Why Must Everything Be a Medical Condition? (no guns or fracking)

[chemist 0]

^ahh yes I have read about that, and have seen it in college

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

There was a time if you believed the earth was round you were deemed crazy. The physician who discovered germs was also deemed crazy and actually was put into a mental institution. Of course we know now the earth isn't flat and germs exist.

Idiotic statements and nonsensical to the topics at hand.

Quote

As for your claim that "non-ADD kids react differently to ADD kids to stimulants" is actually a commonly held myth. Firstly, there is no way to differentiate an ADD vs. an ADD kid because there is no operational definition for ADD. So you're going to have major flaws in your subject vs control groups. Second of all, a 'reaction' to a mind altering substance is very difficult to measure because it is a subjective experience.

So even if you could have a good control group, which you can't due to definition issues, you still are going to have issues measuring what you're looking for. So don't be fooled by that simple statement, it's more complex than that.

This is massive and utter Bull Shit; you don't have a damn clue what the hell you are talking about.

[dmcoco84 4]

ibx

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/katie-hopkins/why-must-everything-be-a-medical-condition_b_3751096.html

Stupid and Incoherent article... followed by an even stupider thread.

Keep up the good work, IBX!

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Whereas it's very easy to define a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There will never be an instance where a ham sandwich is deemed a PB&J, because a PB&J can be defined.

I continue to not understand why people continually feel the need to use nonsensical and moronic examples like this to try to make points; especially when the points they are trying to make, are wrong.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>The healthy are those who will pay for the sick.

Sort of the definition of insurance.

No. Insurance covers risk. That is, "there's a chance I may get in a car wreck." The sick getting insurance so others pay for it is not spreading risk. It's called "getting a subsidy." It's also moral hazard.

That's why the healthy are being required to join up of face a fine. A system cannot bear people using more than they pay for unless it's balanced out by people using less than they pay for. One doesn't lower the cost of health care by setting up a system to shell out a lot more for a lot more people.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dmcoco84 4]

chemist

and the ignorant fail to accept facts that conflict with their own agenda. Moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, study after study show the health benefits of moderate wine consumption.

Stupid statement.

Moderate drinking is not healthier, than abstinence.

An abstinent liver is a healthier liver, period. However, moderate consumption of wine (not alcohol in general), has antioxidants that are beneficial to the cardiac muscle. But just because something simply has antioxidants, is not a reason to use it; even in moderation.

If I never drink alcohol, but you consume 1-2 glasses of wine per day, every day, my liver will look much better in autopsy, period.

Alcohol is shit... and if those beneficial properties are desired, other nutrients can provide the same benefits.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Why do you want to give autonomy the individual who says ritalin helped their ADD, but you won't give the autonomy to someone who succeeded with moderation? It worked for them so why can't they have self-determination?

Stupid and nonsensical.

[ibx 2]

Quote

Stupid and Incoherent article... followed by an even stupider thread.

Keep up the good work, IBX!

The Article has spawned over 80 replies. This is Speakers Corner where people come discuss politics and related issues. Now you are personally attacking me for posting the thread.

You have contributed nothing to this discussion or any other for that matter in an adult and, you like the word so much, "coherent" way.

You are aggressive and dismissive without any form of argument.

Why don't you either contribute like an adult or shut the fuck up?

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

No. Insurance covers risk. That is, "there's a chance I may get in a car wreck." The sick getting insurance so others pay for it is not spreading risk. It's called "getting a subsidy." It's also moral hazard.

But the way that the insurance company can afford to sell insurance for less than the cost of a savings account in that amount is by spreading the risk among those who might and might not be affected.

My annual homeowner's insurance is way less than the cost of my house, even if I smoke in bed, do my own electrical work, or leave dying trees up close to the house. It's more expensive if I live in high-risk areas or engage in other risky behaviors, and less expensive if I do other stuff (e.g. security system).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dmcoco84 4]

ibx

Quote

Stupid and Incoherent article... followed by an even stupider thread.

Keep up the good work, IBX!

The Article has spawned over 80 replies. This is Speakers Corner where people come discuss politics and related issues. Now you are personally attacking me for posting the thread.

You have contributed nothing to this discussion or any other for that matter in an adult and, you like the word so much, "coherent" way.

You are aggressive and dismissive without any form of argument.

Why don't you either contribute like an adult or shut the fuck up?

You have serious reading comprehension issues, and Quade still clearly has Alzheimer's.

Psst... are those diseases, disorders, allergies, or "personal problems"?

Quote

Now you are personally attacking me for posting the thread.

That's who you are.

Quote

You are aggressive and dismissive without any form of argument.

Why don't you either contribute like an adult or shut the fuck up?

Crap... how about you grow some balls, Pumpkin.

Applies for this thread also:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4530158#4530158

I have started using "incoherent", as a means, instead, of calling you a fucking moron; like the author of your posted article, who is a moron. Her article is all over the place, sounds of a medical whuffo, and clearly shows she has no fucking clue what the hell she is talking about in general.

She should stick to broadcasting and business.

[quade 3]

dmcoco84

Alcohol is shit... and if those beneficial properties are desired, other nutrients can provide the same benefits.

Then why do pretty much all primates seek out fermented fruit?

You can see humans, even tea totaling old biddies, perform the behavior at the super market while they sniff fruit.

Saying alcohol has absolutely no benefit is like saying "sugar is poison." It's not. It's something our bodies naturally and actively seek.

The issue is our access to both is well beyond our evolutionary needs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

dmcoco84

Quote

Why do you want to give autonomy the individual who says ritalin helped their ADD, but you won't give the autonomy to someone who succeeded with moderation? It worked for them so why can't they have self-determination?

Stupid and nonsensical.

why are you posting like Kallend so much?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ibx 2]

Quote

dmcoco84 wrote:
Quote:
Why do you want to give autonomy the individual who says ritalin helped their ADD, but you won't give the autonomy to someone who succeeded with moderation? It worked for them so why can't they have self-determination?

Stupid and nonsensical.

why are you posting like Kallend so much?

It's his intellectual prowess.

[billvon 2,394]

>Insurance covers risk. That is, "there's a chance I may get in a car wreck."

Right. And that money does not come from the government, or from a secret fund somewhere. It comes from other policyholders. You are paying for that wreck you saw this morning on the highway. That's how insurance works.

>The sick getting insurance so others pay for it is not spreading risk. It's called
>"getting a subsidy."

No, it's called 'getting insurance.'

(I know you know this, so this is an odd conversation.)

[lawrocket 3]

wmw999

Quote

No. Insurance covers risk. That is, "there's a chance I may get in a car wreck." The sick getting insurance so others pay for it is not spreading risk. It's called "getting a subsidy." It's also moral hazard.

But the way that the insurance company can afford to sell insurance for less than the cost of a savings account in that amount is by spreading the risk among those who might and might not be affected.

My annual homeowner's insurance is way less than the cost of my house, even if I smoke in bed, do my own electrical work, or leave dying trees up close to the house. It's more expensive if I live in high-risk areas or engage in other risky behaviors, and less expensive if I do other stuff (e.g. security system).

Wendy P.

Absolutely. But what if homeowner's insurance covered vacuuming, yard maintenance, painting, renovation, plumbing leaks, changing light bulbs, and flushing out the sewer main every year? If homeowners insurance was an HMO (a Homeowner's Maintenance Organization) where all maintenance was covered for a monthly premium and individual copays, I would certainly expect a large number of homeowners to quit taking care of the homes and leave it to the insurance.

In insurance it's called "moral hazard." That is, the cost of risk-taking is apportioned heavily to the insurer and is cost-free or nearly cost-free to the insured. In that case, insurance is more like a government bailout you know will be there. And when insurers cannot turn a person down for coverage, the moral hazard becomes entrenched.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[chemist 0]

dmcoco84

***

and the ignorant fail to accept facts that conflict with their own agenda. Moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, study after study show the health benefits of moderate wine consumption.

Stupid statement.

Moderate drinking is not healthier, than abstinence.

An abstinent liver is a healthier liver, period. However, moderate consumption of wine (not alcohol in general), has antioxidants that are beneficial to the cardiac muscle. But just because something simply has antioxidants, is not a reason to use it; even in moderation.

If I never drink alcohol, but you consume 1-2 glasses of wine per day, every day, my liver will look much better in autopsy, period.

Alcohol is shit... and if those beneficial properties are desired, other nutrients can provide the same benefits.

You're free to abstain from alcohol if that is your preference. However, you don't have the scientific or moral authority to prohibit someone from drinking alcohol responsibly and moderately. Lots of things that make us happy like skydiving can be hazardous or cause damage to our bodies, much more so than moderate consumption of alcohol. Once you start banning others from alcohol, what's to stop others from banning you from skydiving?

In Qatar if you get a drunk and disorderly you lose your permit to buy and drink alcohol. In America, if you get a drunk and disorderly (maybe a couple we're still pretty liberal) you get called and alcoholic and are told alcoholics cannot drink moderately. It is a political agenda using medical terms to achieve the same end, and that is prohibition.

Granted, some people really cannot drink moderately, I have seen full out alcoholics. What really grinds my gears is when they start preaching their nonsensical gibbrish to those who've successfully achieved good outcomes with other programs.

EDIT: and I just read your posts supporting the legalization of marijuana in the Gagan Gupta thread. righttt, so you're for that but adamant about prohibition? It seems like you are the almighty OZ who gets to decide which chemicals are appropriate and for whom.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Insurance covers risk. That is, "there's a chance I may get in a car wreck."

Right. And that money does not come from the government, or from a secret fund somewhere. It comes from other policyholders. You are paying for that wreck you saw this morning on the highway. That's how insurance works.

>The sick getting insurance so others pay for it is not spreading risk. It's called
>"getting a subsidy."

No, it's called 'getting insurance.'

(I know you know this, so this is an odd conversation.)

I'm pointing out the difference between "there's a risk I may get in a car wreck" and insuring against the future possibilityand "I am a car wreck. I need repair."

I believe you see the difference between insuring tagainst future risk and getting past and present damage covered. The former deals with actuarial risk. The latter deals not with risk but with shifting cost. The latter is not "insurance" but a "bail-out."

Who here thinks that a person who doesn't have car insurance should be able to buy insurance to fix a car after a wreck? That's not "insurance." That's "bail out."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

>Who here thinks that a person who doesn't have car insurance should be able to buy
>insurance to fix a car after a wreck? That's not "insurance." That's "bail out."

No, it's still insurance - provided you keep the insurance afterwards. From an insurance perspective it matters not a bit whether you have coverage for 20 years and have an accident covered at the beginning of that time, or whether you have an accident covered at the end of that time. In both cases you are being covered by all the other people in the program, and in return you cover all the other people in the program the rest of the time you are in the program.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

You're free to abstain from alcohol if that is your preference. However, you don't have the scientific or moral authority to prohibit someone from drinking alcohol responsibly and moderately. Lots of things that make us happy like skydiving can be hazardous or cause damage to our bodies, much more so than moderate consumption of alcohol. Once you start banning others from alcohol, what's to stop others from banning you from skydiving?

Reading comprehension... "Reading is Fundamental"

Quote

EDIT: and I just read your posts supporting the legalization of marijuana in the Gagan Gupta thread. righttt, so you're for that but adamant about prohibition? It seems like you are the almighty OZ who gets to decide which chemicals are appropriate and for whom.

Reading comprehension... "Reading is Fundamental"

[quade 3]

Ya know what...

I'm done with you.

Enjoy a vacation for a few weeks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I think we can agree to disagree. Perhaps it's my viewpoint that the object of insurance is "peace of mind." And that "peace of mind" supplied afterward leads to abuse.

I see your point. But I disagree. I think insurance should be for future events. Something happens and you are insured, it keeps being covered. But to suggest that a person who has not paid into the risk pool should be allowed to be treated the same as a person who has for 20 years is, I think, fundamentally unfair.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

> But to suggest that a person who has not paid into the risk pool should be allowed
>to be treated the same as a person who has for 20 years is, I think, fundamentally
>unfair.

If they want to pay for a month, get the coverage, then drop it until their next accident - agreed. Then the system doesn't work. They have to maintain coverage so over X years they are paying for other people's accidents. If you do that it doesn't matter when the claim happens, as long as they have the coverage over that time period.

That's the problem. As long as you have a large pool of people paying for insurance then everyone's payments are low and you have good coverage. Once you start picking up insurance when you need it and dropping when you don't the system doesn't work.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]As long as you have a large pool of people paying for insurance then everyone's payments are low and you have good coverage

[quade 3]

lawrocket

[Reply]As long as you have a large pool of people paying for insurance then everyone's payments are low and you have good coverage

Except in healthcare. Because if auto was treated like health insurance, it would cover oil changes, gas, tires, brakes and car washes. And those who drive gas guzzlers would pay the same as those who drive high efficiency vehicles.

[champu 1]

quade

***[Reply]As long as you have a large pool of people paying for insurance then everyone's payments are low and you have good coverage

Except in healthcare. Because if auto was treated like health insurance, it would cover oil changes, gas, tires, brakes and car washes. And those who drive gas guzzlers would pay the same as those who drive high efficiency vehicles.