AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-04-25, 13:22   Link #841
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I believe I mentioned in my post that those questions are indeed often asked in some visits, usually annual physicals and the like. However, AFAIK doctors are not REQUIRED by law to ask those questions, and they certainly can't put my name down on some ban-this-guy-from-having-sex list if I don't answer or they don't like my answers.
You didn't make the differentiation clear, but if you want to break it down between standard check-ups and visits pertaining to a specific purpose, then fine. As far as certain issues go those types of questions might seem unusual. However, this is certainly a strange attitude to be taking. Who are you to determine whether this question is unusual or out of line? Granted, whenever I ask these types of questions I try to explain why they're being asked so that it's clear what the reason is and thus avoid such a defensive response, but seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
And I said as much, but like everything else, it's not the majority of people with common sense that one would be worried about.
How does that work here? When we have one aggressive individual with a gun who kills multiple people then yes, I can see how it's the small minority with no sense/self-control who are a real cause for concern. If we were to have a small minority of physicians who temporarily stripped people of their firearms (and then were likely shut down for good within a matter of months), is that really something that causes worry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
And if they had, I would've told them to go fk themselves and start doing their job, who and how I'm having sex with or whether I owe any guns has nothing to do with a common viral infection or the fractured bones in my body
The Wikipedia School of Medicine sure graduates a lot of unlicensed physicians these days

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
So lemme get this straight, your not only a physician but also a social worker too?
Based on this statement I am not sure that you understand what social workers do (God bless them).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
And in my bi-yearly doctor visits I've never been asked about the sex thing or gun thing!
I am not your physician, do not know your physician, and do not know your medical history. I am not going to joust with your physician's operations and decisions on an internet message forum. I am simply letting you know that questions about sexual activity are a part of the standard questionnaire and there is good medical reason for them. Don't be surprised if you ever see a different care provider and the question arises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
It's not about fear, it's about common sense and and our right to privacy. As a doctor you get to ask questions, as a patient I have the ability to say no, and none if your business, I also can waive an exam, refuse a test, and pull my records at any time and go elsewhere.!
Maybe you missed this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
You have the right to refuse answers to any question, of course, but your apparent rage is way out of line.
This is all about fear. Older patients I've spoken with chuckled as they told me that they tell their doctor things that they wouldn't even tell their wife. It is arguably to your benefit to do so, as well, since the more your physician knows about you the more accurately they will be able to diagnose and advise you when problems arise. Physicians are also bound by law to keep everything confidential, with a few obvious exceptions (namely, if you say or indicate that you're going to harm yourself or others).

In other words, based on strict laws and professional ethics and codes of conduct, you already have your privacy. Some patients are uncomfortable discussing certain topics whether due to shame or other reasons, but ranting on about privacy in the patient-physician relationship? How is that about anything but an irrational fear? (But if you feel uncomfortable with your physician for any reason and don't feel that you can trust them, do what makes you comfortable, but strongly consider finding another physician to be your primary care provider.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Why do so many progressives treat illegal drug addicts with pity but nicotine addicts with so much scorn? It's beyond belief.
I can think of a few possible reasons:

1) The addictive and harmful properties of nicotine are massively advertised and very well-known thanks to many anti-smoking campaigns. Someone who gets hooked on nicotine essentially put their foot into a clearly-labeled bear trap. They knew better. Information about other drugs is also taught in schools and occasionally finds its way onto billboards, but it's easier to assume there was some sort of ignorance and that it isn't the addict's fault.

2) Cigarettes are stereotypically started for superficial reasons. It's "cool" to smoke. People also do it in public spaces where everyone can see (and where many people are bothered by it). Not all people smoke because they think it's cool or because they want other people to see it, and plenty try to smoke where others aren't exposed to it, but it's a stereotype. By comparison, aside from marijuana most other illicit drugs are not used openly. People may thus perceive the reasons that led to their usage to be more worthy of sympathy.

3) The withdrawal symptoms from nicotine are not as severe as, say, opiates. Even though most people don't know what the withdrawal symptoms are there is a general idea that cigarettes are a lighter class of addictive material whereas something like heroin is very heavy. This may also lead to the misperception that quitting smoking is easy, even though the addictive properties of nicotine are said to be even worse than heroin. Some postulate that nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. If that fact were more widely known then perhaps there would be more sympathy, but due to point #1, perhaps not.

4) There aren't many people who completely ruin their lives over a nicotine addiction, but there are many cases and horror stories of the other illicit drugs causing people to completely ruin themselves over their addiction (aside from marijuana). It's hard not to feel sympathy for someone in that state, particularly if they came from a lower socio-economic status to begin with (it makes the "they didn't know any better, it's not their fault" ideology easier to accept).

Out of all of those, I think points #1 and 3 play the largest role. Everyone looks at smokers and thinks "they should have known better" and they also don't realize just how difficult it is to quit.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 13:41   Link #842
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*AnimeSuki Site Staff
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Why do so many progressives treat illegal drug addicts with pity but nicotine addicts with so much scorn? It's beyond belief.
Simple answer is that weed is strongly associated with a positive image among (some) progressives, and tobacco has been vilified (fits the "big business bad!" narrative and the health/environmental issues smoking causes help that along). Think hippy/green movement type mentality. Same reason people want to save the cute animals but couldn't care less about the others. Endangered fish or spider? Oh well. Adorable otter? Bring out the signs and protests!

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of idiots in the progressive movement, some quite dangerous in their willingness to abandon the same values they claim to treasure in their zeal to further whatever cause they are championing at the moment. It's why dogma is dangerous no matter where it originates.

Don't get me wrong, smoking is bad no matter what the substance is, but the social stigmas are just very different. Everyone can picture a smoke filled corporate boardroom plotting world domination and everyone can picture a group of stoners pondering munchies in a field somewhere, but few can picture the boardroom filled with mary jane smoke and the stoners don't seem as appealing if it's just cigs instead of a roach.

It's quite ironic too, considering that drug abuse is more likely among the middle/rich classes than the working/poor classes. Social stereotypes and stigmas are interesting, to say the least.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 13:54   Link #843
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 29
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Alcoholism isn't even treated with the same level of scorn as nicotine addiction. Alcoholics are given lots of support, have various treatment paths open to them and lots and lots of people, while directly may not tolerate an alcoholic friend, relative or loved one, but from a distance seem to pity alcoholics much more than smokers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
If you can find a way for smokers to smoke without forcing everyone else around them to breath the same air at the same time, I would be happy to cut them some slack. Weed smoke is just not focused on because it's not done in public yet.
Well, that's more common courtesy and politeness than anything. If I'm out somewhere and I want to smoke, I will do so away from other people so the smoke is not blowing toward them.

However, there seems to be a serious misconception here. Yes, inhaling any sort of smoke is harmful, but the tiny little bits you'll get from an outdoor smoker walking past you is pretty insignificant. The damage done by all the car exhaust you inhaled over the entire course of the day is greater by far, especially if you live in a major urban center.

I can understand people complaining about secondhand smoke when they're jammed in a poorly-ventilated area like a bar or a club or a place of business (almost all of which do not allow smoking anymore in California), but if you happen to catch a whiff of someone's stogie or fag while out and about in the open air? Methinks someone doth protest too much. That's probably less harmful than randomly catching a whiff of someone burning trash, or standing in front of your barbecue grill while cooking up some delicious dead animal flesh.

People like to fixate on the tobacco aspect of it all, but the actual damage is being done by inhaling smoke. Doesn't matter what kind of smoke you inhale, it's not going to do your lungs any favors--whether it's burning house smoke, burning garbage smoke, barbecue grill smoke, cigarette smoke, weed smoke, incense smoke... breathing in the remnants of burning material is just not good for you.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 14:07   Link #844
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
I really think it comes down to how often someone interacts with it in a negative way. For the most part, you don't come across a drunk unless they're friends, you're at a bar/club/party that they also happen to be at, or you're out around last call. Outside of instances like those, you're generally free from having to deal with alcohol if you don't want to.

Harder drugs, and marijuana outside of the few places it's legal, are done in private.

Cigarettes? I don't know about you, but I have to deal with it all the time from jackasses who smoke right outside the door to a building I need to go in, or smoke on the street and then you have to smell it as you walk, or smell it in the general area regardless of their proximity. Also, most cigarette smokers have like, a battle aura of odor around them. Even if they aren't actively smoking, they still smell like it.

And after years of having to put up with my Dad smoking cigarettes, I've developed a mild allergy to them. So yes, even just someone walking by and puffing physically aggitates my sinuses.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 15:02   Link #845
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
However, there seems to be a serious misconception here. Yes, inhaling any sort of smoke is harmful, but the tiny little bits you'll get from an outdoor smoker walking past you is pretty insignificant. The damage done by all the car exhaust you inhaled over the entire course of the day is greater by far, especially if you live in a major urban center.
It's not purely about the harm. At this point in time people have very little choice about how their car pollutes, and cars are a necessity to life for the majority of people. Is a cigarette a necessity, especially in my presence?

An analogy to this is ambient noise. If construction is going on outside of my apartment it's an annoyance, but what can you do? The work has to be done and the noise isn't something that the workers can do anything about. Contrast that with someone who drives by my apartment with their windows down, blasting their music (and even worse, with a subwoofer in the trunk). In that case I'm more than just annoyed. It doesn't matter that the construction noise might have been even louder and lasted much longer: that asshole driving down the street could have turned down the volume. It's flagrant disregard for others, and that greatly amplifies the annoyance. It was preventable, but the person who could have prevented it didn't.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 15:16   Link #846
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Barbara Bush On Jeb Running For President: 'We've Had Enough Bushes'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3154029.html

I agree. May this country never have a Bush as President ever again.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 15:27   Link #847
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3154029.html

I agree. May this country never have a Bush as President ever again.
i don't know

the thought of a Clinton vs Bush - The Sequels sounds quite entertaining
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 15:30   Link #848
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Alcoholism isn't even treated with the same level of scorn as nicotine addiction. Alcoholics are given lots of support, have various treatment paths open to them and lots and lots of people, while directly may not tolerate an alcoholic friend, relative or loved one, but from a distance seem to pity alcoholics much more than smokers.
Plenty of supports for smokers too, at least in France. I can't speak for California.

Quote:
Well, that's more common courtesy and politeness than anything. If I'm out somewhere and I want to smoke, I will do so away from other people so the smoke is not blowing toward them.

However, there seems to be a serious misconception here. Yes, inhaling any sort of smoke is harmful, but the tiny little bits you'll get from an outdoor smoker walking past you is pretty insignificant. The damage done by all the car exhaust you inhaled over the entire course of the day is greater by far, especially if you live in a major urban center.

I can understand people complaining about secondhand smoke when they're jammed in a poorly-ventilated area like a bar or a club or a place of business (almost all of which do not allow smoking anymore in California), but if you happen to catch a whiff of someone's stogie or fag while out and about in the open air? Methinks someone doth protest too much.
It may be a matter of taste, but cigarette smoke stinks. Like, really, really stinks in ways car exhaust doesn't. It's a much more aggressive smell, unless you like to stand with your face against exhaust pipes or something.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 16:09   Link #849
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
California probably had the first major anti-smoking campaign in the country from I think the early 80s or late 70s. It hit even harder when Yul Brynner died I think.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 16:28   Link #850
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 29
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
And after years of having to put up with my Dad smoking cigarettes, I've developed a mild allergy to them. So yes, even just someone walking by and puffing physically aggitates my sinuses.
I hear you on that. After years of inhaling my parents' secondhand smoke I found myself addicted to nicotine before I even started smoking myself. I remember always feeling the need to hover around them when they smoked, ever since I was little.

Yet another thing in the litany of shitty things they've done to their invisible daughter.

Granted, I probably could have stopped it from becoming an actual addiction, but since they threatened to punish me severely if I ever started smoking, my teenage brain cottoned onto that as a wonderful button to push to get back at them. Now my adult health is suffering for the idiocy of my teenage self.

Anyone got a time machine handy? Would love to go back to 1999 and kick my own ass for starting for real and not just dealing with it.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 16:39   Link #851
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
Anyone got a time machine handy? Would love to go back to 1999 and kick my own ass for starting for real and not just dealing with it.
Sorry, mine can't go back more than 5 years from its anchor point in the continuum. And it's a little unstable; it makes specifics in your memory a bit fuzzy.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 18:32   Link #852
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
@Ledgem:"This is all about fear. Older patients I've spoken with chuckled as they told me that they tell their doctor things that they wouldn't even tell their wife. It is arguably to your benefit to do so, as well, since the more your physician knows about you the more accurately they will be able to diagnose and advise you when problems arise. Physicians are also bound by law to keep everything confidential, with a few obvious exceptions (namely, if you say or indicate that you're going to harm yourself or others).

In other words, based on strict laws and professional ethics and codes of conduct, you already have your privacy. Some patients are uncomfortable discussing certain topics whether due to shame or other reasons, but ranting on about privacy in the patient-physician relationship? How is that about anything but an irrational fear? (But if you feel uncomfortable with your physician for any reason and don't feel that you can trust them, do what makes you comfortable, but strongly consider finding another physician to be your primary care provider.)"
I was askin wether or not YOU are a doctor or social worker? I've worked with both at one time or another.
The reason I tell you things about my doctor and my experiences, yet you seem to not care or wax over them nonchalantly. Makes me wonder how your practice is goin?
Now to the gist of it, readin the above makes me ask why exactly a physician would care if there are weapons in the home? And if a patient left said question(s) blank would said physician make a point of askin? And if the patient refused to answer, what then?
I'm very satisfied with my current doctor, and see no need to change, but thanks for your concern.
Irrational fear? If I thought you might be takin my truck keys, yeah I'd be worried! Or send a social worker to check my livin environment, maybe. But I fail to see where weapons are a medical professionals business at all! Hell the kitchen alone is damn near an arsenal, gas range (possible explosion, burns) hot water, (burns) the knife drawer,(do I even need to explain this one?), house hold cleaners (poison), etc. Guess a doctor needs to be a psychic too huh?
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-25, 20:22   Link #853
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
You didn't make the differentiation clear, but if you want to break it down between standard check-ups and visits pertaining to a specific purpose, then fine. As far as certain issues go those types of questions might seem unusual. However, this is certainly a strange attitude to be taking. Who are you to determine whether this question is unusual or out of line? Granted, whenever I ask these types of questions I try to explain why they're being asked so that it's clear what the reason is and thus avoid such a defensive response, but seriously?
Not sure how I was being unclear, considering I made that that distinction multiples times in various posts. As for who am I, a good place to start would be a patient, a customer if you will that's seeking a specific service. When I go to the doctor for a refill on my pain med for my back, I don't need nor want a lecture on seatbelts or questions about what I do in my bedroom or my guns.

Quote:
If we were to have a small minority of physicians who temporarily stripped people of their firearms (and then were likely shut down for good within a matter of months), is that really something that causes worry?
Considering the not-so-sterling records some departments have with not returning confiscated firearms, and the cost of said firearms and lawyers, yes it can be an issue. How would you like your doctor having the ability to take hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of assets from you, of which you may or may not get back?


Quote:
The Wikipedia School of Medicine sure graduates a lot of unlicensed physicians these days
And here I thought we were being nice

Since you're obviously a professional, maybe you can enlighten us on how whether I own a gun has anything to do with my bronchitis.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 10:14   Link #854
flying ^
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
so, lemme get this straight... the USDA has enough money for this but, not enough for meat inspectors?





Documents Reveal that Mexican Government Encourages Maximum Participation in U.S.-Funded Program


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch
today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA (PDF) with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable. Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The email from Wood to Lopez-Coterilla and Vincente came in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy that the USDA FNS step in to prevent the state of Kansas from changing its food stamp policy to restrict the amount of financial assistance provided to illegal aliens. In a January 22, 2012, article, the Kansas City Star had revealed that the state would no longer include illegal aliens in its calculations of the amount of assistance to be provided low-income Hispanic families in order to prevent discrimination against legal recipients.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in August 2012, include the following:

March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”

August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.

February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.

March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”

February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

As far back as 2006, in its Corruption Chronicles blog, Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA was spending taxpayer money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, CA, at the time even starred in some of the U.S. Government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the Consul assured that receiving food stamps “won’t affect your immigration status.”

In 2012, Judicial Watch reported that in a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s partnership with Mexican consulates to encourage foreign nationals, migrant workers and non-citizen immigrants to apply for food stamps and other USDA administered welfare benefits. Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking, for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy in the United States.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”

Last edited by flying ^; 2013-04-26 at 13:26.
flying ^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 12:45   Link #855
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*AnimeSuki Site Staff
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by flying ^ View Post
“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”
Let me get this straight. They've been trying to get these records since 2006, or something along those lines. But it's Obama's administration that these papers "further confirm the fact" that they aren't doing their job?

Judicial Watch posts this under their "about" section:

Quote:
Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
Conservative, but non-partisan? That's a bit odd.

Quote:
Through its Open Records Project, Judicial Watch also provides training and legal services to other conservatives concerning how to effectively use the Freedom of Information Act and other open records laws to achieve conservative goals of accountability and openness in government.
Right, so it's pretty much partisan.

As to your complaint, there's money to hire meat inspectors. They aren't hired because then the meat industry would have to actually follow regulations. Mmmm, antibiotics and e coli.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 13:48   Link #856
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
Conservative, but non-partisan? That's a bit odd.
Right, so it's pretty much partisan.
Flying posting from a clearly biased GOP "news" site and claiming it to be 100% unbiased truth? WHAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS THIS!?

But in all seriousness, he's been called out on this before, and he just ignores it.
GDB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 14:43   Link #857
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by flying ^ View Post
so, lemme get this straight... the USDA has enough money for this but, not enough for meat inspectors?
One word:

sequester

And I blame anyone who favors deregulation and implements deregulation by means of legislation or cutting budgets. Yea, I'm primarily looking @ Republicans and its supporters. And I blame Democrats for letting this crap happen.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 17:24   Link #858
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
The reason I tell you things about my doctor and my experiences, yet you seem to not care or wax over them nonchalantly. Makes me wonder how your practice is goin?
I'm not sure what you mean. Were you not originally posting about how physicians asking about firearms would be a terrible thing, worrying about what would happen if one had an agenda? What I've been trying to get across to you in various posts is that there's quite a bit in place that prevents a physician from forcefully pushing any anti-firearm agenda onto their patients (as well as many other agendas).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
Now to the gist of it, readin the above makes me ask why exactly a physician would care if there are weapons in the home? And if a patient left said question(s) blank would said physician make a point of askin? And if the patient refused to answer, what then?
There are two situations that immediately come to mind where knowing whether a firearm exists or not could be of concern:

1) If a patient is actively suicidal. Firearms are the weapon of choice for many (some populations more than others). If someone is in the early stages of suicidal planning, the presence of a firearm in the home elevates the importance of intervention.

2) If a patient has a young child and, suppose, they're new to parenting and may not be the most mindful person in the world. At that point the firearm question can be given to segue into a brief mention about safely storing it away.

One more thing on this topic. We're talking about "the firearm question" as if it's a straight-forward question that will be asked, but it isn't always. For example, you said that your physician never asked you about guns. He didn't need to: you already told me that you two discuss firearms during your visits. You've probably already given him all of the information that he would need to know. Similarly, in the second example that I gave I don't necessarily need to ask if there are any firearms in the home, I can just go ahead and include them in a general discussion about safety. A patient will probably volunteer whether they have firearms or not at that point, although by then it doesn't really matter to me unless the patient wants advice on how best to deal with a certain gun or collection of guns. The point is all about ensuring that people don't get injured by preventable causes.

If I've pegged your thought process correctly, then the following information might further allay your fears: we don't care about who owns what. I could not care less whether you own one handgun or 20, nor about what make and model your guns are. We are not taking a census or building a database of gun ownership. That sort of information might not even go into your medical chart unless there were a medical reason to mention it (suicidal, risk of harming others, mention of counseling regarding child firearm safety, and so on).

Maybe I read you wrong the first time. If so, I apologize. I can't think of any other reason why someone would be so against the idea of physicians asking about firearms, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not sure how I was being unclear, considering I made that that distinction multiples times in various posts.
You made five posts on this topic within this thread, four of which were longer than one sentence. Your initial post into the topic was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
If it's simple reminder about safety, sure. But whether I own any firearm is none of my physician's business. Should your doctor also be required to ask you about your sexual habits? STDs are also dangerous and can certainly causes deaths.
It was a fairly general yet definitive viewpoint. If you recognize that there are medically-relevant reasons for obtaining information about firearm ownership and wanted to really say that it would be inappropriate for a physician to ask every single patient about firearms, regardless of the circumstances, then we're in agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
As for who am I, a good place to start would be a patient, a customer if you will that's seeking a specific service. When I go to the doctor for a refill on my pain med for my back, I don't need nor want a lecture on seatbelts or questions about what I do in my bedroom or my guns.
Do you request fries with your order, too? Just kidding - in all seriousness, if you're doing something that contributes to your symptoms then you're going to get that medical advice because it would be poor care not to. Otherwise, see what I wrote above, and I think we're in agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Considering the not-so-sterling records some departments have with not returning confiscated firearms, and the cost of said firearms and lawyers, yes it can be an issue. How would you like your doctor having the ability to take hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of assets from you, of which you may or may not get back?
I can't believe this. Are you really real? One of the few Americans remaining who is worried about losing something by someone else's fraud, and whose first thought isn't along the lines of "I'll sue them for triple what I lost"? I am in awe. Please have 20 children and pass on your non-lawsuit ways, and instruct all 20 to do the same as you. You would save the country.

Your concern is valid, but I've given you quite a few reasons as to why it's very unlikely. To summarize, if it happened without any good reason it would constitute fraud, which would land the physician in major trouble and would likely result in the guns being returned (whether directly or by winning lawsuits, the proceeds of which would no doubt go toward more firearms). Physicians aren't geniuses, but I'm pretty sure that the sense of self-preservation and even a little bit of foresight and planning for an agenda means that it wouldn't happen.

On the other hand, what's the trade-off? We might have fewer gun-related homicides and rampages. I'm not going to say that your worst fears are impossible, but given how unlikely they are and given what the potential benefits are, I think it's worth it. Just my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
And here I thought we were being nice
It was said in fun However, it's also a growing problem. There are some people who do their research and end up knowing more than many of the physicians they seek care from, but there are also many people who read some things, pick up a few medical terms to throw around (often erroneously), and then feel as if they're as good as their doctors. The notion that "I'll be the one to determine what my doctor needs to know" seems to play into that second class of "informed" patients. It doesn't really help anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Since you're obviously a professional, maybe you can enlighten us on how whether I own a gun has anything to do with my bronchitis.
It wouldn't be on a "top 5" list for differentials, but it's a possibility. Your bill for that advice is in the mail
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 17:25   Link #859
Archon_Wing
Sisyphean Crusader
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Making people too mad to respond
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
Flying posting from a clearly biased GOP "news" site and claiming it to be 100% unbiased truth? WHAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS THIS!?

But in all seriousness, he's been called out on this before, and he just ignores it.
I have to admit. The moment someone claims something is unbiased, I start laughing that them.
__________________
God damn, there's so much bad fanservice out there. Touch me and I'll beat the crap out of you!
You are about to move into areas of the anime industry with wonders you cannot possibly imagine. And terrors to freeze your soul.

Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-04-26, 17:27   Link #860
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
I have to admit. The moment someone claims something is unbiased, I start laughing that them.
Well, that's biased of you
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.