The Downward Spiral of America
- Thread starter BandieBoy
- Start date
Drail
Active member
well, first, I'm going to ask, where did BandieBoy go? He created this thread then left it. oh well.
secondly - about the whole legalization of pot. yea, it makes complete sense and will happen, but what we need to do NOW, is change the laws on the classification of pot and hemp. It needs to be changed so that the two are recognized as different, and hemp needs to be legalized.
It's cool though, I say in the next decade, it will happen. especially because of the economic times we are in. Hell, hemp could even bring the States out of the recession and make the economy very strong, very fast.
I will not post in this thread anymore, nor look at it.
good day.
secondly - about the whole legalization of pot. yea, it makes complete sense and will happen, but what we need to do NOW, is change the laws on the classification of pot and hemp. It needs to be changed so that the two are recognized as different, and hemp needs to be legalized.
It's cool though, I say in the next decade, it will happen. especially because of the economic times we are in. Hell, hemp could even bring the States out of the recession and make the economy very strong, very fast.
I will not post in this thread anymore, nor look at it.
good day.
Listen to Darryl kiddes...he's right on point once again.
The current plant classification for these species is fucked up and it is really the root of a lot of the problems both the pro-weed groups and pro-hemp groups have been facing. Hemp is irrefutable the most useful plant for the human species...yet its illegal in your country (if that doesn't make you scratch your head a little then i fear for your sense of rational judgment)!
As mentioned at the bottom of the last page, the movie, "The union: the business of getting high" really clearly illustrates the point above, and the general sense of ignorance that the majority of anti-weed people have towards this issue. For anyone who is still anti-legalization, i dare you to watch this movie and still retain that position afterwards. Its THAT good.
The current plant classification for these species is fucked up and it is really the root of a lot of the problems both the pro-weed groups and pro-hemp groups have been facing. Hemp is irrefutable the most useful plant for the human species...yet its illegal in your country (if that doesn't make you scratch your head a little then i fear for your sense of rational judgment)!
As mentioned at the bottom of the last page, the movie, "The union: the business of getting high" really clearly illustrates the point above, and the general sense of ignorance that the majority of anti-weed people have towards this issue. For anyone who is still anti-legalization, i dare you to watch this movie and still retain that position afterwards. Its THAT good.
ferrinski86
Member
The downward spiral of America has been in effect for decades, whether its dating back to Affirmative action or the current wave of illegals, to healthcare, to political correctness: and we are taking all the wrong steps to fix the problem.
This new administration is causing this current recession to last much longer and deeper than it needs to be. We will see it get worse still.... which is sad but its the truth.
This country was founded with a belief of capitalism, a free market and the invisible hand. lately it seems that Obama feels like he is obligated to be the invisible hand and the government should be running the auto industry, the financial industry, the banking industry. I didn't vote for this. when has the government ever successfully ran the private sector?
Capitalism is like mother nature, its fierce but necessary to survive. in our market, when one business fails another one steps in to fill the gaps, its a self healing process if you leave it alone. right now we are farther away from that then we have been in most recent memory.
This new administration is causing this current recession to last much longer and deeper than it needs to be. We will see it get worse still.... which is sad but its the truth.
This country was founded with a belief of capitalism, a free market and the invisible hand. lately it seems that Obama feels like he is obligated to be the invisible hand and the government should be running the auto industry, the financial industry, the banking industry. I didn't vote for this. when has the government ever successfully ran the private sector?
Capitalism is like mother nature, its fierce but necessary to survive. in our market, when one business fails another one steps in to fill the gaps, its a self healing process if you leave it alone. right now we are farther away from that then we have been in most recent memory.
PhaedeD
Active member
the government is supposed to be as far out of our lives as possible, obama wants to be all up in our shit. obama might find a short term fix that gives the effect of us pulling out of a recession when really what he is doing is going to make it much worse down the road. like i said before i now have to pay an extra 117k in taxes over my life to cover the interest of the money he has already spent. obama is spending more than our country spent on all wars combined, building the highway system and well everything else in between that, more than any president has ever spent before. spending more and more money is not the answer.
freestyler540
Active member
Seriously, does ANYONE know how macroeconomics work? Or you guys all repeating what fox news or CNN has to say about the economy.
its a rhetorical question by the way.
its a rhetorical question by the way.
ferrinski86
Member
do you know how macroeconomics works?
you don't have to know how economics works to realize what this administration is doing to your country.
fox news and CNN would be the last 2 places i would ever go to get my information haha.
you don't have to know how economics works to realize what this administration is doing to your country.
fox news and CNN would be the last 2 places i would ever go to get my information haha.
casual
Active member
Wow!
The best economists in the world seem stumped by how to effectively right the economy and can't agree on the best approach to managing (or not managing) the economy, but the barely adult population of a freestyle skiing website with Bob Marley avatars has got it all mapped out!
Who knew? I'm going to forward this thread directly to the Treasury Dept., and the Fed!
The best economists in the world seem stumped by how to effectively right the economy and can't agree on the best approach to managing (or not managing) the economy, but the barely adult population of a freestyle skiing website with Bob Marley avatars has got it all mapped out!
Who knew? I'm going to forward this thread directly to the Treasury Dept., and the Fed!
Hockeyfisher11
Member
So you're telling me that just because this guy smokes he shouldn't get the RIGHT to have surgery. That's exactly like me saying......... You got a speeding ticket so you aren't allowed to vote. You're an endagerment to yourself when you speed therefore i take your right of voting away.
skinakedfast
Active member
This
pmills
Active member
no, it's like saying smoking increases the chance that your surgery won't be successful, and we don't want to do surgery unless it'll most likely work.
considering how much of a stretch the car analogy is, bear with me, but it's more like saying because you're a known speeder, the government won't fund your mechanic work on the transmission because it'll just be blown a week later due to your lead foot, if you stop being such a shitty driver we'll fix your shit up.
This is not a controversy, renal transplants, heart surgery, etc. all require that the patient undergo lifestyle changes to make the best of the resources being spent on them.
considering how much of a stretch the car analogy is, bear with me, but it's more like saying because you're a known speeder, the government won't fund your mechanic work on the transmission because it'll just be blown a week later due to your lead foot, if you stop being such a shitty driver we'll fix your shit up.
This is not a controversy, renal transplants, heart surgery, etc. all require that the patient undergo lifestyle changes to make the best of the resources being spent on them.
Mr.Panda
Active member
just a few examples.
Alcoholics-No nothing in transplants... no heart, kidney, or liver especially... MAYBE a lung once in awhile.
Smokers-No heart or lung transplant
those are the only two i can really think of but they are examples of times that you arent allowed a type of surgery (in this case transplants) because of a lifestyle choice.
Alcoholics-No nothing in transplants... no heart, kidney, or liver especially... MAYBE a lung once in awhile.
Smokers-No heart or lung transplant
those are the only two i can really think of but they are examples of times that you arent allowed a type of surgery (in this case transplants) because of a lifestyle choice.
ATLskier
Active member
I've ignored the rest of the thread on the basis that it shouldnt exist, but i watched this video and wow, what a bunch of bullshit...haha, no seriously...some very good points. Def a very good video to watch. I dont even smoke and this made me affirm my belief that weed should be legalized.
skiminnesota
Active member
so does that mean we no longer try experimental surgery's on people who have no chance to live?
whos not worth the cancer treatment?
whos not worth the heart surgery?
whos not worth fixing their leg?
whos not worth even admitting to the doctor?
o man you have no chance to live, just go set in the corner with all the other people who have been condemned to die. you are not worth the governments money to give you a chance.
this scares me. this REALLY scares me.
whos not worth the cancer treatment?
whos not worth the heart surgery?
whos not worth fixing their leg?
whos not worth even admitting to the doctor?
o man you have no chance to live, just go set in the corner with all the other people who have been condemned to die. you are not worth the governments money to give you a chance.
this scares me. this REALLY scares me.
pmills
Active member
stop being so easily persuaded to fear, experimental surgery is not something you're going to get at your run of the mill hospital anyways. Doctors already make the assessment of who deserves what treatment because the doctor knows best. You have to accept this fact and realize that the doctors will operate based on the best interest of a patient, especially when the patient is in dire need.
Just because Doctors move from a pay-per-visit system to a set cost doesn't mean you're going to get a compromise in service, conversely, it's been seen that the set cost care plans have increased the health centers efficiency and an increase of patient satisfaction with quality care.
you're letting your emotions run your world, and that's why all this is so scary for you, think about it rationally for a moment and you'll see that it's not going to result in patient discrimination where only the healthy are allowed to receive treatment.
I am just curious as how your morals influence your thinking in the case of resource allocation, and deserving patients.
say there is a robber who in the process of his business gets shot by the police, and is taken to the hospital with his gunshot wounds, also at the same hospital there is a victim who got shot by the robber in need of care. The doctor can choose to save one or the other but not both. Who deserves treatment, and how do you justify not providing care to the other.
I'd say because the Robber brought the bad state of affairs upon himself, where as the victim is an innocent bystander, you can say the robber is less deserving of care. Similarly to individuals who make poor lifestyle choices, if you end up in a situation where the resources aren't there to cover your poor ass, you've only got yourself to blame for your poor health and your need for those resources in the first place. In non life threatening situations, you don't have a right to both receive health and to destroy your health at the same time, you can chose one or the other.
Just because Doctors move from a pay-per-visit system to a set cost doesn't mean you're going to get a compromise in service, conversely, it's been seen that the set cost care plans have increased the health centers efficiency and an increase of patient satisfaction with quality care.
you're letting your emotions run your world, and that's why all this is so scary for you, think about it rationally for a moment and you'll see that it's not going to result in patient discrimination where only the healthy are allowed to receive treatment.
I am just curious as how your morals influence your thinking in the case of resource allocation, and deserving patients.
say there is a robber who in the process of his business gets shot by the police, and is taken to the hospital with his gunshot wounds, also at the same hospital there is a victim who got shot by the robber in need of care. The doctor can choose to save one or the other but not both. Who deserves treatment, and how do you justify not providing care to the other.
I'd say because the Robber brought the bad state of affairs upon himself, where as the victim is an innocent bystander, you can say the robber is less deserving of care. Similarly to individuals who make poor lifestyle choices, if you end up in a situation where the resources aren't there to cover your poor ass, you've only got yourself to blame for your poor health and your need for those resources in the first place. In non life threatening situations, you don't have a right to both receive health and to destroy your health at the same time, you can chose one or the other.
skiminnesota
Active member
haha ok if you actually knew me you would know i am far from an emotional person. im stone cold.
second you yourself said only operating on people who have a good chance of recovery.
i know you hate my little inconvenient examples, but 2 years ago my best friend lost his dad to cancer. after he was given the initial diagnosis of death in 6 weeks should he have been sent home to die? or was it justifiable for him to go out and get the best care possible at the Mayo Clinic (im sure you have heard of it) granted he still ended up dieing, but they tried.
and i for one do not take compfort in the idea of a flow chart or anyother chart attaching a value to my life. but there i go getting emotional.
i agree you save the innocent bystander if you have to choose, but in a perfect world you dont have to choose in the emergency room.
now onto single payer healthcare. why is it that when people who have money come to the US for care? could it be that we get it done get it done quick and just generally kick ass?
again back to my own illustration, should i be denied care for my back based on the fact that i still to this day participate in an activity that has the potential to re injure me and nullify all work previously done to my back.
"In non life threatening situations, you don't have a right to both receive health and to destroy your health at the same time, you can chose one or the other. "
quit skiing right now, quit mtn biking, quit whatever the hell you do that is dangerious and could potentally hamper your health. trust me its not fun having a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. ide even make sure you dont play video games or anything because you might be bound to turn into a fat slob with heart problems.
"it's been seen that the set cost care plans have increased the health centers efficiency and an increase of patient satisfaction with quality care."
ide love to see this backed up with any sort of credible source, study, something.
second you yourself said only operating on people who have a good chance of recovery.
i know you hate my little inconvenient examples, but 2 years ago my best friend lost his dad to cancer. after he was given the initial diagnosis of death in 6 weeks should he have been sent home to die? or was it justifiable for him to go out and get the best care possible at the Mayo Clinic (im sure you have heard of it) granted he still ended up dieing, but they tried.
and i for one do not take compfort in the idea of a flow chart or anyother chart attaching a value to my life. but there i go getting emotional.
i agree you save the innocent bystander if you have to choose, but in a perfect world you dont have to choose in the emergency room.
now onto single payer healthcare. why is it that when people who have money come to the US for care? could it be that we get it done get it done quick and just generally kick ass?
again back to my own illustration, should i be denied care for my back based on the fact that i still to this day participate in an activity that has the potential to re injure me and nullify all work previously done to my back.
"In non life threatening situations, you don't have a right to both receive health and to destroy your health at the same time, you can chose one or the other. "
quit skiing right now, quit mtn biking, quit whatever the hell you do that is dangerious and could potentally hamper your health. trust me its not fun having a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. ide even make sure you dont play video games or anything because you might be bound to turn into a fat slob with heart problems.
"it's been seen that the set cost care plans have increased the health centers efficiency and an increase of patient satisfaction with quality care."
ide love to see this backed up with any sort of credible source, study, something.
skiminnesota
Active member
sorry i thought of one more thing..... i am curious as to your opinion of welfare leaches?
that single crack head mom who pops out a baby every year like clockwork. do we tie her tubes, cut her off from ALL welfare and take her kids away?
she is receiving help and at the same time actively destroying the her own life and more than likely her childrens lives as well.
that single crack head mom who pops out a baby every year like clockwork. do we tie her tubes, cut her off from ALL welfare and take her kids away?
she is receiving help and at the same time actively destroying the her own life and more than likely her childrens lives as well.
tommyp1ckles
Active member
that was such a good doc ... they went into such detail
if you can watch that and call marijuana bad .. wel then i dont know...
if you can watch that and call marijuana bad .. wel then i dont know...
Hockeyfisher11
Member
Idk if you know anything about baseball but i like to use sports as much as i can...............Take Joel Zumaya (pitcher for the Detroit Tigers) Playing guitar hero severely damages his pitching arm.......the next week he got surgery even though on a "Beyond the Glory" episode after the surgery showed him playing guitar hero again.....According to you he shouldn't have gotten that surgery and shouldnt be able to pitch anymore.
pmills
Active member
no whether he gets the surgery or not is up to the doctor, and i'm sure there is someone out there who'd think that he's dependent on his arm for so much of his life, and deserves the surgery.
However you're just totally missing the distinction, and so are you justin, the guy who smokes isn't receiving any benefit at all from smoking; when you're skiing, yes you risk breaking your back, but you have to be pretty healthy too, it's a wash. Hopefully after your third broken back you'd realize you can't ski anymore and won't need your doctor to tell you-- unless you're a ski till you die sorta guy, which is totally acceptable on this website.
However you're just totally missing the distinction, and so are you justin, the guy who smokes isn't receiving any benefit at all from smoking; when you're skiing, yes you risk breaking your back, but you have to be pretty healthy too, it's a wash. Hopefully after your third broken back you'd realize you can't ski anymore and won't need your doctor to tell you-- unless you're a ski till you die sorta guy, which is totally acceptable on this website.
casual
Active member
woooah....that wasn't what I was implying whatsoever. You read waaaay too much into that. I was just objecting to his assumption.
I don't know that out and out universal government controlled health care is the answer or not, but the current system is undeniably flawed. Everyone who's staunchly against the idea of universal healthcare always cites their objection to the government making personal health care decisions....Is that really worse than for-profit insurance companies making decisions? An entire industry exists to deny healthcare. If that's not fucked, I don't know what is.
Furthermore, when a healthy, hardworking 25 year old man who's most productive years are ahead of him can't afford adequate coverage, something is seriously wrong.
I don't know that out and out universal government controlled health care is the answer or not, but the current system is undeniably flawed. Everyone who's staunchly against the idea of universal healthcare always cites their objection to the government making personal health care decisions....Is that really worse than for-profit insurance companies making decisions? An entire industry exists to deny healthcare. If that's not fucked, I don't know what is.
Furthermore, when a healthy, hardworking 25 year old man who's most productive years are ahead of him can't afford adequate coverage, something is seriously wrong.
PhaedeD
Active member
i know thats not what you meant, the reason i said that is because a lot of people want it to be a fucking hand out. there needs to be restrictions to who gets healthcare and what kind of costs are laid out for each person. sure what we have is flawed but it can be fixed it will take changes but it could happen. i believe you and people like you should receive help but still have to pay some. i dont like giving things out to people for free who have no work ethic and just want everything handed to them.
casual
Active member
I respect that for sure. I'm a prideful person, and I don't like the prospect of being a societal burden, trust me.
I'm not looking to be handed anything, but I think the power that the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies exert over healthcare and related policies is fucked up. I see healthcare as a "good/service" rather than an inherent "right", I'm not fundamentally opposed to paying for it. That being said, the costs are outrageously inflated, and the health insurance companies (whose entire profitability is dependent on finding ways to deny you coverage) is completely fucked up. Again, I'm not a blind advocate for universal healthcare, but I'm absolutely positive that what we've got right now is broken.
I'm not looking to be handed anything, but I think the power that the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies exert over healthcare and related policies is fucked up. I see healthcare as a "good/service" rather than an inherent "right", I'm not fundamentally opposed to paying for it. That being said, the costs are outrageously inflated, and the health insurance companies (whose entire profitability is dependent on finding ways to deny you coverage) is completely fucked up. Again, I'm not a blind advocate for universal healthcare, but I'm absolutely positive that what we've got right now is broken.
pmills
Active member
just curious, do you know who pays for the uninsured when they do go to the ER?
when you realize the answer is the government, providing universal health care for our citizens only means that we'd rather they take care of themselves in the first place with cheep preventative care, and not wait until long after easily treatable symptoms turn into chronic conditions to seek treatment.
You're paying for their medical bills either way, it's just under universal health care, those who need treatment the most get it, and those who have to pay for end up paying less.
when you realize the answer is the government, providing universal health care for our citizens only means that we'd rather they take care of themselves in the first place with cheep preventative care, and not wait until long after easily treatable symptoms turn into chronic conditions to seek treatment.
You're paying for their medical bills either way, it's just under universal health care, those who need treatment the most get it, and those who have to pay for end up paying less.
PagesHouse
Active member
Dude.... youre a homophobe and against marijuana? I feel very sorry for you and the people who influenced you to think this way.
pmills
Active member
Randomised trial of impact of model of integrated care and
case management for older people living in the community
Objective: To evaluate the impact of a programme of
integrated social and medical care among frail elderly people living in
the community.
Intervention: Random allocation to an intervention
group receiving integrated social and medical care and case management or to a control group receiving conventional care.
Results: Survival analysis showed that admission to
hospital or nursing home in the intervention group occurred later and
was less common than in controls (hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.91). Health services were used to the same extent,
but control subjects received more frequent home visits by general
practitioners. In the intervention group the estimated financial
savings were in the order of £1125 ($1800) per year of follow up.
The intervention group had improved physical function (activities of
daily living score improved by 5.1% v 13.0% loss in
controls; P
case management for older people living in the community
Objective: To evaluate the impact of a programme of
integrated social and medical care among frail elderly people living in
the community.
Intervention: Random allocation to an intervention
group receiving integrated social and medical care and case management or to a control group receiving conventional care.
Results: Survival analysis showed that admission to
hospital or nursing home in the intervention group occurred later and
was less common than in controls (hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.91). Health services were used to the same extent,
but control subjects received more frequent home visits by general
practitioners. In the intervention group the estimated financial
savings were in the order of £1125 ($1800) per year of follow up.
The intervention group had improved physical function (activities of
daily living score improved by 5.1% v 13.0% loss in
controls; P
pmills
Active member
link didn't appear:
article above:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/316/7141/1348
more:
http://qshc.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/13/4/241
article above:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/316/7141/1348
more:
http://qshc.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/13/4/241