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.

(Think Progress)   Uninsured conservative blogger in hospital with liver failure. Liberal and conservative bloggers band together to raise money for his medical bills. Good job guys, now just 45 million more to go   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 441
    More: Hero, liver failure, medical bills, RedState, Blogging  
•       •       •

3707 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2013 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



441 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-02 10:45:43 AM

Great_Milenko: So, if everybody chips in a little bit for people they don't' even know, people in need will get the services they need without bankrupting themselves.   Interesting concept.


Inorite? That almost sounds like (wait for it)

Single-payer!
 
2013-08-02 10:46:01 AM

vpb: Aristocles: If medical costs weren't so inflated and docs were allowed to compete across state-lines, maybe his treatment would have been affordable.

Docs aren't allowed to compete across state lines?  Where did you get that?


Obamao, that's who.

/just kidding, I meant to say, insurers.
 
2013-08-02 10:47:24 AM

Dr Dreidel: In a just world, he'd get the care he needs, followed by someone presenting him with that record, on-camera, and waiting for his tearful apology. Either that, or tell him that his care was paid for by "Friends of Ebert".


I really think that they need to recirculate his own words, but phrased so they belittle HIS suffering, and as soon as his family gets biatchy, show them whose words they REALLY are. THEN pay for the surgery, doesn't even need the 'Friends of Ebert' tag at that point. It would be a bitter pill to swallow either way.
 
2013-08-02 10:47:32 AM

Serious Black: Okay. Let's start with the fact that every other developed country on the planet spends less money on health care than we in America do. Are there any common denominators there? It turns out there are; every single one of those countries uses government power to set prices for health care services.


Every other country has cheaper fighters than we do, and we use the government power to purchase our fighters.  It doesn't mean what they have is good enough for us or that we could get it done here cheaper just because government is involved.

I will, however, risk my newly minted libertarian card to ask for a close up look at why things have to cost so much.  When it comes to fighters its mostly unexpected technical issues, corruption, and a "too big to fail" attitude for how our programs are run.
Yes, we could do alot better if we tried. We could still rule the sky for a quarter of the money.

I have the same attitude about health care.  There is alot of money on the table and a lack of interest in how to save it. We keep starting this discussion with how best to buy insurance (which is no mystery, since insurance companies are one of the biggest lobby groups) and ignore why its costing people a hundred bucks when the doctor puts aspirin in a ketchup cup.

If government is to be involved then I don't want it telling me how to spend my money, or spending it for me. I first want them figuring out and fixing the reasons for why I have to spend so much.
 
2013-08-02 10:48:15 AM
Typical libtards, forcing socialism on a defensless american
 
2013-08-02 10:48:37 AM

Diogenes: Mrbogey: NewportBarGuy: Imagine if his health care were covered by a single-payer entity. He wouldn't have to beg like some homeless person.

Instead he'd have to hope for the compassion of a faceless bureaucrat properly filing and approving his request and then receive bottom tier care. Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.

It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

A handout is a handout.  This man sits in harsh judgement of others, yet takes no responsibility for himself.


It's one thing to be too proud to take a handout. It's quite another to mock people who do, then try and hit them up for money.

But he'll be dead really, really soon, so fark him.*

/*This is what he said about Roger Ebert.
 
2013-08-02 10:49:27 AM
A bunch of people pooling their resources to accomplish something sounds a whole lot like evil socialism to me.
 
2013-08-02 10:50:50 AM

spongeboob: way south: The problem is it isn't just the lack of insurance, but the outrageous pricing

Do you have a citation for this, and how do you think it should be fixed?

And lack of insurance or under insurance is one of the components of why pricing is high, especially with hospitals.
A person with no insurance and no means of paying for health care negelects treating a simple health matter and ends up in the ER, the person can't pay and the hospital has to absorb that, but the hospital can't just eat that expense the next person in line pays more to help defray the uninsured's cost.  The only way you can stop that is to be okay with people letting people drop dead in the street.

What about other ways to constrain cost, well then you are going to have to talk about Real Honest to God Death Panels.  The majority of health care costs are at the end of life, should we be doing EVERYTHING to keep granny alive for one more Christmas?

How about miracle stories, a baby born at 24 weeks is going to require a buttload of expensive medical care.  How about some 24 year old who is involved in a major trauma and is saved when a few years ago they would have died.  The miracle drug/operation/therapy that saved them requires not only the sigificant expense of the current treatment but R&D costs.  And both of theses examples will probably have significant residual costs.


We shouldn't do this with insurance, we should charge an across the board tax rate on the income tax method(with rebate to the poor) and pay for this via the government. 5 years old and break a leg? Fixed. 35 years old and break a leg? Fixed. Everyone pays, everyone gets healed.

R&D should be included in this rate, too. Give grants to teaching hospitals to have a team of researchers researching how to tear a body apart and put it back together, again.

And, while we are in fantasy land, we should also setup pay rules that are based on cost of living for their area plus a set amount of money. For instance, GPs may get COL + $50K. None of this "$200 per visit, fit 12 people in a day to maximize my take home!" stuff that can go on, now.

I know. Too much corporate money at stake to try and do something sane. My apologies.
 
2013-08-02 10:51:31 AM
$25k is not going to cover a liver transplant. If he wanted to live by his blog he should lose his home and retirement savings to his medical costs. If you want to assume the risk for your health then you should be prepared to pay up with what resources you have.

//His kids are probably on some state funded CHIP program
 
2013-08-02 10:51:42 AM
No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.
 
2013-08-02 10:52:02 AM
way south:

I will, however, risk my newly minted libertarian card to ask for a close up look at why things have to cost so much.  When it comes to fighters its mostly unexpected technical issues, corruption, and a "too big to fail" attitude for how our programs are run.
Yes, we could do alot better if we tried. We could still rule the sky for a quarter of the money.

I have the same attitude about health care.  There is alot of money on the table and a lack of interest in how to save it. We keep starting this discussion with how best to buy insurance (which is no mystery, since insurance companies are one of the biggest lobby groups) and ignore why its costing people a hundred bucks when the doctor puts aspirin in a ketchup cup.

If government is to be involved then I don't want it telling me how to spend my money, or spending it for me. I first want them figuring out and fixing the reasons for why I have to spend so much.


Per capita, the U.S has about 2-3x the number of MRI machines per capita than European countries with single payer.  (the only machine I have data for).  All those machines are used and set by demand.  How come the discrepancy?
 
2013-08-02 10:53:20 AM

way south: Serious Black: Okay. Let's start with the fact that every other developed country on the planet spends less money on health care than we in America do. Are there any common denominators there? It turns out there are; every single one of those countries uses government power to set prices for health care services.

Every other country has cheaper fighters than we do, and we use the government power to purchase our fighters.  It doesn't mean what they have is good enough for us or that we could get it done here cheaper just because government is involved.

I will, however, risk my newly minted libertarian card to ask for a close up look at why things have to cost so much.  When it comes to fighters its mostly unexpected technical issues, corruption, and a "too big to fail" attitude for how our programs are run.
Yes, we could do alot better if we tried. We could still rule the sky for a quarter of the money.

I have the same attitude about health care.  There is alot of money on the table and a lack of interest in how to save it. We keep starting this discussion with how best to buy insurance (which is no mystery, since insurance companies are one of the biggest lobby groups) and ignore why its costing people a hundred bucks when the doctor puts aspirin in a ketchup cup.

If government is to be involved then I don't want it telling me how to spend my money, or spending it for me. I first want them figuring out and fixing the reasons for why I have to spend so much.


The reason why you have to spend so much is that the powerful insurance lobby made sure there are no consumer-friendly laws regulating insurance coverage, policy and price caps.

Then, insurance, doctors, and the government (again, paid for by powerful lobbies) got together and started an arms race on pricing. It's why Americans pay so much: on the books, doctors charge a lot for procedures and tests. Insurance companies then negotiate lower "bulk" prices, but government health plans pay it out. Doctors get rich, insurance companies get mega rich, and both contribute to government officials' bottom lines, so they get rich.

If you want to pay less for health care, you increase the amount of people paying in by levying a new tax and putting us all on the same health insurance plan -- Medicare. A larger base of "customers" plus less chance for the three-way collusion and democratic oversight of the people in charge is what is best for the average person.

But it's not good for insurance executives, who profit off your misery.
 
2013-08-02 10:54:45 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


fark morals, the goal is results.
 
2013-08-02 10:54:46 AM

spongeboob: way south: The problem is it isn't just the lack of insurance, but the outrageous pricing

Do you have a citation for this, and how do you think it should be fixed?



How's this?
 
2013-08-02 10:54:54 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


I actually saw an Anarcho-Capitalist person arguing that it is their right to sell themselves into slavery.  It was so weird.
 
2013-08-02 10:55:11 AM
As someone that has lived through a liver transplant I have to say this guy is proper farked. Most likely outcome is he does not survive and his family is left destitute. 25k doesn't even get started on keeping him alive long enough to even be considered to be put on the list.

First off it seems he has a history of drinking. Even if it is not the primary cause of liver failure no transplant team will even start the workup until he has demonstrated 6 months of sobriety. There are no shortcuts on this. Transplant teams have heard it all and seen it all. You will not fool them and they will gladly let you die if you continue to drink. Same for smoking. Same for not following Dr's orders.

Now during that 6 month period he's going to have a lot of Dr's appointments. Mine were weekly. Let's not forget weekly bloodwork that runs about 2k per week.

Now that's just routine stuff. He is in the hospital so I am going to guess ICU because when your liver puts you in the hospital its always farking critical. Lots of fun things can happen. Like when my kidneys said fark it we feel like failing too. Ah yes multi organ failure is a grand old time. It put me in ICU for 16 days at around 80k/day. Or he could have his esophageal varices burst. Super fun time. I lost consciousness when it happened to me. My wife tells me the ambulance crew was busy dropping IV's into me anywhere tehy could get a vein because I had already lost 5 liters of blood and the plasma was leaking out of me as fast as they could drop it in. MUCHO THANKS TO BLOOD DONORS EVERYWHERE!!!!! About then my doctors started thinking I was death proof. I did not feel like it. That was not the end either but it was the worst of it. Well except for the time TB decided to setup camp in the fluid in my belly that was supposed to be there so My body really didn't know how to fight it.

When I wasn't in the hospital trying to die I had a miserable existence. Most days I was just hoping I would piss or shiat. Sounds like a simple thing but when you don't life is hell. Spikes in the ammonia levels in my blood were always fun too. It made me more belligerent and unbearable than booze ever did.

Anyway, I had outstanding insurance for the entire experience. I also have to say My docs in NJ specifically UMDNJ were freaking rock stars of what they do.

This douchewaffle that likes to cheer on cancer when its people he does not like suffering from it is farked. Sure he can get longterm/permanent disability. That's going to take him some time to put together. Once he gets that he can file his paperwork for medicaid. He will get it eventually. If he is still alive.

Good luck asshole. If you survive it you won't be cheering on anyone elses illness. I know for a fact you're world view will change.
 
2013-08-02 10:55:36 AM

Aristocles: Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.


It's We the People, not Me the Person. Your grievance doesn't supersede the Constitution you claim to worship.
 
2013-08-02 10:56:27 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


I am sure you write to the government daily about the injustice of paying into medicare/medicaid.
 
2013-08-02 10:56:55 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


Except everyone knows he's not going to get what he needs by the charity of others.
 
2013-08-02 10:57:03 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

fark morals, the goal is results.


But morality is what separates us from the lower animals. If we give up our freedom to be moral creatures, we give up our humanity.

PAUL/PAUL 2016!!!
 
2013-08-02 10:57:27 AM

way south: Every other country has cheaper fighters than we do, and we use the government power to purchase our fighters. It doesn't mean what they have is good enough for us or that we could get it done here cheaper just because government is involved.


Because we develop the fighters, and the rest of the world buys them once they are in full production and cheaper? We pay extra because we want it first, and best.
 
2013-08-02 10:57:45 AM
I'll be donating here:
The Ebert Foundation, a nonprofit organization supporting arts and education programs. Donations can be be mailed to Northern Trust, 50 S. LaSalle St., Chicago, IL 60603.


Of course, in this bloggers name.
 
2013-08-02 10:57:46 AM

sammyk: As someone that has lived through a liver transplant I have to say this guy is proper farked. Most likely outcome is he does not survive and his family is left destitute. 25k doesn't even get started on keeping him alive long enough to even be considered to be put on the list.

First off it seems he has a history of drinking. Even if it is not the primary cause of liver failure no transplant team will even start the workup until he has demonstrated 6 months of sobriety. There are no shortcuts on this. Transplant teams have heard it all and seen it all. You will not fool them and they will gladly let you die if you continue to drink. Same for smoking. Same for not following Dr's orders.

Now during that 6 month period he's going to have a lot of Dr's appointments. Mine were weekly. Let's not forget weekly bloodwork that runs about 2k per week.

Now that's just routine stuff. He is in the hospital so I am going to guess ICU because when your liver puts you in the hospital its always farking critical. Lots of fun things can happen. Like when my kidneys said fark it we feel like failing too. Ah yes multi organ failure is a grand old time. It put me in ICU for 16 days at around 80k/day. Or he could have his esophageal varices burst. Super fun time. I lost consciousness when it happened to me. My wife tells me the ambulance crew was busy dropping IV's into me anywhere tehy could get a vein because I had already lost 5 liters of blood and the plasma was leaking out of me as fast as they could drop it in. MUCHO THANKS TO BLOOD DONORS EVERYWHERE!!!!! About then my doctors started thinking I was death proof. I did not feel like it. That was not the end either but it was the worst of it. Well except for the time TB decided to setup camp in the fluid in my belly that was supposed to be there so My body really didn't know how to fight it.

When I wasn't in the hospital trying to die I had a miserable existence. Most days I was just hoping I would piss or shiat. Sounds like a sim ...


/The esouphageal varices had me on full life support in a chemical coma for 8 days.
//100k+/day
///My co-pay $50
 
2013-08-02 10:58:04 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people but the idea of paying taxes to care for people is so abhorrent to them.

Perhaps I would be more willing to accept  Liberatarianism  if wars were also funded by charities.
 
2013-08-02 10:58:38 AM

Mrbogey: It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.


The point being that you don't badmouth people's suffering and laugh at their pain, lest you get cancer yourself down the road and suddenly want people to be compassionate?

The "point" is that this guy farked himself.
 
2013-08-02 11:00:08 AM

mrshowrules: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people but the idea of paying taxes to care for people is so abhorrent to them.

Perhaps I would be more willing to accept  Liberatarianism  if wars were also funded by charities.


and abortions, too.

/too easy
 
2013-08-02 11:00:24 AM
Uninsured conservative blogger in hospital with liver failure

FTFY, subs
 
2013-08-02 11:00:36 AM

spongeboob: draypresct: spongeboob: Liver failure, so is this guy a drunk, a doper or did he get Hepatitis from some random sex encounter?


I am just asking questions here.

Or cancer. Or accidental Tylenol overdose. Or a number of other causes which do not point to personal moral failings on his part.

Do you white knight everyone or just conservative bloggers?


Do you believe that it's the sick person's fault if they get sick? That being sick is a sign of personal moral failings? That perhaps we should think twice before treating them, since they're so corrupt? How about their politics - should that come into play?

Personally I believe in trying to treat people who get sick. I'm glad we're trying to move past figuring out the relative moral worth of two sick people in order to decide who lives.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-23/opinions/36822973_1_wi ll em-kolff-artificial-kidney-first-dialysis
 
2013-08-02 11:00:38 AM

Mentat: Mrbogey: It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

Or maybe those on the left just aren't raging sociopaths.  Maybe the Tea Baggers have spent so much time defining empathy as a vice that they don't recognize genuine human compassion.


This thread is filled with people taking delight in the suffering of another because he acted like an ass at some point in his life. And you say they're not sociopaths?

I tend not to enjoy the suffering of another person. Them being an asshole still doesn't cause me joy to see them die or suffer
 
2013-08-02 11:01:24 AM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I actually saw an Anarcho-Capitalist person arguing that it is their right to sell themselves into slavery.  It was so weird.


Why would a capitalist want to join the Communist Party? That is weird.
 
2013-08-02 11:01:25 AM

Arsten: I wish the Republicans would follow through with the threatened repeal of Obamacare so that a real health-care payment (only) system could be implemented.


All they care about is repealing Obamacare... not replacing it. What has been their alternative to Obamacare? Let's not forget that the essence of Obamacare was a Republican idea. They are trying to repeal a Republican idea.

The solution is single payer... or at the very least, a public option... and I'm sure the GOP would considered those two options if they somehow successfully repealed Obamacare.
 
2013-08-02 11:01:52 AM

MindStalker: Because we develop the fighters, and the rest of the world buys them once they are in full production and cheaper? We pay extra because we want it first, and best.


...so they can hurry up and collect dust. Why does everything in the military cost more for us and why do we build so much military shiat that we know we'll never use? Do you want to be the congressman who suggests we cut military spending? You don't want to switch careers in today's job market.
 
2013-08-02 11:01:56 AM
He can do what the people I know who don't have insurance do, throw the bills away.
 
2013-08-02 11:02:25 AM
How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?
 
2013-08-02 11:02:54 AM

Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.


I thought the other side of that was being a responsible consumer - the "personal responsibility" they're always going on about. What's responsible about shirking your duties to your family to save a few bucks, and then relying on charity? That's about as moochey as you can get, and even though it's not compulsory, it's not responsible in the slightest.

Yes, a libertarian paradise would have this man die of an easily-treatable liver condition. Is this the preferable alternative? Well, problem is people are just too damned compassionate - when it's someone they know or someone "of status" (like a well-known assbag politiblogger). This guy won't learn the right lesson because people came to HIS aid, why couldn't they come to someone else's? Never mind that most people necessarily won't have access to the same platforms as he does. Erick Erickson isn't on most people's speed dial (thankfully?).

It wouldn't be moral to let him die, but it is moral for him to rely solely on donations (in excess of what he'd have spent otherwise)? He shouldn't be proactive in insuring his health, and it's totally cool for him to use his daughters as leverage to get him care? (To a Libertarian, emotional arguments are the domain of bleeding hearts and socialists.)

If all those people paid for his care, do they get to dictate that he get a real job once he's recovered? Can they peer into the rest of his health record now and prevent his wife from seeing a reproductive specialist or an end-of-life counselor if his health turns bad again? (Do the same strings the GOP want to put on public-funded health care get to be put on crowd-funded care?)

He's publicly dedicated to living the Libertarian ideal, and happy to be a liberal/socialist when it suits his needs. Heal him, but fark him.
 
2013-08-02 11:03:25 AM
I feel bad for his daughters, but they're probably better off with him dead.
 
2013-08-02 11:03:33 AM
It's less like rain on your wedding day than it is like the good advice that you just didn't take.  But either way, it's ironic.
 
2013-08-02 11:03:47 AM
He knew what he was getting into when he didn't buy insurance. I say let him crash.
 
2013-08-02 11:03:53 AM
Look, I'm never going to hope some one gets denied medical care and I think this is a great example of why the system needs to be fixed, but I can think of other people who won't get this kind of crowd funding bump because they don't have access or the ability to raise this sort of media awareness. My wife's uncle has struggled with kidney failure for about four years now, having been unable to work and exhausting COBRA after 36 months of paying out of pocket, so the last year of dialysis and hospital stays have all been uncovered expenses. He basically did everything you're supposed to. Had a job, had savings, had health insurance, but once you're so sick you can't work and you lose employer provided insurance you're sort of screwed, especially before the pre-exisitng condition modification of Obamacare. He's finally at the point where he can get a kidney transplant and just recently got on the national list, but all his savings are gone and he's carrying tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Our healthcare system works fine until you get really sick. It's crazy there's so many people okay with the status-quo to me, but I guess whatever.
 
2013-08-02 11:04:15 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?


I think it's pretty clear that the government should subsidize boostraps and then people can do the rest like privatize roads, bridges, other infrastructure and healthcare insurance.
 
2013-08-02 11:04:40 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?


Libertarians are dumber than boxes of wet hair.
 
2013-08-02 11:04:49 AM
Shouldn't churches be doing this in order to earn their tax-exempt status?
 
2013-08-02 11:05:23 AM

tbeatty: Per capita, the U.S has about 2-3x the number of MRI machines per capita than European countries with single payer.  (the only machine I have data for).  All those machines are used and set by demand.  How come the discrepancy?


I've pegged this as "marketing". Every hospital just HAS to have one, even if it's only used half the time. Plus, the hospital can make big money by having your in-house doctors order an MRI for everything, even if you don't need one.

CSB, my wife gave me niacin as part of her "we need to be healthy!" kick and it gave me an allergic reaction. A rash everywhere on my skin. I went to the ER because rashes aren't cool and they gave me a prednisone injection. A few minutes later, the rash was more or less gone/going away. ER Doctor #2 walks in and goes "I want to get you into an MRI to make sure it wasn't something more serious."

I declined because 15 minutes before that ER Doctor #1 said "Well, this is a textbook reaction to niacin, so it's not a big deal unless the steroid doesn't work. Don't go home and take anymore niacin, though." But I have to wonder how many people will go "Okay." get an MRI and have their insurance get charged for $2,000 for what I consider no reason.
 
2013-08-02 11:05:23 AM

RexTalionis: BarkingUnicorn: This sort of thing makes absolutely no sense... unless, as I've long maintained, kindness is hardwired into human genes.

Empathy - the ability to perceive the emotional state of another; especially, to feel his suffering.
Compassion - the urge to do something about another's suffering, because it's making you suffer.
Kindness - the act of doing something about another's suffering, with no ROI from the one helped.

I disagree that the three are tied up together. One can show empathy and do nothing to help. Others can feel no empathy at all but act in what will be perceived from an observer to be compassion or kindness.


Empathy does not show; it is experienced as an emotion, internally.  Compassion may be expressed ("I feel sorry for him") or not, but it doesn't show.  Only outward action - kindness - shows.

The inability to experience empathy is the hallmark of that trendy bogeyman, the sociopath.  Such people terrify society because they are uncontrollable and unpredictable.  True sociopaths cannot experience empathy.  (I don't buy the recently Farked study suggesting that sociopaths can turn empathy on and off at will.) They should not be confused with those who do but choose not to act upon it.

Yes, one can resist compassion, the urge to act kindly; that happens when one perceives that an act of kindness will not make one feel as good as refraining from the act.  But it is a struggle to resist compassion, a source of suffering. Even when refraining from kindness is objectively the rational, most self-beneficial choice, refraining from kindness still gives rise to suffering.

Some people hide this suffering, others express it ("I feel sorry for him but I'm broke").  Lack of expression does not mean empathy and compassion are absent.

Those who fake expressions of compassion or perform acts of kindness for motivations other than empathy/compassion are deemed untrustworthy;  but anyone can be trusted!

Trust is the belief that one can predict another's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.  It is entirely possible to trust a sociopath to be kind to you; if you understand his true motivations, you can easily manipulate him into being kind.  Do you know anyone you can trust 100% to screw you over every chance he gets?  That's another way to trust the "untrustworthy."  Do you risk only small losses in dealings with certain people?  Then the acceptable degree of confidence in your prediction of their behavior is lessened, and you can  trust them.
 
2013-08-02 11:06:01 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: How do libertarians deal with the fact that we elect people specifically to enact laws that we agree with? I'm confused on why taxes are theft if we collectively, as a country, elect people who want to tax us. It's not like the government is some foreign, uncontrollable overlord that is hijacking trucks.

How is coercive if we have agreed as a country that some things we should pay for?


The problem is that the sheeple haven't been exposed to a pure Libertarian system in action, which will answer all their questions about Libertarianism and show them the light of the only workable system of government.

/there, I saved some actual Libertarian 23 seconds of typing out that blarney as if they believed it
 
2013-08-02 11:07:00 AM

Mrbogey: Relying on your neighbors and people who genuinely care for you to help you, that's no way to go through life, I tells ya. Gov't assistance... now that's dignified.


If only there was a way to allow everyone in the country (we're all neighbors, right?) to pay a small amount, which would go toward providing some kind of assurance that, if you get sick, you won't die because you can't come up with $25k. Hell, they could even spread the cost over a long period of time so these "neighbors" aren't out the entire cost all at once. I'm shocked someone hasn't thought of this already.
 
2013-08-02 11:07:19 AM

Dr Dreidel: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I thought the other side of that was being a responsible consumer - the "personal responsibility" they're always going on about. What's responsible about shirking your duties to your family to save a few bucks, and then relying on charity? That's about as moochey as you can get, and even though it's not compulsory, it's not responsible in the slightest.

Yes, a libertarian paradise would have this man die of an easily-treatable liver condition. Is this the preferable alternative? Well, problem is people are just too damned compassionate - when it's someone they know or someone "of status" (like a well-known assbag politiblogger). This guy won't learn the right lesson because people came to HIS aid, why couldn't they come to someone else's? Never mind that most people necessarily won't have access to the same platforms as he does. Erick Erickson isn't on most people's speed dial (thankfully?).

It wouldn't be moral to let him die, but it is moral for him to rely solely on donations (in excess of what he'd have spent otherwise)? He shouldn't be proactive in insuring his health, and it's totally cool for him to use his daughters as leverage to get him care? (To a Libertarian, emotional arguments are the domain of bleeding hearts and socialists.)

If all those people paid for his care, do they get to dictate that he get a real job once he's recovered? Can they peer into the rest of his health record now and prevent his wife from seeing a reproductive specialist or an end-of-life counselor if his health turns bad again? (Do the same strings the GOP want to put on public-funded health ...


I don't know what sort of propaganda you've been reading, but, contrary to popular Farklib belief, there is such a thing as charity in a libertarian world view.
 
2013-08-02 11:08:56 AM

Aristocles: mrshowrules: Aristocles: No one here seems to understand that accepting charity is perfectly compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians simply believe that people shouldn't be compelled or forced to contribute to fund the health care of others.

In fact, if you think about, charity without compulsion is the only moral option. Because if you're forced to contribute, that's not a moral decision at all.

I find it funny that Libertarians are content to have people pay taxes to kill people but the idea of paying taxes to care for people is so abhorrent to them.

Perhaps I would be more willing to accept  Liberatarianism  if wars were also funded by charities.

and abortions, too.

/too easy


Abortions are already funded by charity.
 
2013-08-02 11:09:02 AM
To people arguing with Aristocles-

Please be warned he has admitted to not arguing in good faith, and is an *admitted* troll.

See http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85539614#c85539614 and http://www.fark.com/comments/7856783/85540067#c85540067  .

. Named after a man who claimed to know nothing, he seems to think he's a lot more clever than he is.

I just figure it would be akin to arguing with.. man, whoever it was with the lists, after the person accidentally outed themselves
/Only this troll is far, faaarr less clever.
 
2013-08-02 11:09:04 AM

Mrbogey: Mentat: Mrbogey: It's nice to know that the compassion some people feel towards him exists only as far as they want to prove a point.

Or maybe those on the left just aren't raging sociopaths.  Maybe the Tea Baggers have spent so much time defining empathy as a vice that they don't recognize genuine human compassion.

This thread is filled with people taking delight in the suffering of another because he acted like an ass at some point in his life. And you say they're not sociopaths?

I tend not to enjoy the suffering of another person. Them being an asshole still doesn't cause me joy to see them die or suffer


So not donating money to a know sociopath makes you a sociopath? We're through the looking glass people!
 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report