|
ToxicSlurpee posted:To get an idea of how atrocious American health issues are a few years ago I just randomly went down and had a seizure. I had never had one before and had never been diagnosed with anything seizure-related. My insurance company denied coverage of it due to being a "pre-existing condition" and I racked up like $10,000 of medical bills that just never got paid. The hospital later just forgave it because I'm poor as gently caress but really, insurance companies will use literally any excuse to not pay. It looked so hopeful that you guys were going to get some sort of healthcare that wasn't poo poo, and then Obamacare turned out to mostly be a big, sloppy blowjob to insurance companies. Ridiculous, and very sad.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
PT6A posted:It looked so hopeful that you guys were going to get some sort of healthcare that wasn't poo poo, and then Obamacare turned out to mostly be a big, sloppy blowjob to insurance companies. Ridiculous, and very sad. What's really sad is even THAT'S too good for us according to half the population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It looked so hopeful that you guys were going to get some sort of healthcare that wasn't poo poo, and then Obamacare turned out to mostly be a big, sloppy blowjob to insurance companies. Ridiculous, and very sad. Pre-existing conditions is at least one thing that kind of not really got fixed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It looked so hopeful that you guys were going to get some sort of healthcare that wasn't poo poo, and then Obamacare turned out to mostly be a big, sloppy blowjob to insurance companies. Ridiculous, and very sad. That's not entirely true; it did basically drive up enrollment but a whole bunch, but now at least 80% of insurance company revenue has to be spent on healthcare for customers, they can't deny anyone on the basis of "preexisting conditions", they can't drop you while you're sick, and there are a bunch of new rules that set a baseline for what plans must cover (whereas before a bunch of people were paying for insurance that didn't actually cover anything). And more reforms are still kicking in; in 2015 employers with at least 50 full-time employees must start offering insurance, in 2017 people with actual preexisting conditions will be charged the same as everyone else (thereby finally putting the issue to rest completely), and in 2018 plans that existed before the reforms will have to start offering free preventative care (new plans already have to do this). Why is all of this good poo poo staggered in such a way? I don't loving know, but most of these reforms are already implemented and by 2018 our healthcare system will be in a way better position than it was in 2008. So yeah, the insurance mandate thing is giving a bunch of money to insurance companies, but it also came with a huge list of extremely beneficial reforms that we desperately needed, which includes caps on insurance company profits. The new system is without a doubt better than the old. We didn't and still don't have enough progressive voices to implement something truly great, like single payer or a strong public option, but the Obamacare reforms are actually really good
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why is all of this good poo poo staggered in such a way? Maybe so the right can destroy it before all the good poo poo takes effect? That and change also takes time. Just how it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Maybe so the right can destroy it before all the good poo poo takes effect? Well, luckily they've failed to do that for all of the things that are already active. Profit caps are in, no more denial for preexisting is in, you can't be dropped while ill, and preventative care is already in for new plans. If the right is trying to destroy these things before they get implemented then they've done a lovely job so far. If we can make it to 2018 and get people with preexisting conditions to be charged the same as everyone else + free preventative care for everyone then we'll have something pretty reasonable on our hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Well, luckily they've failed to do that for all of the things that are already active. Profit caps are in, no more denial for preexisting is in, you can't be dropped while ill, and preventative care is already in for new plans. If the right is trying to destroy these things before they get implemented then they've done a lovely job so far. If we can make it to 2018 and get people with preexisting conditions to be charged the same as everyone else + free preventative care for everyone then we'll have something pretty reasonable on our hands. If. I guarantee a lot of that hinges on who wins the next election cycle. A Republican president with a wholly Republican Congress is either going to torpedo Obamacare totally or make slight improvements then act like everything was their doing from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Parents using bleach enemas to cure autism.  http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/weird-news/parents-giving-bleach-enemas-to-cure-their-children-of-autism-yeah-thats-a-thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Kumo posted:Parents using bleach enemas to cure autism. We had this discussion already, why the gently caress did you have to remind me about it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
"she did saw a virus of measles inside the intestine" whaaaaaaaaaaat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
 I can't even....They won't use vaccines because CHEMICALS, but they'll butt chug their kids with actual harmful substances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Golbez posted:"she did saw a virus of measles inside the intestine" "Everyone who does this is an idiot, so make poo poo up and they'll buy it" would be my interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Complaining about that vaccine is also particularly stupid. The reason it comes under fire is because some people believe that promiscuity of any level should be severely punished so HPV is just God's way of punishing women who bone more than one dude over the course of their lives. While, you know, totally ignoring the fact that things like rape happen and humans have a long history of being really, really lovely at being monogamous. Or that not every religion is against sleeping around a bit. In JAMA published on 2/9/2015 quote:Conclusion:
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
TheMaskedChemist posted:
How could Miracle Mineral Solution possibly be harmful????? How dare you slander these parents by implying that these dubiously named wonder cures are in any way unhealthy!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
The real hosed up part that "miracle mineral solution" could have easily have been made with completely non-dangerous stuff and still sell just as well. It's really active malice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Lote posted:In JAMA published on 2/9/2015 Please don't make me chase down citations. The source is here. The research comes with a large set of caveats that should be included in its citation, particularly for policy purposes. quote:Our study had several limitations. First, the decision to vaccinate against HPV may be correlated with unobserved characteristics that are also associated with STI risk, which would confound our estimates. For example, females who expect to become sexually active may be more likely to become vaccinated, which could spuriously suggest that HPV vaccination leads to greater sexual activity. Our difference-in-difference approach accounted for preexisting differences in STI rates between vaccinated and nonvaccinated females and found no effect of HPV vaccination on STI rates. It is possible, however, that HPV vaccination is more likely in households that are wealthier and more educated, which, if unaccounted for, could bias toward zero any deleterious effect of HPV vaccination on STI rates. Although we did not have data on family income or educational level, HPV vaccination was not associated with family socioeconomic status in several prior surveys. The short version is that they can't actually make those conclusions based on this dataset. The conclusion statement you quote goes outside the data, as is not unexpected for a clinician-facing publication, especially JAMA (online first status is also a warning sign). This study was whipped up to act as a persuasive document- it's not actually particularly valid (though it's very well-written). We may find the policy appealing, but for scientific research, that can't be enough to justify a rhetoric of science. If we wish to distinguish ourselves from what we hate, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The real hosed up part that "miracle mineral solution" could have easily have been made with completely non-dangerous stuff and still sell just as well. It's really active malice. They really should had the parents mainline the solution to create sympathetic quantum harmonics in the household first...
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Please don't make me chase down citations. The source is here. The research comes with a large set of caveats that should be included in its citation, particularly for policy purposes. I just picked that paper because it was the most recent one. There have been other papers in other journals. I can pull up the citations if you want. The papers out there right now show that there is a small percentage of parents concerned about sexual disinhibition and then several papers trying to show no increase in risky sexual behavior after vaccination. The quality of those studies are meh, either retrospective or cohort with "experimental" statistical analysis. I don't think that you'll get any prospective well-run studies for this question due to cost. There hasn't been a paper that affirms this concern about increase in risky sexual behavior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
snorch posted:along with the odd "modern medicine has come far enough that we can strengthen our immune systems better without vaccines" BS. Every time someone drags this out, or the idea that XX illness was already dying out due to better hygiene/nutrition/etc... when the vaccine was introduced, and that we could easily do without said vaccine because of our comparatively improved health, I wonder how a disease that was almost dead in pre-vaccine, 1950s-hygiene-and-nutrition-and-medicine-level America, manages to roar back to life so dramatically among a tiny unvaccinated population, not to mention one which often prides itself on how well it takes care of itself, in 21st century hygiene-nutrition-medicine America. It is so weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Every time someone drags this out, or the idea that XX illness was already dying out due to better hygiene/nutrition/etc... when the vaccine was introduced, and that we could easily do without said vaccine because of our comparatively improved health, I wonder how a disease that was almost dead in pre-vaccine, 1950s-hygiene-and-nutrition-and-medicine-level America, manages to roar back to life so dramatically among a tiny unvaccinated population, not to mention one which often prides itself on how well it takes care of itself, in 21st century hygiene-nutrition-medicine America. It is so weird. A good counter-example would be syphilis. It's incredibly treatable but we have no vaccine. The bacteria is highly susceptible to the same penicillin used in the 1940s with a 100% cure rate if given antibiotics. There is also no treatment besides antibiotics and our immune systems aren't getting better to defeat the bacteria. We now have cheap reliable testing to test for the disease. Despite these effective tests and treatments, we have not even come close to eliminating the disease. Compare the incidence per year of syphilis, a disease that we could treat exactly how you mentioned, versus any other disease that has a vaccine. We've eliminated small pox. We almost eliminated polio. Syphilis isn't going away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Lote posted:A good counter-example would be syphilis. It's incredibly treatable but we have no vaccine. The bacteria is highly susceptible to the same penicillin used in the 1940s with a 100% cure rate if given antibiotics. There is also no treatment besides antibiotics and our immune systems aren't getting better to defeat the bacteria. We now have cheap reliable testing to test for the disease. Despite these effective tests and treatments, we have not even come close to eliminating the disease. Compare the incidence per year of syphilis, a disease that we could treat exactly how you mentioned, versus any other disease that has a vaccine. We've eliminated small pox. We almost eliminated polio. Syphilis isn't going away. People just keep on fuckin'!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The real hosed up part that "miracle mineral solution" could have easily have been made with completely non-dangerous stuff and still sell just as well. It's really active malice. The Sawbones podcast talks a lot about junk medicine like this from the days of patent medicine. A lot of these medicines had codeine, heroin, marijuana, alcohol, or other substances like laxatives to make the patient feel like "something" was happening, even if it wasn't anything beneficial or effective. When some of the narcotics were being cracked down on, they just mixed in some other random poo poo. One of the more famous examples being Jamaica ginger. quote:Jamaica Ginger extract, known in the United States by the slang name "Jake," was a late 19th-century patent medicine that provided a convenient way to bypass Prohibition laws, since it contained between 70-80% ethanol by weight. quote:A pair of amateur chemists and bootleggers, Harry Gross and Max Reisman, worked to develop an alternative adulterant that would pass the tests, but still be somewhat palatable. They sought advice from a professor at MIT who did not realize it was meant for internal consumption. They settled on a plasticizer, tri-o-tolyl phosphate (also known as tri-ortho cresyl phosphate, TOCP, or Tricresyl phosphate), that was able to pass the Treasury Department's tests but preserved Jake's drinkability. TOCP was originally thought to be non-toxic; however, it was later determined to be a neurotoxin that causes axonal damage to the nerve cells in the nervous system of human beings, especially those located in the spinal cord. The resulting type of paralysis is now referred to as organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathy, or OPIDN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
nm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Habibi posted:People just keep on fuckin'! Pretty sure if you hosed someone who had small pox you'd get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Pretty sure if you hosed someone who had small pox you'd get it. We're going to need a field trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I work with CPS on a regular basis, and they are incredibly powerless and overworked. I tell everyone to just report. Report, report, report, all the time, every time. The fatter the file gets the more likely they are to do something. This is from a few pages back, but I wanted to echo it. I worked in a Youth Shelter in Indiana for a while, and as a result had more than a little interaction with CPS. There was a number of situations where we wanted to compel CPS to act, but they didn't have whatever they needed to actually take a child out of the home. It's never, ever good to end up reading about one of your old clients in the newspaper. With that in mind, gently caress people who condemn CPS. I remember getting a haircut one day, and the hairdresser was talking about how the evil CPS had taken her brother's kids out of the home. All I could think was lady, do you have any idea how bad it has to get before they move?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Bizarre Echo posted:This is from a few pages back, but I wanted to echo it. I worked in a Youth Shelter in Indiana for a while, and as a result had more than a little interaction with CPS. There was a number of situations where we wanted to compel CPS to act, but they didn't have whatever they needed to actually take a child out of the home. It's never, ever good to end up reading about one of your old clients in the newspaper. Yeah well I know my brother made a few mistakes but he's a good guy underneath it all, you know? I'm sure he was going to clean up his act soon and they were just being jerks. I mean you'll get what I'm saying when you're a parent. Having children is stressful and it isn't his fault if stress gets the best of him occasionally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Bizarre Echo posted:With that in mind, gently caress people who condemn CPS. I remember getting a haircut one day, and the hairdresser was talking about how the evil CPS had taken her brother's kids out of the home. All I could think was lady, do you have any idea how bad it has to get before they move? Yeah I had a client tell me CPS had taken his 3 kids and how it was all just a personal grudge held by the case worker. The instant he told me my opinion shifted to "Oh, this guy might be mentally ill." It's basically a state certificate of 'Here Be Dragons'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
What's the difference between CPS and a rottweiler. At least with a rottweiler you get some of the kid back. A social worker told me that joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/25/8104825/gardasil-works-so-why-arent-more-girls-getting-innoculated
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Kumo posted:Parents using bleach enemas to cure autism. I'm pretty sure that's a BS clickbait story, since there's no other stories about it that don't link back to ifyouonlynews. So I have to call BS on that story. It's an unverified story from a third rate web site that tailors stories to our fears. Whenever you read some outrageous story that conforms to your opinion, then you should be even more vigilant about it. "If your mom says she loves you, get a second opinion." It seems cynical, but a rush to believe stories too good to be true has fouled up quite a few journalists. Let's at least pretend to be smarter than journalism school students. There are companies out there that do rear end bleachings, but their primary market is pornstars, plus any aspiring models trying to hide the fact that they poop from there. And I'm pretty sure that they don't use actual bleach, they're just whitening up assholes to make them look good on film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:I'm pretty sure that's a BS clickbait story, since there's no other stories about it that don't link back to ifyouonlynews. So I have to call BS on that story. It's an unverified story from a third rate web site that tailors stories to our fears. No, it's quite real. The ifyouonlynews article was written this month, but Miracle Mineral Solution (aka bleach sold to parents as a cure-all, including an autism cure) has been around and marketed to people for all sorts of maladies, and there are tons and tons of articles and posts that are older than the ifyouonlynews article. I don't know how you managed to miss them. For instance, here's the FDA's page on MMS and another FDA page warning consumers that MMS is not an autism cure, bleach doesn't cure autism, stop feeding bleach to your kids e: Seriously, what was your search term? There are thousands of pages on this stuff written before the ifyouonlynews article, including wikis with protocols for using MMS as an enema by the crazy people who sell MMS to desperate parents. It's all completely real QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, it absolutely matters. The end does not justify the means; medical benefits that may accrue as a side effect of unethical or illegal conduct do not justify those breaches of ethics, and in fact those medical benefits are tainted by those same breaches of ethics. I wouldn't go so far as your last sentence. But yeah. Ethics are ethics, and in matters of ethics, the ends don't justify the means. Say I am prosecuting a known child rapist and killer who has said if he's released he will absolutely keep attacking children, but I don't have enough admissible evidence to convict him. Falsifying evidence would guarantee he wouldnt kill another child. Does that make it ok?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I wouldn't go so far as your last sentence. But yeah. Ethics are ethics, and in matters of ethics, the ends don't justify the means. Say I am prosecuting a known child rapist and killer who has said if he's released he will absolutely keep attacking children, but I don't have enough admissible evidence to convict him. Falsifying evidence would guarantee he wouldnt kill another child. Does that make it ok? That wouldn't be ethical, but I think the comparable situation would be something like the parents of a child who got raped offering you a bonus if you manage to convict the guy (which you have the tools to do, and which already should be your goal). It's probably still not ethical, but I'm a lot less concerned about the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That wouldn't be ethical, but I think the comparable situation would be something like the parents of a child who got raped offering you a bonus if you manage to convict the guy (which you have the tools to do, and which already should be your goal). It's probably still not ethical, but I'm a lot less concerned about the consequences. So more justice for the wealthy? That's not a consequence of concern? The whole reason professional ethics exist is to serve as a bulwark against "ends justifies the means" thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:45
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So more justice for the wealthy? That's not a consequence of concern? The whole reason professional ethics exist is to serve as a bulwark against "ends justifies the means" thinking. And in fact, those ethics aren't really concerned about the merits of individual cases, but about the overall effect. It might be in some ways ethical to fake evidence to convict a person you know to be guilty, for all I know, but I'm sure if this behaviour was undertaken in every case the overall effect would be enormously destructive to the justice system and to justice.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So more justice for the wealthy? That's not a consequence of concern? The whole reason professional ethics exist is to serve as a bulwark against "ends justifies the means" thinking. Would it not, hypothetically, have been your job to zealously pursue a conviction with or without possibly getting paid by the victim's family, though? Assuming you are able to do it entirely through legal means, not falsifying evidence or anything like that. I get that Rick Perry is a massive rear end in a top hat, and a corrupt bastard, but I think it's a pretty good thing that a bunch of kids got vaccinated against a dangerous disease when they otherwise probably wouldn't have, and even though it's expensive, it's money that any ordinary healthcare system should be spending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Falsifying evidence would guarantee he wouldnt kill another child. Does that make it ok? That eventual child and his/her parents would say yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And in fact, those ethics aren't really concerned about the merits of individual cases, but about the overall effect. It might be in some ways ethical to fake evidence to convict a person you know to be guilty, for all I know, but I'm sure if this behaviour was undertaken in every case the overall effect would be enormously destructive to the justice system and to justice. It is never ethical to falsify evidence. PT6A posted:Would it not, hypothetically, have been your job to zealously pursue a conviction with or without possibly getting paid by the victim's family, though? Assuming you are able to do it entirely through legal means, not falsifying evidence or anything like that. Is it my job to work "harder" on cases where the family can afford to give me more money? I think every single government ethics regulation prohibiting the acceptance of gifts for work performed in an official capacity has answered this question...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:That eventual child and his/her parents would say yes. so we suspend the rights of the accused if the accused is "really bad?" that's not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:55
|
|