mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Interesting. In Southern California in 1991 I was beaten, robbed, thrown down the stairs outside my flat and left with a broken arm, a cracked skull, fractured ribs and major-league concussion. The mugger, of course, stole my wallet. At the emergency room at the hospital I was (eventually) taken to this turned into a real problem.
Emergency did the US version of triage: I was unlikely to die in any way that my estate could sue them over. But the wallet problem was real: my wallet had my health insurance card in it - so the mugger had it, and I did not. Without that card the hospital would not treat me - unless my insurer vouched for me. But without that card (or, at least , my membership number) Metlife (God love 'em) refused to confirm or deny that I was covered. Not a nice circumstance to be in while broken, bleeding and concussed. After nine-plus hours of demanding to speak with call-center supervisor's supervisor's supervisors (etcetera) I was finally treated.
Yet back home, in grip of the terrors of "socialised medicine" my (few) experiences of emergency treatment (and wider discussion of many others') show me that our system is more immediately concerned with healing the injured or sick, rather than checking their insurance status. Doctors doing medical work? Instead of billing?? Scandalous!!! It just isn't the American Way.
...Mike
paulfish4570
Veteran
it's just one more step to total socialism, bill. i cannot be convinced otherwise. now, i'm not much of one for the polls, but when it seems every national poll - no matter who conducts it - says most americans don't want obama care, i'm thinking the polls could be correct. november will bear this out, i think. but we will have to wait and see ...
Gumby
Veteran
It is no doubt that you had a bad experience but that simply is not the way hospital emergency rooms work in So Cal, even as far back as 1991. Yes, insurance is verified and, yes, treatment of non-life-threatening situations often comes after delays that can range many hours. In your case something seems wonky. At the hospital I use you'd be pushed to the front of the line and have had a CT of your noggin within 20 minutes, 19 of which would be paperwork to discern what insurance coverage you may or may not have.
But if I'm not mistaken not only ethics prohibits denial of treatment but I believe that the law prohibits denial of service also. Shuffling of patients due to "capacity limitations" happens and it is both scrutinized and criticised. And, yes, it is the uninsured or non-member patients that tend to get transferred to a government-funded hospital. But denial of life-saving services is more in the mind of the critics than happens in reality (except in a few rare cases that have been fully covered by the media... and those were so greviously wrong that heads rolled and hospitals were closed). Blame whoever you'd like... but it isn't the doctors, it is more likely the hospital administrators and insurance companies... the guys/gals who make sure that the hospital and insurance coverage can exist to provide medical services. It is tough to do that when a large number of emergency room visits are undocumented or uninsured who come in for the flu or colds.
... but what does this have to do with philosophy, photpgraphy, or the philosophy of photograhy anyway?
Last edited:
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Roger,
Actually, here in Germany there hasn't been any raise - beer and wine can still be bought by 16-year olds, hard spirits and tobacco from the age of 18.
However, it appears that more and more kids are delivered into hospital after "coma-drinking" - but could be also media hype, our daughter and her friends do drink occasionally, but well within limits.
Still, the regulations are there and the authorities are now supervising them more strictly.
The same should probably go for all these anti-terror-/ anti-whatsoever efforts...
Cheers,
Uwe
functus
Failed Poet
Not quite -- there is no law in Quebec that prevents street photography, and the decision doesn't prohibit street photography.
What the Supreme Court did is establish that in Quebec, if a photograph is published without consent of the person photographed, the person may claim damages for a violation of his/her privacy.
The court recognized exceptions for public figures or when the person photographed is not the subject of the photograph (if they appear in the background, for example).
The court also required the person suing to demonstrate actual damages (in this case, the photographed caused the plaintiff to be teased at school).
What the Supreme Court did is establish that in Quebec, if a photograph is published without consent of the person photographed, the person may claim damages for a violation of his/her privacy.
The court recognized exceptions for public figures or when the person photographed is not the subject of the photograph (if they appear in the background, for example).
The court also required the person suing to demonstrate actual damages (in this case, the photographed caused the plaintiff to be teased at school).
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
So how does the court determine the value of privacy violation or the legitimacy of "perceived damage" resulting from an alleged violation of privacy?
(That is more of a rhetorical question than one I expect an answer to... unless you have some insight into that.)
functus
Failed Poet
The majority of the court said that the damages were demonstrated by the fact that the person photographed said on the stand he was teased as a result of the photograph was enough to establish damages; the minority said this wasn't enough to establish damages.
Even the majority thought the $2000 damages award was too high, but deferred to the lower court which first heard the case.
Even the majority thought the $2000 damages award was too high, but deferred to the lower court which first heard the case.
wgerrard
Veteran
I take that as an admission that you cannot specify any of your freedoms that will be constrained by the new law.
And it is curious that this recent fixation on "socialism" arose only after Obama's election. Where were the outcries of "socialism" when Nixon tried to pass an even stronger health care bill? Where were the cries of "socialism" when Bush passed his drug bill? Where were the cries of "socialism" when Romney secured passage of mandated health reform in Massachusetts?
Perhaps it began with a coordinated plan by right-wing political and media leaders to vilify Obama by spreading lies, knowing that the culture and mindset of their followers would trap them into believing the lies.
I take that to mean you are unwilling to listen to anyone who presents facts you don't like.
I doubt you have seen "every national poll" on the new law. Perhaps you are paraphrasing an unsubstantiated claim by right-wing media propagandists. However, polls before passage showed support for the bill when people were asked if they supported individual elements of the bill. Since passage, polls have shown increased support across the board. It is also useful to remember that much of the opposition to the bills before passage came from people who want to see a much stronger approach to health care, not from people who adopt the rote right-wing anti-government stance. Millions of people want single payer, or, failing that, a public insurance option.
For example, in an AP report today, a twenty-something new college graduate is cited in a story about how the new law may impact the insurance premiums of people like him. Only if you read the entire article (something few Americans have the interest to do, even if they still read newspapers) do you find that this man is critical of the new law because he wants single payer, and that he says the current American health system is based on a "broken morality".
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
I get teased almost every day. I really wich I could turn that "humiliation" into money!
Several years ago I was a juror on a civil suit between a tenant and landlord. Bad blood led to the landlord turning a water-hose on the tenant after a lot of verbal abuse went both ways. The landlord wanted to be compensated... so the jury awarded him something like $7.99. I don't remember the exact amount but it was less than ten bucks. The rationale presented to the judge was that the award was approximately the cost of professional cleaning of the landlord's shirt and trousers. All that after three days of testimony and deliberations.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why can you only see things in extremes?
There is no such thing as a pure capitalist economy (even the US has social security and compulsory free education), and there is no such thing as a pure socialist economy, despite the best efforts of (for example) North Korea.
All real-world economies are somewhere in between, which is as it should be. To see any step in either direction as either 'one more step to total socialism' or 'one more step to a fascist state' is risible. It may not be the direction you like, but hey, that's democracy.
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
i see it as more socialism. you guys do not. 
bill, can you show me one poll where the majority of americans want obama care?
bill, can you show me one poll where the majority of americans want obama care?
paulfish4570
Veteran
and roger, you are correct: that's democracy.
doesn't mean i have to like the status right now ...
doesn't mean i have to like the status right now ...
FS Vontz
Aspirer
Cheers, that made me chuckle
FS Vontz
Aspirer
"Welcome to Airstrip One. We will now virtually strip-search you."
Funny, eh?
Oh wait..
Funny, eh?
Oh wait..
paulfish4570
Veteran
good one!
user237428934
User deletion pending
If having a universal health care is a sign of socialism then the US can be proud to be the only industrialized non-socialist country in the world. Congratulations.
paulfish4570
Veteran
it has been signed into law. socialists win.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Gumby
Veteran
Jesus was a socialist.
Are you sure? Jesus is my Mexican gardener... and by the way he kills my plants then offers to plant new ones, and breaks my irrigation and then offers to fix it (at a cost, of course), I'd suspect he was a staunch capitalist.
paulfish4570
Veteran
oh, He ws/is a socialist, all right. that is why mao, marx, stalin, castro and others of their ilk were/are such big fans.
Jesus had no political ambition or views whatsoever. He told pilate that very thing - and pilate believed Him.
Jesus said to give caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's. i suppose, based on that, you'd have to say He was a supporter of roman tyranny, or at least ambivalent about it. but that would be out of context, wouldn't it?
now, as for Jesus and health care, He certainly healed a lot of folks during His 3-year ministry, and granted His apostles healing power during their ministries, and the folks who were healed didn't have to pay a dime. no taxes, no premiums, no co-pay - just faith.
He's been in the spiritual healing, soul-saving business ever since the resurrection, with the promise of a new body one day for believers. doesn't cost a thing. available to anyone, free of charge.
Jesus had no political ambition or views whatsoever. He told pilate that very thing - and pilate believed Him.
Jesus said to give caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's. i suppose, based on that, you'd have to say He was a supporter of roman tyranny, or at least ambivalent about it. but that would be out of context, wouldn't it?
now, as for Jesus and health care, He certainly healed a lot of folks during His 3-year ministry, and granted His apostles healing power during their ministries, and the folks who were healed didn't have to pay a dime. no taxes, no premiums, no co-pay - just faith.
He's been in the spiritual healing, soul-saving business ever since the resurrection, with the promise of a new body one day for believers. doesn't cost a thing. available to anyone, free of charge.
Last edited: