Y2HH

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) Going along that same vein of thought, it isn't like an abortion is a 100% safe procedure either. There are some pretty major risks, including sterility, cancer, and death. I know the argument is that it doesn't happen very often, but how often does a worst case scenario happen out of the flu shot? Exactly. The main reason I have an issue with it is because a 17 year old (or younger) would be pressed to make a decision such as this based on fear moreso than based on an educated choice. Such as fear their parents "will kill them if they found out they were pregnant", etc, when in reality they're parents may be upset/disappointed, but they surely wouldn't "kill them".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) I do know for a fact that the schools, pharmacies, clinics, and anywhere else giving them, are requiring parental consent for the H1n1 shot in Indiana. As they should. Have you ever read what is in flu shots/vaccinations?! The purified virus aside, the liquids that accompany these shots are incredibly dangerous. Kids could unknowingly be allergic to any number of these items, and not know it, and then what? Edit: Thimerosal and Formaldehyde are both key agents in flu vaccinations... Thimerosal is a preservative, however, it is known to be about 49% base mercury. I'm sure parents want their kids unknowingly making such decisions.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Well I also posted this on my FB page...and got my first dissenter: Here ya go... I fall in the against column. I see nothing wrong with trying to encourage kids to tell their parents, but to make a blanket law that they HAVE to tell the parents is bad. There are so many different situations where that's bad. The abusive parent, the super religious parent, the rapist parent. And what parent is required? Step? Foster? Dcfs if they are a ward? Education (not abstinence only) education education is the key. And for parents, communication with your child is key. Start early, use the correct terminology, and talk about sex even if you don't think they are listening to you. You will probably see many more of these. And I keep hearing this "education" crap spewed at me when it comes to sex and teens, and it's garbage. Teaching them what's what is one thing, especially when it comes to sex, but these are just kids, and kids don't really think about the consequences of their future. Teens and younger adults tend to "live in the now" and make rash decisions because of it...there is a difference in knowing something and understanding something. People of that age may know everything, but they sure as hell don't understand it yet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) IMO, taking the abortion angle out of it completely, we as a society say that a 17 year old isn't mature enough to get a cell phone contract, or enter into other legal agreements. How can we as a society say that they are mature enough to decide, on their own, about a medical procedure. Could they go in and get plastic surgery without parental permission? Spot on. 17 year olds are not equipped to make such decisions on their own, and will often make knee jerk decisions based on what they think may be a world ending event, such as this. I remember being 17, and I remember thinking the smallest things in my life were the biggest decisions to be made, looking back, I realize how small they actually were and would have been more open to an adults opinion if I could do it again.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Whether this is true or not, that's a borderline personal attack. It doesn't bother me, and I don't take it personally. I understand why they're attacking me, and in some regard I don't blame them for feeling that way or thinking that way. I openly admit my feelings on polls border paranoia, and my feelings that people inherently lie (because they do) could be seen as borderline paranoia, also. And it has nothing to do with trust issues. There are people I trust at their word, and none of them live in or work for Washington.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 08:01 AM) And that I'd love to hear more of. Ok...fine. It's a deeper issue than people tend to realize, as the way insurance works is flawed with how it evolved over the years. Insurance rates should NOT increase if you use said insurance. This goes for health, car, fire, etc. Ever get into an accident? Insurance pays out, but then you're rates jump? That's a trashy tactic this industry uses and it should be illegal. There needs to be oversight on this, as it's counter to the entire point of having insurance. Pre-existing conditions clauses should be removed...HOWEVER, this is more complicated than that. You cannot remove these unless everyone is FORCED to buy insurance. If we remove the pre-existing clause but do not enact some sort of law that says you HAVE TO buy insurance...what stops you from just not having insurance...until after you get sick? That'd count as pre-existing, so there would be no incentive in having insurance before you need it since you'd know that at any moment, you can get it and they couldn't stop you. That's the issue with pre-existing clauses. Without them, nobody needs insurance until they get sick...because technically, that'd be pre-existing, and if nobody is paying into the system, there is no money for others when it becomes necessary. Outside of catastrophic issues, what would stop you from calling the insurance company after you fall and break 50 bones? The answer is nothing if they remove that clause, and this is what it was intended to prevent, however, the industry bastardized it and started denying coverage to people with pre-existing cases that weren't active, for example diabetes which you are currently treating properly. That clause wasn't mean to defend against people like that...it was meant to defend against squatters who would wait until after something went wrong to buy insurance and get coverage...and then drop said insurance after they're better again. So that goes back to the fact that people would have to be forced to buy coverage in order to keep the system churning -- and that brings in a constitutional issue -- can the government legally force you to do this? I don't think they can.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 08:00 AM) You don't disagree - you just outright dismiss any and all data, laying waste to the foundation for discussion. That is the problem. And LOL at "the network" - not sure if you noticed, but people who post back here often disagree on a LOT of things. There is no SoxTalk Filibuster Mafia. Hell, even the mods and admins go at it in here pretty vehemently with each other at times. There is, and you are the leader. Back to the discussion at hand...look, I don't need polls to discuss healthcare...I know what's what, I work in heathcare, as you know...specifically the insurance industry. Do some things need to be fixed? Yes. I don't need some poll to show me that, one way or the other. Does the ENTIRE system need to be fixed? No, because the entire system isn't broken. I'd prefer to discuss that, rather than polls.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) Nobody is calling you an idiot but you do have a tendency to act like people are attacking you all the time. When you make a point and someone disagrees with it they're going to explain why you're wrong and say something back, that's what this subforum is here for. People aren't going to agree and that's why this thread is 100+ pages. Nobody in here has a problem with anyone, except maybe one or two people who don't like one another. I go at it with 2K5 all the time in here and it might look like we're fighting, but ask him, we're cool. Same with Kap. I don't "hate" anyone on this site, as I don't even know anyone on this site. I wouldn't hate someone over a debate on politics, religion or healthcare, either. Takes a lot more than that to get me to dislike someone. And no, I realize people here aren't attacking me in a personal way.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:55 AM) You said "these polls are crap" but you are still trying to say they say something they don't. Ok so "praise" was the wrong word. I simply do not like polls. I don't think they're an accurate representation of a whole no matter which side they agree with. Let's move past that and get the conversation of Healthcare reform back on track. My eyes are open, and I can see the things around me, and I don't need a poll to show me that there are facets of Healthcare that need reform. The discussion was meant to be about Healthcare, something closer to me than most, since I work in the industry and have an insiders perspective none of you have.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:51 AM) Jesus Christ, what are you talking about? Where do you get these conclusions on what I think about the subject or about you from? What I've been trying to say, and so have NSS and StrangeSox, is that you are effectively saying all polls are bulls*** which makes it impossible to gauge anything, ever, and when you give the reason, it boils down to "there is a possibility they can say something that challenges what I believe" even though you're not actually saying that. Then you confirm this whenever you praise a poll that says something you DO like (irregardless of what the questions actually are) but dismiss any other ones out of hand as unreliable. The hand-waving of data makes it impossible to argue anything. Which takes us back to about 6 months ago when we were all in here doing the same thing. I never praise polls I do like. They're crap, regardless of whos side they agree with. I've stated that many times. Now I've stated it again, you will ignore it again, but that's ok...that's what the network does on Soxtalk.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) Good f***ing lord dude, this is what he's been trying to explain that you are doing for the past 2-3 days. But he's wrong. The only thing I'm doing is disagreeing with a majority of people on this website about polls. That's all I'm doing. Just because I disagree with you people, doesn't mean I'm wrong, it doesn't mean I'm sticking my head in the sand, and it doesn't mean I'm an idiot. The reverse is true, too. Soxtalk has a problem, a big problem, with people having differing opinions on things...it's ok that people see things differently, no matter how irrational it seems to you or what you believe in...it's ok. I'm not asking permission to see things how I see them. This is how I see things, whether you like it or not. It's not sticking my head in the sand, it's not being ignorant. It's simply being different. Accept that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:39 AM) You care enough about them to use them as a support for your argument (even if the support is unrelated and unfounded), but you don't care enough about them to see what questions were asked? I give. This is pointless. I only posted them as examples of polls such as what you requested existing. No other reason. They may not be the exact questions you were looking for, but they show that polls such as people being happy with their care DO EXIST. Yes, you give. Stick your head in the sand now because I don't agree with you on polls. See, it's easy to do that to someone that disagrees with you...I can do it, too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:37 AM) No, its not. That is not at all what they are asking. Read the polls that you linked, read the questions that were asked. Don't care enough about polls to do so, to be honest. You know how I feel about them. I don't think people know what they want when it comes to Healthcare, and no poll will show that.

I mean, thats like... "Are you happy with your healthcare?!" Slim Majority : YES "Do you want to reform the heathcare system?!" Same Slim Majority : YES WTF?!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:33 AM) Did you read what these polls are? They are asking about two very specific things - quality of care (public versus private), and cost of healthcare. They aren't asking if they want changes, or if they are happy with the system, or if they want reform, or if they are happy with their current health care situation. The polls actually look pretty solid to me, and Gallup is fairly reliable - so I believe they are probably accurate. You just need to understand what they are accurately telling you. Neither of them are telling you that Americans are happy with the health care system as-is. They are telling you that: 1. Apparently, quality of care among Medicare insured is similar to that received by privately insured 2. A slim majority of people are satisfied with their cost structure for health care I know what the polls were about. But if the majority are happy with things as is, however slim that majority may be, HOW are polls also showing a majority wanting to reform a system that they're happy with? It doesn't add up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:27 AM) That wasn't my point, however, yes, I'd say that's a true statement. Every poll I have seen says this, in one slightly different way or another. "Happy" is of course a subjective terms. But I have seen polls over and over again showing the majority of Americans favor some sort of major health care reform. Those polls come from all over the place. If it wasn't true, someone would have at least come out with a poll using strong methodology to show that - and yet, they haven't. What does that tell you? Really though, my point was the same as its been when discussing this with you. Your method of reasoning on polls is such that you have decided to bury your head in the sand, so that you can believe whatever you want, because you don't have to be bothered with actual data that may show your beliefs to be inaccurate. Americans want a lot of things, because newer always = better. I favor some sort of reform, too...just not this overhaul which takes a working system and completely breaks it, building an entire new system with new problems. The reform I'd support is fixing what is broken, not throwing the entire engine out because a few components aren't working as intended. I'm afraid to ask for reforms, because I don't know what that entails. Especially when they toss the word comprehensive onto it...which as become more of a political buzz word than anything meaningful.

Since you asked... http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/Private-...aspx?CSTS=alert oh...and... http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority...healthcare.aspx Oh, and IMO, these polls are crap, too. I hate polls whether they agree with me or not. Please don't miss this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:20 AM) If this was all true, then I suppose you could show us a poll that someone did using acceptable methodology that showed that the majority of Americans are happy with things as-is. I mean, after all, if most Americans are happy with it as you say, plus with so many businesses wanting to keep it as is, surely there must be believable polls showing this. So where are they? That's my point. Now, whether this was meant to be very sarcastic or not...I don't run around searching for polls. But, are you actually trying to say that the majority of Americans are NOT happy with their healthcare? I don't personally know a single person that isn't happy. I'm not going to bother proving you right or wrong. You can do that for yourself.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 06:54 AM) I can't believe I missed that. There was nothing to miss other than the typical, let's take snippits of someones entire post, therefore breaking its context completely, and make a really bad Soxtalkism strawman point about it. To be perfectly clear, since it appears you have to be around here lest someone will take snippits of a whole to make a really stupid point, you can easily get a poll showing whatever outcome you're looking for when it comes to the subject of health care and people wanting a government run public option. Again, it comes down to the whens, the wheres and the hows...and it's my belief that in order for them to show that a "majority of Americans" want such an option, they HAD to ask a certain subsection of "America" while ignoring everyone else. I'm sure they didn't poll any Blue Cross employees. Or young healthy adults who are covered by any number of plans. Or my parents, who in their 60's but have insurance. Are those people not Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...they may be Americans, but for this poll...they aren't necessary, because that would...well, mess up the intended outcome. I think my point was made pretty clearly. Again, to reiterate, since it seems you have to do that around here...I've stated my case as to WHY *I* do not like polls. I am not, in any way, saying you can't believe in them, trust them or take them at their word. That is your choice. That is your decision, something I'm not making for you. It'd be nice if you let me state my opinion on the matter, even if you disagree with it without saying I'm sticking my head in the sand, or as I'm sure you are actually wanting to say but don't want to get banned, a total f***ing moron.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) Thank you. Y2HH, I appreciate your policy views on some things and your background in health care, but when you elevate your paranoia to the point you do on this topic, you ruin any chance for any discussion whatsoever. You are basically saying, all data, facts, evidence and science are B.S. if you didn't see them come into existence personally. Conveniently, this allows you to believe whatever makes you most comfortable, facts be damned. The ostrich act is old. I have the issues I do with polls for a reason, and yes, it may border paranoia with my trust issues related to polls, specifically because in college I did a project (a trimester long project) which focused on the intentional or unintentional manipulation of polls despite having to follow posted methodology and rules to keep said polls "honest". We did this in statistics class, and the lesson learned was that numbers can be manipulated almost no matter what rules are in place when the human element is added to the equation. We all took the same poll, following the same rules, with the same type of focus group/test group, and from team to team, the numbers weren't even close. The rules in place and the posted methods matched, but despite this, the resulting numbers should have avoided any extreme variance, but the results were the results...and the variance was extreme across the board. Statistics are simply too easy to fix depending on the whens, the wheres and the hows. So I apologize for being so skeptical of polls, regardless of who issues them. I keep hearing how polls show that the majority of Americans want this "public option of government run care", which is complete BS, because the fact is the majority of Americans are happy with their health care, so there is no way a legit poll should show that, unless the sample used was from a majority of currently uncovered people (who are actually a minority). So yes, from personal experience, I find polls to be a load of crap. And this has nothing to do with me ignoring science, science is one thing I wouldn't dismiss. Polls are not science.

Me and my buddies are going as the skeletons from the Karate Kid.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) If I were you I would never buy anything then. Sure, they SAY these are the ingredients, but they could've just lied and put cyanide in it. How do you know? I'd stop buying things, Y2HH, you'll be safer. Also, you might want to put homemade tinfoil over your head. There is a difference between trust and paranoia. Not trusting people, or taking people at their word when you don't know them and what you just described are two completely different things. I don't trust polls or how they're conducted, and I stated my reasons, and I don't see why me feeling this way is a big deal. Just because I feel this way doesn't mean you have too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) well, that means you don't trust yourself to have basic knowledge to figure out what polls are reliable and which aren't. Convienent of you to ignore why I said what I said. So again, just because a poll reports the medhod which was used is no actual guarantee that they used that method, there is a degree of trust you have to have on this case, which I simply do not have without opposing oversight to verify said results. I understand I'm a cynic at heart, because the world has given me plenty of reason to be exactly that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 10:18 AM) Then you just have other deep seeded issues that have nothing to do with polls. Yes, you are right. I have deep seeded issues because I don't trust people I do not know. I need not add anything more to that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 07:04 AM) Seriously can we move on? This polls are not to be trusted argument is among the dumbest that continues to get hold in the filibuster. Polls not to be trusted/are obviously biased: Anything showing people believe in global warming any showing a democrat in the lead any showing the public option popular Did I miss any? Let's move on. Yes, you did. You forgot about all the polls that lie on the other side of the street as well. You see, unlike you, I don't trust *most* polls of any sort, whether they be released by republicans OR democrats. From the sound of the sarcastic post you made above, it seems that you feel people don't trust polls only if it's a populist democratic/liberal issue, such as global warming, democrat favored, etc... There are very few I trust from start to finish. I have this problem with people who read something and just believe it, such as when polls post methodology -- so ok, if you did exactly as you said you did, then that poll can be trusted...but the question is, DID YOU ACTUALLY DO IT THAT WAY?! I don't trust people...because people lie...a lot, they even lie about telling the truth on how they did something so long as it makes the point they wanted it to make. I don't care about either party, and I hope someday both are uprooted and tossed by the citizens of this country because of their complete uselessness. While they make it appear they all hate each other, the reality is, they're all making each other rich. Now we can move on since I cleared that up.