Objective analysis of partisan arguments & talking points (hopefully) by chrisisall

Frem

With all due respect, Trying to legislate is idiotic :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:41 PM

I want to see the arguing stop. I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem. Most of the rest of this is just willing surrogates for hand me down ideology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:01 PM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem.

No disrespect meant to Frem. Or to PN, really. But... you've actually read PN's posts, right?

Or are you not serious?

*irony radar out of order*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem.

Umm, no offense...

But that's a DAMN scary thought, even to me!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:11 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

Bullshit

SHUT UP, 6IX!!

post without an isall, isall

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The healthcare rating is based on a basic "no treatment" statistic which is "80% of all people who have a life threatening condition recover if they receive no care"

That is fascinating! How is this measured? Full recovery with absolutely zero adverse effects? What kind of life threatened condition? No care defined as "no care by medical workers and doctors" or literally no care?

Quote:
and so, if in Russia, those who do seek treatment have a 70% recovery rate, then that's a -10%. The US used to be at 82%, or +2%, but it has slipped.

The death totals are roughly the same now as well. In the US, about 1 million people are estimated to survive because they sought treatment, and around 900,000 die who wouldn't have, because they sought treatment.

But how can it be certain that they wouldn't have died if they had sought treatment? Is "woudn't have died" the same as full recovery? What about treatments that would have increased quality of life, if successful? Is this based on diagnoses or on this statistic you mention above?

Quote:

Still, this can't be applied blanketly: Not all conditions are equal. Appendicitis, you should probably go to the hospital. There are a lot of things that we think of as "definites," which probably are to be avoided.

Like what? :)

Quote:

Roughly 300,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to "clerical error" wrong surgery, wrong medication, etc. Drug reactions to intentionally perscribed medications are a big part of the 900k, and on-site infections gotten in the hospital are a large part. The single largest statistical killed in the hospital is anaesthetic overdose or reaction in the surgery.

Are these errors due to sloppiness or are they "honest" mistakes? On-site infection should probably be preventable if all guidelines are properly followed, right?

Quote:

If you must have surgery, you should probably skip the anaesthesia. If you can't handle the pain, sorry, evolution might have just selected you out :)

Guess I was just a wimp when I had my appendix taken out with anaesthesia. :)

Quote:

I personally have had a lot of major surgery, and I'm very conscious of the need of people to maintain the right over treatment options. If I didn't have that right, and had taken the recommended course, I wouldn't be sending this message. I would be dead three times over. Possibly four, but definitely at least three.

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
In india, it's mixed in. There are ayurvedics that you can go to, but also a lot of doctors will prescribe ayurvedic treatments over modern ones, and the top spot for india for healthcare was attributed to the combination of the two by the UN.

Another statistic just reported, 38% of americans use alternative medicine now, up from 12% last time I checked.

So this UN survey focused on the quality of the actual care received, rather than things like coverage and access to care, who pays for it, etc.? I'm no expert on India and maybe it's prejudice talking, but they do have a large part of their population living below the poverty line, if I am not mistaken, who might not have access to the healthcare system that got this apparently well-deserved top spot?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

post without an isall, isall

Yikes!!!isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 3:39 PM

Rouka

Don't be a total dick. I know it may be hard.

1. Put your questions to the UN or WHO, not to me, I didn't make up the study.'

2. My guess is, yes, this is treatment actually received. Surprisingly, parts of africa do fairly well because the doctors do close to nothing. Places in africa where they try usually do really poorly.

3. My own treatments, this is where you come off ass a total ass, for reference, insulting the injured.

a) I was in a severe accident at 19, had my face ripped off, and had to have reconstructive surgery. I had numerous internal injuries. I received a lot of much needed care. Early on, a doctor came into my room and told me I had been cleared for a transfusion, but the blood was untested, and could carry an infection. He told me I would probably not survive if I refused the transfusion, but that I also would not survive long enough for the test results to come back. I refused the treatment. My friend Krishna, by coincidence, got that transfusion, and has since died of HIV, than the blood, which was pooled, was tainted with.

b) at 25, I became suddenly ill at my job, and drove to a clinic, which did some vital signs, which showed me with radically low numbers, in the line that I heard the nurse say "by rights, the patient should be already dead." It was not the first time I'd heard this, since the same thing had been said of me at 19. I knew this meant something was severely wrong. The hospital diagnosed me with gastrointeritis, gave me some medicine, and sent me home, telling me to call back in three days if I didn't feel better. Instead, when I felt much worse 8 hours later, I had to lie to get back into the hospital and get some actual tests, which showed conclusively that I had acute appendicitis, and less than 12 hours to live. Again, some medical treatment was essential, my ability to choose that treatment was as well.

c) at 32 a sudden illness created an overflow of adrenaline in my system, which was building to critical levels. I knew something was physically wrong. I asked to be checked out physically before anyone sent me to the psych ward, and was assured by the admissions that this would happen. It didn't. I spent three years in psychiatric care. I became a guinea pig, and had to refuse treatment for several drugs which made me so much worse that I felt I was going to die, and I also was able to refuse the recommended, I kid you not, shock treatment and frontal lobotomy. Eventually, I was able to sue for my release, do my own damn research, and discover that in fact, something was physically wrong with me, I had a gut infection which was preventing key precusors from entering my blood, and thereby getting to my brain. This had prompted the body to produce an excessive amount of adrenaline to attempt to correct the problem. Both of these had apparent mental side effects, but no amount of mental health treatment would have cured the infection and corrected the condition.

If we lose the ability to choose our treatment options for ourselves, we really have lost our own personal right to life.

Over and out from the living non-zombie dreamtrove
...is all

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?

Wow. You must have never worked in a hospital.

It's not exactly like on ER or St. Elsewhere everywhere...

The I-had-my-own-battles-with-Doctors-too Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That said, I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better."

It's the ONLY excuse for a war. You have to show that a country poses an immediate threat in order to attack them first and not be considered an aggressor. And, while Bush made an awful lot of noise about WMDs and Hussein's (supposed) connection to terrorism, even he couldn't show the need for a 'pre-emptive' war (the legal kind), he had to call it a 'preventative' war (the illegal kind).

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT -

If you could come up with a title or some other identifier for the study, I'd appreciate it. I looked and couldn't find anything.

That said, there's at least one error I can find in your post: the 80% figure is for people with any illness, not life-threatening ones. So, people with a sore throat, stuffy nose, minor infection etc will get better anyway, whether the doctor does anything or not.

The other 20% do need medical care.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Rue,

I couldn't disagree more. There was no precedent at all for preemptive war under US law, or any support for it under international law. The vaguest lines that could have been drawn and still have some sort of precedent would have been to use the extermination of the kurds, and take the kosovo precedent. A better one would be to recognize kurdistan ahead of time, and they allow it to invite you in. When Saddam then invaded the secessionist kurd republic, you could then fight back, and maybe win some allies inside Iraq. This is what russia did with S. Ossetia, and it led to an alliance with Abkhazia. In a dictatorship like Iraq, Bush could have take the entire country by that manner, eventually.

What he did, or Cheney, Rummy, Wolfo and Perle did was idiotic. There was no support for the idea anywhere in US or international law. It was bound to make us enemies all over the place, and winning any war without allies is pretty damn near impossible. The smart move next, would have been to claim victory after deposing Saddam, which would disguise the fact that we were actually defeated by Al Sadr. Since "Regime Change" was a state motive, Saddam Gone, Al Sadr-backed democracy in place, claim victory and hold a parade, party over.

But what they did do is proof that they are morons. They poured all their effort in trying to destabilize the region, hiring militias, inciting sectarian violence, etc. It's exactly what Obama has planned for Afgh. and Pakistan, and towards the same ends: to hope that it spills into Iran and destabilized that nation, and the region. This is not conspiracy theory, it's stated public policy.

But simply to invade Iraq and institute regime change, WMDs was a moronic idea. They did it because they thought it was the one thing they could prove. They were not sure they could prove kurdish genocide. If they were, they would have gone for it. I think they're dumb, but they're not functionally retarded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 5:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"There was no precedent at all for preemptive war under US law, or any support for it under international law. The vaguest lines that could have been drawn and still have some sort of precedent would have been to use the extermination of the kurds, and take the kosovo precedent."

Except the Kosovo stuff was ongoing at the time - not something 15+ years in the past as with the Kurds. And there was nothing going on against the Kurds at the time due to the no-fly zone.

There doesn't seem to have been an extant excuse along those lines for the US to have attacked Iraq.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 9:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rouka

Don't be a total dick. I know it may be hard.

Wow, name calling. I'm really impressed.

Quote:

1. Put your questions to the UN or WHO, not to me, I didn't make up the study.'

I would if you provided a link or some other way to find out just what study you are talking about. Right now all we have is your interpretation of a text that may or may not exist, if one wanted to be extreme about it. I'm sure it exists, but it is not within my means to fin dit. I tried googling for some of the things you mentioned and got nothing useful. So I ask you.

Quote:

2. My guess is, yes, this is treatment actually received. Surprisingly, parts of africa do fairly well because the doctors do close to nothing. Places in africa where they try usually do really poorly.

So it's not really the kind of "health care system" that people mean when they talk about the word, as in the financial aspect and who has the chance to receive care if they want/need it?

I'm all for non-standard medical practices if they work for people, but that does nothing to answer the question of cost. Nor does "they do fairly well in africa" contain any information about how this is measured. Just mortality rates or also quality of life?

Quote:

3. My own treatments, this is where you come off ass a total ass, for reference, insulting the injured.

How do I come off as an ass about this? I didn't ask you to describe your injuries, although I am very sorry you had to experience such terrible things. You used personal experience as a reference and I asked you something about it. How is that being an ass?

Quote:

If we lose the ability to choose our treatment options for ourselves, we really have lost our own personal right to life.

And nowhere did I argue against that.

If you want to consider me rude for asking you questions about the facts that you state... sorry, I'll just have to be one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?
Wow. You must have never worked in a hospital.

It's not exactly like on ER or St. Elsewhere everywhere...

I really really haven't. I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...
But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

That said, there's at least one error I can find in your post: the 80% figure is for people with any illness, not life-threatening ones. So, people with a sore throat, stuffy nose, minor infection etc will get better anyway, whether the doctor does anything or not.

The other 20% do need medical care.

Now this figure seems to make a whole lot more sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...

LOL. The doctors that do plastic surgery are a whole lot easier on the eyes for some reason...

Quote:

But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.

Think about where you've worked- there's usually a few peeps that are great at their jobs, a group that are very competent, a group that slide by doing as little as possible, and a couple of real idiots- something like that, right?
Well, same thing in the hospital, so you're in trouble if you get the slackers, and dead if you get the idiots.

The simplifying Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I never saw experimental therapy forced on anyone in all the hospitals I worked at. Generally there are protocols that doctors are required to follow. If they don't, then Medicare, Medicaid or other insurance won't cover the treatment, and hospitals frown on that.

I did see doctors at a standstill on what to do with certain diseases: Legionnaires (when it was a mystery), human mad-cow disease, AIDS (when it was a mystery). I've seen doctors 'miss' a diagnosis, leading to inappropriate treatment. Plus, there are a few just plain bad doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. And, sad to say, I've heard of one nurse who may have been either sadistic or just extremely callous to other people's pain.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...
LOL. The doctors that do plastic surgery are a whole lot easier on the eyes for some reason...

Somehow I do NOT mind that I haven't had personal opportunity to find out for sure. *shudders*

Quote:

Quote:

But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.
Think about where you've worked- there's usually a few peeps that are great at their jobs, a group that are very competent, a group that slide by doing as little as possible, and a couple of real idiots- something like that, right?
Well, same thing in the hospital, so you're in trouble if you get the slackers, and dead if you get the idiots.

Riiiiiiight. Also: Ouch. I do not enjoy thinking of hospitals the way I think of the office. It obviously makes sense... But.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Expert' medical programs out-diagnose doctors every time.

I've always wondered why they aren't used more.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:04 AM

The Hussein govt. was under seige during those 15 years, and there's no statute of limitations on genocide. I'm not going to argue the point. I thought it was obvious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:09 AM

Rue,

Newsflash: lucky you. I was held down by six men and injected with medicine that I was not only allergic to, but that this fact was already on my medical record to which the non-doctors had access to, if they had bothered to read. My crime? Still being awake and using the bathroom at 4am, which was "passed hours." They very nearly killed me.

My respect for the medical profession, slightly less than for government.

And I was lucky, I've heard much worse stories from "permanent care facilities." And even those pale in comparison to nursing homes. And those pale in comparison to prisoners and soldiers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
They very nearly killed me.

Peeps that never been on the wrong end of abuse of authority, whether in government or medicine, have a hard time grasping how devastating an effect they can be allowed to have at a word or whim.

The not-laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Psychiatric 'care' is an issue of which I have no personal knowledge. In the past, it was subject to all sorts of abusive practices. But in the last few decades, AFAIK they are allowed to hold you for 36 hours, after which they are required to release you - except in very rare circumstances. DT's experience may have been before the 1980s when 'deinstitutionalization' became all the rage, and when these limitations on psychiatric 'care' came into being.

BTW Just being female and (in the past) poor has put me on the wrong side of what I can claim a 'right' to. I think I understand better than most the implied threat of authority.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:56 PM

Rue

No, it was more recently. That's 36 hours *after* you file your appeal for release. They can use those thirty six hours to try to prove that you are a danger to yourself or to others.

My brother is a law professor, so I called him, and learned about the appeal process, something I was never informed about at the hospital. This was one of several occasssions, but the first two years they were content to hold me for a week, send me home for outpatient care, and bring me back in. The third year, a different hospital saw me as a meal ticket. An in patient looney is worth $1,000/day or more, plus, the opportunity to experiment. They went ballistic on me for 36 hours but were unable to make a case that I was a danger to myself and to others, even after injecting me with a mix of 6 different drugs. By the time I left, I was hallucinating all over the place, but did a very good job of faking being sane.

It was hear that I learned about "permanent care."
Those guys had horror stories that put the hollywood imitation to shame. There they do not have to release you. But in order to be in permanent care, they have to deem you a danger to yourself or to others, for which the grounds are very light. When they pump you full drugs, not so much as tipping over a chair is tricky business. They were able to induce a couple of seizures though, which did some permanent damage. Can't miss meal time, or shower time, can't speak up, act up, no matter what you're on or what condition your in, or you could be on your way to permanent care. Scary world.

Never, anywhere, during three years of psychiatric care, was I allowed any actual medical care, even from clinics, to find out if something was actually wrong with me, which it was. Here in the US. I fled to Hungary actually, which is where I was able to unravel what the real situation was. Afterword, undoing the damage done by psychiatric care has been another issue.

BTW, I grew up very poor. I used to work for 15 cents a day, that bought you a bowl of soup. Life is tough all over. There's no comparison. Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey DT

Did you ever see the movie Jaws ? I wasn't trying to spark a 'who's got the biggest scar' contest, but if you want - ok, you win, hands down. I was just trying to make a point w/ ChrisIsAll that I have been on the 'wrong side' of the man.

As for the laws - I'd appreciate it if you could provide some information. My father (now deceased) fell and broke his hip due to Parkinson's. The anesthetics, pain pills, LDopa et al sent him into permanent hallucinations/ delusions. Being off of all medication for weeks barely made a dent. But he kept threatening to sign himself out, broken hip and all.

(He also said that he took a taxi to visit a family member in Buffalo - who'd been living out of state for over 20 years and was still out of state - and found a 'disgusting ' party going on ... that he took his 'cart' - he couldn't remember the word wheelchair and English was not his first language - and saw they had a bank of phones in the basement and people madly answering them b/c the place was bankrupt and going to close down ... that he was eating 'delicious' cheese - out of an empty hand ... that he was back in England after WWII in a medical facility ... that he'd gone back home - to a building that never existed - and he was ready to pack and go back there to stay ... and many other obvious waking dreams that he nevertheless thought were real.)

Anyway, it was very touch and go as to how he could be kept in the hospital, which we did day by day with persuasion and cajoling, b/c after all, he had the right to sign himself out and could insist on it. No matter what his physical and mental state.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:05 PM