|
blunt posted:I am, depression and other mental illnesses can dramatically affect quality of life and treating them often involves sustained hard work (be it therapy, cbt, drugs with sometimes terrible side effects). Depression isn't terminal in every case, but it has a clear progression path that can lead to death (suicide). Given people are already killing themselves (32,533 americans killed themselves in 2005 - I don't imagine the numbers have changed much) I don't think it's unreasonable to give people access to a safe method of doing so if they've got to the point where they don't want to keep fighting provided the process involves consultations with doctor / therapist and there is a fixed delay between initial consultation and the death (I.E a month so that you can't just walk in and buy some pills). Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. Yes, you can "treat" depression, just like you can "treat" pain. A lot of depression is not a chemical fuckup in the brain, it's based in, you know, life sometimes kicking you in the nuts repeatedly, lovely people being lovely to you, all kinds of factors. You can treat the symptoms, in those cases, but you can not treat the disease easily - and sometimes not at all. In a much more perfect hedonic society, there would be tools in place to treat "reality-induced depression"; easy access to counseling to put you in an environment where you will thrive, doing something you like around people who don't destroy you. But that's like, probably 200 years and a dozen bong rips away from today. 
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
"Depression" is a medically diagnosed mental disorder. "Having a lovely life" is not Depression, no matter how much it might feel lovely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Strobe posted:"Depression" is a medically diagnosed mental disorder. "Having a lovely life" is not Depression, no matter how much it might feel lovely. If you want to get pedantic, you're absolutely right. I don't think that changes any of what is being said, though, unless you actually believe that only people with clinical depression kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Guys let's stop arguing about stupid things like right to die and talk about my true controversial beliefs - Cindy Clawford is a better choice than Mike. There. I said it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Pinchers von Shellington III is the only choice that properly conveys the degree to which the elites are sticking it to Molly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Is a repeal even really possible with only 52 senators?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Is a repeal even really possible with only 52 senators? I remember reading a little while ago that the Republicans were floating some legislation that would allow them to repeal with a simple majority, specifically for this reason. I don't know if they actually did it or were just talking about it, or are still planning to do it and just haven't done it yet, but yeah, it is technically possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Pinchers von Shellington III is the only choice that properly conveys the degree to which the elites are sticking it to Molly. My first thought was totally for Pinchers Von Shellington! III <--Team Pincher 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Sorry, if there was a lobster worth voting for that was just a first name, it'd have to be named Steve, not some weird rear end lobster named Mike. Going with Team Pinchers as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Is a repeal even really possible with only 52 senators? I would not be surprised if the Democrats back down on their filibuster because they want to save it for something important. They are that stupid. Either that or they'll stick with it and the Republicans will use that as an excuse to do away with the 60-vote thing for good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I remember reading a little while ago that the Republicans were floating some legislation that would allow them to repeal with a simple majority, specifically for this reason. I don't know if they actually did it or were just talking about it, or are still planning to do it and just haven't done it yet, but yeah, it is technically possible. The ACA was passed via reconciliation and it will be repealed via reconciliation. Because Congress sucks and love giving the spirit of the very laws they pass the finger. So since it will be done via budgetary reconciliation, a simple majority is all that is needed in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Oliver is on the daily show tonight and Trevor opened with Janice not giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Pinchers von Shellington III is the only choice that properly conveys the degree to which the elites are sticking it to Molly. That's a strange way to spell Mike. When will Pinchers release his tax returns? When, I ask you?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The ACA was passed via reconciliation and it will be repealed via reconciliation. Because Congress sucks and love giving the spirit of the very laws they pass the finger. So since it will be done via budgetary reconciliation, a simple majority is all that is needed in the Senate. correct. but there are some Rs who are a bit soft/wobbly on repeal depending on certain lines (see r-maine, r-alaksa names of which i can't remember off the top my head) - and there's a lot of bickering by R's in the house on just how to get it done, including the House Freedom Caucus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
He should just ignore the votes and put a turd on the dog court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Woden posted:He should just ignore the votes and put a turd on the dog court. But what if one of the doggie ate it? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
That "white guy singing karaoke" line loving slayed me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:That "white guy singing karaoke" line loving slayed me. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:correct. but there are some Rs who are a bit soft/wobbly on repeal depending on certain lines (see r-maine, r-alaksa names of which i can't remember off the top my head) - and there's a lot of bickering by R's in the house on just how to get it done, including the House Freedom Caucus. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised at all if they repass the ACA with minor changes and then go and make Medicaid via block grants seperately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:That "white guy singing karaoke" line loving slayed me. Ditto. Also, the whole episode and show to date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I find it funny people are getting up in arms about ACA repeal now instead of during the election. Reap what you sow and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:I find it funny people are getting up in arms about ACA repeal now instead of during the election. Reap what you sow and all that. Which people are you referring to. Democrats have been up in arms about the repeal this whole time including during the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Not enough to keep cheeto man from being elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Which people are you referring to. Democrats have been up in arms about the repeal this whole time including during the election. All of the people that thought the ACA and Obamacare were different things
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Azhais posted:All of the people that thought the ACA and Obamacare were different things
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Err.sorry mate. It's a true story but I tried to make it palatable? I grew up in Ottawa and this is true as well there. Probably half the adults in the city have at least Secret clearance. I mean I have Secret clearance and I didn't do anything particularly fancy. It's just a standard part of having a government job. If I had stayed and actually had a career there it probably would have been upgraded to Top Secret once I got high enough up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The ACA was passed via reconciliation and it will be repealed via reconciliation. Both of these statements are false: quote:On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage. quote:On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote). quote:House Democrats had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill. Since any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to pass the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill. They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed by the reconciliation process. quote:As per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. But reconciliation is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was not used to pass ACA in the first place; the bill had inherently non-budgetary regulations. Although the already-passed Senate bill could not have been passed by reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation." Source The gist of the information above is that the Senate version of the ACA was approved by votes in the Senate and the House, and then some budget changes proposed by the House were approved by reconciliation, which means the bulk of the ACA cannot be repealed with 52 senators alone unless they eliminate the filibuster. Republicans can probably zero out funding for ACA subsidies, pass that through reconciliation, and then let the whole thing collapse on itself, but I'm not sure how well that would play for them in 2018. MrPablo fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Azhais posted:All of the people that thought the ACA and Obamacare were different things How many people really thought that? Was there a survey? I was betting on pure tribalism, as in, Obama advocated it so it must be evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:correct. That is incorrect (see my previous comment). Social Studies 3rd Period posted:there are some Rs who are a bit soft/wobbly on repeal depending on certain lines (see r-maine, r-alaksa names of which i can't remember off the top my head) - and there's a lot of bickering by R's in the house on just how to get it done, including the House Freedom Caucus. The two senators you are thinking of are Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME). The provision they are wavering on specifically is the plan to defund Planned Parenthood along with repealing the ACA: quote:"Obviously I'm not happy that the speaker has decided to include the defunding of Planned Parenthood — an extremely controversial issue — in the (budget reconciliation) package," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters earlier this month. Source
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:How many people really thought that? Was there a survey? I was betting on pure tribalism, as in, Obama advocated it so it must be evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
I mean for folks that aren't oorah Obama I can't fully blame them for immediately disliking a thing that bares his name. It's ignorant, sure, but I get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:I mean for folks that aren't oorah Obama I can't fully blame them for immediately disliking a thing that bares his name. It's ignorant, sure, but I get it. Like if there was a healthcare initiative called ShkreliCare. I don't want to weigh the cost-benefit...just repeal it. Only instead of me hating Martin Shkreli for being a smug, amoral douchebag, they hate Obama because he is black.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:I mean for folks that aren't oorah Obama I can't fully blame them for immediately disliking a thing that bares his name. It's ignorant, sure, but I get it. It's only a valid empathetic understanding if the thing actually bares his name. Nobody forms their opinions on homeless shantytowns based on whether or not they like Hoover, and you would rightfully call anyone who did an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I grew up in Ottawa and this is true as well there. Probably half the adults in the city have at least Secret clearance. I mean I have Secret clearance and I didn't do anything particularly fancy. It's just a standard part of having a government job. If I had stayed and actually had a career there it probably would have been upgraded to Top Secret once I got high enough up. Not a lot of people get Top Secret as it requires a ton of work on the governments end, it took months to get mine. Canada also has end of life panels and it generally involves Doctors telling patients and families we can do Chemo, heart surgery etc but it's more then likely going to kill them faster. We'll do it but it will suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Not a lot of people get Top Secret as it requires a ton of work on the governments end, it took months to get mine. But it's so worth it when it shows up, of only for the soundtrack https://youtu.be/7f_19nxNfjs
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Not a lot of people get Top Secret as it requires a ton of work on the governments end, it took months to get mine. Yeah my stepfather worked for DND and had his. My mother works for a different agency and I think she has hers. I worked for StatCan and some higher up people have it but generally most only have secret which you get as part of the initial hiring process so it's standard for all their employees. And yeah End of Life panels are unambiguously a good thing because a lot of people don't really understand that sometimes death isn't simple you're alive and fine and then you're dead, and having a whole system in place meant to help people and their families along with that is great. I say this as someone who had 3 family members die within the last 2 years from situations where we had to make end of life decisions. It's not easy but would be even more difficult if the response was just to not talk about options honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Using the word panel makes it sound like a hearing where a judge or appointed official has the final say. The correct wording in the ACA is counseling not panel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:I mean for folks that aren't oorah Obama I can't fully blame them for immediately disliking a thing that bares his name. It's ignorant, sure, but I get it. GutBomb posted:Using the word panel makes it sound like a hearing where a judge or appointed official has the final say. The correct wording in the ACA is counseling not panel. It really is a case study in effective marketing. Take something incredible that everybody should love, and make them hate it with words and repetition. It's really cool that this is reality. Cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
pwn posted:it's as though these phrases were specifically engineered to create negative public opinion of affordable health care Well yeah, I ain't saying it's good, I just get why folks oppose it. Xealot posted:Like if there was a healthcare initiative called ShkreliCare. I don't want to weigh the cost-benefit...just repeal it. I'm not sure that everyone that doesn't like the term Obamacare was a racist, but there probably were/are a lot
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Servaetes posted:I'm not sure that everyone that doesn't like the term Obamacare was a racist, but there probably were/are a lot For sure, I'm being mostly hyperbolic. I'm just reacting to the conservative argument I've heard a lot of recently, that "anti-Trump" bias is somehow the moral equivalent of "anti-Obama" bias. Basically, that the reactionary rejection of ObamaCare is no different than Trump protests happening right now, as two forms of pure tribalism. But obviously the former was heavily influenced by beliefs about Obama's identity as a Kenyan Muslim communist who's some kind of Manchurian candidate. Not by any particular statement about his policy goals or actual history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 00:48
|
|