kbordson

Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. So, are you suggesting that Europeans generally make better lifestyle choices than Americans? it's a side note... but I would agree with that statement when comparing "average" populations of both cultures. We have higher rates of obesity. And an unhealthy attachment to our current healthcare system. And developing an unhealthy sense of entitlement

I think Tina has her opinion. I have mine. I think the entire system (BOTH MAJOR PARTIES - and more) needs significant re-structuring.

Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. So, are you suggesting that Europeans generally make better lifestyle choices than Americans? it's a side note... but I would agree with that statement when comparing "average" populations of both cultures. We have higher rates of obesity. Compare the rates by this CDC site vs. data from the WHO as an attachment (I tried to get it as a link, but it was just a download)

Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?! If you really believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession, I have some ocean property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. Or do you still deny the "R word, like Republicans did for so long. I didn't say that I "believe that changing the minimum wage caused the Bush recession". I'm just pointing out the contradictions in the argument "raising the minimum wage is good. Life will be SO MUCH BETTER!!" and using the FACT that the minimum wage WAS recently increased, however a recession DID occur. (not a correlation or a causation).... but yet the argument is now "raising it MORE will be SO MUCH BETTER!!!" I just am not naive enough to buy that. (nor the ocean front property... but if you want to LIE about having it and selling it... that I might believe)

You honestly make good points and no one is arguing that there shouldn't be change. But a couple thoughts - You lost points using Sicko as your support. That was honestly a propaganda film that was made for money. You don't truly understand the system (but neither do I and I am IN it) I DO know that there are ABUSES of the system. I DO know that there are ABUSES of the providers of the systems. And I know someone will complain about using personal examples but EVEN last night - I was personally threatened while providing what I consider the best of care to one of my patients by the family member of someone receiving government funded assistance. (now... granted part of me knows not to take his threats seriously .... but when it comes to "entitled" care... sometimes people think there are NO limits to what they are "entitled" to) As far as who should get treatment? The answer is and ALWAYS will be triage. But... someone does have to pay to keep the hospital there, to keep the nurses employed, to keep the doctors learning. Someone has to pay the electric company and the gas bills of the hospital. You are using MANY services when you go to the ER and SOMEONE has to keep those running.... and I believe in personal responsibility. I do NOT expect someone to pay for my bills, whether they are medical or food or clothing ... I incur debt, I am responsible to resolve that. Combining this with a discussion of police and fire services is silly too (not yet done in this thread... but used as an argument ALL THE TIME)... cuz the police do NOT protect ME. They protect the laws. I can NOT just walk into the police station and say "I want a body guard." Once the law is broken though, then they are called into service. Likewise... the fire dept is not MINE. I have smoke detectors that I bought, I have a fire responses system that I pay for. And if there are multiple fires... I can't stomp my foot and DEMAND they come to mine first. AND in some situations the homeowners and their insurance can and HAVE been billed by the dept's for calls. I'm NOT entitled to police or fire services. But with paying taxes I get a SMALL benefit if something goes catastrophically wrong... but with caveats and restrictions. What is the government responsible for? In my opinion - it is a social group arranged to tell the masses to "play nice" and to decide on how to enforce that decree. The government is NOT there to give me anything.

Please enlighten us with the extent of the problem. How many such people are there "working the system" as opposed to being genuinely in need of assistance, due, for example to being one of the 2.5 million people recently laid off in the Bush recession? WAIT A MINUTE But.... Bush raised the minimum wage.... I thought the party argument was that doing that would NOT cause unemployment?!

no, it's not (you just think it is - but then you probably think the moon doesn't affect the tides) Again another irrevelant point - but good attempt at distraction.

a. When they get muddy enough I do sometimes b. More importantly -- I'm trying to help here Wendy W. And clean does make them feel kinda new!

i've already given proof (the uk introduction of a minimum wage about ten years ago) The fact that the UK introduced the minimum wage 10yrs ago is irrevelant to this conversation. The US instituted it in 1938. . . . but what does that have to do with the argument. Basic situation - minimum wage jobs are NOT careers. They are NOT an ending place. You should be striving for better and more. They are entry level positions. If you're still in the same minimum wage job after 5-10yrs, that's your fault not your companies.

[socialist whine]We're not. Why can't we get handouts like everybody else?[/socialist whine]

(don't take the bait.... don't take the bait..... don't take the bait......)

No... read my posts. There is no spin. I just disagree with you. I'm saying that increasing the cost of business (whether it's taxes or wages or benefits) will push companies to find ways to increase profit or decrease the modifiable costs - employ less or buy from non US. There is only so much profitability in some companies. You take away that margin, no company. No company, no jobs.

I just changed a few of the numbers. I would personally have more undergarments and less outerwear. Who cares if I wore that pair of shorts yesterday... but clean undies - THAT I care about. I generally try to travel light, but I'm not much of a fashion girlie type. Clean and uncluttered.

But you're ignoring all the extra taxes that the small business owners are already getting hit with. It's not JUST the minimum wage that would decrease their job force. It would be the ability to profit as a company. Also... then prices will increase to offset the taxes and the increased wage. So then we will need more government controls to keep the EVIL business owners in check with their "price gouging." So then it will cost MORE to make a product and less and less and less return. How long can you keep the doors open in that situation.

It is interesting. And when I'm frustrated at work with some of the peoples that shouldn't be having more, the thought of government sponsored population control does sound appealing. After all you have to get licensed to drive a car.... But deep down, I oppose it. Nadya Suleman was an outlier. She is not the "typical" infertility patient. Most of the time, those that I refer to reproductive endocrinology are 30-35years old. They have been trying for years. Just hadn't come to the realization that they need help until the clock started REALLY ticking. Now... most insurances won't pay for infertility. So this is mainly out of pocket. Meaning the cost is a factor for many - and thus limiting it to those with financial means. If you add on EVEN more regulations and cost then it will become a benefit of the rich. I do understand your argument about the "professional middle man" - but... I see him/her more as an assist to the couples reproductive health.

I think the majority of us in here might be culturally unqualified to answer the question. Very true. But one can still examine the situation from different cultures perspective. I don't think he was asking "which is right in THAT culture?" Rather do YOU support eye for eye justice?

I disagree. With the current increases already in effect by President Bush from 2007, the minimum wage will be raised to $7.25 in July 2009. That amounts to approx 15k gross. For an entry level job, like right out of high school or in between positions. You shouldn't be striving to stay in a minimum wage job for all time. That should just be a starting point, either in that company or career or in life. AND take into account what you are actually GIVING for that income. 40 hours of work. If you work more - you get overtime. When I was a resident - I worked 80hours/week and was salary at 35k (and gave up every other weekend and was on call in the hospital one in five, sometimes one in three nights) But I understood that it was an ENTRY level... even though it worked out to 8.41 per hour. (and that was with a 4year bachelors, and 4yr post graduate medical school) Finally considering all the extra taxes that these small business owners are now going to have to pay out of his/her own pockets, you think that they will have the extra to just hand out for entry labor jobs. Nope. They'll just decrease their employment forces. LESS jobs, as mentioned above.

Sounds typical of a country where women are not valued the same as a man. Me being the compassionate kind of person that I am.. would hunt the fucker down and denut him..... but she does not have that kind of option.. she is disfigured for life and is blind.. so no OTHER man would want her.. his mission was accomplished.Maybe denutted no other woman would want him. Now that would be vengeance. Not justice.

Hard call. Personally I think that blinding him is a "cruel" punishment but what are the alternatives? Now here in the US, it would be costly fines and lawyer fees, maybe some amount of jail time and possible loss of rights (voting, firearms, some elected official positions) His was a cruel and violent act on her. It was not a sudden unconsidered act... as she states that he had waited for hours. He deserves SOME punishment for his crimes. Which is "fair"? Taking the emotions out is hard. But so is quantifying someone elses pain.

Poor Kaitlin!!! Her doll babies are homeless!!! - Good episode though. But... I don't know if I believe that the gov't should buy toxic assets.

I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment. mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment. So.. how do you PROVE that someone isn't under psychiatric treatment? I understand your desire, but don't get to the practical application of your statement. Do you wish to have all psych records open to public review? I think you have a bad case of false dichotomy and appeal to emotion there, Dr. How so? I'm asking him to define a practical application of his desire. Just saying "I would prefer" doesn't give good guidance. I just want him to look at the problem and determine how to fix it.

STRAWMAN ALERT. I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment." No... I'm asking YOU. You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want. I would prefer not to arm someone who is under psychiatric treatment. mnealtx's comments show that he only cares that they CLAIM not to be under psychiatric treatment. So.. how do you PROVE that someone isn't under psychiatric treatment? I understand your desire, but don't get to the practical application of your statement. Do you wish to have all psych records open to public review? Which diagnoses? Just psychotic breakdowns? depression? baby blues? homosexuality (it has a diagnosis code in ICD 9)? marital counseling?

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"? STRAWMAN ALERT. I wrote no such thing. I'm trying to clarify what mnealtx meant when he wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment." No... I'm asking YOU. You obviously have problems with what he said. I'm asking YOU what you want.

So... you are in favor of having all psychiatric medical records available to public inspection? Well... good thing that we might be going to that anyway. Who needs patient/physician confidentiality anyway? Or are you in favor of demanding that all firearm owners take a psych evaluation? Would that make you feel "safer"?

You have no concept of the current laws in place to prevent your "scenario" from happening. Now, give me a hard definition of an "assault weapon." Now explain why a law abiding citizen should not be able to purchase what you described (assuming you describe what is currently purchasable by a law abiding citizen with not BATF requirements). Oh, come on, Dave. You KNOW the argument will be that THESE laws will make them safe. Those other laws on the books... those aren't good. We need NEW ones to protect us from those evil gun types that just want to kill us. As far as what is an "assault weapon" is.... you know that if you just had one of those wooden type boom sticks then you would be fine. But yours is scary looking. Scary is bad. It has nothing to do with caliber or capacity.... Cuz you can't kill someone with a single shot bolt rifle, can you? That's not what snipers like bestest... they like the scary ones.