a lifespan or creating more living things.  But as far as the planet as a whole is concerned, we are a virus.

[flipper]

Just biomass in the system.

[First Post]

We got a long way to go on that, especially in the fake-youth, death-averse climate of current America. Seeing the commercials for that new Al Pacino movie about Kevorkian reminded me of that. Would we be so accepting now of something like hospice care without what he did?

(They worked the shit out of this angle with the health care of course. Besides "Obama wants to kill your granny" and all that, many of the older people I talk to seem to feel like the remainder of their lives are seen as having no value, that the system just wants them to hurry up and die off and get out of the way. These are real fears to them, like Bender and the 1-X robots.)

 

[mo]

I heard this woman speaking on the radio this morning, and I thought, "hey, I agree with a lot of the stuff she's saying - these are some of the things I've been thinking for a long time". She mentioned a web site, and after going there, I see the above video that was made back in 2002, which only has like 6000 views, where she was saying almost the exact same things. 

Maybe I should make a thread titled "No signs of change".

The basic topic she's speaking on is the evils of global trade - the damage to local economies worldwide, and the environment. Nothing earth shattering... well, maybe a bad choice of words there... but it's just good common sense/truths.

[random axe]

So . . . are the Gores preparing to leave the planet?  Maybe the BP spill was the final straw.

[random axe]

From CNN, a report on some of the lamest federal spin control of all time:

The Minerals Management Service will be called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

Renaming it, OK.  Renaming it to reduce public awareness of it in the media, fairly lame.  Renaming it THAT, stupid.

I mean, really.  The BOEMRE?  The MMS was created by noted environmentalist and human-lover James Watt, under the Reagan Exploitation, I mean, Reagan Administration, and has had a major scandal of some kind roughly every five years.  Its name was always kind of dumb, since it's specific to offshore assets, but whatever.  The new name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

What really annoys me is that almost exactly a month ago, they announced it was going to be split into three bureaus -- one for overseeing the leasing of federal offshore mineral rights, one for ensuring safety and environmental whatnot, and one for managing the money involved.  This appears to supercede that (way to make plans, guys) and kind of mash the names together.

Not smooth.  Not smooth.

[mo]

Lately when I see Obama on TV, I hear him speaking in that Charlie Brown wa wa wa wa wa wa wa voice. I think that means I have finally officially given up hope on him.

That makes me kind of sad, because I doubt any other presidential candidate will come along that appears any more promising than he did in the beginning. It also makes me feel kind of foolish for having any faith in any politician in the first place. It's not any particular thing he's done lately, or more appropriately, failed to do, it's just overall.

[random axe]

To be completely candid . . . I'm not sure what people actually expected from him.  He could be doing a LOT better -- don't get me wrong.  My hope for him before the election, beginning and end, was that he could get elected.  Once McCain picked Palin, he lost every last shred of his come-and-go plausibility, and, I mean, if the Democrats couldn't take the White House after eight years of Shrubbery, then forget it.

I really didn't follow his campaign closely.  Wasn't any need to once I realized he was popular enough to potentially win.  He's been disappointing on so many fronts -- for me, especially, in his continual failure to make a real stab at justifying or even whipping up popularity for the things he is doing.  But he's still succeeding at keeping Palin and them out of the White House.  For me, anything else, at this point, is gravy.

We could use some gravy.  I never forget that it could still be a lot lot worse, though.  He's had moments of awesome, usually when he's making some idiotic right-wing politician look like an idiot.  I can't get enough of that.  He hasn't been a very good president so far, but we don't usually get good ones.  I've got no admiration for Shrub and very little for Bush Sr, virtually none for Reagan whatsoever, Carter was a nice guy, Nixon had a few redeeming moments, Kennedy made the effort, Eisenhower was OK, FDR was the man.  Mostly it's a thin stew with some hair and a band-aid floating in it.

I admit to a certain level of cynicism, but I'm OK with Obama so far.  Not thrilled, but OK.  Still gotta see how this health care thing shakes out, and maybe he'll get something big done in the next two years.  Or six.