Total posts: 1,499
After Wednesday's meeting, the Department of Health and Human Services released a statement co-signed by the CDC and several medical professional groups that stressed the heart condition is extremely rare.
"Only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination," HHS said. "Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe."
Created:
-->
@thett3
i guess it is worth looking into how often someone under 40 and in perfect health, dies. then that can be compared to the 12 in a million cases of myocarditis who get sick. note, the large majority of those with myocarditis have only a mild case. a rare disease, with a mild consequence for almost all of the cases.
Created:
-->
@thett3
myocarditis is very rare. much more rare than flat out dying from the disease.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
i always thought it was stupid when conservatives point to prochoice values to downgrade vaccine mandates, and i thought it was stupid when liberals point to prolife values to upgrade vaccine mandates. they're arguing against their own stance to force someone into another stance.... if you're conservative to say people dont have a right to mandate vaccines, means they have a right to terminate pregnancies, by their own logic. the most consistent view, is women do not have absolute right to kill her baby, but people dont have absolute right to infect others. it's pretty simple what's the most decent and fair stance in all this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's also a study with the Delta variant out of Israel."The analysis indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection."So yeah, living in a bubble and attempting to be germ free has some drawbacks.
the issue, is that in that study, having natural immunity plus one shot offered the best protection against the virus. also, even if natural immunity is better thtan a full vaccine, you still have to risk dying to acquire the natural immunity. plus, if you get the shot, even if your chances of getting positive are higher with the delta variant... you still have a much lower chance of getting hospitalized and dying.
Created:
the common complaint about getting the shot is that they fear side effects after getting the shot, well down the road in time.... but here's this
"Vaccines are highly unlikely to cause side effects long after getting the shot"
for every vaccine we've had in human history, the longest it's ever taken to develop side effects is six weeks. side effects, if there are any, are almost always immediate
this is from an actual reputable source. i'm sure this argument is the consensus within science. what are the sources who dispute this? random dudes on youtube, random websites no one's ever heard of. basically, trash sources of science.
people who live in areas that supported trump in the election over 90% are ten times more likely to die than folks who live in areas with less than ten percent support for trump. showing, this is too much politics.
the odds of dying from the virus is 7 in a thousand if you are unvaccinated. that's a high number. that's why hospitals and morgues are overflowing. that's why so many are dying, and why 2 in 1000 have already died. it's not even over yet. the odds for an average middle age person to die is about 2 in a 1000. still high.
most people who refuse the vaccine just lack critical thinking skills... they're basically just idiots. that's all it boils down to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if u could cite some statistics that show how expensive fat people are, maybe i'll consider it. we know that getting charged to much is the bulk of the problem,... it's a fact that the leading problem. and insurnace is too expensive too, up to a third of the problem. fat people are a problem but i'm not convinced it's anything nearly as huge. pun intended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
when it's pointed out to you that hospitals get few patients but u try to argue that our tax money should keep them afloat, you show that you dont know the free market and you show you dont know what what you're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
it's all speculation on our part if many hospitals would even have to go out. but you get what you pay for. when we're paying twice as much as the rest of the world, maybe some hospitals who dont get a lot of customers can overcharge everyone. but if cost becomes an issue, they just wont be paid as much. it's not necesssarily a bad thing if they go out if their model was raping the public. that's just a sign of the excesses when barely utilized hospitals are kept afloat
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i realize we are fatter than most countries, but you need more specific statistics to make your point.
also, even if people are fat, that doesn't change how our system does billing. a fat person gets inrsurance, and goes to the doctor, and just doesn't get billed as much in my plan. they still have copays and the doctors still get paid. if anything, having more fat people would be a financial benefit to providers, cause they get more money. i dont see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
and i responded that if some hospitals go out of business, that's just the system working itself out. like maybe some rural hospitals, though there are already rural allowances made for medicare. i was specific. if you offer hundreds per hour, it's only logical someone who find a way to take it. you give no reason to think there would be widespread market failure. you say i offer hopes and dreams, but all you offer is death and destruction. pretty obscure criticisms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i'm sure some hospitals who have a profit model who raping the public, will go out of business. more sustainable practices will prevail. do you propose there will be people offering hundreds of dollars per hour and no one will provide the service? the system will work itself out. your criticism is at best as vague as my solution anyway. you need to be more specific if you want to change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the only price setting in my system is when a doctor or provider bills insurance. every other price in this system is determined by the free market. equipment that a doctor buys? free market. how much doctors and nurses get paid by hospitals? free market.
also, i suppose you got a 'got me' point in showing that price is a critical point in a technical free market... but literally everything else except price of consumer services is determined by free agency or free markets
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the billing system is one small facet of an economy. the large majority, doctors hospitals, everything else.... is free market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
can you think of specific examples of how my plan is flawed? all you offer is vague criticism. the only examples i can think of is where the providers have an unsustainable business model.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
offer a bunch of money, and the free market will figure out who gets it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Fruit_Inspector
your ideas are too vague. the only valid criticism might be that it costs twice as much in california as it does in the heartland. the thing is, medicare adjusts reimbusement based on location. the only other criticisms that i could imagine, are examples where providers or the businesses have an unsustainable business model. if those guys go out of business, so be it. if you offer hundreds of dollars per hour for services, the free market will adjust to find a way to provide the service to take the money. ya'll just aren't being bold enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
ive moved beyond my "add twenty five percent to the second highest salary of a foreign country". my current approach is "add a third onto medicare prices". i'm sure there will be problems with this approach, but that the market will find a way to provide the service to take the money.
why is it that every other country is able to do it but we can't? the only thing you've pointed to, is that specialized care is better here. that article i posted, showed that even at medicare pricing, specialized care was a very profitable industry. it only showed primary care could suffer if more reductions were implemented. so why can't we do medicare plus a third pricing?
why can every other country do it but we can't? when you haven't shown that even specialized care would unnecessarily suffer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
you act like my hopes and dreams approach is bad because i dont have all the details figured out. the problem with your argument, is that you haven't gotten any clear unintended consequences figured out.... your argument is just "government incompetent, thus it's inevitable catastrophe will happen".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the article i posted said if we ration more with medicare primary care could go bankrupt. it didn't say what happens if we keep it at medicare prices or are more generous.
if a doctor charges 200 per hour with most insurance. medicare currently gets charged 160. my "medicare plus a third" plan would cap out pay at 210. i'm completely confident the market will find a way to take that money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You can't operate a healthcare system on hopes and dreams. Because what happens if you mess up, and the revolution doesn't work out like you thought it would? Lots of people will die.
that's easy to assert. can you at all plausibly illustrate how people would die? but what would most likely happen, is that instead of a doctor making 240k, they'd just make 180k. man, that's gotta be rough. as long as there's money to be made, even if it's not as much.... our system will find a way to provide the service to take that money.
Created:
Posted in:
that article gives context of using medicare or medicaid on doctor pay.
just because im not an expert on this doesn't mean it can't be done. that's how the rest of the civilized world does it, my way.
Created:
Posted in:
maybe it'd be easier to just say medical providers can't charge more than a third more that medicare. medicare already costs rations down to the individual procedure, just like all the rest of the civilized world
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
lists the top pay by countries. i suppose it'd be easiest to look at just north america and europe.
usa general practitioner: 240k
usa specialist: 350k
next highest after usa:
GP: 214k
specialist: 330k
we could try to get the average pay closer to that, or we could be generous and pay a little more than those countries.
i'm not sure if that would be enough of a cut to pay, but it would be a start. the main hit we'd give is to hospital prices, not doctors themselves
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
u ignored one of my points that would be critical to your criticism of my argument. why dont we cap pay to doctors hospitals and everyone else, the same as the second most expensive country plus maybe twenty five percent? that's pretty generous isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
also, i dont know if you know something i dont... but creditor and debtor law covers debt for medical providers. there's an elaborate system that works just fine already in place. your opening post makes you out to sound like you dont know much about fair debt collection laws. yes we can agree there are probably unfair loop holes but we are both too ignorant to be able to address it. i used to work with a debt lawyer and those laws mostly just stop harassing and unfair practices... they're not letting able consumers from skipping their bills. medical providers can just follow normal debt law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
you said people should pay when they have the means, for the medical bills. if you mean poor people who cant pay shouldn't be forced to find a way, then we agree. if you think we should nickle and dime the poor to shake them down, then we dont agree. the medical industry is paid too much... we shouldn't be taking from those who have little to give to those who have too much.
yes i think medical providers deserve to be paid, as long as it's reasonable.
if you look at my opening post, another problem i have with your idea, is that it's such small fries. regulating prices and making insurance nonprofit is literally almost half the cost we pay, it's half the industry when you compare us to other countries.
you say you are willing to pay more for better quality... the problem is that that's an abstraction of an argument. what you imply is that you are willing to pay twice as much as other countries to have better specialized care. the thing is, most healthcare isn't specialized care so that's where most of the cost is, and that can be regulated. specialized care can be regualted too as long as it's not overboard. your statement that you are willing to pay more for better quality is so vague that it's meaningless
my stat on us having worse wait times overall is from 'the commonwealth'. just google that name and wait times and i think an article from the atlantic will pop up. wait times are a function of how many doctors we have, and we have less than other countries, thus we have worse wait times. but that article actually measures it. we are only better with specizlized care.
china doing organ harvesting has little to do with the fact that it's an innovative country, it's one bad aspect of their system, not the bulk of it. it's irrational to ignore what they're capable of because they have one bad factor.
The U.S. healthcare system has literally produced the best hospitals and specialized healthcare in the world, and you're just going to brush past that as though it hardly matters? We have to ask ourselves how the current system produced such a result. Conversely, we must seriously consider how your proposed changes will realistically affect these institutions, as well as future research and development they might otherwise perform.
we dont have to over regulate specialized care. simple as that. we can get charged less and get better quality. maybe on the specialized care point and doctor pay and hospital pay in general, we can just say they all should be paid up to a quarter more than the second most expensive country. that's a reasonable and generous standard.
QUESTION: What happens if regulations force the hospital to lose money because they can't charge patients enough to cover the actual cost of their services?
it's easier said than done, but the solution is just not to regulate too much.
PROBLEM: Wait times are too long.SOLUTION: Decrease wait times.QUESTION: How will this specifically be accomplished?
get more doctors and specialists. the indistry puts a limit on all those guys, and we can simply get more of them. nurse practitioners too.
PROBLEM: Debt collections (compelling people to pay their medical bills) currently makes the poor pay more.SOLUTION: ????QUESTIONS: How will hospitals be paid for services?What means will hospitals have to recuperate payments for services rendered if bills go unpaid?
you're worried about small fries. hosptials should be paid a reasonable rate with reasonable debt practices. you're talking about a dent in our industry and it's not the problem you think it is, for all the reasons i said above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
our system is majorly out of whack, and what you are describing is just tweaking it. you are mostly trying to get poorer people to pay more.... when doctors and other staff and hospitals and everyone involved is already paid way too much. a little more money isn't going to change much.
USA is worst on cost. it's worse on wait times overall. china puts out almost as much innovation as the USA and other countries are almost as good on a per capita basis. USA is only better on some specialized care, as you pointed out. hopefully we can revamp the system without doing much damage to those guys. it's not like we dont already ration costs, as that's what medicare and medicaid etc does. it's how every other country spends half as much as we do.
i suppose it just boils down to we need to take the risk, and just overhaul the system. it's out of control as it is. id do something sensible and say providers can't charge insurace more than a third more than medicare.... and all costs in our system have to grow at inflation minus one percent for the next twenty years. i'm open to suggestions but something like that might work. something major needs to be done, bottom line.
Created:
Posted in:
"i conclude God doesn't exist, because when i look at evidence for God, my assumptions are that God doesn't exist" = literally the circular way ya'll think
Created:
Posted in:
"i conclude God doesn't exist, because when i look at evidence for God, my assumptions are that God doesn't exist" = literally the circular way ya'll think
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
it's stupid to the point of irrationality to claim that it's common to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. do you even hear yourselves? all you guys do is assert that to you it looks like a hallucination, or a drug trip. simply asserting it's a hallucination isn't an argument. (that's mostly what ya'll do, but i also suppose i just dont buy your theories for why people just happen to hallucinate a bunch of elaborate afterlife stories... they're weak theories) comparing it to drug trips is irrational when i've shown that drug trips are completely different... those are scattershot experiences, and random imagery, not elaborate afterlife experiences. plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore. people who just guess what happened out of their body are way off. plus the AWARE study showed two examples of out of body information being verified, it just isn't strong enough evidence to convince skeptics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
the evidence is plain, you just choose to ignore it.
look at the totality of the evidence to concluded God. yes the design of the universe is weak evidence for God, and that alone shouldn't cause someone to believe in God. yes we can say it looks like something caused the universe but i agree it doesn't have to be called God. but if you look at all the evidences together, these arguments are icing on the cake.
you may be right that energy is increasing in the universe. i dont know, all i know is what we see, non dark energy, where energy is decreasing. if you are correct i would have to amend my argument. it doesn't make sense that there would be a definite beginning in time and an eternal end. it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to the human mind that a one time event just happens and that's all there is too it.
the evidence for NDEs is strong. your guys' best argument is that humans are similar so maybe a death situation would cause something biological in them all to hallucinate a bunch of afterlife stories. talk about grasping at straws. is there an afterlife gene or something in our brain that makes us believe that sorta stuff and have those hallucinations? it's ridiculous to speculate that, but it's the only way to salvage your argument. you need something more specific to explain why being dead causes a trigger of a afterlife hallucination, not just a vague theory. at this point, you all are just asserting it looks like a hallucination or drug trip, when the experiences are objectively different than anything we know. and, your best theories lack substance. ya'll think it's common to hallucinate afterlife stories when we die... it's self evidently a stupid idea, and your lack of evidence keeps it at the level of a stupid idea.
i can show you an example of someone who is blind having their retina healed after they pray. there are lots of examples like this. that level of inexplicable healing hasn't been demonstrated in atheists, and no one has given a good reason to assume those sorts of things happen to atheists. so we have one group of people, theists, experiences inexplicable healings while another group, atheists, do not have those things happen. you do the math. i'm gonna assume there's something special about theists... it's basic observation; it's basic science.
even if i can't say God is proven, if you look at all the theories together... it's a good theory that God exists. certainly enough evidence to not obliviously and irrationally argue "God doesn't exist".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People spend too much and can live dirt cheap but the only way to escape the rat race to have a back up plan of relying on hand outs if the government isn't involved
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It also sounds like u think the average person should be a slave or rely on handouts given u don't think the government has a role in providing an alternative... For some reason u won't just come out and say this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like ur health care plan for people is to pray to god they don't need it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trying to converse with u is like trying to nail jello to the wall
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do u do for healthcare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ur point is that subsidies shouldn't exist. If they don't exist the average person is either a slave or has to rely on hand outs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even people at the top of their field have to rely on obamacare to retire early and u r no more capable than them. I'm betting u rely on the government somehow or will be forced to with a health emergency or catastrophe. Even medicare is subsidized. Social security is subsidized. Maybe u were a slave or relied on handouts. There's no way u beat the rat race, u just r not that capable
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A person doesn't come with a full bank account and they should be able to have kids when it makes biological sense so we're talking rent and utilities and a car and food for a family. Even in low cost of living areas you'd need at least 20 grand expenses and that's after taxes. Plus u don't believe in subsidized healthcare that we currently have so add on god knows how much . and there's retirement concerns.
Why don't u just join society in offering another choice besides slavery and hand outs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
U offer the choice of be a slave or rely on handouts, even for the middle class... U don't think society has a role in finding better options for the average person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So u think people should have to rely on charity and hand outs if they want to have the basics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They would need lots of charity to get ahead.... As I said either at the mercy of others or slaves
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
R u seriously saying those on minimum wage can get ahead? They need a way to survive while earning money so there's no way to save or have kids or not be subsidized on healthcare or anything else. When u make barely more than poverty. Even middle class people struggle to afford basics. Maybe those on minimum wage shouldn't be able to afford the basics but u r deluded to think they can
Created:
Posted in:
The dude pretty clearly has schizophrenia, for those who r unaware
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So u don't view working 40 hours a week for 50 years to afford the basics is in any way similar to slavery?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If a person wants property and not live in a box they have to work a lot. Plus healthcare is expensive to the point of forced servitude to afford it. To an extent we r slaves to society or at least at the mercy of others.
Fatties r a big reason our healthcare costs r so much but its a fact that the main reason is simply that we r charged too much
Created: