Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Last night’s riotous atmosphere resulted in a sergeant and lieutenant suffering minor injuries while scuffling with anarchist protesters at the Astor Place Starbucks, the police said.
According to police, around 25 people tried smashing the windows of the cafe with eight-foot long steel pipes at around 8:45 p.m. after attending the Anarchist book fair earlier in the day. “Patrons fearing that they would be hit by flying glass hid under tables,” the police said in a statement. “Several” officers were assaulted with pipes and bottles, the police added.
Argomento: Re:Can't you read, or are you just quibbling over the words racist and racism?? I know one ends in a 't' and one ends in a 'm'... but picking over that is just pettifogging.
(V): There is no evidence presented in that article that would lead anyone (except you) to conclude a link between the Tea Party and racism. On the contrary, the older gentleman, having experienced REAL RACISM in his life, couldn't believe a bunch of 'whites' at rallies wouldn't have racist agendas. That in and of itself is racism. The whole point of the article (that you choose to misread) was that racism wasn't present in the Tea Party. As you always do, you twist things and misrepresent.
Argomento: Re: Any group would have a few bad apples. OWS has not just a few, but thousands. They are anarchists.
rod03801: It's interesting how the left focuses on the Tea Party racism when none exists but overlooks the hundreds of crimes committed by OWS loons. Then the Prez has the stupidity to suggest that the OWS group is the same as the TParty. Only in politics.
Argomento: Re: The leaders of the OWS camp decided
(V): You ignore facts and make excuses. Same old same old. It's clear from what I've posted that as a group, the OWS crowd has MANY bad elements. OTOH, the Tea Party does not. And you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Any group would have a few bad apples. OWS has not just a few, but thousands. They are anarchists. They use violence and intimidation as a means to an end.
""And the leadership of the Occupy camps tried to cover up the crimes by "handling them internally.""
jules--->Some people after being attacked don't want the police involved. This is a fact."
Except Jules, this isn't what happened. The leaders of the OWS camp decided FOR THE RAPE VICTIM that it would be handled internally.
""that they had to have a woman's only section (as well as a gay and lesbian sections) for the safety of others."
--->So they choose to protect the women, and the gay and lesbians from gay and lesbian haters... you are complaining about this?"
The mere fact that they had to set up safe zones in the OWS camps proves the camps were a dangerous place as well as many of the protesters were dangerous people.
""Only liberal thinkers like you would try to soft pedal the rapes."
--->I'm not. To say so is just petty fogging. You made a false statement based on one certain fraction of an equation, there were rapists and abusers and anti gay folk who 'blended' in and raped/attacked people at the OWS camps."
No, you're making light of all of it. But anyone reading back on your comments re the Tea Party will see you went out of your way to connect dots between the Tea Party and scandalous people. Like the liberal media, you pushed the racist element of the Tea Party (even when none existed). With the rapes, you make excuses, with the Tea Party you only made accusations. The rapes happened. The racist element is a myth.
--->Just as their have been cases of rapes, sodomy, incest and abuse in Christian Churches by Christians... but that they were Christians is insignificant except to maybe explain how they may have gotten away with such activities. Especially as many within the Christian church covered up such matters and dealt with them internally..
(V): So I'm calling ya out. Let's get these "witnesses" so that you can feel better about yourself. lol Also, some proof would be nice. Or am I to take the word of one such as you?
It's clear from the evidence that there were rapes that occured in the occupy camps and that the leaders TRIED TO COVER THEM UP! Of course you don't like this inconvienent fact do you? It rather destroys your narrative. Looks like you're the one who made a false statement based on one certain fraction of an equation (not to mention your endless twisting of the facts!!!)
(V): You love to change the subject don't you. Plus you are making this all up. Besides, the point you were disputing was the FACT that rapes occured in the Occupy Wall Street camps. Not only did they happen, the perpatrators were Occupiers (as were the victims). And the leadership of the Occupy camps tried to cover up the crimes by "handling them internally." It got so bad with the Occupy group that they had to have a woman's only section (as well as a gay and lesbian sections) for the safety of others. There are several hundred examples of serious law violations including rapes. Only liberal thinkers like you would try to soft pedal the rapes.
(V): And you LOVE to change the subject when you've lost an argument (which is often - especially when you face-off against me). What else would ya like me to school ya on?
(V): When you're losing an argument (which is often) you will stoop to anything to muddy the waters. Of course no one make that claim about the 99%. YOU made it up out of desperation.
"The most recent available study, which also had the largest sample and controlled for the most variables, found no effect at all--a result which surprised the hell out of its author, a former Clinton advisor. Other studies say the number is in the tens of thousands. "
...
"The Atlantic Home Monday, April 9, 2012
Follow the Atlantic » Twitter Facebook RSS iPhone
Politics Business Entertainment International Technology National Health Magazine video
Megan McArdle
Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave. More
All Posts RSS feed
Share Share « Previous McArdle | Next McArdle » Email Email Print Print How Many People Die From Lack of Health Insurance? By Megan McArdle
Feb 11 2010, 3:20 PM ET 132
It's a contentious question, but curiously, one that doesn't get debated nearly as fiercely as things like "how many uninsured people are there?" I find that surprising, because after all, we don't necessarily care whether people are marked by some survey as "insured" or "uninsured"; we care whether there is preventable suffering in the world.
But it turns out to be really hard to determine how many people die without insurance, which is the subject of this month's column. The most recent available study, which also had the largest sample and controlled for the most variables, found no effect at all--a result which surprised the hell out of its author, a former Clinton advisor. Other studies say the number is in the tens of thousands.
The left is predictably fond of the study which got the largest number, 45,000 a year. Unfortunately, its authors are political advocates for a single-payer system, who also helped author the notorious studies on medical bankruptcies. Those studies are very shoddily done, with parameters that somehow always conspire to produce the maximum possible number. In the first study, they set an absurdly low threshhold for what constituted a "medical bankruptcy". In the second, they chose 2006, the year after the 2005 bankruptcy reform act had driven an unprecedented spike in filings."
That the famous study by the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance has been a reliable Democrat talking point for months. But its estimate that 44,789 "excess deaths" are associated with lack of health insurance annually is rarely questioned by the media. They should be.
"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," National Center for Policy Analysis president John C. Goodman has explained. "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."
Researchers of the Harvard based their conclusion upon national surveys participants filled from 1986-1994. After checking how many of the adults died by the year 2000, researchers proceeded to make the unbelievable leap in assumption and faith that the uninsured stayed uninsured for all those years - and died as a result.
Argomento: Everything Jules posted on this subject is all bunk. A load of crap.
“An estimated 17,000 children in the United States might have died unnecessarily over nearly two decades because they didn’t have health insurance,” said U.S. News and World Report. “The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance,” said The New York Times.
They’re talking about a Johns Hopkins Children’s Center study [gated, but with abstract]. But between the media hype and the actual study is an enormous chasm that separates fact from fiction. In truth, the authors of the study did not establish that anybody, anywhere, died of any cause whatsoever because of a lack of health insurance.
This is only the latest in a series of ridiculous claims that have been injected into the health insurance debate. What follows is a brief review, some of which has appeared earlier at the Health Affairs blog.
...................
Also, before you go into mourning too quickly, be aware that when former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) June O’Neill and her husband Dave used a similar approach they found that the involuntarily uninsured (low-income people) were only 3% more likely to die over a 14-year period than those with health insurance. There was no statistically significant effect on the “voluntarily uninsured” (higher-income people).
That’s not too surprising in light of a RAND study finding. People are receiving appropriate care a little better than half the time when they see doctors. According to RAND, the care patients receive is not affected by whether they are insured or uninsured or by the type of insurance they have. People who are uninsured, of course, may delay seeing a doctor in the first place — because of their lack of insurance. But this problem is unlikely to be solved by enrolling them in Medicaid programs that routinely ration by waiting.
Bernice: The cost of Obama Care is already double and there will be "panels" that make policy and deny people certain procedures.
There are those in the liberal party that complained that VP Cheney received a heart transplant. Too old they said. They would have let him die if they had their way. That's a death panel and it's coming our way.
Bernice: There are many horror stories from Britain and Canada where people who needed urgent care were ignored (due to the waiting period and determinations that their problems weren't "urgent") and died.
If I'm selling a product (insurance) don't I have the right to offer this, this, and this as covered but not that? Why must the government determine what a company is to carry? If someone on my policy needs hearing aids, there is NO COVERAGE for the 4500$ cost. Why no coverage? Because it's not cost effective to offer the coverage. I'd pay a few hundred dollars a year and some devices are in excess of 5 thousand dollars. It adds up when one considers that it's normal for older people to lose certain portions of their hearing. Most old farts could use hearing aids.
As for death panels, I think they will exist. There is a determination of what procedure is worth the cost and what isn't. Watch and see. If this health care bill survives, we will see some procedure where some "wanted" procedures will be denied (such as a heart transplant for people over 70). Mike Wallace just died at 93. A heart transplant extends one's life for up to 15 more years. Yeah, I want that!!!
Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.
How many of these loons don't have health care coverage?
Hmmmm, maybe the government should regulate who gets to drink?
(V): That report is seriously flawed. Do you know how many factors lead to death? It cannot be attributed to lack of health care. Many die with health care! Some die because of bad choices like eating unhealthy foods and getting fat.
Either way Jules (who is addressing me without addressing me, classic Middle School!) it's not up to the govt to force me to pay more just so people without can have. And seriously, what has the government ever undertaken that turned out well? Only private industry can effectively run anything! The government mucks everything up. And we're gonna trust them running a national health care system?
(nascondi) Sei stanco di disporre le barche o i personaggi in Espionage all'inizio del gioco? Puoi andare all’editor del gioco e memorizzare, per uso futuro, alcune delle tue posizioni favorite. (pauloaguia) (mostra tutti i suggerimenti)