Page 260 of 418 FirstFirst ... 160210250258259260261262270310360 ... LastLast
Results 2,591 to 2,600 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2591
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Only have time for a short reply, but it seems you didn't read the article and you are not familiar with the debate.

    ER rooms have a large number of patients who are there to deal with non emergency issues. That raises rates for insurance and clogs up emergency room, slowing the ability to deal with real emergencies. People coming in with a cold getting others sick, instead of seeing a regular doctor. The doctor is far cheaper (4 to 5 times cheaper) and actually equiped to deal with that type of care.

    It saves the patient money and it saves wait time in the ER.

    Under Tenncare and Masscare, the basis for the ACA there was a large increase of the use of the ER system and now due to legislation they can't turn non emergencies away. If you walk into 1 hospital they can't defer you to one the may better handle your needs or be cheaper to care for.

    The legislator in the article worked in the ER, and they know this.

    Saving people time and money, reducing the cost of insurance and allowing people to get emergency care faster. This is win-win.

    Your source material counters your position. This is a smart decision that helps people with money and improves care. Unless you think clogged up ER rooms and the highest possible bills to deal with a cold is the better way.

    Now, here is the rub. You complained about being wrongly called an asshole, stating that you can't understand the other side, but this is poor debating and work on your part as I see it. Didn't read the source, doesn't understand the materials, makes counter intuitive, shoot just plain wrong and insulting conclusions and judgements with nothing to factually back it up because your source material is counter to your conclusion.

    Did you ever read how to win friends and influence people? This all seems very counter to it.

  2. #2592
    Hebrews 13:8 going_home's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    563
    Caring versus paying for their care.....

    Why is lack of insurance made to seem so life threatening by MSM ?

    It was not so long ago there was no such thing as insurance, family or good neighbors helped those that needed it.

    Socialized health care fails every time its tried, it merely becomes no health care at a very near future point.

    Obama care was already at that failing point.

    History repeats itself.

    People pat themselves on the back because they "care" about the needy but they have no idea where the money is going to come from to pay for all of it....

    Its actually an upside down ponzi scheme with the young that dont need health care paying for the old.


    endeavor to persevere.......

  3. #2593
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    For some supporting commentary:

    "Emergency room care costs 12 to 18 times as much as a visit to a retail health clinic, eight to 12 times as much as a visit to a doctor?s office and six to seven times more than an urgent care visit."

    And a link to a pre ACA study that said non urgent Care at the ER is about 30% of their care, and will rise under the ACA.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156292/

    Here is a 2010 study that says 71%:

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...avoidable.html

    "Truven Health Analytics analyzed insurance claims data for more than 6.5 million ED visits in 2010 based on data in the commercial Truven Health MarketScan database. Only 29 percent of ED visits required emergency care and were not preventable, according to the study. Of the remaining 71 percent of ED visits, 42 percent required immediate attention for conditions that could have been safely treated in a primary care setting, 24 percent did not require immediate attention and 6 percent required emergency care that could have been avoided with appropriate primary care."

    That is why many insurance companies are dropping coverage on non emergency usage of the ER.

  4. #2594
    Adobe Evangelist emisnug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Birmingham, UK (originally a Seattle native)
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    ..dirty liberal here, islam is absolutely fundamentally dangerous. a poll of british muslims nearly 40% claimed you should be put to death for blaphemey against allah. any way you slice that, its against enlightenment values of freedom of speech, and freedom from religion. islam is dangerous no doubt.
    Would be interested to see that poll and its sources. I've done work in mosques around the UK (part of an investigative documentary about exactly that), and in 80+ hours of unfiltered conversations, we heard maybe 1/2 statements that could be translated as "dangerous". Even then, the persons who said those were warned against them - 1 was even frogmarched to the police by the imam as a potential domestic terrorist. From my experience, the view that Islam is dangerous comes from not experiencing Islamic communities.

    I'd also be interested to hear your views on christianity, as that has some equally screwed up views around freedom of speech.

    Full disclosure: I don't care what anyone's religion is, as long as they don't shove it in my face.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message, but several thousand electrons were mildly inconvenienced.

  5. #2595
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Here we go with a religion witch hunt where faith is clearly the cause of all the world's problems. Extremism is the problem and will always exist because people suck.

  6. #2596
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Here we go with a religion witch hunt where faith is clearly the cause of all the world's problems. Extremism is the problem and will always exist because people suck.
    Yea it's just a rallying point for extremism, as well as a way to classify, and stereotype people.

    Not being a religious person I never really understood what the big deal was separating the major religions, save for buddhism, the big ones that we constantly talk about are just altered forms of judaism.

    Where I went to school, and the field I work in, I have met and been friends with many Muslim people. And just like any other religious group, that's being stereotyped, there are different people that make up the whole.

    One thing to remember is that Islam is a branch off of judaism and is the youngest of the major religions. Think back to what was happening with Christianity when they were around 1500 years old. The Spanish Inquisition, and global colonization paired with mass murder and genocide were happening all using the name of God. Also in the years leading up to that were the dark ages and the crusades, more violent times as the religion was maturing. Should there be a hope that another major religion, as they develope it, takes a less violent path then the previous one? I think we can hope but to expect humans to be better than we are is a pipe dream, there are people caught up in the same issues of their evolving religion just as the religions previously. Also let's not forget that when the Christian world was in it's dark ages the Muslim world was in a cultural renaissance that rediscovered Latin, democracy, and Greek culture that we say we value highly in Western culture today.

    I know many Egyptians whom interprete the Koran as being peaceful and those who do not live in peace are living in sin. I know many Lebanese people who hold a similar belief as well. I know a few Iraqi and Iranian people who see things a little differently none of them are violent but you need to remember that most of them grew up in a war, especially my friends from Iraq and Iran, and that will severely alter ones mentality on certain subjects. And that is just an over simplification, people are different, people view things differently, and people have different backgrounds that lead to those different views and bigotries that we renounce without looking at the root causes of the differences.

    In short everyone is a bigot when they are not willing to open there mind to different ideas and points of view and never bother to see how these differences, that we argue about, are what make society up as a whole. All religion is the same and all religion is flawed it is up to people to be good and try to advance society instead of rallying around flawed ideas and relying on "ethics" that change depending on region to produce more stereotypes.

  7. #2597
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    I think a big problem is that there's a focus on principles, and this widens the bipartisan divide. I was having this conversation with a friend yesterday, but my basic argument is that almost all political issues exist along some continuum, and that a reasonable expectation is for society to dynamically move policy along those issue continua as relevant data becomes available...
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    interesting post lurker, and i agree...
    I totally agree!

    On a related note:
    I personally feel like the ends of the political spectrum are moving further and further away from me. I?ve watched as I?ve seen growing numbers of ?shares? on either side of me that I can read the headline and know, before even reading the article, that it simply is not that clear cut. I think this is in part due to foreign interference (i.e. Russian Fake news and the like) in our public decision-making process, which contrary to popular opinion didn?t simply start and end with the election. I also attribute part of it to something I heard a foreign journalist say on NPR: ?Americans don?t really do nuance very well?. Combine that with growing perceptions of the major media outlets (as corporate shills), and the growth and immaturity of ?individual reporting?, and this leaves our public debate in a serious s**t storm.

    On a more distantly related note- I have to wonder if our model of democracy is ideal for the information age, where information flows so much more rapidly across geographic and social boundaries. Crisis emerges, festers and explodes before our government can adequately address it. By 'address' I don't mean just simply putting a bandaid over the issue but, accounting for the multiple facets (societal, economic, constitutional, etc) in play.

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    the NRA has retracted support for regulating bump stocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    I live in Texas, one of the most pro-gun states and I am vehemently opposed to bump fire stocks. How the ATF let that through is absurd.
    I?ve known for some time what a bump/slide fire stock is and, I totally understand how the ATF let them through. The ATF has a very clear and technical definition of what semi and full auto are. Simply put, semi-auto is a single actuation of a trigger resulting in a single fired projectile. Bump or Slide fire stocks don?t change that. They simply make it easier to consistently bump fire which doesn?t require a specialized stock. The folks that have been reviewing them have largely framed it as just for fun, talking about the lower accuracy than even actual full auto, and the cost of the ammo. Some use them as an example of how the full auto restrictions of sales are pointless. I personally held the stocks as troublesome and that it would be a matter of time before someone misused one. However, I see the regulation of full auto as problematic from a philosophical point of view.

    There?s another aftermarket firearm product out there that is similarly problematic- the firearm ?brace?. The ATF allowed them because they were designed specifically for (handicapped) individuals who cannot use two arms to shoulder a rifle. The inventing company got a ruling from the ATF that would not treat them as a stock and blam, they are showing up on guns that would be otherwise called a short barreled rifle (which are regulated) used as stocks (meaning they are shouldering the rifle) by tons of folks who don?t have any disability . The ATF tries to stop this by putting out a memo which stated that shouldering the brace would make it a stock and therefore illegal. The futility of this memo was evident to all, and they retracted it. The ATF doesn?t feel they can ban them as they would most likely receive a lawsuit from those who are handicapped, claiming infringement on their right to own and use a rifle.

    There?s a paintball parallel to these problematic devices- Double Finger triggers, response triggers, etc. The intent of the paintball semi-auto requirement was to drop the ROF in order to reduce the risk of injury via displacement of the goggle (before full face masks were required). This was set into the insurance policies (which in effect acts like a law as to framing what can and cannot happen at a commercial field), and eventually, engineers found a way to increase the ROF around it. These devices raise the effective rate of fire, introducing other problems onto a field that is required to enforce ?semi-auto only?.

  8. #2598
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    My reason for objecting to bump fire isn't legalistic. It's that it limits the fire control of the user and that's idiotic. I have shot bump fire guns and I'm not ignorant... I just think common sense SHOULD prevail a little bit here. I don't have much of an opinion on the SBR designation.

  9. #2599
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    My reason for objecting to bump fire isn't legalistic. It's that it limits the fire control of the user and that's idiotic. I have shot bump fire guns and I'm not ignorant... I just think common sense SHOULD prevail a little bit here. I don't have much of an opinion on the SBR designation.
    >common sense
    >guns

    pick one.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #2600
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    >common sense
    >guns

    pick one.
    What a dirty liberal thing to say.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •