First of all... get over yourself Mumblefratz.  How arrogant can you be?

Second of all... my "plagiarism" was purely unintentional.  Hence, looking back at the post, I did not claim or sign the piece as mine.  I suppose, I could explain it... as just getting off work of a 12 hour shift for the 6th night in a row and really did not think to give acknowledgement... just a quick copy/paste is merely the case.  For that... I apologize Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger, for your most excellent piece "Health Care is not a Right" still rings true now matter how much someone tries to discredit the content out of spite.  I can admit a mistake, yes I made a mistake though as it was unintentional.  I did not attempt to sell the piece to a newspaper, I did not publish it in a book on Amazon, I merely put on a forum at a skinning site.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to plagiarize means: Plagiarism is an act of fraud.  It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

I suppose that just goes to show you that your generalizations are fruitless and have no foundation.

So in the end, this whole problem: The "Health Care Law" will be found unconstitutional at it's core. Guaranteed.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. A simple oops, my bad, is sufficient. The thing that made it funny and worth comment was the fact that you followed it up with what you said 2 replies later. Without the latter I might not have even noticed to former.

So you guarantee it? Wow. Is this a money back guarantee, or what?

Good luck with that, don't hold your breath.

 

Mumblefratz... I looked at your member page because I was wondering if your age was on there.

I was wondering if you were a stereotypical college student full of grandiose ideals. (young and naive).  Come to find out, I was surprised by what I found.  You sir cannot be pidgeon-holed so easily.

Although, I am curious.  How can someone so full of energy concerning "sharing of the wealth", ie. we should all pitch in and pay for everyone to have health coverage, post on his member page as his motto "He that would not work should not eat"?

ps. If anybody in the U.S. goes into a hospital for treatment, that person will be treated 100% of the time... regardless of possessing insurance. (ahem, regardless of the lies Obama and his minions will tell you.)

ppss. goin' to bed... work another 12 hours tonight (8th night in a row).  "WHEW!, glad i get the next 4 nights off after that, I need a break.

Taking money from a 'discredited' company only matters if you want it to.  Krugman can take $50 large from Enron & that's no problem, but anyone who ever bought a quart of Pennzoil is DQ'd as a tool of Big Oil.

Yes, my age is there and is in fact correct. 57.

That's my Lutheran upbringing showing. While I am not a particularly religious person, personally I'm an agnostic, I was brought up in a fairly strict Lutheran environment and regardless of how one has grown or changed over the years it's very difficult to escape your upbringing and to even attempt to do so is to in some sense a denial of who you are.

I find a lot of biblical sayings to be words to live by. "He that would not work should not eat" is among them. These are words that I strive to live by and these are also words that I encourage others to live by as well. However striving to live by these words is a far different than believing this should be enforced as a criterion on the lives of others. Who am I to judge whether or not someone really is lazy or not?

I think the difference is one of our premises. My premise is that most people that are poor are in fact hard-working. It's not for a lack of trying that people are poor but it's a lack of education, perhaps a lack of ability and also the lack of a certain amount of luck.

Of course, I have no real idea of what your specific premises are since I don't know you from Adam. However I have a generalized stereotypical view of how I think most "conservatives" view this and while I realize there are a lot of qualifiers in such a statement ultimately what else do we know about the other guy over and above our own stereotypical assumptions?

Anyway "it seems to me" that conservatives tend to view the (chronic) poor as lazy and stupid. And while I can possibly buy the stupid part I don't view stupidity as an innate character flaw but rather as the luck of the draw at birth. Is this something that someone deserves to be punished for? Not in my book it isn't.

I view true laziness a bit differently because that is a choice however most of the poor people that I’ve known in my life that were about as far from lazy as you can get. My grandmother supported herself by cleaning other people’s houses and taking in laundry that she did on a scrub board with lye soap she made by hand. Do you even know what a scrub board is? Google it if you don’t. If you do then perhaps you can understand that no one ever worked harder for less money than my grandmother did.

So no I don't see any great dichotomy in my believing that “he that would not work should not eat” and that in a country where CEO’s “earn” yearly $100 million dollar bonuses that the basic minimum necessities of life should be a right.

Really?

 

You mean my Metaverse Profile page?

http://metaverse.galciv2.com/?g=sdnetaccount&acid=2547964

Or is there some other way to view this?

 

Some people just can't google. REALLY

"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."

Stabilizing treatment for an EMC is NOT the same as receiving the required medical treatment for the underlying condition. If a homeless person presents at the hospital with cancer requiring long term Chemo or Radiation Therapy the hospital is under no obligation to provide it.

Some people just can't READ.

If you click a person's username, you get a dropdown with several choices. The top one sends you to their profile. So he meant he was looking at this page

But they are obligated to assist in enrolling that individual who needs on-going care in Medicaid or its equivalent (they also have a financial interest in doing so).  A large percentage of Medicaid patients enter the system this way, and they are able to get Chemo &/or Radiation Therapy if needed once enrolled.  I suspect you know this.

Yes I do. Just as you know that stabilization is not in *all* cases totally equivalent to the care someone would receive if they had insurance.

This also *presumes* that someone without routine medical checkups happens to present themselves to the hospital at precisely the right time for treatments to be effective.

Also while the truly destitute certainly qualify for Medicare, there are still many people who fall into the "donut hole" of not meeting poverty requirements yet still not being able to afford insurance. Those people are the ones that can end up screwed. Again, yes I know that there are potential charitable solutions out there, but particularly when it comes to cancer and Chemo/Radiation therapy there is a certain immediacy of starting treatments and a small window which if missed due to financial issues can never be recovered later, again as you well know.

My point is that in many and in fact probably even most cases someone can present at a hospital with a life threatening condition and receive the same treatment whether they have insurance or not. But not in *all* cases.

The bottom line is that people do die at a measurably higher rate all other things being equal based on whether they have insurance or not. This results in 45,000 people a year that die because they don't have insurance. Again, as I'm sure you know.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Yeah that page is pretty consistent regardless of which site you view it from. However your profile page does not display your motto, unless I'm missing something.

It used to be different when the sites were a bit more independent which is why I asked if there was some other way to view someone's motto, since it doesn't seem that narby is a GalCiv2 guy, although I could be mistaken.

These days there are only minor site differences between profile pages. For example if you view a person's profile from JU you get a link to the person's JU blog (if they've setup a blog on either JU or Implusedriven), same with Impulsedriven. On GalCiv2 you get a link to the person's Metaverse profile whether or not they even know what the metaverse *is*. But otherwise your profile is pretty much the same from one site to the next and in no site that I know of is your motto displayed.

That is a false statement, for which no scientific evidence exists.  It is an extrapolated guess based on an association.  I know the ears are deaf, but I repeat "Association is not causation."  There is no evidence that 45,000 uninsured people would not have died had they been insured last year.

Fine, Then *you* publish a study disproving the referenced study.

"Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993."

It's not a matter of 'disproving' their study - they haven't proven that it's lack of insurance that is the 'cause' in the first place, only that there is an association.  There are many potential reasons for the difference which may have as powerful an association as insurance status, or it may be multifactorial including insurance status.  Gangbangers are less likely to be insured, too, and they certainly have a much higher death rate, just to mention one factor.  And, in general, health is likely to be a higher priority among the insured than a large segment of the uninsured.

In the same way that there is an association between smoking and death, but of course cigarettes aren't *proven* to be harmful. Just as statins aren't *proven* to reduce heart attacks and strokes, and on and on and on.

So do you prescribe statins for your patients with high level's of ldl or not? Do you recommend that your patients with certain risk factors get flu shots or not?

All of these things are statistics which as you say demonstrate association without necessarily *proving* causation. But at some point you need to accept the reality that's staring you in the face even though it conflicts with your politics.

You know that the study corrected for occupation and all other identifiable risk factors.

Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself? Because I can guarantee that your argument is not working on me. But keep repeating the same thing over and over and someday you may actually convince yourself.

So your professional recomendation as a physician is for your patients to go without insurance?

You're cracking me up, Sam.

He just likes to use selective quoting and not the whole law.  He proved he can read simple words, but not understand much.  he still cant google, and now he cant understand what he reads.

And that is supposed to be a surprise?

The original statement had nothing to do about getting lollipops after a shot.  He is just trying to weasel his way out of admitting he was just flat out WRONG.

It is revealing when the left gets to weaseling.  So by extension, you feel that anyone paying for tuna fish should get filet mignon?  By your statement above, you are advocating that.  Clearly tuna fish is nutritious and will sustain you. But since someone else PAID for filet mignon, then EVERYONE should have it.

It is enlightening to see the truth finally coming out.

An assinine statement.  You "presume" that everyone with insurance goes for routine medical checkups too.  You can lead a horse to water.....

But they still get medical care, so your point is?  Oh, I see, the filet mignon argument again.  It is not a donut hole (it is a hole for some), but guess what?  They still do not pay. But now they do.

And you have proof?  Show me the studies that say 100% of them are screwed - and to which ones these filet mignon snappers are associated with.

I see. so everyone with insurance is cured, and everyone without never has a chance?  Ok, that is an exageration of your statement (for effect), but that is a nice neat package you have wrapped up.  And your case studies are where?

Right, the lollipop syndrome.

Studies conclude that people who eat carrots are 100% likely to die.  So we should ban carrots?  You have showed no causailty, and not even a statistical relationship between insurance and death.  All you have done is make a grand statement without any backup proof or taking into account the life styles of the 2 different groups (in other words, you are saying that God is punishing gays because gays have a higher incidence of AIDS than straights - as there is no way you can incorporate lifestyle choices into the equations).

But then that is what liberals do - condemn, not investigate causes.

This one I love the most.  So when those 45k died, they asked them if they had insurance?  NOPE!

The studies asked them 15 years ago if they had insurance at that time.  Then they ASSUMED those people never got insurance before they died.

So much for your talking points.  Got any links there MF?

Are you still talking? Because I stopped listening to you a long time ago.

Here's something actually worth listening to.

Of course, you realize that John Stewart is a comedian and not a member of the media. (Heavily edited video clips of tea party and a few republicans posted in above post).  The mainstream media in this country is very heavily biased towards the left wing anyway. Fear and bleeding heart stories sell.

On another subject, but related to health care... I personally know 2 general practitioners (m.d's) that plan on going into early retirement due to falling wages and higher malpractice insurance costs. --- these are a few things we dont hear about from the mainstream media, but are real life problems that the government apparantly doesnt think about.

End result, Fewer doctors to treat more people.

End result, Lower quality health care.

End result, Less people wanting to enter the medical field due to the fact that the government is now their boss.

End result, The government telling their new employees (doctors) how they must treat and care for their patients, hence in turn means telling the patient what treatments they can have or not have.

End result, More big pharmaceutical companies shoving their wares down your throat.  (can you smell lobbyists and special interests loving this).

Try this... You see my member name on the left, above that cigarette smoking smiley? (narbytrout)

Click on the member name.  You should now have a drop down menu, and the first choice should be " view narbytrout's profile"--- click on that, it will take you to my member page.

Yep!  That is MF.  can't understand the written word.  So we know he never reads what he says he does. RIF, MF, RIF.  Try it.  You may actually learn something (doubtful, but hey!  Worth a shot if you want to be taken for more than a blithering idiot).  Your choice.

Yes of course, everyone knows that. However your motto is not on that page and the links that are accessible from that page are different based on which of Stardock's 12 or more forum sites you're accessing these forums from.

So the question is from which site did you access my member page that you were able to see my motto? The only logical site is GalCiv2 if so then the link I gave is the same place you saw my motto. But if you weren't using the GalCiv2 site I'm not sure how you would been able to see my motto.

Here's your profile page from the GalCiv2 site. See no motto.

But if you go to your Metaverse Profile. There's your motto.

Here's your profile from the Impulsedriven site. Still no motto, but instead of a link to your Metaverse profile there's a link to your Impulsedriven blog.

Finally here's your Impulsedriven blog. Again no motto (BTW the link is bad you need to replace .com with .net in the url).

So the question still remains. DId you get my motto from my Metaverse Profile or some other way?

much obliqued!

not exactly "richard", but close enough to demonstrate how well memory serves you. 

haven't hadda lotta spare time until just recently what with compulsory re-education camp, ramped up demand for increasingly convoluted intriques within the supreme council of the proletariat, hosting another annual al quaeda recruitment campaign not to mention committing to a pro-bono stint as ersatz etching advisor to harwaii's  dept of vital records documents production plant.

at least i'm not as bad off as those good folks down to larouche campaign 2024 headquarters who now need a real break if they expect to regain their position in the next leg of crazytown's race off the edge.

Your squarely welcome.  Yes, Richard you're not.  Momentary lapse of reason.  Good to see you exercising the fingertips, anyway.