- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,011 comments
- 1,485,502 views
- 2,194
- Isle of Wight, UK
You're missing the point. A post went up in this thread about someone shooting strangers dead in public and you replied to the effect of "oh ffs here come more gun control arguments". As if that's a normal stimulus for that response, and before anyone had even expressed any sorrow, shock or fear - before anyone had even hoped that the ongoing situation was OK.
You're so accustomed to acts of random mass murder in the street that now they don't even shock you. You just roll your eyes as you see it being used as ammo for politics you don't agree with.
That's despicable and your country is doomed. This. Isn't. Normal.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
This happens every weekend in Chicago. A Democratic run city. With supposedly the toughest gun laws in the USA.With a Mayor who should resign for being a bumbling buffoon. Yes it is normal, every damn weekend Chicago has this happen.But CNN,ABC,NBC, refuse to report it on National media.I'm pretty sure the guns being used are not registered to the idiots shooting them. But nobody in mainstream news reports on this other than local affiliates.
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/06/12/chicago-weekend-shootings-violent-crime-mass-shooting/
Last edited:
- 2,194
- Isle of Wight, UK
I don't see where I made any mention of Chicago, Democrat leadership Vs Republican leadership, the mainstream media's reporting tendencies or gun laws.
But thankyou, again, for demonstrating my point so clearly.
Last edited:
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Perhaps quoting the post would help. There is quite a few to go over. You have leadership in America and Canada that don't seem to care about the increase in violence,by gun,car, etc. This isn't the Isle of Man. These things are happening more and more in urban areas in the USA and Canada. They rioted and burnt up cities for months and continue to do so. So if the Government or Mayor's don't seem to shocked and do nothing what do you expect ?
- 2,194
- Isle of Wight, UK
You don't realise the unfathomable depth of the pitfall you activated when you confused the Isle of Wight with that rain soaked hellhole in the Irish sea.
I didn't put anything at the feet of any mayors, governments, media conglomerates or any other collateral with my post. I only intended to address the poster I was directly quoting.
I'm not really seeing a coherent thread in your replies - that is to say, I really am not sure what you're getting at. I would however recommend that if you feel you are represented by people apathetic towards horrendous violence in your local streets - perhaps vote for someone else?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
No They Didn't.
Statitically the majority of mass shottings are carried out using legally held guns.
"• U.S. mass shootings by legality of weapons 2019 | Statista" https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
Last edited:
- 28,813
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Trumpism, man.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Scaff,really ?
https://fee.org/articles/george-flo...says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/
When the criminals are not caught,every damn weekend in Chicago, how do they know if the weapon was legally purchased ?
https://abc7chicago.com/7-hurt-at-least-3-critically-in-chatham-shooting-cfd/10779560/
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
6% that's the percentage of BLM events that involved violence, and of those not all of it was instigated by BLM protesters.
So no, your claim doesn't hold up.
The source article is also interesting, as converted to 2020 values the LA riots cost 1.42 billion, and BLM 1 to 2 billion! That's not quite the same as the headlines are claiming (in that the lower end of the BLM scales is near half a billion less) . LA is also streets ahead as well in regard to dollar per day costs.
Oh and odd your libertarian Conservative failed to mention that these costs (and i directly quote) “are small compared with those stemming from natural disasters like hurricanes and the wildfires that are consuming the U.S. West.“
Amazing what a little accuracy and context will do.
My comment was in regard to mass shooting, easy enough to tell given clearly stated that, and linked to a source that clearly spoke about that.
As such the moving of goalposts is not required. You want to discuss shooting in general, feel free, but don't use a strawman to initiate it.
Last edited:
- 28,813
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Y'know...it's nice to see reason win over insanity.
Judge dismisses staff lawsuit over Houston Methodist vaccine mandate
Judge dismisses staff lawsuit over Houston Methodist vaccine mandate
Anti-vaxxers are ****ing garbage, as are the politicians who empower them.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Fired up. Fired up. Damn the news is good at doing this lol. Something about a court decision allowing (an) employers to require vaccines for their employees. Then they showed these protestors saying things like "If the vaccine works for you then why do I have to get it?" and "We're just fighting for our freedom to choose."
Old lady you do have the freedom to choose...a new ****ing job! If an employer fires you it's because they don't want you. You're not entitled to work anywhere, remember? You've gotta pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, remember? You've got to put in the work to find your own job, remember? And you're not bothering to fight for other people's right to choose other things about their own wellbeing, remember? So why the hell should we care about your job? Follow your own damn advice, toughen up, grow some skin, buckle down, stop sucking at everything and stop being stupid.
I'm so mad right now you'd confuse me for a Republican who just got cut in line at the grocery store. I didn't even read the thread or do any research before posting this.
Old lady you do have the freedom to choose...a new ****ing job! If an employer fires you it's because they don't want you. You're not entitled to work anywhere, remember? You've gotta pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, remember? You've got to put in the work to find your own job, remember? And you're not bothering to fight for other people's right to choose other things about their own wellbeing, remember? So why the hell should we care about your job? Follow your own damn advice, toughen up, grow some skin, buckle down, stop sucking at everything and stop being stupid.
I'm so mad right now you'd confuse me for a Republican who just got cut in line at the grocery store. I didn't even read the thread or do any research before posting this.
Last edited:
- 3,736
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
- 28,813
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Economics is complicated but supply and demand is pretty simple to understand. When I saw the title of this article about tipped minimum wage not changing for a long period of time it got me thinking about how Europeans always comment on the vast consumer culture of the US. We're always buying things, we're always going out to eat, we're always consuming, and we do it indiscriminately on as much crap as we can.
Why? I assume because everything is cheap. Why is everything cheap? Is it because the employees who make it or sell it don't get paid squat? Obviously if their wages were higher then the prices would be higher but higher wages wouldn't necessarily continue to drive sales because all the numbers are bigger and scarier. What if our consumer culture is actually created by the fact that nobody gets paid what they're worth? Despite having less money, we continue to buy because products are a tolerable price, and that creates this nonstop consumerism where we are constantly in debt and save very poorly.
Why? I assume because everything is cheap. Why is everything cheap? Is it because the employees who make it or sell it don't get paid squat? Obviously if their wages were higher then the prices would be higher but higher wages wouldn't necessarily continue to drive sales because all the numbers are bigger and scarier. What if our consumer culture is actually created by the fact that nobody gets paid what they're worth? Despite having less money, we continue to buy because products are a tolerable price, and that creates this nonstop consumerism where we are constantly in debt and save very poorly.
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
No. I don't think consumerism is the problem, I think it's a symptom. I think in most cases, the less comfortable a person is with their situation the more likely they are to distract themselves from that by pursuing vices or making rash decisions which results in this rampant consumerism we have. If you know you're never going to get comfortable then why bother trying? Go ahead and treat yourself, it's the only satisfaction you're going to get. However in my experience, the more money I have the more cautious I am with it because I know it can be valuable when certain opportunities arise. Instead of buying a bunch of crap I don't need just to amuse myself, I'll actually spend less and reserve it for more important/valuable/profitable purchases. This is related to the fact that poor people don't invest because they see it as a pointless exercise, while wealthy people are obsessed with investing and pinching pennies. The simple reason is because they can afford to invest and pinch pennies - they've crossed that threshold where a dollar stops being a unit of survival and starts being a unit of investment. A frighteningly large portion of American people are below that threshold and it's getting bigger by the day.
The problem is a lack of reasonable wages. Most people aren't paid what they're worth and it forces them into uncomfortable living situations where next week's paycheck and next month's bills are the first things on their mind and it's very stressful. They're searching for any refuge from the stress so they act irresponsibly with their money. It's basically a society-wide machine of mental health issues. It's like psychological poverty.
If people were paid more obviously companies would simply offset that cost by raising prices, we know how this works. But that's fine, because while 10% of 100 seems like a big chunk, 10% of 1000 is low-risk in comparison. Even if prices inflated proportionally, paying people more would help ease this psychological poverty and stress. People don't think in ratios, they think in numbers, and they would see better numbers. The key is that it would reduce their desire to offset their unhappiness and lend clarity to even the most basic financial decisions, leading them to make fewer high quality purchases rather than more frivolous and wasteful purchases. This instantly saves them money, provides a sense of security and quality to life, and would overall lift the psychological situation of society and improve saving and investment habits and reduce frivolous consumerism. The market would respond by offering fewer but higher quality and more expensive products with higher margins, rather than bargain-basement high-volume crap that creates a Walmart-style race to the bottom. And in this type of market environment, smaller companies tend to see more success and corporations are forced to rework their business model away from the race to the bottom. It's not a coincidence that stagnant wage growth graphs itself very nicely against the rise of corporatism, share price obsession, and CEO bonus pay. Our market is ill and I think the main reason is simple: People don't get paid what they're worth. Wage slavery is killing the mental health of society, killing net worth, increasing debt, and spreading corporatism everywhere.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
Keef, you're not understanding some basic economics. I'm going to try to walk through it with you, but you need an open mind to hear what I'm telling you. You come off regularly as someone who has made up their mind about what's going on and where the problems are, but it relies on some circular thinking which is on display in this post.
To remind you where I've been... I've made minimum wage, and I was raised in a poor household that lived paycheck to paycheck and maintained massive credit card debt. I know the stress you're talking about below, and I've seen the silly purchases you're talking about below firsthand. I know these people, I have lived with these people. Do not make the mistake of thinking that what I'm about to tell you is out of touch with minimum wage, or even higher wages couple with a paycheck-to-paycheck mentality.
You're mistaking financial immaturity and the realities of a low ceiling for "pursuing vices" and emotional escapism. You might think that your claim is on display for someone who regularly purchases $30 of movie tickets and popcorn to go to the theater on the weekend compared to someone who buys a nice TV and stays home on the weekend. One of these people is pursuing vices to escape their lack of funds, while the other is making a more intelligent financial decision and saving for the future. Let's ignore, for a moment, that this scenario is practically outdated because Walmart (I chose that intentionally) sells TVs for next-to-nothing these days.
First, this is young vs old, mature vs. immature if you will. When you are young, and your living situation is constantly in flux, you might make much more short term decisions, like not owning an entertainment system, renting an apartment... the list is practically inexhaustible of small trades you make when you're young with a relatively low financial ceiling. The reasons for this are many but at least two of the main ones include simply not having access to a big enough budget to make more efficient financial choices, and having not been around long enough to see and recognize the patterns of high spending and low savings. If you don't have $500 for a nice TV, and you'd have no place to put it, you don't buy one. You do have $30 this friday for a movie, so you do that instead.
This is not vice vs. no vice, or distraction vs. no distraction, or stress escape vs. no stress escape. This is someone watching a movie on friday. That's it. Both people are doing the same thing, but one of them is doing it in a more sustainable and economically efficient manner.
It's easy to confuse having fewer vices and making more financially responsible decisions for making the same amount of financially responsible decisions with more options. So, for example, if your range of options includes buying a new porsche when it didn't used to include that (because you're getting older (more mature hopefully) and making more money), you might think to yourself "I'm being more responsible these days by not buying that new porsche", when you actually are doing exactly the same thing you used to do, you just didn't pat yourself on the back for not buying a new porsche when you literally couldn't.
My entertainment and luxury footprint has gone nowhere but up since I was making minimum wage, despite less financial stress (and that is not the only kind of stress, and for many people, not even the lion's share). But these days there are myriad more ways for me to be irresponsible, so I'm exercising more self restraint than I used to.
(There's another wrinkle here, which is that the entertainment and luxury footprint doesn't scale with wealth. You have an amount of entertainment that you need/want and that amount doesn't rise proportionally with income. It's a somewhat fixed overhead which you can out-earn)
I think you're wrong about being poor driving people to make wasteful decisions because they're stressed and need an escape. Tons of middle class people and upper middle class people, and yes even rich people, are insanely stressed, to the point of depression, suicide, etc. There are real reasons to make financially inefficient decisions when you're poor, it's a very real thing, but I don't buy that it's for the reason you state.
This is true. The more money you have, the more money you can make. Finances, like so much of life, are highly non-linear. There is, like so much of life, a financial spiral up, and there is a spiral down. I've had courtside seats for both.
No. This is just false. I don't even know how you could possibly substantiate what someone is "worth" and what they "ought" to be paid. I'm not sure how much thought you've given to how to actually validate this, but it's laughably hard.
Paycheck-to-paycheck is a mentality, and it can be a mentality among some of the very richest, and it can be lacking in some of the most poor. You get used to a certain amount of financial security, and you get used to a certain amount of satisfaction from new purchases. That balance can lead someone making gobs of money to spend themselves dry, and a lack of that mentality can allow someone to save thousands on minimum wage while sharing an apartment and working on a temporary desk made out of a closet door (I did not pick this at random).
Psychological poverty is the paycheck to paycheck mentality. It is why lottery winners bleed themselves dry, and why rich people end up bankrupt.
This is circular. Rising wages do no good when prices rise. To give you an example of this, a new car in 1970 cost $3,500. The median annual income was just shy of $10,000. Wages have come up, prices have come up. Did we magically start saving?
- What you describe (rising wages and rising prices) happens inevitably, and it does not result in saving. Also it shouldn't, the numbers don't matter.
- Your consumerism and lack of savings mentality is present in high earners as well as low, and lacking in high earners as well as low.
- It is not possible to define what someone is "worth".
- Wealth is highly non-linear, you can make much more financially advantageous decisions if you have money than if you do not. It does spiral.
- Stress and psychological problems abound at all income and financial levels. Some of the most emotionally unstable people I have ever met are some of the richest.
- Part of what you describe just sounds like you getting older and paying more attention to the financial big picture - wisdom and maturity.
To remind you where I've been... I've made minimum wage, and I was raised in a poor household that lived paycheck to paycheck and maintained massive credit card debt. I know the stress you're talking about below, and I've seen the silly purchases you're talking about below firsthand. I know these people, I have lived with these people. Do not make the mistake of thinking that what I'm about to tell you is out of touch with minimum wage, or even higher wages couple with a paycheck-to-paycheck mentality.
You're mistaking financial immaturity and the realities of a low ceiling for "pursuing vices" and emotional escapism. You might think that your claim is on display for someone who regularly purchases $30 of movie tickets and popcorn to go to the theater on the weekend compared to someone who buys a nice TV and stays home on the weekend. One of these people is pursuing vices to escape their lack of funds, while the other is making a more intelligent financial decision and saving for the future. Let's ignore, for a moment, that this scenario is practically outdated because Walmart (I chose that intentionally) sells TVs for next-to-nothing these days.
First, this is young vs old, mature vs. immature if you will. When you are young, and your living situation is constantly in flux, you might make much more short term decisions, like not owning an entertainment system, renting an apartment... the list is practically inexhaustible of small trades you make when you're young with a relatively low financial ceiling. The reasons for this are many but at least two of the main ones include simply not having access to a big enough budget to make more efficient financial choices, and having not been around long enough to see and recognize the patterns of high spending and low savings. If you don't have $500 for a nice TV, and you'd have no place to put it, you don't buy one. You do have $30 this friday for a movie, so you do that instead.
This is not vice vs. no vice, or distraction vs. no distraction, or stress escape vs. no stress escape. This is someone watching a movie on friday. That's it. Both people are doing the same thing, but one of them is doing it in a more sustainable and economically efficient manner.
It's easy to confuse having fewer vices and making more financially responsible decisions for making the same amount of financially responsible decisions with more options. So, for example, if your range of options includes buying a new porsche when it didn't used to include that (because you're getting older (more mature hopefully) and making more money), you might think to yourself "I'm being more responsible these days by not buying that new porsche", when you actually are doing exactly the same thing you used to do, you just didn't pat yourself on the back for not buying a new porsche when you literally couldn't.
My entertainment and luxury footprint has gone nowhere but up since I was making minimum wage, despite less financial stress (and that is not the only kind of stress, and for many people, not even the lion's share). But these days there are myriad more ways for me to be irresponsible, so I'm exercising more self restraint than I used to.
(There's another wrinkle here, which is that the entertainment and luxury footprint doesn't scale with wealth. You have an amount of entertainment that you need/want and that amount doesn't rise proportionally with income. It's a somewhat fixed overhead which you can out-earn)
I think you're wrong about being poor driving people to make wasteful decisions because they're stressed and need an escape. Tons of middle class people and upper middle class people, and yes even rich people, are insanely stressed, to the point of depression, suicide, etc. There are real reasons to make financially inefficient decisions when you're poor, it's a very real thing, but I don't buy that it's for the reason you state.
This is true. The more money you have, the more money you can make. Finances, like so much of life, are highly non-linear. There is, like so much of life, a financial spiral up, and there is a spiral down. I've had courtside seats for both.
No. This is just false. I don't even know how you could possibly substantiate what someone is "worth" and what they "ought" to be paid. I'm not sure how much thought you've given to how to actually validate this, but it's laughably hard.
Paycheck-to-paycheck is a mentality, and it can be a mentality among some of the very richest, and it can be lacking in some of the most poor. You get used to a certain amount of financial security, and you get used to a certain amount of satisfaction from new purchases. That balance can lead someone making gobs of money to spend themselves dry, and a lack of that mentality can allow someone to save thousands on minimum wage while sharing an apartment and working on a temporary desk made out of a closet door (I did not pick this at random).
Psychological poverty is the paycheck to paycheck mentality. It is why lottery winners bleed themselves dry, and why rich people end up bankrupt.
This is circular. Rising wages do no good when prices rise. To give you an example of this, a new car in 1970 cost $3,500. The median annual income was just shy of $10,000. Wages have come up, prices have come up. Did we magically start saving?
- What you describe (rising wages and rising prices) happens inevitably, and it does not result in saving. Also it shouldn't, the numbers don't matter.
- Your consumerism and lack of savings mentality is present in high earners as well as low, and lacking in high earners as well as low.
- It is not possible to define what someone is "worth".
- Wealth is highly non-linear, you can make much more financially advantageous decisions if you have money than if you do not. It does spiral.
- Stress and psychological problems abound at all income and financial levels. Some of the most emotionally unstable people I have ever met are some of the richest.
- Part of what you describe just sounds like you getting older and paying more attention to the financial big picture - wisdom and maturity.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
That's not even remotely true. The national media reports on it all the time.
USA Today
CNN, More CNN
Fox News, More Fox News
CBS News
Independent (as in international news)
Yahoo News
MSN News
New York Post
US News
You really enjoy hyperbole, don't you?
- 3,656
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I just find it hilarious how common it is for reactionaries to cling to the narrative "the liberal media won't cover THIS" for at least 5 years or so, when literally every issue they allege the media refuses to cover due to it being inconvenient for the so-called narrative, has been covered by the mainstream media. Or, if they don't cover it, then it's probably some conspiratorial garbage with no basis in reality that only went viral as a result of the Facebook algorithm. You would think a talking point so demonstrably incorrect would have fallen out of fashion by now, but it hasn't.
Also, Fox News is MSM, regardless of pundits like Hannity and Carlson claiming that Fox "isn't MSM" because it goes against the woke media narrative. Fox News has by far the highest number of prime-time viewers as well as gross revenue than any other MSM company. So, Fox News covering a story that "the MSM won't cover" is by definiton an oxymoron.
Also, Fox News is MSM, regardless of pundits like Hannity and Carlson claiming that Fox "isn't MSM" because it goes against the woke media narrative. Fox News has by far the highest number of prime-time viewers as well as gross revenue than any other MSM company. So, Fox News covering a story that "the MSM won't cover" is by definiton an oxymoron.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I agree, this does make better sense here.
I doubt anyone is going to win a lawsuit with regards to mandatory vaccinations, especially in healthcare. I looked up what the language was on my new hire paperwork and it in short said that I was required to stay up to date on all current and future vaccinations. I know the "future" part is really to cover them on the influenza vaccine that changes from year to year, but it doesn't mention what a future vaccine is.
I know our state is attempting to pass a law barring employers from requiring the vaccine (because Republicans are just modern-day Soviets), but I'm not sure how it's going to work where I work. We're technically a government entity, but at the same time, the part about vaccines has been in the legal documents you sign with regards to employment.
It also really, really, screws with reimbursement too. If someone were to get COVID while in the hospital for a knee replacement because some nurse decided not to get a vaccine, then none of that care would get reimbursed. It's no different than when someone gets sepsis or another infection while hospitalized. Medicare and Medicaid simply don't reimburse hospital-acquired infections.
CMS is a royal pain in the ass to deal with and I have to imagine they'd run a hospital through the wringer. So would JCAHO, ACHC, or any of the other accreditation organizations.
Regardless of all this though, I still can't comprehend someone who went through all the education to get a medical or nurse degree and still refuses to get vaccinated. I guess the old adage of 49% of all doctors and nurses are below average holds true here.
I doubt anyone is going to win a lawsuit with regards to mandatory vaccinations, especially in healthcare. I looked up what the language was on my new hire paperwork and it in short said that I was required to stay up to date on all current and future vaccinations. I know the "future" part is really to cover them on the influenza vaccine that changes from year to year, but it doesn't mention what a future vaccine is.
I know our state is attempting to pass a law barring employers from requiring the vaccine (because Republicans are just modern-day Soviets), but I'm not sure how it's going to work where I work. We're technically a government entity, but at the same time, the part about vaccines has been in the legal documents you sign with regards to employment.
It also really, really, screws with reimbursement too. If someone were to get COVID while in the hospital for a knee replacement because some nurse decided not to get a vaccine, then none of that care would get reimbursed. It's no different than when someone gets sepsis or another infection while hospitalized. Medicare and Medicaid simply don't reimburse hospital-acquired infections.
CMS is a royal pain in the ass to deal with and I have to imagine they'd run a hospital through the wringer. So would JCAHO, ACHC, or any of the other accreditation organizations.
Regardless of all this though, I still can't comprehend someone who went through all the education to get a medical or nurse degree and still refuses to get vaccinated. I guess the old adage of 49% of all doctors and nurses are below average holds true here.
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Well that's insane and frankly the only part of your post I really care about. What sort of drugs was the person on who wrote that rule? Any hospital-acquired infection is obviously the fault of the hospital and should absolutely be reimbursed without question, just like literally any other time damage occurs while in the care of a servicer. I have a feeling hospitals don't bother to offer that care free of charge either, do they?
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Ah, I should probably have been clearer. The patient isn't on the hook, the hospital is. By reimburse, I mean that Medicaid or Medicare won't reimburse hospitals for infections that were acquired in the hospital. They also won't pay if a patient is readmitted for the same thing within a certain time frame. I think it's 21 days but I'm not 100% sure on that. It's a really, really stupid model since sometimes hospital-acquired infections are unavoidable. Hospitals are germ-infested nightmares and thanks to Boomers who refuse to take care of themselves, hospitals are more crowded now than they've ever been (pandemic aside) which means oftentimes you'll see two patients sharing a room.
Also, because of Boomers who refuse to take care of themselves, readmission to the hospital for the same condition isn't exactly unheard of. Hospitals are under immense pressure to get people in and out as quickly as possible, especially when they're at a red census (typically 80% capacity or so). This means that patients often get discharged before they really should be.
It's not all old people's fault though. The Obama administration absolutely screwed healthcare with its asinine Affordable Care Act. Leave it to the US government to completely botch socialized medicine in a way that somehow made it worse than what we had previously. With the ACA came Meaningful Use which is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in medicine. It's basically Medicaid and Medicare (and by default private insurance companies) dictating what doctors can do without really considering the patient's needs.
I'm going to use a personal example here to explain what I'm on about. Last summer my wrist started hurting and I was losing feeling in my hand, classic carpal tunnel symptoms. I knew it was carpal tunnel and wanted to see a hand surgeon, unfortunately, I needed a referral so I went to my primary care physician who referred me to a hand specialist. The hand doc agreed I had carpal tunnel after about 30 seconds since that's more or less all he sees. However, he couldn't just do surgery on me, we had to confirm that it was carpal tunnel first. So I went for an EMG ($400 with insurance) and that was inconclusive since carpal tunnel only shows up on that sometimes. I go back and ask to do surgery, but nope the insurance company says I need to try injections first ($150 with insurance per injection). I do one injection and it helps for about two months, when it stops working I ask for surgery, but nope because the first one worked I need to do another one. So I get the injection which lasts about two months again. So now I'm ready for surgery right? Nope, I still need one more injection. So I get that and guess what? Two months later it starts to wear off again. Great now I'm ready for surgery right? Nope. The insurance company wants me to do physical therapy ($40 per visit). It's at this point I say the hell with it and just buy a better brace on Amazon while dealing with the numbness in my hand.
My wife went through the same thing but ultimately got the surgery two weeks ago after a year of going through all the crap the insurance company made her do.
So no, the patient it's on the hook for things per se, but ultimately we all lose by having needless stuff done that's drives the costs up overall. Also, it makes healthcare overall worse when hospitals aren't getting reimbursed properly. Most healthcare systems operate as non-profit or not-for-profit, so they really aren't making money. When reimbursements go down, layoffs happen and the quality of care goes down. This is all the result of meddling by the government and the private insurance companies going along because they pretty much have to.
I agree something needs to be done about rising healthcare costs, but the ACA and Meaningful Use aren't it.
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
The trick to all this is to simply be poor and not have insurance (yet another argument for single-payer). Throughout my FAA medical fiasco - which oddly enough included a fractured scaphoid - I haven't been denied anything at all. In 2018 when a similar medical delay happened I learned very quickly that insurance companies are completely useless after they refused my unnecessary but legally required tests because there was no medical reason for them. So I simply stopped presenting my insurance, claimed self-pay, and because I was on unemployment I fit the bill for financial aid from that hospital network. I did this again the past 1.5 years and could've had wrist surgery without question but the doc saw meaningful healing and now I'm fine.
I agree that the ACA is dumb and useless which is why I refuse to sign up for anything. The first reason being that it's still unaffordable to somebody on unemployment and the second being that it doesn't pay squat for anything when low-income fin aid just writes it off instead. If I were you I would just lie to the doctors and tell them the injections aren't working anymore.
Last edited:
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
An observation on this, perhaps from the other side...
I've been in a double income no kids relationship since my early 30's, and have never really had to think about money - in so far as I've been able to afford to buy what I wanted (within reason), and never run an overdraft or credit card or bank loan.
My life is littered with consumer products - expensive cameras, mountain bikes, luxury watches, electronic equipment, expensive clothes.... the list is endless. My wife has 300 pairs of shoes and probably 100 business suits.
Work paid really well, but the pressure was immense... and it never went away. I got 1 week away from work a year - the week between Christmas Day and New Years Day, when my company and the customers we dealt with were all pretty much shut down. The rest of the year I was always at work... 10pm at night; answering e-mails from a different time zone. Sundays; preparing for meetings in the week, or answering e-mails from the boss as he was catching up. Away on vacation; laptop and phone came with me, I'd do my e-mails every day and take urgent phone calls... I'd be sat by the pool answering e-mails! Mentally, I was ALWAYS at work.
Possessions became a way to justify what I was doing... a way of giving what I did value. But the distraction and enjoyment of researching and buying a £2k camera, or a £10k watch doesn't last. It's not ultimately fulfilling. Eventually the mental pressure almost broke me. I took an early retirement payoff to save my sanity.
2 years on my life has changed completely. I'm happier, healthier, and haven't bought anything other than essentials for 2 years.
Being financially 'comfortable' doesn't necessarily equal happiness.
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
True but to address that point, work stress is another area our society struggles. My bills were paid when I was surveying as well and yet I still managed to overwork myself and end up in the hospital, and our institutions had no rules to govern that and no sympathy for it, instead nearly ruining my career altogether. All because my need to actually care for my physical and mental health simply didn't matter. The only thing that matters in American society is getting the job done as quickly as possible, regardless of the risks involved, even in aviation which seems obviously crooked as hell, thus why slews of work limitations are required (in most areas except mine of course) to keep people from killing themselves.
The problems of wages and demands are closely related. You can either choose wages that are too low to live comfortably, or responsibilities that are too high to live comfortably. Either way, human needs are fundamentally disrespected.
Last edited:
