Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Thisbe

Thisbe

Denver, CO
January 2006

DEC 23, 2007 03:11 PM

Wouldn't the first Asshole Fuckfaces be the guys that started the first Inquisition in Southern France in the 13th century? Heck, they wiped out an entire religion.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

DEC 23, 2007 03:33 PM

goatinamoat said:

mingol said:

Clidna said:

bashster said:
man i have been put off off frosties for life.tigers are gurrrrrrrrrrrrrreat i didn,t know they ate indian was it a biry arm i


surreal What?


Don't feel bad, I didn't understand all of it either.


Sounds like a bad pun of a biryani


I believe you may be right. And if so, "bad" doesn't begin to cover it.

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

DEC 23, 2007 04:57 PM

varukasalt said:

soulcompromise said:
I don't see why the auto industry would sue because of a pollution standard but I guess they wouldn't complain if it wasn't going to cost them something.



Because they make a lot more money selling you this
than they do from selling you this



You're using two really bad examples and missing the point in the process, while oversimplifying and demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the laws involved..

Both of those pictured vehicles were sales failures and neither one made GM a significant profit. Per-unit profit isn't significant if the plant is making an overall loss by only running one shift/day, which is insufficient to cover fixed overhead.. Understand?

Also, as I said above - this isn't a pollution restriction in the eyes of the law; it's a backdoor mileage standard, which no state is allowed to set. N.B. - This may be the only time you'll see me agreeing with the Bush administration.


BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

DEC 24, 2007 10:02 PM

Wendy said:
I actually really, really love Christmas



She's not lying, folks.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

DEC 26, 2007 10:13 AM

BlastProcessing said:

Wendy said:
I actually really, really love Christmas



She's not lying, folks.



I certainly loved her take on the holiday, anyway.

CommunistCanuck

CommunistCanuck

Canada
February 2004

JAN 01, 2008 08:36 AM

freshprncebelair said:

FearTheReaper said:

freshprncebelair said:

CommunistCanuck said:


It really shouldnt be too surprising that a collection of nations whose wealth are not equallly distributed between those nations and have no enforced collective standard for health care provision would mark lower when compared to the wealthiest nation on the planet that has enforced national standards, even if those standards are ones enforced by the law of your bankbook combined with the omnipresence of your insurance company throughout the nation.

Not exactly a good comparsion, if you were to bring up say comparison of the U.S to Canada or U.S. to a single European nation that would be allot more relevant, though still far from conclusive on the effects of having a universal healthcare system to private health care.



The United States beats all of the nations individually, including Norway, and Switzerland, which are the two of the best socialized systems in existence. It's in the data I linked to.



It is an absurd comparison on any level and does nothing to prove that universal healthcare is better or worse than privatized.



It would be absurd and off-topic. except your article was specifically about cancer patient survival, and you intended to extrapolate that data to the overall quality of care with socialized vs privatized medicine.




Please tell everyone here how many out of the 40 million people who do not have health insurance actually have been tested to see if they had cancer?
Unfortunetly all the american studies starts from the the cancer patience diagnosed and that fraction who were diagnosed who did not have insurance are only statistically present in FTR article.
How much would it cost that average worker who doesnt have insurance to take the tests for Cancer?
it already states in the link provided by FTR that one in four uninsured decline to have the treatment WHEN diagnosed; ergo when death is looking them in the face, how many do you think eschew the tests over cost just because they have an larger then normal mole?

One of the critical points to realise is that any country with universal health care plan will have much closer percentage to 100% of the population undergoing a cancer test compared to country where 13% dont have any coverage at all.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JAN 01, 2008 10:26 AM

Regardless of testing those same people who do or do not get tested will still either die of cancer or they wont. They still end up as a raw statistic at the end as either having survived it or died from it. With that in mind we still have a much higher rate of survival than any european country.

BrightRedScream_

BrightRedScream_

Stoney Creek, ON
April 2005

JAN 01, 2008 11:09 AM

Awwww the tiger got to have a holiday meal too whatever

Virtute

Virtute

Brooklyn, NY
July 2007

JAN 01, 2008 11:30 PM

FearTheReaper said:
Next, you can always look to Hollywood to find Asshole Fuckfaces and this week is no different.

I'd like to introduce you to the Motion Picture Association of America, a non-profit, studio created group of Asshole Fuckfaces who create our voluntary ratings system. They are known for making arbitrary, bullshit decisions that greatly affect the amount of money a movie can make. Sometimes they make decisions for political reasons.


The MPAA has rejected the one-sheet for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side," which traces the pattern of torture practice from Afghanistan's Bagram prison to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay.


A "one-sheet" is an advertisement. This advertisement was apparently not suitable for children. Did I mention is an image taken from a documentary?


The image in question is a news photo of two U.S. soldiers walking away from the camera with a hooded detainee between them.


Now, let us go back in time and remember the billboard for the movie "Captive." This one was okay with the MPAA way back in March.



See the tube going into the tortured woman in a mask? That's okay. A real picture of the back of a guy in a hood is bad.

The MPAA claimed the hood was the reason kids would be freaked out. Kids never see or understand hoods, I guess. Oh, and by the way, the MPAA also rejected a one-sheet for the 2006 film, "The Road to Guantanamo," because it pictured a hooded prisoner hanging from his handcuffed wrists. That one, also, not appropriate for children. Feel free to now look at the billboard of Captivity. The studios are a bunch of Asshole Fuckfaces. This is just one of the many reasons.



Remember when SG was participating in that tie in contest with Captivity?

hehe

CommunistCanuck

CommunistCanuck

Canada
February 2004

JAN 07, 2008 11:36 PM

Colinism said:
Regardless of testing those same people who do or do not get tested will still either die of cancer or they wont. They still end up as a raw statistic at the end as either having survived it or died from it. With that in mind we still have a much higher rate of survival than any european country.



Why would someone end up as a cancer statistic if they are not diagnosed with it in the 1st place? Can you please enlighten us on the I would assume costly cancer tests that work on those who are already dead, let alone un-insured?

Also another important question is, does an autopsy happen for everyone who dies or for only those whose presumed cause of death are unknown?

I am pretty sure it is the latter and that for those who do get an autopsy, that autopsy has to find the tumor in question in some one already dead for a death to be diagnosed by cancer, so unless it is something on the surface like skin , breast or testacular cancer such a death does in fact have a much better chance of being misdiagnosed post-mortem or pre mortem, especially if that cancer weakens your immune system to viruses and other less laboriously and thus less costly diagnosable ailments.

Again please feel free to refute these hypothesis with some facts, because as it stands in a universal healthcare system, you will have closer to a 100% people get tested for cancer then a system which tests only those who have health insurance.

Heres some additonal food for thought never the less:


The US health-care system is in crisis. More than 47 million Americans went without health insurance for all of 2006, according to the Census Bureau, and the advocacy group Families USA estimates that nearly 90 million people - more than a third of the total population under age 65 - were uninsured for at least part of the year.....

According to the ACS study, about 54 percent of uninsured patients between the ages of 18 and 64 included in the cancer database did not have a regular source of health care. About 26 percent delayed their care and nearly 23 percent did not pursue care because of the cost. About 23 percent did not get needed prescription drugs because of the expense.

A 2007 study published in Health Affairs, a health policy journal for the medical industry, found that 37 percent of American adults - and 42 percent with chronic medical conditions - skipped their medications and doctor visits and did not obtain recommended care because of the cost. Approximately one-third of adults in the US had incurred medical expenses of more than $1,000 in the past year.



SPOILERS! (Click to view)

US poor and uninsured suffer substantially worse health outcomes
By Naomi Spencer
5 January 2008
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/heal-j05.shtml

Two newly released studies provide further confirmation that poor and uninsured people in the US suffer significantly worse health outcomes than those who have medical coverage. The studies suggest that for people with cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other high-cost diseases, health insurance has a profound bearing on life expectancy because of the increased likelihoods for prevention, early detection and effective treatment.

A Harvard Medical School study, published in the December 26 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that uninsured people nearing age 65 became ill at a faster rate than those in the same age group with insurance. However, once the uninsured group turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare coverage, the study found, their illness management improved as they gained greater access to care.

Heart attacks and heart failure rates dropped by 10 percent for the newly insured Medicare group between ages 65 to 72, according to Dr. John Ayanian, professor of Health Care Policy and Medicine at Harvard and the study's lead author.

A second study, published in the January-February issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, authored by researchers at the American Cancer Society (ACS), established the strong association between the lack of adequate health coverage and poor health outcomes for cancer patients. Insured individuals were found to be about twice as likely as those without insurance to have undergone recent mammograms or colorectal cancer screenings. Those with insurance were also more likely to be diagnosed with early stage diseases than the uninsured.

Significantly, analyses of cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Data Base, a 1,500-facility registry of patient outcomes, revealed that patients who were uninsured and those who were covered by Medicaid at the time they were diagnosed were 1.6 times as likely to die in five years as those covered by private insurance.

The US health-care system is in crisis. More than 47 million Americans went without health insurance for all of 2006, according to the Census Bureau, and the advocacy group Families USA estimates that nearly 90 million people%u2014more than a third of the total population under age 65%u2014were uninsured for at least part of the year.

This indicator has risen steadily over the past few years. As the social safety net is unraveled, access to affordable care decreases, incomes stagnate and the cost of living has risen dramatically.

Since 2000, workers' earnings have just kept pace with inflation, while insurance premiums have jumped up 98 percent. Declines in employer-sponsored health insurance, coupled with rising premiums, co-payments and deductibles, have also contributed to growing financial burdens for average households.

The direct result is that millions are priced out of health insurance and are unable to secure government coverage. As the cost of treating cancer and other major illnesses rises into the six-figure range, many people are forced into choosing between medical care and other basic needs.

There are many financial pitfalls for households contending with medical problems. Even for those on employer-sponsored coverage plans, a serious illness can result in the loss of insurance through the loss of a job. Those seeking governmental assistance through the Medicaid program are sometimes forced to "spend down" any savings or family worth before qualifying for assistance. And because of continuous eligibility recertifications in the Medicaid program, enrollees are exposed to lapses and losses of coverage; a 2002 federal survey determined that the median Medicaid enrollment for adults under age 65 was a mere five months.

People with lower incomes are much more often uninsured, making them less likely to undergo recommended screenings for common serious and fatal diseases. Once they do seek care, their illnesses are at more advanced and less curable stages. Poor sections of the working class are already at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some types of cancer because of higher rates of smoking, poor nutrition and increased exposure to environmental hazards at their jobs and homes.

According to the ACS study, about 54 percent of uninsured patients between the ages of 18 and 64 included in the cancer database did not have a regular source of health care. About 26 percent delayed their care and nearly 23 percent did not pursue care because of the cost. About 23 percent did not get needed prescription drugs because of the expense.

A 2007 study published in Health Affairs, a health policy journal for the medical industry, found that 37 percent of American adults%u2014and 42 percent with chronic medical conditions%u2014skipped their medications and doctor visits and did not obtain recommended care because of the cost. Approximately one-third of adults in the US had incurred medical expenses of more than $1,000 in the past year.

Nearly a quarter of families living at or below the federal poverty line and 10 percent of those with incomes up to twice the poverty rate bore burdens exceeding 20 percent of family income, according to a 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzing 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys data and cited by the ACS. Other research has indicated that about half of all bankruptcy cases list medical care as factors in their filings. The ACS study notes, "Three-fourths of those with medical debt were insured at the onset of the bankrupting illness."

A separate 2007 Health Affairs study pointed out that the uninsured are charged substantially more by hospitals for care. In 2004, rates charged to "self-pay" and uninsured patients for hospital care were often two-and-a-half times what most insurance companies actually were required to pay, and more than three times the hospital's Medicare billing allowance.

Uninsured, underinsured and government-insured individuals also faced discrimination by private physicians. The ACS noted that a recent nationwide survey from the National Center for Health Statistics of office-based doctors found that while 96 percent said they were accepting new patients, 40.3 percent would not accept "no charge" patients on a deferred billing or charity basis, 25.5 percent would not accept Medicaid patients and 14 percent refused Medicare patients.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next