U.S. Politics - Page 641 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6401  
Old 01-16-13, 22:43
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Get it straight... Independent Payment Advisory Boards.
Well let's see, what's the IPAB all about then.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...th-panel-myth/

Huh. Well, that's not so scary. Needlessly complicated to fit it into our absurdly complex and yet inefficient and ineffective private-for-profit-insurance-based health care "system", yep. But not really all that scary.

What is kind of scary is that you and the right are using talking points that originated with Sarah Palin. You might have been on to something with that low-information voter thing.
Reply With Quote
  #6402  
Old 01-16-13, 22:48
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
rhubroma you are way smart for this or for me to have a discussion with. Anyhow I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or putting me down.

My point about the use of deadly force is that deadly force should be the last resort even in a police officers SOP. When a civilian uses deadly force they cross the line in my opinion. In the example of the intruder with a spade or shovel it seems to me that something else besides 3 shots fired at center mast would have been appropriate. Just my opinion.

Anyhow I feel all weak and **** now that I have posted that... I must be turning into a ***** or a democrat?
I'm not so smart and I'm not puting you down. As for the rest, live as you see fit, if you aren't taking me for a ride.

Last edited by rhubroma; 01-16-13 at 22:59.
Reply With Quote
  #6403  
Old 01-16-13, 22:57
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Well let's see, what's the IPAB all about then.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...th-panel-myth/

Huh. Well, that's not so scary. Needlessly complicated to fit it into our absurdly complex and yet inefficient and ineffective private-for-profit-insurance-based health care "system", yep. But not really all that scary.

What is kind of scary is that you and the right are using talking points that originated with Sarah Palin. You might have been on to something with that low-information voter thing.
Not scary at all if you make a ton of money.

Quote:
But the whole point of the board is to use price controls to discourage expensive treatments. Yes, it is possible that some good doctor will be willing to perform bypass surgeries for Medicare patients even when the board only allows, say, payment for aspirin. Itís also very unlikely. If the board decides to set payment for state-of-the-art dialysis at below cost, reasoning that the benefits of the procedure arenít commensurate with the added expense, it isnít rationing care directly. But it is indeed rationing care, because this would effectively consign patients to older treatments.
You know how this will go, right?

The wealthy will be able to pay for their expensive treatments and the poor won't.

And you'll scream bloody murder.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #6404  
Old 01-17-13, 04:58
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,887
Default

Uh-oh. We need to ban subways. Crazy people are using them to kill people.

NY Subway Pusher Kills Man

By KEVIN DOLAK | Good Morning America Ė 10 hours ago


Detectives in New York are searching for a female suspect who fled a subway station after a man was fatally pushed in front of a train on an elevated platform in Queens, N.Y.
At 8:04 p.m. on Thursday an unnamed man was standing on the northbound platform at 40th Street and Queens Blvd., waiting for the 7 train. Witnesses told police that a woman was walking back and forth on the platform and talking to herself before she took a seat on a wooden bench on the platform.
As the 7 train approached the station, witnesses said the woman rose from the bench and pushed the man onto the tracks, who was standing with his back to her.
Witnesses told police that the victim did not notice the woman behind him. He was struck by the first of the 11-car train, with his body pinned under the front of the second car as the train came to a stop, according to a statement from Deputy Commissioner Paul Brown.
After pushing the man onto the platform the woman then fled down the stairs to Queens Blvd. She was described as wearing a blue, white and grey ski jacket, and grey and red Nike sneakers.
It is unclear if the two knew each other, or whether anyone attempted to help the man to the platform before he was struck by the train.
Overnight the NYPD released surveillance video of the woman believed to be the suspect, Detectives were also canvassing locations along Queens Blvd for other witnesses and surveillance video.
On Friday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked whether the incident might be related to the increase of mentally ill people on the streets following closures of institutions over the past four decades.
"The courts or the law have changed and said, no, you can't do that unless they're a danger to society; our laws protect you. That's fair enough," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.
Thursday's incident marks the second straphanger death this month--a man was killed in midtown after being pushed onto the subway tracks under an oncoming train.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #6405  
Old 01-17-13, 09:36
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,418
Default

It's enough to look beyond the walls of the auditorium where Obama recently spoke about stricter gun controls to realize that the wind of change in America is really just a breeze. On TV the NRA has circulated that repugnant spot about how Obama is a hypocrite, because his children are accompanied by the secret service at school. The idol of the idiotic Tea Party, Paul Rand, has compared Obama to George III of England: the autocrat against the minutemen struggling for independence. He's promised to fight tooth and nail the "new American monarch," and his supporters have long teeth and nails.

The 23 propositions of the president, which haven't yet been totally explained, to limit, or rather to limit just a little bit, the incensed private armory "even while recognizing a right to bear arms" are seen as a ukaz, the imposition of an autocrat. This naturally gives some idea of the American folly.

Consequently, notwithstanding Newtown, Colorado, Virginia, etc. it seems little probable that Obama will succeed in regulating even a bit less the incensed sale of arms in the US. It's positively laughable, bitterly though, his desire to place a buffer upon the cruel imagery of cinema, TV and video games. The ox has long since been released from that stall, at least for a couple of generations that is, and the addiction of billions of people to the daily spectacle of physical suppression has by now become total and irreparable: just as is irreparable the US primacy in the production and diffusion of violent death in every corner of the globe, in each home.

The other morning while sipping my caffè, during the time at which children also have their breakfast, and humanity wakes up with some silly conceit of innocence, I was struck by a commercial on Sky in which some people were shooting themselves in the stomach with savage dexterity. I say Sky, but it’s all the stations really, each generalized network, each TV show "for the family." One doesn't even realize anymore the paroxysmal frequency of violent productions, and still less so the nature of such imagery: which is the destruction of the human body, its mutilation, as the normal punctuation of our daily iconography.

Last edited by rhubroma; 01-17-13 at 09:56.
Reply With Quote
  #6406  
Old 01-17-13, 12:09
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
It's enough to look beyond the walls of the auditorium where Obama recently spoke about stricter gun controls to realize that the wind of change in America is really just a breeze. On TV the NRA has circulated that repugnant spot about how Obama is a hypocrite, because his children are accompanied by the secret service at school. The idol of the idiotic Tea Party, Paul Rand, has compared Obama to George III of England: the autocrat against the minutemen struggling for independence. He's promised to fight tooth and nail the "new American monarch," and his supporters have long teeth and nails.

The 23 propositions of the president, which haven't yet been totally explained, to limit, or rather to limit just a little bit, the incensed private armory "even while recognizing a right to bear arms" are seen as a ukaz, the imposition of an autocrat. This naturally gives some idea of the American folly.

Consequently, notwithstanding Newtown, Colorado, Virginia, etc. it seems little probable that Obama will succeed in regulating even a bit less the incensed sale of arms in the US. It's positively laughable, bitterly though, his desire to place a buffer upon the cruel imagery of cinema, TV and video games. The ox has long since been released from that stall, at least for a couple of generations that is, and the addiction of billions of people to the daily spectacle of physical suppression has by now become total and irreparable: just as is irreparable the US primacy in the production and diffusion of violent death in every corner of the globe, in each home.

The other morning while sipping my caffŤ, during the time at which children also have their breakfast, and humanity wakes up with some silly conceit of innocence, I was struck by a commercial on Sky in which some people were shooting themselves in the stomach with savage dexterity. I say Sky, but itís all the stations really, each generalized network, each TV show "for the family." One doesn't even realize anymore the paroxysmal frequency of violent productions, and still less so the nature of such imagery: which is the destruction of the human body, its mutilation, as the normal punctuation of our daily iconography.
Desensitization began in earnest 40 years ago.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #6407  
Old 01-17-13, 14:14
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Desensitization began in earnest 40 years ago.
Well, for the record, I did say a couple of generations ago, which sounds about the same to me. On the other hand the amount of gratuitous violence, especially that the youth are exposed to, when one considers the video games, etc., had really gotten to a point of oversaturation I'd say over the last 20-25 max years or so.

What the actual consequences for this in terms of violence in society, or its long term pedagogical effects, is of course a matter of considerable debate. However, your use of the term desensitization is perhaps most apt in regards to the psychological outgrowth of the phenomenon, which can't exactly be construed as fortuitous.
Reply With Quote
  #6408  
Old 01-17-13, 15:55
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The wealthy will be able to pay for their expensive treatments and the poor won't.

And you'll scream bloody murder.
Sorry, have I not made it clear enough? I support universal health care. You're the one who supports income-based, for-profit health care systems, not me.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...712_story.html

Quote:
The study enumerates other key, if unsurprising, factors in our shortness of life. “Americans are more likely to find their health care inaccessible or unaffordable,” it concludes. “Americans benefit less from safety net programs that can buffer the negative health effects of poverty and other social disadvantages.”

But a funny thing happens to Americans’ life expectancy when they age. The U.S. mortality rate is the highest of the 17 nations until Americans hit 50 and the second-highest until they hit 70. Then our mortality ranking precipitously shifts: By the time American seniors hit 80, they have some of the longest life expectancies in the world.

What gives? Have seniors discovered the Fountain of Youth? Do U.S. geriatricians outpace all our other physicians?

Part of the answer is Darwinian: Those Americans who have been less able to access reliable medical care, maintain good diets and live in neighborhoods that are not prey to gun violence have disproportionately died off before age 80. That isn’t natural selection but social selection — the survival of the economically fittest in a nation that rations longevity by wealth.

But the larger part of the answer is that at age 65, Americans enter a health-care system that ceases to be exceptional when compared with the systems in the other 16 nations studied. They leave behind the private provision of medical coverage, forsake the genius of the market and avail themselves of universal medical insurance. For the first time, they are beneficiaries of the same kind of social policy that their counterparts in other lands enjoy. And presto, change-o: Their life expectancy catches up with and eventually surpasses those of the French, Germans, Britons and Canadians.

Last edited by VeloCity; 01-17-13 at 16:44.
Reply With Quote
  #6409  
Old 01-17-13, 15:59
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Uh-oh. We need to ban subways. Crazy people are using them to kill people.

NY Subway Pusher Kills Man

By KEVIN DOLAK | Good Morning America – 10 hours ago


Detectives in New York are searching for a female suspect who fled a subway station after a man was fatally pushed in front of a train on an elevated platform in Queens, N.Y.
At 8:04 p.m. on Thursday an unnamed man was standing on the northbound platform at 40th Street and Queens Blvd., waiting for the 7 train. Witnesses told police that a woman was walking back and forth on the platform and talking to herself before she took a seat on a wooden bench on the platform.
As the 7 train approached the station, witnesses said the woman rose from the bench and pushed the man onto the tracks, who was standing with his back to her.
Witnesses told police that the victim did not notice the woman behind him. He was struck by the first of the 11-car train, with his body pinned under the front of the second car as the train came to a stop, according to a statement from Deputy Commissioner Paul Brown.
After pushing the man onto the platform the woman then fled down the stairs to Queens Blvd. She was described as wearing a blue, white and grey ski jacket, and grey and red Nike sneakers.
It is unclear if the two knew each other, or whether anyone attempted to help the man to the platform before he was struck by the train.
Overnight the NYPD released surveillance video of the woman believed to be the suspect, Detectives were also canvassing locations along Queens Blvd for other witnesses and surveillance video.
On Friday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked whether the incident might be related to the increase of mentally ill people on the streets following closures of institutions over the past four decades.
"The courts or the law have changed and said, no, you can't do that unless they're a danger to society; our laws protect you. That's fair enough," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.
Thursday's incident marks the second straphanger death this month--a man was killed in midtown after being pushed onto the subway tracks under an oncoming train.
24 shootings in Baltimore so far this year. That's what, almost 1.5 per day, in one city? Unlike guys being pushed onto subways, gun-related violence is so common in the US that it isn't even newsworthy anymore.

btw, you may want to revisit the SC rulings on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think they say what you - or Scott, or the NRA - think they say.

Quote:
n pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
And that's Scalia's opinion.

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-...ht-to-own-guns

Last edited by VeloCity; 01-17-13 at 16:35.
Reply With Quote
  #6410  
Old 01-17-13, 16:02
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013...paign=20130117

Quote:
States aren't likely to prevent many shootings by requiring mental health professionals to report potentially violent patients, psychiatrists and psychologists say.

The approach is part of a gun control law passed in New York yesterday in response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting a month ago. But it's unlikely to work because assessing the risk of violent behavior is difficult, error-prone and not something most mental health professionals are trained to do it, say specialists who deal with violence among the mentally ill.

"We're not likely to catch very many potentially violent people" with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx.

Such laws "cast a very large net that will probably restrict a lot of people's behavior unnecessarily," Rosenfeld says. "Maybe we'll prevent an incident or two," he says. "But there are other ways that would be more productive."

Better alternatives include reducing the total number of guns and improving access to mental health care, Rosenfeld says.

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence.

Without either of these, Hoge says, "an accurate assessment of the likelihood of future violence is virtually impossible."

"The biggest risk for gun violence is possession of a gun," says Hoge. "And there's no evidence that the mentally ill possess guns or commit gun violence at any greater rate than the normal population."
So even mental-health experts agree that it's impossible to predict who's going to go on a shooting spree and that the best way to reduce violence is by reducing guns. Now can we get on with gun control?

Last edited by VeloCity; 01-17-13 at 16:06.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.