who am i kidding
who am i kidding
it was awesome
/facepalm.Originally Posted by Mr. E
Hmph.
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5...d/nadiaqs3.jpg
Actually I said I don't see most of the money I make, not "I don't pay many Taxes", ergo, I get taxed, I spend over 80% of my pay to live in this beautiful country and not be out on the streets. Tax me more, I'm already fucked, therefor I don't care anymore. If I see 10% of my wages go to cover my health care, that's 10% more than I had to begin with, to be able to actually see a doctor, which I cannot afford.
Drug development from UHC countries?
Cure for Diabetes via Islet cells came from Canada. That's the only one on my head, and I'm pretty sure if I googled for 12 seconds I'd find that there are many more.
I was told as a kid to share what I can, can not everything, but the way I see it, if I am fortunate enough to make more than 75% of the rest of the people I can spread the wealth a bit.
and then the bottom 25% can actually have the feeling they're not gonna die every 3 months.
With how I was working/living, I had a good number of times when I was terrified I would not be able to make the money to get my perscriptions, and worst I had to do was go to a Hospital for Diabetic Ketoacidosis, a bill I could not afford to pay and it now rests on everyone else. Slowly but surely now paying that bill off.
Edit:
Oh and it's those Sob stories that actually persuade many people to do many things, with out them we'd be less of a country.
Last edited by Vengeful Scars; 11-19-2008 at 12:47 AM.
lik dis if u cry evertim
I rape my cat daily. Is this a bad thing?
Not a drug.
I was taught the same thing. That's why I give my time and money to charities and various philanthropic efforts. That is my choice to give, not the government's.
People who are ill will go through life having to pay more for medical treatment than those who are healthy. People who are dumb will go through life having to work harder and longer to get equal results. People who are ugly will go through life facing disadvantages in social interaction. The point is to protect our rights equally, and you don't have a right to use my money to fix your genetics.
It would be so awesome if you got cancer right now.
Mr E's ignorance about evolution is really starting to grate on my nerves. While my earlier post ITT was meant mostly as a joke (well, the last half), I was completely serious about sexual selection. What you do after you're done creating offspring is evolutionarily irrelevant. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that sticks around in our science books because Victorian England was far too prim and proper to acknowledge Darwin's real genius - which was sexual selection and female mate choice. Darwin wrote comparatively little about "survival of the fittest". If an organism outlives every other organism on the planet but did not reproduce, who cares? Its genes will die with it.
Being old and wanting medicine has nothing to do with Darwin unless that old man is capable of reproducing (remember, this requires more than the ability to get it up - you also have to find a willing and fertile mate).
Running around talking about survival of the fittest just makes you all sound like little mini-Nazis (who, incidentally, did not really understand Darwin, either).
Darwin's theories are not only environmentally specific they are microscopic rather than macroscopic. Trait dominance over other traits, trait drift and the like.
You know, really, once your money is taxed and is "into the system" how often do you actually and consciously realize and think "wow that is a great use of my tax money, man I'm glad I'm spending my tax money on this!". Seriously, you put WAY to much emphasis on petty dollars and that's why our countries are the way they are. Money is a necessary evil, essentially...if every single person were to go withdraw their money from the bank, roughly 90% of the people would not be receiving ANY because the banking system is basically scamming us through the use of credit. The system you fight so vehemously(sp?) to protect is screwing you at every chance it gets.
And on the subect of Darwininsm (ie. Survival of the Fittest), this is simply an answer to HOW...much like religion? Ring a bell to anyone?
Survival of the Fittest is misunderstood to MOST people (including in this thread, but Sole seems to have the right idea). The most important aspect of evolution are 2 things:
1) Sexual Selection
2) Inclusive Fitness
Both of these are the appropriate theories that should be applied when speaking about evolution or "survival of the fittest". Survival of the Fittest is NOT JUST about "strongest man wins", that is an extremely narrowminded and ignorant assumption about the theory. People who are in good positions (have money, etc.) just like to throw this around as a feeble attempt to hold onto their flawed materialistic ideologies.
Last edited by Kozzle; 11-19-2008 at 12:35 PM.
Telling stupid people they are idiots since 1987
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
I already said that my opinions were not entirely in line with Darwin's, just inspired by his sentiments. I know about sexual selection and trait dominance and all that, and it is all true and well and good. When I say survival of the fittest I am using my definition, not Darwin's. I'm allowed to make theories too you know.
They're pretty fucking vicious theories.
Color me vicious I guess, at least when it comes to my opinions of the poor. I think the system we have now works just fine, there's no need to mess with it.
Actually, the concept of social Darwinism plays into Social traits that seem to dominate over others. Of course Social Darwinism isn't as hotly debated although still purely theoretical.
If you are looking for irony, you've failed, because I have health insurance.
Actually, I think about it all the time. Every time I drive past a housing project and see a mother with 6 kids sitting on the porch at noon. Every time I drove down the road and saw the county sheriff effectively campaigning for himself with public funds. Every time I get a scholarship check in the mail from the state of Jorja, knowing full-well that I could afford to pay tuition myself but content to at least get something out of my tax dollars. Every time the county approves more apartment complexes and further erodes the tax base.
This is the difference in mentality. You think money is something to be desired. Something you fight for, squabble over, save up, and spend. You think money is necessary because it buys you things... health, cars, houses, vacations, education, entertainment, whatever. You think the bank is screwing you because it is holding on to the object.
Money is a means to an end. People who make real money, top tax bracket money, don't give a damn about money. When you have a million dollars and you're taxed 50%, you still have $500,000 of spending power. Money for what it buys is worthless. Money for what it represents is everything: power. Warren Buffett didn't make $1 billion in a day for buying into Goldman Sachs just to buy himself more stuff. He did it because he is the most powerful man in the world.
Money is a tool to get what everyone really wants: the ability to make things they way they desire. The rich resist taxation and redistribution of wealth not because there is some magic dollar amount they'd be content to part with and right now taxes are above that. They resist because no one should have the power to dictate what they do with their money. Bill Gates is a perfect example: when he saw something he wanted to change, he created his own foundation (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) to make things right. He didn't give a billion dollar check to the government to fix it, nor should the government demand it.
And sole you are overlooking one major factor in mate selection, especially amongst humans: the success of a set of genes after they reproduce is often an indicator as to the desirability of the progeny. If your boyfriend was great but his parents both ended up with Alzheimer's or a similar genetic disorder at an inordinately young age, your boyfriend would become less desirable, knowing that his genes were likely to perform the same. While in wild, non-social animals (and probably just all non-primates) the survivability of the parents after reproducing might not be important to the child's ability to reproduce, in humans it absolutely is.
Attempting to create a causal relationship in a naturalistic study is like trying to say that cars created obesity.
Theories aren't sporadic ideas that people come with, they're always tested in some way. Then they become tentative truth. You are allowed to come up with your own opinion though (in most places in the world).I already said that my opinions were not entirely in line with Darwin's, just inspired by his sentiments. I know about sexual selection and trait dominance and all that, and it is all true and well and good. When I say survival of the fittest I am using my definition, not Darwin's. I'm allowed to make theories too you know
So you're going to refute the metaphor but not the statement? Classic.
I'm going to point out that the statement doesn't make sense without the metaphor. I was actually half hoping you would magically pull a study out of your ass regarding cars leading to obesity.
Um, yes it does. You still have yet to find an advanced economy that did not protect property rights. I am waiting. Is the USSR too hard for you to find on a map of 1960?
My theory is proven in America every day. Those with the ability to get what they need to survive, be that ability intellect, strength, or being able to acquire necessary monies, survive and thrive. Those who don't don't.
I have a presentation to give and a committee to go to, so doing some research to refute some random person on the internet is not on the top of my list.
What's the level of significance?
You are a dumb troll and 100% predictable. You're about as predictable as a woman. Congratulations.
Statistically significant results are not necessarily practically significant. I prefer to deal in practical theory when it comes things like this.
honestly you say the cure is not a drug? How fucking dense do you have to be?
Drug
1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
Drugs via UHC
Insulin- Canada
There's another pulled straight from my ass.
Novo-Nordisk is one of the leaders in type 1 diabetic research and are based out of Switzerland, another UHC for ya.
Sorry I can't bring anything out of diabetes, but when I have cancer I'll do all my research on that as well, and when I get the aids, I'll do my research there.
You keep saying that UHC prevents Drug Companies to create new, effective drugs, but really with the current health system we have in place, just causes the Pharmaceutical Companies to want to treat, endlessly, ergo making the most money in the long run, rather than cure which has almost no market value in eliminating disease.
But in your theory, it seems that "If you have the disease, you deserve it". Which I kinda find a bit fucked, considering type 1 diabetes is a genetic(hereditary) disease, and I am the first, period, in my nuclear family to ever have it. Thank the trucking industry for transporting Benzene, and I don't have that kind of theory from just guessing, I know another diabetic from a father working for the same company, also about 4-6 autistic cases came from there.
Hard to get by when you're doing your best to make a living and there's no restrictions on how the work force can fuck you.
Now, granted, when I was going through my "hardships" I had no insurance, Had a decent job, but rent on top of insulin was hard on wallet. Now I'm going to school, in hopes to go into Chemical Engineering, back on insurance, but now looking for work. Lols.
And the US won't be coming out with drugs anytime soon, with most genetic research, stem cells(and that, my friend, is the future of medicine) etc being severely limited if not banned.
and what I'd do as President?
1) Socialize Medicine(because Universal is just a gay term)
2) If you don't work, you don't get help, some circumstances this would be altered
3) Fuck the Middle East, Fuck Israel, Israel should not be a country.
4) Fuck Illegal Immigrants
5) Open full research on stem cells, even from Human embryos.
6) Complete and Total separation of church and state
lik dis if u cry evertim
Lineage is a fitness indicator in humans and a few other primates. It wasn't overlooked so much as not included for the sake of brevity. My point was that reproduction is evolutionarily more significant than survival itself. You must survive long enough to reproduce, and in most species, doing so is all that's required of you.
Going a step further, altruism is a fitness indicator for primates. Mr E's idea that we shouldn't help the needy (please note I am not making any statements regarding universal health care or charity or what have you, this isn't me beating my hippy drum) is actually in direct opposition to a characteristic that primate females look for in a mate. Having enough to give is a fitness indicator. The desire to give even if one has nothing is a fitness indicator. Humans have large brains, which gives us much more to critically perceive than peacocks with their tails. Your personality indicates what kind of brain you have, and sexual selection has shaped us to display and look for kindness and generosity.
Insulin isn't a drug, for one, it's a naturally-occurring compound that we've learned to synthesize. Either way, the cure for diabetes is a transplant of a kidney and/or pancreas.
Furthermore, Insulin was identified at the end of the 19th century and developed into a treatment in the 1920s. Canada didn't even begin to socialize medicine until after World War 2, and even then it wasn't all of the provinces until the 1960s.
Furthermore, Eli Lilly, an American company developed in the 1970s the method to produce synthetic insulin which you currently enjoy today.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The only way you are even able to afford Insulin (with or without insurance) is because there was a viable market for it and an American company sought to make a profit on it.
What you originally said implied that the whole basis of developed nations is their protection of property rights. I'm arguing that it's not the basis, but part of one of the many things that play into the complex development of a developed nation.
I'm trying to point out, that you're retarded and rely on over-simplification to try and ram your points down people's throats.
Sorry but synthesized insulin would count as a drug. I, unlike you I'm sure, have some background in this. A drug is -any- substance that alters physiology in any way that doesn't provide nutrition (ie. food, because it does alter physiology but we can't consider food as drugs for other reasons).
Any anyone who thinks that pharmaceutical companies are interested in curing are extremely ignorant. It is MUCH more profitable to prolong someone's life with the use of drugs without curing than to effectively cure disease.
Capitalism will never allow for serious advancements that benefit the WHOLE rather than the INDIVIDUAL. Individualistic ideologies are flawed when taken into the context of GLOBAL advancement (see how individual and global are not compatible?)
You cannot attempt to further your private goals (usually power/money) to advance humanity (requires selflesness). It is a logical contradiction in itself. Some people need to go back to their Plato/Aristotle.
And on your whole "name one country who's economy thrived without capitalism" is flawed, also. That's like asking you to prove God's existence. Absence of proof is NOT proof of the contrary. Just because we have not discovered a better system does not infer that a better system is not possible. Socialism is perfect on paper but is not practical, capitalism is good for short-sighted fools who just want power. There is a happy medium that we have not applied yet. My ideal world would probably rest on a resource-based economy in which ALL are equal and ALL have the EQUAL chance to do whatever they please and effectively eliminating the need for money and eliminating work that absolutely no one would want to do (through technological advancement). In my opinion capitalism should be a means to THIS end. /rant off about capitalism
Last edited by Kozzle; 11-19-2008 at 02:38 PM.
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
Synthesized insulin is a drug. One created by an American company, not a Canadian one. How does that further your point?
Private goals can certainly align with global advancement. But they shouldn't be required to by ours or any government. The goals of a company can absolutely align with global advancement if the company decides that it would rather forgo maximum profit margins in favor of philanthropic efforts (as many businesses do) or if the market decides that they will buy products that cure disease rather than treat it. As it is, the market allows pharmaceutical companies to become profitable by treating symptoms not curing the disease. Sellers are attached to the demands of the market; don't blame a company for meeting the demands of the market just because none of the potential buyers are demanding altruistic products.
Protection of property rights may not be the only factor necessary for advancement in economy, but it is certainly a factor that has never been ignored whilst an economy advanced. Throughout history, protections on property rights have increased as economies have grown in scale and complexity. I have challenged you to find a counter-example and you've trolled your way out of it.
You're a psychology major, right? Where do you think protection of property rights falls on Maslow's hierarchy? Squarely on the bottom. Before you can conduct any type of business interaction, you have to know that what is yours is yours, that your life and livelihood are secure.
Hence why I do not place the blame on companies, I place the blame on the capitalist way of thinking such as the one you are displaying. We will never advance as a people with such selfish views of the world. Giving to charity etc. will NOT make a significant impact on our way of life. It will require a complete paradigm shift if we are to help those who TRULY suffer to our way of life.
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
I mentioned the brain-drain of the pharmaceutical company like a page back, but I'm glad it's being argued for me.
Man.
If I transplanted a kidney and that cured my shit, it'd be easy as hell huh? and wouldn't cost so much. So just because Opium is a naturally occurring chemical it is not classified as a drug? I mean by that logic, the entire Opiate spectrum is not a drug in any way shape or form.
Islet Cells, are just that Cells, not a pancreas/kidney transplant(as it is pretty hard to transplant le pancreas), then in order for the cells to not reject you must take immunosupressent(wow i know that's misspelled), for a long time, if not life. 2000 was when this was first brought about, in Canada, and is now coming down to the US, mostly in experimental procedures.
So No, the cure does not come from a transplant of an organ, but cells from, and then you need to take drugs one way or another.
But either way, it was a UHC country that figured this out, and not the US, what was the last thing we cured aside from Polio and all those MMR shots we're still taking to fight that shit?
Also Lily just marketed some of the first Human Insulin types, Dr. Banting, from Toronto(where is that?) Discovered Insulin in the 1920's.
http://www.discoveryofinsulin.com/Home.htm
Last edited by Vengeful Scars; 11-19-2008 at 07:20 PM.
lik dis if u cry evertim
I'll look for a counter-example. My main point was for you to realize that property rights don't determine the advancement of a nation by themselves. I was going to post the dominant sociological theories of what factors play into it's development but I have to dig out my textbook from last year.
And at the risk of looking like I'm dodging your question (which I'm not), Maslow's theory of hierarchy has actually been refuted in more recent research.
If I was president I would rule that all hot girls must register in the hot girl database. Twice daily I, as president, will randomly select a hot girl from the list. I will then take Air Force One to the hometown of that girl and we shall make sex.
Best. Law. Ever.
I am in favor of this law.
Sigh. Do I have to teach you basic biology in order for you to understand your own goddamned disease? The Islets of Langerhans is a region of endocrine cells in the pancreas. The beta cells are responsible for producing insulin. Right now, the only permanent cure for Type I Diabetes is a transplant, and transplanting both the kidney and the pancreas has seen the best results. This isn't old knowledge, though the ability to successfully transplant both of these organs and prevent rejection is relatively modern. This solution is akin to blowing up a building to kill a single person inside. Transplant of just beta cells is effectively a graft with the same risks.
American researchers are the ones aiming to address the core cause: a malfunction of the Beta cells. Rather than transplant a new organ, they are working to stimulate regrowth of Beta cells and actually develop a risk-free cure.
God you don't fucking read, do you? I already posted the major history of Insulin. It wasn't discovered in Canada, but it was used for diabetes treatments. In the 1920s. 40 years before Canda had UHC. How the fuck is that an example of an advancement in health provided by a UHC country? Lilly, on the otherhand, synthesized artifical Insulin in the 1970s, which made it available for widespread use and is probably what you're using today. Canada, for the record, was knee-deep in UHC.
The last thing we cured? I don't know... how about The Human Genome, where private companies in America developed the technology to provide 100% sequencing before government-sponsored groups in Europe who had a 10 year head start. Granted, we leap-frogged them because we were able to use their best practices in the early stages.
You forgot to lash out at me too!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks