Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Last night's GOP debate wound up seeing everyone gang up on Mitt Romney, the only candidate whose approval ratings are in the double-digits   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 160
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney, GOP, HPV vaccines, Tea Party Express, George Wallace, approval ratings, Rick Perry, Monday Night  
•       •       •

1818 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2011 at 8:40 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-13 10:18:22 AM  
I heard Unnamed Republican Candidate is doing great in the polls against Obama. The GOP should nominate him over all these other yahoos.
 
2011-09-13 10:22:23 AM  

MeinRS6: Except you didn't really answer the question, much like Obama probably would not. What is the cost to taxpayers in dollars for a patient in a coma at $1Million a year? And he lives for 12yrs. And he was broke to begin with, so bankruptcy is irrelevant. Is there no cut off? What if he came out of his coma after 12yrs and lived another 20yrs but still had $400k in medical spending a year?


The reason I responded the way I did is because you asked about 'Obamacare'. And Obamacare doesn't have crap to do with it. Assume he either doesn't have insurance to begin with, or stops having insurance because, as a vegetable, he loses his job (most people get insurance at work) or stops paying premiums. Then, yes, the US/state government pays beaucoup $$ if the family won't decide to pull the plug. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm saying we decided that in 1965 as a nation (and most states had decided that well before that). The Medicare/aid bill that decided that passed by 75% majorities in the House and Senate and haven't been repealed in 46 years.
 
2011-09-13 10:22:28 AM  

trackerbri: "Ron Paul joined in with Romney, claiming Perry - Paul's governor down in Texas - has raised his state taxes and eluding to the thousands in new government jobs that fueled the Texas job boom of the recent past."


Elude is a perfectly cromulent word, but I'm thinking the author mixed up elude and allude. Seems an editor or proof reader needs a dictionary.


For people raised on MSWord, if spellcheck doesn't flag it, it isn't wrong.
 
2011-09-13 10:22:30 AM  

GuyRolf: I can't choose! Jack Johnson or John Jackson!


What about Morbo's good friend, Richard Nixon?
 
2011-09-13 10:26:26 AM  

MeinRS6: Except you didn't really answer the question, much like Obama probably would not. What is the cost to taxpayers in dollars for a patient in a coma at $1Million a year? And he lives for 12yrs. And he was broke to begin with, so bankruptcy is irrelevant. Is there no cut off? What if he came out of his coma after 12yrs and lived another 20yrs but still had $400k in medical spending a year?


Perhaps you could explain how the health care bill changed the status quo on this. We didn't go single payer.
 
2011-09-13 10:26:44 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Weaver95: Romney won't be permitted to win the GOP nomination. the evangelicals don't think he's one of them.

Well, if he doesn't get it then the Republicans have no shot. This country will not elect Rick Perry, or Bachmann, the only other people close right now. Huntsman would be a possible contender but if they don't want Romney they sure as all hell won't want Huntsman.


the Republicans care more about ideological purity than they do electability. Perry is a dominionist theocrat, Romney isn't. the evangelicals will go with Perry and that's all there is to say about that.
 
2011-09-13 10:27:01 AM  

TwoHead: I imagine he would try to explain that 1) there is no such thing as Obamacare


Obama loves the name Obamacare because it says that Obama Cares.
 
2011-09-13 10:27:02 AM  

sprawl15: The look in Perry's eyes as he saw people booing him for trying to prevent cancer was glorious.


It was a fine contrast to him being applauded for a record breaking pace of prisoner executions.

So:
1. Efforts at cancer prevention? Bad.
2. Killing prisoners? Good.

Look upon the modern day GOP base and DESPAIR.
 
2011-09-13 10:28:12 AM  

Shrugging Atlas: sprawl15: The look in Perry's eyes as he saw people booing him for trying to prevent cancer was glorious.

It was a fine contrast to him being applauded for a record breaking pace of prisoner executions.

So:
1. Efforts at cancer prevention? Bad.
2. Killing prisoners? Good.

Look upon the modern day GOP base and DESPAIR.


everyone cheering the deaths of killing people who don't have health care was equally chilling.
 
2011-09-13 10:30:16 AM  

TwoHead: MeinRS6: I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

I imagine he would try to explain that 1) there is no such thing as Obamacare 2) the Affordable Care Act is not a single payer state sponsored program 3) private insurance policies purchased under the law would mandate that the insurers provide the coverage dictated by the policy they sold

Were you serious or joking about your ignorance?


You are dodging the question so hard that you actually got out of Dodge. lulz

Obamacare is a common term - get over it. The question is asking about an uninsured person being covered by the gov't. The patient has no money, no assets, and no family with any money.

So now try again. What's the process under Obama? The same as before? Different? And is there any limit to the spending that will be done on this patient?
 
2011-09-13 10:30:20 AM  

Weaver95: the Republicans care more about ideological purity than they do electability. Perry is a dominionist theocrat, Romney isn't. the evangelicals will go with Perry and that's all there is to say about that.


Romney is much stronger than you think.
 
2011-09-13 10:30:54 AM  

King Wicker: I love that people yelled out that the uninsured should be allowed to die. But at what point do we decide to allow them to die? Perhaps we would need some sort of a panel to make those sort of decisions.


We keep the job creators alive, and allow everyone else to die.

If Obama is smart he will not let the term "job creator" replace the word "rich" in this country. We already let "Estate Tax" become "Death Tax", this time we have to nip it in the bud
 
2011-09-13 10:31:15 AM  

MeinRS6: So now try again. What's the process under Obama? The same as before? Different? And is there any limit to the spending that will be done on this patient?


Your the one whining about. You do the explaining. How the hell is it any different now? Come on troll, you can do it!
 
2011-09-13 10:31:22 AM  

MeinRS6: King Wicker: King Wicker: I love that people yelled out that the uninsured should be allowed to die. But at what point do we decide to allow them to die? Perhaps we would need some sort of a panel to make those kind of decisions.

I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

That's just a different version of what Ron Paul was asked and that's "How much do taxpayers pay for someone that becomes ill?". I'd like to hear Obama explain how that situation works itself out under Obamacare.


The question to Ron Paul said nothing about $1 million per year to keep him alive, just that it would cost something beyond his means. The question was how do you provide benefits to someone who chose to go uninsured because they were young and healthy, but then got sick. But in a world where "Obamacare" was enacted this man wouldn't have gone uninsured due to the HCR mandate, so since he would be covered he should get his benefits from his insurance company.

You do seem to be under the impression that Obamacare is government provided and taxpayer paid healthcare system, which it is not. It's still operating in a private insurance system structure. We wouldn't be using taxpayer money to pay for this man. As far as how the insurance companies would respond to such a sickly person, it is likely they would find some way to ditch him and save their bottom line but you'd have to ask them.

In my perfect world we would have a single payer system and we would be willing to sacrifice our collective resources to keep people alive. We would avoid death panels and rationing at all cost. Is there a limit? There probably should be. And we should have a serious and rational discussion about what that is and what's the most fair way to enact it. Right now in America the limit is how much $$ do you have, which is fair, but is it humane?

If you look around the world at the Single Payer systems compared to our Private Payer system, it's pretty clear who has the better record on rationing and letting people go bankrupt and die.

And it ain't us.
 
2011-09-13 10:31:29 AM  

Weaver95: Shrugging Atlas: sprawl15: The look in Perry's eyes as he saw people booing him for trying to prevent cancer was glorious.

It was a fine contrast to him being applauded for a record breaking pace of prisoner executions.

So:
1. Efforts at cancer prevention? Bad.
2. Killing prisoners? Good.

Look upon the modern day GOP base and DESPAIR.

everyone cheering the deaths of killing people who don't have health care was equally chilling.


Everyone who isn't an old fat white male already on Medicare and SS is an anti-American terrorist. Anyone who tries to use their system is trying to take what is rightfully theirs.
 
2011-09-13 10:31:40 AM  

Shaggy_C: Wicked Chinchilla: I believe the last statistic I heard was that over 1 in 4 sexually active women in the US have tested positive for at least one strain of HPV. One in FOUR. Thats not diffficult to spread, its a damned epidemic, and several strains cause cancer.

Even better was the 100% exposure rate if you have slept with seven people. As in there's no chance of not having HPV if you've had even a below average number of partners.


Probability does not work that way, kid.

HPV's more or less treatable, anyhow, if you catch it, iirc. The reason the vaccines are being distributed in schools has more to do with the dramatically decreased chance of cervical cancer associated with it-- if it was really primarily about cutting off disease vectors, we'd be vaccinating all the males too.
 
2011-09-13 10:31:48 AM  
Basically it's a contest of who wants a government that kills and lets the most of it's citizens die.
 
2011-09-13 10:33:24 AM  

bartink: Weaver95: the Republicans care more about ideological purity than they do electability. Perry is a dominionist theocrat, Romney isn't. the evangelicals will go with Perry and that's all there is to say about that.

Romney is much stronger than you think.


yeah, but he's up against a bunch of religious lunatics who really do believe that they're Chosen of God. Romney gets between them and their anointed messiah and his career is over.
 
2011-09-13 10:33:34 AM  

MeinRS6: TwoHead: MeinRS6: I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

I imagine he would try to explain that 1) there is no such thing as Obamacare 2) the Affordable Care Act is not a single payer state sponsored program 3) private insurance policies purchased under the law would mandate that the insurers provide the coverage dictated by the policy they sold

Were you serious or joking about your ignorance?

You are dodging the question so hard that you actually got out of Dodge. lulz

Obamacare is a common term - get over it. The question is asking about an uninsured person being covered by the gov't. The patient has no money, no assets, and no family with any money.

So now try again. What's the process under Obama? The same as before? Different? And is there any limit to the spending that will be done on this patient?


Sorry, no more answers until you provide one to my question. Your ignorance: serious or joke?
 
2011-09-13 10:35:49 AM  

Weaver95: yeah, but he's up against a bunch of religious lunatics who really do believe that they're Chosen of God. Romney gets between them and their anointed messiah and his career is over.


Maybe. There is a big chunk of the GOP that isn't indoctrinated into the religious death cult. We'll see. I've seen people doubting Romney's ability to make a strong showing for a long while now. Yet when you look at this field, its hard to imagine him not finishing at least second.
 
2011-09-13 10:36:04 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.


I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea. I AM saying that public health and the good of the state was not Perry's motivation.
 
2011-09-13 10:37:58 AM  

MeinRS6: Obamacare is a common term - get over it. The question is asking about an uninsured person being covered by the gov't. The patient has no money, no assets, and no family with any money.

So now try again. What's the process under Obama? The same as before? Different? And is there any limit to the spending that will be done on this patient?


In the case you're talking about, absolutely nothing has changed in the least little bit. He'll be covered by a combo of Medicaid and Medicare (which, being disabled, he'll qualify for even though he's not 65). And, no, there is no specific limits to the spending that will be done for any Medicare/aid patient. One of those disgusting ways that we're sorta like a first-world western social democracy.

Now, Obamacare has changed things a bit if his family did have some money and wanted him to be on, say, a Blue Cross plan. Blue Cross would have to accept him, even with his pre-existing condition. He'd qualify for heavy subsidization (having no income).
 
2011-09-13 10:38:52 AM  

bartink: Weaver95: yeah, but he's up against a bunch of religious lunatics who really do believe that they're Chosen of God. Romney gets between them and their anointed messiah and his career is over.

Maybe. There is a big chunk of the GOP that isn't indoctrinated into the religious death cult. We'll see. I've seen people doubting Romney's ability to make a strong showing for a long while now. Yet when you look at this field, its hard to imagine him not finishing at least second.


I'm just saying that it would be unwise to underestimate the influence and reach of the GOP death cultists. they have power and reach far beyond what their limited numbers might suggest.
 
2011-09-13 10:39:01 AM  

dehehn: But in a world where "Obamacare" was enacted this man wouldn't have gone uninsured due to the HCR mandate, so since he would be covered he should get his benefits from his insurance company.

You do seem to be under the impression that Obamacare is government provided and taxpayer paid healthcare system, which it is not. It's still operating in a private insurance system structure. We wouldn't be using taxpayer money to pay for this man. As far as how the insurance companies would respond to such a sickly person, it is likely they would find some way to ditch him and save their bottom line but you'd have to ask them.


So he wouldn't have been uninsured because Obamacare forced him to pay for insurance? What if he didn't have any money to pay for the forced mandate? The guy is broke and he can't work now. Private insurance does not come into the picture. So it's taxpayer funded Medicare/aid. Unless you know of some other source of funds. Do you?
 
2011-09-13 10:42:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Shaggy_C: Wicked Chinchilla: I believe the last statistic I heard was that over 1 in 4 sexually active women in the US have tested positive for at least one strain of HPV. One in FOUR. Thats not diffficult to spread, its a damned epidemic, and several strains cause cancer.

Even better was the 100% exposure rate if you have slept with seven people. As in there's no chance of not having HPV if you've had even a below average number of partners.

Probability does not work that way, kid.

HPV's more or less treatable, anyhow, if you catch it, iirc. The reason the vaccines are being distributed in schools has more to do with the dramatically decreased chance of cervical cancer associated with it-- if it was really primarily about cutting off disease vectors, we'd be vaccinating all the males too.


HPV is not treatable. Cervical displasia, leading to precancer, leading to actual cancer is treatable in so far as you can remove questionable tissues via various biopsy techniques or LEAP procedures. In the case of actual cancer you have the usual surgical, and chemical options for treatment.

IE: we can deal with the consequences of HPV. We can do approximately bup + kiss to the actual viral infection aside from letting the body just deal with it.

You are quite right though in that for maximum efficacy in vector reduction we should be vaccinating the males too. I know my boys are getting it when they are old enough though.
 
2011-09-13 10:43:55 AM  
FTFA: "On jobs, the number one issue in the minds of the electorate according to polling, the Romney and Perry sparred again. Romney dismissed Perry's job creation record as simply the result of baked in advantages in Texas such as no income tax, a Republican-led state government and "oil in the ground." "

Not at all, Romney.

It's actually because of stimulus funds, growing government, and groveling to the Walmarts of the world for minimum-wage McJobs.
 
2011-09-13 10:44:37 AM  

Lawnchair: Now, Obamacare has changed things a bit if his family did have some money and wanted him to be on, say, a Blue Cross plan. Blue Cross would have to accept him, even with his pre-existing condition. He'd qualify for heavy subsidization (having no income).


So BlueCross is forced by Obamacare to start covering the guy's expenses at $1million/yr? What's his monthly premium payment that the Medicare/aid then pays to BC for that policy? Because coma guy has no money.
 
2011-09-13 10:44:39 AM  

tnpir: Wicked Chinchilla: tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.

Public health gets shiat on quite a bit, ESPECIALLY in this country. So what if it the motivation was centered in greed. It would have saved many lives and millions of dollars in the long run. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and the final results would have been astronomically better than some misgivings that the vaccine maker would make money.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea. I AM saying that public health and the good of the state was not Perry's motivation.


No argument here on that point. Dude is slippery as a fish and as dirty as mud. But hey, broken clocks are right twice a day right?
 
2011-09-13 10:45:06 AM  
I tried to watch the debate last night:

[Buffering... 100%]

SANTORUM: "I would cut the corporate tax rate to zero percent!" *wild applause*

[close tab]
 
2011-09-13 10:45:13 AM  

MeinRS6: So he wouldn't have been uninsured because Obamacare forced him to pay for insurance? What if he didn't have any money to pay for the forced mandate? The guy is broke and he can't work now. Private insurance does not come into the picture. So it's taxpayer funded Medicare/aid. Unless you know of some other source of funds. Do you?


Yes it's taxpayer funded Medicare/aid in that case. Which is the same as it would be before Obamacare.

I suppose as an alternative we could just (a) let him die, (b) let him go to an emergency room and get "free" treatment, which is much more costly to society and ties up valuable resources.

/there's no perfect solution, though honestly a single-payer system is probably the closest.
 
2011-09-13 10:48:51 AM  

coeyagi: Today, Jindal for Perry.


Aww. I remember that little guy. He was going to be the next big republican thing! Then he opened his mouth...
 
2011-09-13 10:52:58 AM  

Supes: MeinRS6: So he wouldn't have been uninsured because Obamacare forced him to pay for insurance? What if he didn't have any money to pay for the forced mandate? The guy is broke and he can't work now. Private insurance does not come into the picture. So it's taxpayer funded Medicare/aid. Unless you know of some other source of funds. Do you?

Yes it's taxpayer funded Medicare/aid in that case. Which is the same as it would be before Obamacare.

I suppose as an alternative we could just (a) let him die, (b) let him go to an emergency room and get "free" treatment, which is much more costly to society and ties up valuable resources.

/there's no perfect solution, though honestly a single-payer system is probably the closest.


Bolded for correctness and emphasis. Though we already have a single-payer system which you alluded too: the ER. People fighting universal healthcare because they might have to pay healthcare for the "undeserving" don't realize that those people already do get healthcare. They get very expensive, resource taxing, and system breaking healthcare via the ER which absolutely MUST TREAT THEM. That, in a nutshell, is the origin of the healthcare cost spiral. The ER must treat everyone. To defray the cost of care which is not paid for they raise the prices on those who are insured, or apply for federal reimbursement, or close the ER (which many hospitals have done, because they are notoriously expensive and unprofitable). Thats why you have tylenol or advil that costs more than $10 per pill or pillows that cost $40 on your insurance statement. The increase in costs charged by the hospital cause insurance companies to raise their premiums to make up for the additional costs to maintain profitability (or at least their profit margin). This now causes premiums to be out of reach of more people resulting in more uninsured. Go back to square one and repeat.

Just remember, the bill ALWAYS gets paid one way or the other. I just think we should make the system "honest" and deal with it all up front through a legitimate and workable single payer system that everyone pays into. It would be inarguably more fair and efficient than the bullshiat we have now.
 
2011-09-13 10:58:51 AM  

bartink: Weaver95: yeah, but he's up against a bunch of religious lunatics who really do believe that they're Chosen of God. Romney gets between them and their anointed messiah and his career is over.

Maybe. There is a big chunk of the GOP that isn't indoctrinated into the religious death cult. We'll see. I've seen people doubting Romney's ability to make a strong showing for a long while now. Yet when you look at this field, its hard to imagine him not finishing at least second.


I oscillate about Romney. In one hand, he's got the plutocrats on his side, and that definitely counts for something, but on the other, the debt ceiling debacle shows that the GOP has lost control of its little Frankenstein monster and the Evangelicals - no small portion of the Republican base - will undoubtedly vote for Perry. We'll see.
 
2011-09-13 11:00:22 AM  
 
2011-09-13 11:01:23 AM  

Zerochance: I oscillate about Romney. In one hand, he's got the plutocrats on his side, and that definitely counts for something, but on the other, the debt ceiling debacle shows that the GOP has lost control of its little Frankenstein monster and the Evangelicals - no small portion of the Republican base - will undoubtedly vote for Perry. We'll see.


I'd say the fact that Perry doesn't seem to be fringe enough would be a better indicator.
 
2011-09-13 11:07:56 AM  

Tusz: I tried to watch the debate last night:

[Buffering... 100%]

SANTORUM: "I would cut the corporate tax rate to zero percent!" *wild applause*

[close tab]


Insert ICP - Farkin math, how does it work?
 
2011-09-13 11:15:49 AM  
i935.photobucket.com
Aw, they're all buddies.
 
2011-09-13 11:19:02 AM  

Smidge204: Shaggy_C: HPV spreads through skin to skin contact; even with a condom, you are not protected.

Kinda true:

Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer) and may mitigate the other adverse consequences of infection with HPV; condom use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women, and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV.^

Still reduces risk. Still a good idea.
=Smidge=


So is the vaccine. And, like all vaccines, the more of the general population that gets it, the better.
 
2011-09-13 11:20:07 AM  
Trotsky

GuyRolf: I can't choose! Jack Johnson or John Jackson!

What about Morbo's good friend, Richard Nixon?


May death come swiftly to his enemies.
 
2011-09-13 11:22:33 AM  
FTA:
It was one of many occasions where Perry found himself at the center of a circular firing squad manned by his fellow candidates on stage.

Way to mangle a metaphor, TPM. A circular firing squad is where a bunch of people line up in a circle and wind up shooting each other. When you have a bunch of people shooting at one person, it's just a firing squad.
 
2011-09-13 11:29:21 AM  
That's the way the GOP rolls now. If it is popular or logical, they are against it.
 
2011-09-13 11:29:42 AM  

RexTalionis: FTA:
It was one of many occasions where Perry found himself at the center of a circular firing squad manned by his fellow candidates on stage.

Way to mangle a metaphor, TPM. A circular firing squad is where a bunch of people line up in a circle and wind up shooting each other. When you have a bunch of people shooting at one person, it's just a firing squad.


I think circular firing squad is fairly accurate. They're all going to end up peppering each other when sniping at one guy, because they all do basically the same crap and commit the same hypocrisies. So, it's kinda like an oval-shaped firing squad with Perry standing in the middle and everybody using 20 guage shotguns with target load. It's just kinda messy.
 
2011-09-13 11:31:01 AM  
Oh how cute... The Mittster and the Rickster are dress-up twins.

talkingpointsmemo.com

reidreport.com
 
2011-09-13 11:31:25 AM  
It's not so much that one of these retards could possibly win the presidency of the United States that depresses me, although if I thought about it long enough I'm sure it will. It's the fact that the Republican Party has gotten to the point where retards like these are all serious candidates that gets me down.
 
2011-09-13 11:48:31 AM  

MeinRS6: I want Obama to be asked a similar hypo in a future debate. Something like - Under Obamacare, if a young person that hasn't paid much of anything into the system becomes ill and falls into a coma, then requires $1million per year in medical spending to keep them alive. Does Obamacare pay the full million each year no matter how many years the patient remains in a coma or is there a cut off to the spending?

That's just a different version of what Ron Paul was asked and that's "How much do taxpayers pay for someone that becomes ill?". I'd like to hear Obama explain how that situation works itself out under Obamacare.


I imagine if the question did come up, it would be framed in a significantly less retarded fashion.

/Say Obamacare again, I dare you.
 
2011-09-13 11:54:09 AM  

tnpir: bartink: I'm sorry, but even if you can opt out of it, it shouldn't be required barring that action. And don't give me the its like other vaccines stuff. It isn't. Its an STI that's difficult to spread. He did it because he's in bed with Merck.

A thousand times THIS. Requiring that vaccine had nothing to do with the good of the state; it had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Perry's corporate masters would have made a shiat-ton of profit.


You know what else is a good racket? Teeny-tiny baby coffins. You can get them in sky blue, fire engine red, and even frog green.

Listen, if we have a vaccine for it that isn't hazardous (sometimes smallpox and some others can lead to major reactions) the whole damn population should be mandated to get it. Not getting a simple shot to protect yourself and anyone who comes in contact with you from the ravages of disease is both irresponsible and moronic. If it can't be cured, or leads to things like cancer, you're a farking asshole and an awful parent/human if you go without vaccinating. Period.
 
2011-09-13 01:51:49 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Why do you want a specific number? Every patient is different and not all coma's are created equal, yet here you are asking for a general rule based off of one extreme case. The answer is that it should be evaluated at the case level. If its national insurance then the amount of money spent is secondary to prognosis. If the Doctors give Mr Apple no odds then the family should be told as such and consulted to pull the plug. If he has a chance then treat away. The brain has lots and lots of secrets still hidden within it but medical science has gotten a whole lot better in figuring out when one is still working and when it isn't.


Remember:
Terri Shivo case = OMG, THEY'RE TRYING TO MURDER HER GOV'T MUST INTRUDE
Universal healthcare = OMG, they're going to keep leaching uninsured members of society in comas FOREVER and make me personally pay for it!
 
2011-09-13 02:07:26 PM  
It seemed to me like more people were after Perry. Maybe it was just that one brutal section where everyone challenged his two reasonable positions - on the HPV vaccine and on immigration.
 
2011-09-13 02:08:21 PM  
And that will teach me to take subby at his word instead of RTFA.
 
2011-09-13 02:11:02 PM  

quizzical: It seemed to me like more people were after Perry. Maybe it was just that one brutal section where everyone challenged his two reasonable positions - on the HPV vaccine and on immigration.


Heh, the HPV vaccine isn't his position anymore. He walked that one back a while ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report