|
joether -> RE: Gop trying to break science education again (9/8/2014 1:09:54 AM)
|
First allow me to greet you to the forum. Second, it might help you to understand...why...I tore into you. Lets just say life has been...unpleasant...on my end for the last few days, and usually I'm more patient. Second, that this forum does see individuals from time to time that try to 'hide' their identity, support their original comments, and try to slink away. This is known as 'sock' or 'sock puppet' on here. Maybe in my....frustration of life....I figured you were such.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElChupa
OH NO, NOT THOSE PESKY 'PUBLICANS AGAIN WITH ALL THEIR QUESTIONS! Haven't they heard of settled science? I mean, nobody questions, especially if leading scientists like biden, obama, and algore all agree on stuff! Questioning settled science like global warming/cooling just confuses people! All those other scientists who question should be sent to re education camps and stuff and be made to listen to Barack Hussein 0bama's (AKA, "The Big Zero") greatest speeches and then watch a blooper reel from Vice Emperor "Crazy Uncle Joe" Biden!
Hey critical thinking is great and I wish a very significant portion of conservatives would learn how to do it however that's not the same thing as trolling for Jesus. The time to "teach the controversy" is when there's an actual scientific controversy.
And what uncontroversial science isn't being taught? Catastrophic global warming caused by a human induced runaway greenhouse effect? Disproven. Global temperature anomaly fell outside of the IPCC's own error bars, and has continued to fall further outside of those error bars. That means that theory is disproven. The theory that race is a social construct? That's a rejection of the well established scientific concept of phenotype, and the underlying cause of phenotype, genotype. In other words, anyone who claims that race doesn't exist is a DENIER of science (or in all fairness, is scientifically ignorant, and that isn't really their fault, most people simply don't have the capacity to understand science and it's implications).
And I suppose you can give us links to each of these ideas, right?
The last one, 'race', is a social construct. Where does it exist in your brain, filtering out all you have learned of the world, to treat someone whose skin color is different from yours? Do you treat the opposite or same sex differently? When I see a black person, I see a person. Yes, they are black. They are also short, alittle on the over-weight side, with glasses, short black hair, and missing a finger. Should I treat this individual any differently due to any of these features? In your view, 'yes'. But I do not accept your view. I've known plenty of individuals from all different ethnic and regions of the world whom are really gifted, skilled, and intelligent. You might look at someone and assume a stereotype; I would not. Since I've known many individuals that look dumb as shit, but were very insightful, intelligent, and wise. A person that judges another based on the skin color tells me the person is of low education and intelligence. And that has more to do with their social upbringing than any physical genetics to date.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
@Joether
It's not my article. Unless I'm mistaken, It was written by an Indian woman. I haven't even read it yet, I just stumbled upon the link to it a little while before I saw this thread. Figured it was relevant, so I thought I'd share. Also, you have too much time on your hands...
@DomKen
Piss off, commie!
Emphasis mine.
Nothing says "I'm a credible poster" quite like linking to pieces you haven't bothered to read.
Gee I don't know, jumping into a thread for the sole purpose of discrediting another poster sorta reeks of ideological blindness, but whatever. The guy who wrote this http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html recommended it. Anyway, now that I've read it, I didn't like it very much, though I think it was worth reading. It was short at least.
Right in the beginning she claims Bill Maher is a germ theory denier, but to the best of my knowledge, that's not true. I don't watch his show much anymore, so it's possible that he has denied the germ theory of disease and I missed it, but I kinda doubt it. I got plenty of issues with Bill Maher, but the fact that he isn't sycophantically enthralled with western allopathic medicine isn't one of them. He's a proponent of naturopathic medicine, which I think she is equating with germ theory denier, but that's just wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to subscribe to both schools of medicine, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Its a good idea to read what you are posting on here. Many of us will read the information, and NOTHING sinks arguments better than finding information from the article that disproves or counters the argument the original post of the link stated.
So, sharing something can be good; but not reading it when making an argument is the 'Kiss of Death' around here!
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
@ Joether
I find your point about Medicaid dubious, at best. You act as if improved health outcomes for those that could not afford healthcare without Medicaid aren't the primary goal of Medicaid. What exactly is the point of getting people access to health care if that access doesn't improve health outcomes? The fact that it reduced financial strain is great and everything, but the fact that it isn't improving health outcomes (according to the article, and apparently several leftist journalists acknowledged this, I don't know if it's true though, I haven't looked at the actual data) doesn't bode well for the program and warrants reexamining the policy.
The quality of healthcare can be improved if the logistics engine tied and intertwine with it, is also improved. There is nothing in these government programs to improve one's personal medical health. That is for the individual and their medical health people to handle on a personal level. What it does do, is keep costs down, since medicine is expensive. And when you are in deep levels of pain and suffering.....you'll sign anything....to make it stop. That is to keep the unscrupulous types from exploiting the frail, weak, and defenseless.
Improving the quality of care to an individual is not something easily accomplished. The many factors, complications, degrees of difficulty, and how the human body behaves differently in individual cases, is hard to create a system that works. Let me give you alittle story here, to help you understand...
In Massachusetts, those without a job or health insurance through some entity (employer, Mass Exchange, etc), can obtain Mass Health. Mass Health is a state run insurance program for only Mass Residents (6+ months) and are US Citizens (be they over or under 18 years of age). When a person had a problem and the only medication was not covered under Mass Health, that person would be screwed, under a corporation's rules. That person can contact their state rep, explain their case and situation. Most of the time, there are work-arounds for poor financial health or ability to pay all together. For the remainder, they can take the case to Boston and see if a change can be made to allow Mass Health to pay for the treatment. This has happened on a few occasions that I'm aware on, but can not for the life of me remember the particulars to google it. So here we have government, listening to the people, to adjust a medical plan, that benefits the citizen without fucking them over at the same time.
The important question to be answered: Does the quality of medicine, improve with the actions of the US Government and the many 'cogs' (for lack of a better word here) employed?
I would answer 'yes'. Its not perfect, and there are screw ups. People, unfortunately, fall through the cracks. And there is waste. Yet, we have within us, the ability to fix these sort of problems, and improve upon them. They are not immediately corrected to the wishes of the 'instant gratification' crowd; but they do get fixed with time and effort.
Argue as you like of it. Better than the system this nation had before the ACA, hands down! Back in 2008, I was getting better medical coverage and health insurance being unemployed, than many Americans busting their chops at 50-60 hours a week. The folks in Mass found ways for it to cost very little with huge benefits. If it could be successfully done here, could we do the same to the other 49 states of our nation? Thereby improving American's lives and health. A rather noble quest....
|
|
|
|
