Slashdot Mirror

The guy asked for a source for your quote and you flew off the handle calling him a lazy fuckwit and never (and still haven't) provided the source.

????? Perhaps we are not reading the same post? The person you are replying to put this link in their comment, which is posted on the AAPS website and has the headline "Message from AAPS President, Richard Amerling, MD". Exactly how much more of a source do you need? The snippet quoted from that webpage by the Cheddar Head dude sure does sound like a partisan political screed to me. Perhaps things are different in your parallel universe? Or, are you doing the fingers in your ears "La La La! I can't hear you" routine?

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - AAPS - is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country.

Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine.

You fuckwit. Stop being so lazy and think for yourself once in your life. Go read this diatribe from the President of "AAPS":
http://www.aapsonline.org/inde...

The AAPS is the group that sued to invalidate Obamacare.

That doesn't make them wrong, but I'd like to see more on their methodology; how many of the physicians didn't respond to the poll? How did they select respondents? Was it random, or was it based on membership in their organization?

Incidentally, Open Secrets shows that AAPS only donates to Republicans (unless they have some kind of sub-lobbying group or something).

These programs deliver more for less than the rest of the US healthcare system. (facepalm.)

Pretty damn easy when they're allowed to demand whatever services they want and then just welch on the payment:

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001097

It's no surprise to me that more and more doctors are choosing not to take Medicare patients. Good luck "delivering more" when we eventually get to the point where no doctor wants to engage with your shady payment plan: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/July/29/medicare-doctor-issues.aspx

The media isn't asking "pointed questions", they're asking for black and white answers when most peoples' views are gray

Most people, yes - But not the Teabaggers or the 99%ers. For them, the world is very black and white, with simplistic solutions to complex problems. So the media calls them on their simplistic answers and they in turn accuse the media of 'contempt and ridicule' - Because it's the only retort they have.

you find that many of the same people who oppose cuts in the generic sense support them if you simply ensure that everyone gets out at least what they paid in. Given that Medicare pays out way more than people paid in, that's a big cut with majority support.

But that's the end of medicare - That funding model doesn't describe how medicare works.

From:

http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/medicare_myths_and_facts/

Medicare Myths and Facts

Myth #1: Beneficiaries are just getting back what they have paid in.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 'Current recipients receive over $100,000 more in benefits than they pay in' (Medicare Follies With Orchestration, The Washington Times, June 27, 1997, by Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute).

Medicare beneficiaries are under the impression that the money they paid in payroll taxes over the years was put into an actual fund somewhere, where it earned interest and grew over the years, and that fund is now being used to pay for their medical care. That type of fund, however, does not exist. Medicare is financed in a 'pay as you go' fashion, whereby wealth is transferred from current workers to retirees to pay for their medical care.

Medicare Part A is funded primarily from payroll taxes, so Medicare beneficiaries who are not currently working and paying payroll taxes aren't contributing anything to Part A (hospitalization) expenses. Part A is strictly a wealth transfer program. Medicare Part B (physician services + home health care) is funded by a combination of beneficiary premium dollars and general tax revenue dollars: 25% from premiums and 75% from general tax revenues. Overall, 87% of total Medicare revenues for Part A + Part B comes from current taxpayers, and only 13% comes from Medicare beneficiaries' premiums and tax payments.

So "Get out what I paid in" is a simplistic solution to a complex problem, which is my point - It doesn't work.

What is difficult about this folks? Some states allow taping conversations if one party consents, others require two/all party consent. There is a nice summary here and on wiki for our nice international readers.

Just what do you think got Linda Tripp in trouble? She taped Monica Lewinski in Maryland. Had she taped in Virgina or DC, the muchly aggreived and egregiously vindictive authorities would have to look harder for charges to trump up. When you are piquing authorities, do not expose your flank!

The public will react the same way that they reacted to fifty years of nuclear fallout. Don't accurately measure the radiation dosage to start with and you can never attribute the mass death and suffering to the radiation exposure! Easy peasy. As long as you feel safe on the airplane, all other worries go roght out the window.

Your alluded-to attribution is incorrect. That quote comes from an essay by Rabbi Lapin:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm

But of course. It's always done for the protection of someone's safety.

"Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?"

-- Posthumous Letter from Adolf Hitler to Julius Streicher.

This is an adaptation of Bush's "free speech zones," plain and simple. The parents are probably the only real reason why they don't simply shoot these kids instead; Kali knows, it's what governments would prefer to do with us.

Dang, I forgot to mention the most egregious error in your post (too caught up in explaining other stuff I suppose). Federal law in the United States is "one-party consent" -- anyone that is a legitimate party to a call may record it herself or give consent for it to be recorded by a third party. State laws vary, see the link.

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"

I'll leave you to guess who I'm quoting.

You're quoting Daniel Lapin. This is an excerpt from an essay of his which pretends to be a letter sent from the dead by Hitler to Julius Streicher.

It builds on Hitler's advocacy in Mein Kampf that the sick / handicapped should be deemed unfit for procreation:

[The state] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so.

As such, the Hitler-attributable part of the quote is wildly out of context. But this fictional letter does a great job of pointing out where this "think of the children" is going.

The alternative will be Britannica.

I always tell people to check out conservapedia.com. It was started because Wikipedia is edited by YOU and YOU are too biased to provide neutral information.

Here's a section from their page on Barack Hussein Obama
(redirected from Barack Obama)

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[26]

Oh my God, this is terrible! Our president is using techniques of mind control on us! What does Wikipedia have on this subject? Not a thing. Because a light shone down on YOU, YOU experienced an epiphany, and YOU said to yourself, 'I have to censor Barack's Wikipedia page.'

Obama may be the first Muslim President
The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[28] [29]
• (more bullet points)
• Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
• (still more bullet points)
• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[42]
• Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[43] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[44]>
• "President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend [Sunday or Christmas] church services since winning the White House ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."[45]
• Many atheists claim that Obama is one of them, yet he displays none of the characteristics common to atheism: Obama has not expressed offense at prayer by others, he has not promoted the theory of evolution, and he has never expressed a disdain for religious belief.

Bet you didn't know he was a Muslim. But it isn't all about religion. They also get into flag pins.

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.[58] Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

was quoted out of context by Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his letter to Julius Streicher and the continuation:

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

is attributable to him. (complete text: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm) The original passage from Mein Kampf was :"The folkish state 1 must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so."

The folkish State has to make up for what is today neglected in this field in all directions. It has to put the race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its preservation in purity. It has to make the child the most precious possession of a people. It has to take care that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own deficiencies; but one highest honor: to renounce this. Further, on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable: to keep healthy children from the nation. Thereby the State has to appear as the guardian of a thousand years' future, in the face of which the wish and the egoism of the individual appears as nothing and has to submit. It has to put the most modern medical means at the service of this knowledge. It has to declare unfit for propagation everybody who is visibly ill and has inherited a disease and it has to carry this out in practice. On the other hand, it has to care that the fertility of the healthy woman is not limited by the financial mismanagement of a State regime which makes children a curse for the parents. It has to do away with that foul, nay criminal, indifference with which today the social presumptions of a family with many children is treated, and in its place it has to consider it- self the guardian of this precious blessing of a people. Its care belongs more to the child than to the adult.(1)

In this passage, Hitler asserts that the state must take a greater interest in caring for children. He suggests that the state should curtail procreation by unhealthy people.

Citations,(2) bitches. Use them.

The quotation you cite seems to appear on a website belonging to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.(3) Frankly, I have no idea what this essay _is_. There is no context whatsoever. The context provided is completely baffling. They fail to provide any properly formatted citations.(4) The website claims the essay was published in the Nov/Dec 1999 issue of "The American Enterprise." A publication under this name could not be found in Ulrich's Periodical Directory online. (5)

With today's ease of access to full text materials, there is no excuse for this sort of sloppiness.

1. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. 19th impression, Edited by Chamberlain et al, Translated by James Murphy (New York: Reynal And Hitchcock, 1941), http://www.archive.org/details/meinkampf035176mbp (accessed December 7, 2008)
2. The Chicago Manual of Style Online, s.v. "17.146 Documentation II: Specific Content > Books >Electronic Books > Electronic editions of older works," http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch17/ch17_sec146.html (accessed December 8, 2008).
3. Lapin, Rabbi Daniel. Adolf Hitler, http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm (accessed December 7, 2008).
4. The Chicago Manual of Style Online, s.v. "17.149 Documentation II: Specific Content > Periodicals > Information to be included," http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch17/ch17_sec149.html (accessed December 8, 2008).
5. Ulrichsweb.com, http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ (accessed December 7, 2008).

Just be aware that while Hitler wrote the first sentence, the rest of that quote is from a Rabbi writing a fictional letter by Hitler, writing from the afterlife to his colleague Julius Streicher.

One version of this letter is published at www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm.

Here's an article about a bill to legalize the reimportation of drugs.

Notice the side for cheaper imported/reimported drugs says it ends subsidies and the side against it says it will import other countries' price controls. Both sides are stating the same thing -- we subsidize the price controls of other countries. The only difference is one side wants the subsidies to continue, while the other wants it to end.

The problem is that if it ends that outlet for the violation of the laws of economics ends.

Since you are too lazy to type it in to google, here you go.

another

MEDICAL JOURNAL: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS PREVENTS WOMEN FROM LEARNING ABOUT ABORTION RISKS : Politics Trumps Science in Abortion

Medical Ethics - Abortion - Adverse Medical Effects The National Catholic Register?!

Fair enough. But it also ran in the Chicago Tribune, hardly a Christian-Conservative viewpoint, the Houston Chronicle, a number of other secular sources. Don't cherry-pick a single source to invalidate the point.

Since you are too lazy to type it in to google, here you go.

another

MEDICAL JOURNAL: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS PREVENTS WOMEN FROM LEARNING ABOUT ABORTION RISKS : Politics Trumps Science in Abortion

Medical Ethics - Abortion - Adverse Medical Effects The National Catholic Register?!

Fair enough. But it also ran in the Chicago Tribune, hardly a Christian-Conservative viewpoint, the Houston Chronicle, a number of other secular sources. Don't cherry-pick a single source to invalidate the point.

Since you are too lazy to type it in to google, here you go.

another

MEDICAL JOURNAL: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS PREVENTS WOMEN FROM LEARNING ABOUT ABORTION RISKS : Politics Trumps Science in Abortion

Medical Ethics - Abortion - Adverse Medical Effects The National Catholic Register?!

Fair enough. But it also ran in the Chicago Tribune, hardly a Christian-Conservative viewpoint, the Houston Chronicle, a number of other secular sources. Don't cherry-pick a single source to invalidate the point.

Since you are too lazy to type it in to google, here you go.

another

MEDICAL JOURNAL: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS PREVENTS WOMEN FROM LEARNING ABOUT ABORTION RISKS : Politics Trumps Science in Abortion

Medical Ethics - Abortion - Adverse Medical Effects The National Catholic Register?!

Fair enough. But it also ran in the Chicago Tribune, hardly a Christian-Conservative viewpoint, the Houston Chronicle, a number of other secular sources. Don't cherry-pick a single source to invalidate the point.

The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.

The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.

What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.

To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.

Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.

Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.

It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.

Links to good info:

Lowering the Cost of Health Care, Dr. Ron Paul

Free Market Medicine, Dr. Ron Paul

Subsidizing Sickness, Llewellyn Rockwell

According to the AAPS website there are 9 physicians' offices in the country which practice free market medicine. It's great that you have one where ever you are, but it's totally unrealistic to expect any reasonable number of other people to find the same thing in their local area.

Well, I'm not an expert in radiation medicine but it seems that they are indeed less susceptible to radiation. I found an article where they radiated lymphocytes from the blood of Ramsar's inhabitants and observed that "inhabitants of high background radiation areas had about 56% the average number of induced chromosomal abnormalities of normal background radiation area inhabitants following this exposure". However, although it is possible that those people are selected by generations of exposure, it is also possible that this is similar to physical training, i.e anybody can be "radiation hardened" by chronic exposure. Another story (warning PDF file):

"An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv--a "collective dose" of 4,000 person-Sv. Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19. The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.

I agree that the theory of the beneficial effect of small doses of radiation is controversial and not proven yet. It is a subject of ongoing debate and more research is necessary. But based on the molecular repair mechanism it is not that far-fetched theory.

Uhh...so are airplanes. And so are cars. And both have gotten better much faster than trains.

The increase in accidents (if any, do you have some evidence?) is probably due to the increase in the number of flights. But per person travelling, air travel has gotten safer every year.
The cash injections are because Congress loves to give out other people's money. It's also making the airlines fat & lazy, more like a government entity. It would be better to let them go out of business and the efficient airlines (like Southwest) would dominate.

The insurance industry and medical industry are broken, because of government interference. In the 1950s, very few people had or needed health insurance, they'd pay their doctors with a check. It wasn't until the advent of Medicare in 1965 that insurance became a requirement. Part of this might be because doctors began padding the bill now that a third party was paying (as they now do when we pay with our private insurance), but much of it is due to the increased costs associated with the government's control of the industry.

Some interesting facts:
In 1999, Medicare was $212Billion.
In 1999, Medicare fraud was $13.5Billion
That's over 6% lost, just to the fraud they know about, before taking into account the HHS buildings, the cost of paying thousands of HHS employees, the cost of collecting all the tax money, the costs employers have to bear to comply with medicare, the costs health care providers have to bear, etc., etc.
Hardly an efficient organization.

The Comptroller General David Walker just totalled US debt to $50 trillion /a>, or $166,000 per capita.

20,000 tons at 10 politicians per ton = 200,000 politicians shot into space. And it'll cost us nothing!

But it is a myth that you require a certain amount of radiation for it to be dangerous. ANY amount is dangerous.

I've mentioned this URL before, and I'll do it again. Check out http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf.

Apparently (and this is deduced from the hard body count) if you live for 20 odd years in a dwelling where the rebar had been contaminated with Cobalt 60, you end up with a cancer rate less that 4% of everybody else. And fewer babies get born with congenital defects. Now this was a gamma radiating event instead of dispersed inhaled alpha emitters, but it would still do us some good to start paying attention directly to what Mother Nature is telling us instead of blindly believeing everything we hear in college.

Hormesis good! Linear No Threshold bad!

Technically, exposure to any sort of ionising radiation at all increases your risk of developing a fatal cancer. For example, every banana you eat (which contains naturally-occuring potassium-50) slightly increases your risk.

Actually, it's potassium-40 -- but I suspect you just typoed that one. However, there are cases where the cancer risk drops way down when you are exposed to a certain "alarming" elevated level of radiation. Check out http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf/ or, better yet, just google for the phrase "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?"

It tells the story of that Taiwanese apartment complex that was built with the Cobalt 60 contaminated rebar. 10,000 folks live there for 20 years and ended up with cancer rates about 4% of what was expected for that population. Sooner or later, we're going to start paying attention to what the universe is trying to tell us.

My money is on later.

If, on the other hand, he opens your freezer and finds the head, that's a search, and it requires a warrant in order to be legal.

That's no longer true. Thanks to HR5710, any law enforcement, local, state, or federal, may come into your home and search without first obtaining a warrant. Furthermore, you never need be informed that your home was searched. The same goes for wiretapping, digital and otherwise.