Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I don't believe in marriage.

What does this mean?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) Given the self-awareness reflected in your subject line, shouldn't you just call it even and let it all go?

(b) Sebby is an odd combination of elitist and reverse-elitist. that way, he can go gonzo on everyone as he sees the need.

(c) Good luck with the headache. Orgasms may help.

S_A_M

(a) No; it would give the lie to the subject line. Note it doesn't include anything like "but I want to be otherwise."

(b) I would suggest substituting "as he feels the urge" in lieu of "as he sees the need."

(c) There's some bacteria or something that cures headaches? Does it have side effects?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(b) Sebby is an odd combination of elitist and reverse-elitist. that way, he can go gonzo on everyone as he sees the need.

S_A_M

Vehement left-leaning moderate.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I don't believe in marriage.

Originally posted by Not Me
What does this mean?

"The fucking bitch took everything. Everything."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
What does this mean?

It means that I do not believe to people who really have a bond need the State or a religious organization to confirm that. I would get married if I had kids or if my sig other really wanted to.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It means that I do not believe to people who really have a bond need the State or a religious organization to confirm that. I would get married if I had kids or if my sig other really wanted to.

Ditto, except I wouldn't have kids so it'd only be if my sig other wanted to.

Plus, if we are going to have contractual-type obligations and stuff to each other, I'd rather do an individualized contract rather than the default one under state (and federal) law.

[Replaced_Texan]

So back in the debates, our President brought up "defensive medicine" when asked about the cost of healthcare. I was sort of surprised, since it's been years since physicians have been using the defensive medicine excuse. (Later, I found out that the President was using data from the mid-90s, which is about the last time I heard anyone talking about defensive medicine.)

In the debates, the President was all into tort reform, rah rah, get rid of the lawyers, they're bad for health care, once the lawyers are gone, everything will be all right, etc. And Kerry was dumbly nodding his head and saying something about yeah, tort reform, but...*

What bugs me about all of this, though, is a pesky report that came out in 1999 from the Institutes of Medicine**. Five years ago, the IOM released a report estimating that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year because of preventable medical mistakes. From time to time, health care providers fuck up and people die.

All of this could be a nice little historical tidbit, and the Bush administration could point and laugh and say "hey, that happened on Clinton's watch." But, with the exception of the 80 hour rule (which is a ACGME rule, not a rule that the government had anything to do with), not much has been done since the report came out.

The IOM specifically reccomended that Congress should create a Center for Patient Safety housed at the already existing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality "starting with $30 million to $35 million per year and growing over time to at least $100 million annually--modest investments relative to the consequences of errors and to the resources devoted to other public safety issues." The budget for the agency this year is at about $60 Million, and there is no Center for Patient Safety. (ETA, there is a Patient Safety Task Force)

Health care providers are fucking up in the delivery of health care, and sometimes patients die when that happens. It's also expensive when a provider fucks up, because that adds to the health care costs for treating the patient. Providers don't want to be overseen by regulatory agencies.*** They want to be immune from law suit in tort reform. They're not particularly good at policing themselves in peer reveiw.

Medical errors happen, and unless they can be reduced significantly, patients should have some recourse. This is an area where government oversight is appropriate because it is a public health issue, not simply a healthcare administration issue. It's the 8th leading cause of death. I'm dissapointed that no one brought this up at any point during the election or for that matter in the public debate about health care in the last five years, because it's inexcusable to know we have a problem in the country with medical errors and little has been done about it. I think that we cannot have such a high rate of medical errors and then point fingers at the trail lawyers and claim it's their fault health care costs so much.

*I find it fascinating that no one in these arguments goes after the malpractice insurance companies. Doctors AND lawyers hate insurance companies, and it's pretty clear that a lot of the "malpractice crisis" exists today because of poor investment decisions by the insurance companies. That said, as soon as tort reform passed here in Texas last year, one insurance company gave an across-the-board drop of premiums to all of its covered phsyicians of 13%. Of course, it's now almost impossible to bring a malpractice lawsuit in Texas.

**"The nation turns to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies for science-based advice on matters of biomedical science, medicine, and health. A nonprofit organization specifically created for this purpose as well as an honorific membership organization, the IOM was chartered in 1970 as a component of the National Academy of Sciences. The Institute provides a vital service by working outside the framework of government to ensure scientifically informed analysis and independent guidance. The IOM's mission is to serve as adviser to the nation to improve health. The Institute provides unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information and advice concerning health and science policy to policy-makers, professionals, leaders in every sector of society, and the public at large." It's a well-respected, non-partisan body.

***Watch what the TMA (which some argue is the strongest physician lobby in the country) does this legislative session when the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners is under Sunset Review. That agency will be evicerated, and it's a fairly weak Medical Board as it is.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It means that I do not believe to people who really have a bond need the State or a religious organization to confirm that. I would get married if I had kids or if my sig other really wanted to.

That's my dad's theory on marriage too. He says the only reason people should get married is if they want to have kids, otherwise there's no reason to do it. I get the impression that this is a increasingly common attitude in Europe, and that the religous right is terrified that the trend will catch on here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That's my dad's theory on marriage too. He says the only reason people should get married is if they want to have kids, otherwise there's no reason to do it. I get the impression that this is a increasingly common attitude in Europe, and that the religous right is terrified that the trend will catch on here.

I think this may be more common in blue states, and that is one reason divorce rates are lower there -- fewer marriages.

Of course, it's more "fun" to jab at the red states by saying that divorce rates are lower in blue than in red states, despite red states being all "family values" blah blah blah. But irritating, because misleading.

Pistachios seem to have cured the headache. Perhaps they have the magical organisms that SAM was talking about.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub

It means that I do not believe to people who really have a bond need the State or a religious organization to confirm that. I would get married if I had kids or if my sig other really wanted to.

I certainly don't believe you need the state or a religion to be bonded to each other. For me, it is more a cultural thing.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That's my dad's theory on marriage too. He says the only reason people should get married is if they want to have kids, otherwise there's no reason to do it.

No offense, but this attitude really pisses me off, even now that I am separated and have reconsidered my views on marriage. Why shouldn't you get married if the option is available to you and you want to spend your life with one person? So infertile couples who don't want to adopt should get divorced? I still think there is more to marriage than kids, even though my kid-less marriage appears to have not worked out so well. I got so sick and tired of justifying my marriage to people who had this attitude.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No it's not. That was knee-jerk. Most of our women just want us to shut up...especially the ones married to male lawyers. Most women (that I know) are confident and strong enough to not need artificial and meaningless compliments.

Good luck with that philosophy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
No offense, but this attitude really pisses me off, even now that I am separated and have reconsidered my views on marriage. Why shouldn't you get married if the option is available to you and you want to spend your life with one person? So infertile couples who don't want to adopt should get divorced? I still think there is more to marriage than kids, even though my kid-less marriage appears to have not worked out so well. I got so sick and tired of justifying my marriage to people who had this attitude.

It would be nice if people could just accept relationships without getting all freaky judgmental on whether you have gone through a ceremony or not. Marriage is not personally important to me (though, I do like weddings) so I wouldn't be pushing for it. But it is important to other people, including most of my friends, and I'm happy enough to attend their big celebratory party and ceremony and get them presents and take care of their pets while they are on honeymoons.

I'm not a fan of the changing to a completely different name, mainly because if you lose track of someone for a while, and they change their name, you can't fucking ever fucking find the fucker again.

So, in sum, if you decide to get married again, I would like to have some cake.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Good luck with that philosophy.

Worked so far. I would have thought you'd agree with me.

I tell my girlfriend she's beautiful when she looks beautiful, not just for the fuck of it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Worked so far. I would have thought you'd agree with me.

I tell my girlfriend she's beautiful when she looks beautiful, not just for the fuck of it.

Or because she's disagreeing with you. "You are so sexy" is not an appropriate answer to "How can you possibly vote for someone who would appoint John Ashcroft!"