Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!

Wrong question...

What the hell is THIS!?

I believe that that is the attack weiner dog's natural enemy, the shaved rabid poodle in a T-shirt. Fraz should be able to provide further clarification

Frazzled wrote:Sorry not sure what a cruciate is but that doesn't sound too bad timewise.

Like dogma said, the ACL is one of the ligaments in the knee that holds the whole thing in place. I snapped mine clean and so they took some muscle from my thigh and used that.

Well two issues:
1. I don't go for the two tiered system. Equality for all helps insure a good system.

The only way to get equality for all is to have a completely public system, where equality means stopping some people from paying for better care even though they're willing to pay for it out of their own pocket. Which would be pretty obnoxious.

I prefer the idea that everyone can access a basic level of care, and if you want better then you pay.

2. Which one costs less in absolute dollars-state run or private? Then you should build up from there.

There was some recent analysis done and the results were pretty interesting. Obviously the private stuff cost more but that's because they offered all kinds of of peripheral stuff like nicer rooms and subsidised gym memberships. When they broke it down and compared procedures offered by both systems they came about equal, with some procedures being slightly higher in the private sector and others being slightly higher in the public sector. Looking at the costs there were slightly more overheads in the public system but this offset by the higher doctor salaries in the private system.

See I'm not the hardliner you think I are.

No man that talks about dogs as much as you do could ever be completely evil. Mostly evil, sure, but not completely evil.

Wrexasaur wrote:Wrong question...

What the hell is THIS!?

So thats what they did with my soul when they removed it in law school...

Wrexasaur wrote:Wrong question...

What the hell is THIS!?

The mother of this?

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:I believe that that is the attack weiner dog's natural enemy, the shaved rabid poodle in a T-shirt. Fraz should be able to provide further clarification

Mmm. Yes. Our Wiener allies have three natural enemies
*This;
*squirrels;
*their true nemesis-KingGhidrah;

(oh and vultures, the boyz get nervous around vultures, fortunately Rodney the Shanker has learned to work the pump, and Tbone the trigger on the Remington)

We are Wienies We arSQUIRREL!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:[The only way to get equality for all is to have a completely public system, where equality means stopping some people from paying for better care even though they're willing to pay for it out of their own pocket. Which would be pretty obnoxious.

No more obnoxious than substandard care. If you're going to go, go all the way.


As the Bard once said, "Mercy is for the weak. We do not train to be merciful here."

Frazzled wrote:Whats your MRI timeline? Aka if the doc wants an MRI because your shoulder is bugging you whats the timeline to getting an MRI?

My wife's had a few MRIs for her MS but I don't really know about the timeframes because a partial factor in the delay was to do with the pregnancies. My recollection was a month or two when she wasn't pregnant, but we live in a relatively low population area (Density 1.67 /km2)

Frazzled wrote:No more obnoxious than substandard care. If you're going to go, go all the way.

Who said anything about substandard? It means you wait longer for non-emergency stuff, and you don't get as nice a room to recover in.

If that's you're standard you must absolutely hate the US system right now, as the quality of care of cheaper schemes is far worse than high costs schemes. To say nothing of the people who just don't have any cover at all.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No more obnoxious than substandard care. If you're going to go, go all the way.

If that's you're standard you must absolutely hate the US system right now, as the quality of care of cheaper schemes is far worse than high costs schemes. To say nothing of the people who just don't have any cover at all.

Absolutely hate, no? But do agree that everyone should have the same HIGH quality of care.

Orlanth wrote:Big medicine will do anything to keep you from realising this.

You do realize that the pharmaceutical industry is gaining big time from this right? The pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry are major donors to the Democratic party. The watchdog group I normally cite for this type of stuff, is having technichal problems with their website, but last I checked DOCTORS not "Big Medicine" gave to the GOP and "Big Medicine" gave more to the DNC.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Big medicine will do anything to keep you from realising this.

You do realize that the pharmaceutical industry is gaining big time from this right? The pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry are major donors to the Democratic party. The watchdog group I normally cite for this type of stuff, is having technichal problems with their website, but last I checked DOCTORS not "Big Medicine" gave to the GOP and "Big Medicine" gave more to the DNC.

The pharmaceutical companies came on board from the start and have done very nicely out of the bill. The insurance companies put their efforts into sinking the bill - they backed the wrong horse and while they managed to dodge the creation of a public option, they've otherwise lost a lot to this bill. They can't cap payouts, they have to spend 85% of all revenue on health coverage, they can't reject coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition...

sebster wrote:The pharmaceutical companies came on board from the start and have done very nicely out of the bill. The insurance companies put their efforts into sinking the bill - they backed the wrong horse and while they managed to dodge the creation of a public option, they've otherwise lost a lot to this bill. They can't cap payouts, they have to spend 85% of all revenue on health coverage, they can't reject coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition..

True enough, but don't think that they didn't get something out of this. Now everyone HAS to buy insurance, so that means that much more in the way of customers, that will all be subsidized by the USFG. Things don't happen in this country for no reason, someone is making money on this. Although I am pretty sure it is mainly just the pharmaceuticals....

Of course somone is making money of of this somewhere, and i have no doubt its pharmaceuticals. more people on insurance means more pills sold and when you get a 75,000% return per bottle then you make a lot of money

JEB_Stuart wrote:True enough, but don't think that they didn't get something out of this. Now everyone HAS to buy insurance, so that means that much more in the way of customers, that will all be subsidized by the USFG. Things don't happen in this country for no reason, someone is making money on this. Although I am pretty sure it is mainly just the pharmaceuticals....

Sure, there's a chronic issue in the US with lobbyist money, to the point where I find it hard to believe any major industry will get negatively impacted by government reform. Look at what's happening to the reform process in the banking sector right now.

The sad fact is that the only way to get lobbyist money out of the process is for people to get informed on the issues in a debate on a realistic level, and approach the topic. With healthcare there was a tremendous amount of activity and interest, but so much of it was so stupid it was never going to influence the debate. Imagine if those numbers had mobilised to seriously debate the issue instead of yelling 'Socialism!'

sebster wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:True enough, but don't think that they didn't get something out of this. Now everyone HAS to buy insurance, so that means that much more in the way of customers, that will all be subsidized by the USFG. Things don't happen in this country for no reason, someone is making money on this. Although I am pretty sure it is mainly just the pharmaceuticals....

Sure, there's a chronic issue in the US with lobbyist money, to the point where I find it hard to believe any major industry will get negatively impacted by government reform. Look at what's happening to the reform process in the banking sector right now.

The sad fact is that the only way to get lobbyist money out of the process is for people to get informed on the issues in a debate on a realistic level, and approach the topic. With healthcare there was a tremendous amount of activity and interest, but so much of it was so stupid it was never going to influence the debate. Imagine if those numbers had mobilised to seriously debate the issue instead of yelling 'Socialism!'

Yes, but acting as a community for the betterment of the nation is clearly socialist. About the only way we're going to see lobby reform is violent action by civilian parties or actual, presidential level reform being run from the top and falling downward. Unfortunately the militants are too busy crying about socialism to recognize the actual areas of fault in our governance and the president is too busy just trying to deal with it and still make something work.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, but acting as a community for the betterment of the nation is clearly socialist. About the only way we're going to see lobby reform is violent action by civilian parties or actual, presidential level reform being run from the top and falling downward. Unfortunately the militants are too busy crying about socialism to recognize the actual areas of fault in our governance and the president is too busy just trying to deal with it and still make something work.

Although it has to be remembered that debating the limits of government is a prudent and sensible thing. Just that that limit should be argued on grounds a little closer to reality than what we saw.