Originally Posted by The Rani

Are they really? Have you ever tried talking to your neighbor about these issues?

I have. However, it appears that the commercials for this herbicide, and their need for a suburban weed free lawn, is more powerful than my appeal for a healthy environment.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Are they really? Have you ever tried talking to your neighbor about these issues?

Oh jeez, where I grew up, we've got grass enforcers. Most tame grasses can't survive the FL heat, so everyone uses St. Augustine grass that requires lots of watering, fertilizers, and pesticides.

The worst part is, so many communities are run by HoAs and Condo Associations that uniform St. Augustine grass isn't just an expensive and environment-shattering luxury, it's freaking mandatory. The runoff of lawn fertilizer is so bad we've got algae blooms choking out the shrimp & fish populations... something that usually only happens in extremely intensive agricultural areas.

Suburbs are crazy, crazy places...

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Oh jeez, where I grew up, we've got grass enforcers. Most tame grasses can't survive the FL heat, so everyone uses St. Augustine grass that requires lots of watering, fertilizers, and pesticides.

The worst part is, so many communities are run by HoAs and Condo Associations that uniform St. Augustine grass isn't just an expensive and environment-shattering luxury, it's freaking mandatory. The runoff of lawn fertilizer is so bad we've got algae blooms choking out the shrimp & fish populations... something that usually only happens in extremely intensive agricultural areas.

Suburbs are crazy, crazy places...

Our oldest son experienced a similar situation out in Arizona. Can you imagine all the resources it takes for green lawns in the desert?

Oh well, I guess when we all suffer chronic illness, or worse, from the harmful chemicals that it takes to preserve those pristine green lawns, we can at least be grateful that it wasn't at the hands of a foreign terrorist.

The agrochemical industry began as an offshoot of the chemical warfare research done during WW II. After the war, bomb factories were refitted to produce fertilizers and pesticides. Their approach to agriculture, it would seem, is much the same as with war; as if nature were an enemy to be conquered and subjugated by any means necessary. Millions of tons of pesticides are applied to croplands worldwide every year. As weeds and insects become resistant to sprays, more and ever stronger chemicals are applied.

GMO agriculture is a chemical intensive system that is causing mass destruction to our soil, our ecosystem, and our health.

Massive mono crop fields are destroying the biodiversity passed down to us through the generations and destroying farming communities worldwide who practice a traditional, independent, small farm way of life.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Our oldest son experienced a similar situation out in Arizona. Can you imagine all the resources it takes for green lawns in the desert?

Oh well, I guess when we all suffer chronic illness, or worse, from the harmful chemicals that it takes to preserve those pristine green lawns, we can at least be grateful that it wasn't at the hands of a foreign terrorist.

Must drive him crazy! It freaked me out when I saw lawns in Arizona. The desert gardens looked so much better and more sensible. A close family member is a permaculturist (renewable, sustainable gardening). He truly hates golf courses--especially in desert areas.

If I had a yard (which I don't) I sure as heck wouldn't have a lawn. Never liked 'em. Prairie grass and flowers. And vegetables.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I'd rather see my buddies profiting from this mess than slimeball hospital CEOs and drug companies. They are good doctors and good people.
And even public healthcare systems are prone to corruption, with politicians being the beneficiaries.
The only way around it is consumers becoming more informed and taking control of their own health care decisions. If WE decide not to do that, then WE basically deserve the system that WE get.

The only potential benefit I see to Obamacare is that more people will eventually become used to managing their own health care and making their own decissions as far as their health care is concerned.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess the question then becomes if you feel comfortable imposing your own values on your neighbor, and how far you're willing to take it.
Sort of a rhetorical question. Unless you're Eric, in which case the answer is .... all the way, baby!!!
Personally, I think there are negatives to both breathing/ingesting herbicides and living in a society where some people get to tell other people how to live.

Why did you focus only on the part where Deb mentioned her neighbors?

Ever try talking to a huge chemical company about these issues? Car company? Oil company? Pesticide company? If you're Eric, you know libertarian ideas are stupid, and have nothing to say about these "neighbors." We need the government to step in to stop these criminals who kill us, and who are enabled by libertarians in the name of "free" enterprise and "not telling (a few rich CEOs) how to live." Pernicious indeed, and the kind of thing I tend to "dismiss Xers" like you about, Dr. The Rani. Wise up; you are smart enough to; Wayne is right about that at least. That you still don't, is the interesting thing.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

It already is a system for rich people only. Poor people have almost no access except through emergency rooms, because health insurance is a joke for everyone but a very few.

The real question is why can't there be two systems? Why does it have to be all one or the other?

Things seemed to work out when there was a private system alongside a growing public system, but eventually the funding (taxation) for the public system started to cause its own problems when coupled with bureaucrats' insatiable appetite for growing budgets. Costs exploded and will never come down because the supply of money will never shrink. Puttering around the edges of the issues with little 'reforms' of money flows is not going to fix anything.

Of course, the root of all these problems always has been the excess printing of money working in tandem with the growing statism that demanded it. Ballooning costs like healthcare are but a symptom.

But really, must we cram everything into a one size fits all solution as the standard answer? Must government eventually dominate and utterly control everything it touches, or is there some room for non-governmental people to exist? Most of the impetus for health care has come from people who simply want to exercise control over something, and damn the consequences. It is never about actually fixing a problem.

The proposed solutions these days are always more of the same thing that caused the issue to arise in the first place.

Don't worry, I think we are now on the path towards two seperate systems.

Originally Posted by annla899

Must drive him crazy! It freaked me out when I saw lawns in Arizona. The desert gardens looked so much better and more sensible. A close family member is a permaculturist (renewable, sustainable gardening). He truly hates golf courses--especially in desert areas.

If I had a yard (which I don't) I sure as heck wouldn't have a lawn. Never liked 'em. Prairie grass and flowers. And vegetables.

Government projects have made water incredibly cheap in an area in which it must be conserved. Basically America between San Francisco and San Antonio is overpopulated with respect to natural resources. We literally consume the aquifers and watersheds. When the aquifers are gone we will leave a harsh semidesert or desert behind. I can name names of the offending places: Fresno, Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso. San Diego, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Amarillo, and Lubbock.

The Pueblo civilization of eastern Arizona might warn us of what happens when the water disappears. Loss of water, whether through drought (a possibility with global warming) or through over-consumption (us) will destroy the economic basis of life for an agrarian civilization ... or at least make life unpleasant for people who want a lawn characteristic of New England and a swimming pool useful nine months out of the year as in Florida.

So we don't like to shovel snow -- big deal! It's really good exercise if you do it right (use the shovel as a plow).

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The only potential benefit I see to Obamacare is that more people will eventually become used to managing their own health care and making their own decissions as far as their health care is concerned.

You are having a heart attack, and this is the first sign yo've had that a problem exists. How do you manage that?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You are having a heart attack, and this is the first sign you've had that a problem exists. How do you manage that?

You die. Same as under every other conceivable system of medicine outside Star Trek. Same thing when you slam your car at 100 miles an hour into a tree. Or when a bunch of blood vessels in your brain explode without warning. Or when a tiger eats you.

How is this an argument?

That's a really good point. One of the mass delusions sweeping the country seems to be that it is possible to pad every corner and prevent all boo-boos. Except they end up spending a ton of money, throwing the padding in chunks all over the floor, and not even accomplishing that goal. In the process we end up with a whole bunch of newly empowered bureaucrats to busybody our lives for us. People at some point have to come back to Earth and realize that life happens.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You die. Same as under every other conceivable system of medicine outside Star Trek. Same thing when you slam your car at 100 miles an hour into a tree. Or when a bunch of blood vessels in your brain explode without warning. Or when a tiger eats you.

How is this an argument?

Wait... You mean sometimes people just spontaneously die and there isn't anything a bureaucrat can do about it? Mind blown!

Isn’t there a committee that can be formed… Or… Or… A law that can be passed to address this whole “spontaneous death crisis” that is clearly threatening the safety, security and very fabric of our nation?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You die. Same as under every other conceivable system of medicine outside Star Trek. Same thing when you slam your car at 100 miles an hour into a tree. Or when a bunch of blood vessels in your brain explode without warning. Or when a tiger eats you.

How is this an argument?

I think M&L's point is that there are a lot of maladies that are potentially lethal but with good medicine, survivable. The injuries in Boston are a good example of that -- 200 people wounded, some seriously, but only 3 deaths. Many heart attacks are survivable, as are many cancers. 100 years ago, one of my daughter's ancesters died at the age of 22 after giving birth to twins (who also died). That kind of tragedy was frequent then, but is very rare in the US today. Sure, we've all got to die sometimes, but isn't it nice that we have tools from preventing it happening at age 22?

Modern medicine is deeply flawed, but it does have its strong points.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Sure, we've all got to die sometimes, but isn't it nice that we have tools from preventing it happening at age 22?

Modern medicine is deeply flawed, but it does have its strong points.

Too true. But what M&L was trying to do was intrinsically tie modern medicine with the medical billing and delivery/denial system in one particular country at one moment in time. As if wanting modern medicine meant one was simply going to have to swallow the spoonfuls of shit-stew by which Americans get it ladles out. Or as if decrying the fundamental basis of the US-at-this-time system necessarily meant wishing to go back to the days of leeches and the four humours.

Ultimately, as if modern medicine were possible only as a result of a diseased, ineffective, and harmful system.

Which position is, of course, ridiculous. Thus my ridicule .

----
Oh, and I must strenuously dispute your closing claim that modern medicine is deeply flawed. It's a constantly-developing science and technology, but the fact that so many people live as long as they do, and that people with access to modern medicine are able to be as generally healthy and as easily and effectively repaired as they are? That tells it pretty clearly that modern medicine is in damn fine shape. Not that we need to rest on our laurels and quit striving for improvement -- just that modern medicine is doing a hell of a good job (and improving these last hundreds of years).

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sorry man, your tirade is TRTDAR.
In the words of another of the dismissed ... troll harder.

Sorry, you are speaking in tongues again. Not exactly the best communication.

Don't trot out the personal responsibility meme as the answer to every issue. You can do better than that.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

That's a really good point. One of the mass delusions sweeping the country seems to be that it is possible to pad every corner and prevent all boo-boos. Except they end up spending a ton of money, throwing the padding in chunks all over the floor, and not even accomplishing that goal. In the process we end up with a whole bunch of newly empowered bureaucrats to busybody our lives for us. People at some point have to come back to Earth and realize that life happens.

What we have before Obamacare is insurance company bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies, using cost and profit as the criteria.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What we have before Obamacare is insurance company bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies, using cost and profit as the criteria.

Now it will be so much better to do the same thing because his god, the government, is doing it now. I suppose this is appropriate since governments have historically been very good at racking up body counts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh, and I must strenuously dispute your closing claim that modern medicine is deeply flawed. It's a constantly-developing science and technology, but the fact that so many people live as long as they do, and that people with access to modern medicine are able to be as generally healthy and as easily and effectively repaired as they are? That tells it pretty clearly that modern medicine is in damn fine shape. Not that we need to rest on our laurels and quit striving for improvement -- just that modern medicine is doing a hell of a good job (and improving these last hundreds of years).

Modern medicine, as a science, is mostly flawed in that research budgets aren't infinite and our knowledge is limited.

Modern medicine, as in the care you receive as a typical American, is deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Modern medicine, as a science, is mostly flawed in that research budgets aren't infinite and our knowledge is limited.

I dispute the contention that us being finite beings in a means that anything we might choose to do is inherently 'deeply flawed'. Granted, we're finite and limited. But that's not the sense of 'flaw' that (I believe) Jenny was using.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Too true. But what M&L was trying to do was intrinsically tie modern medicine with the medical billing and delivery/denial system in one particular country at one moment in time. As if wanting modern medicine meant one was simply going to have to swallow the spoonfuls of shit-stew by which Americans get it ladles out. Or as if decrying the fundamental basis of the US-at-this-time system necessarily meant wishing to go back to the days of leeches and the four humours.

Ultimately, as if modern medicine were possible only as a result of a diseased, ineffective, and harmful system.

Which position is, of course, ridiculous. Thus my ridicule .

----
Oh, and I must strenuously dispute your closing claim that modern medicine is deeply flawed. It's a constantly-developing science and technology, but the fact that so many people live as long as they do, and that people with access to modern medicine are able to be as generally healthy and as easily and effectively repaired as they are? That tells it pretty clearly that modern medicine is in damn fine shape. Not that we need to rest on our laurels and quit striving for improvement -- just that modern medicine is doing a hell of a good job (and improving these last hundreds of years).

I love how you conflate everything into one big splat of 'big evil system!'

So what medical delivery/billing system would a Libertarian utopian seeker like yourself recommend?

Surely it can't have any govt involvement, right? Just want to make sure about that before the usual cheer leaders for single payer or public option come out and get confused enough to think of you as nothing but an Ayn Rand clone – at least from where they sit on the spectrum of solutions. I'm sure you wouldn't want the burden of their misplaced support.

On the other end, you want to infringe on the right for insurers to do any business. I want to make sure about this so you also can avoid the mistaken support from those that truly are of the Libertarian 'thought.' So, let's get that clarified first before moving on.

Just exactly what are you proposing as a better alternative that what you see as the current "delivery/billing system" - let's put some bounds on it instead of giving any false impressions of what you actually have to offer.

Please proceed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You die. Same as under every other conceivable system of medicine outside Star Trek. Same thing when you slam your car at 100 miles an hour into a tree. Or when a bunch of blood vessels in your brain explode without warning. Or when a tiger eats you.

How is this an argument?

No, that's not really true. You may die, and some do, but most survive by emergency response and approrisate treatment. Blocked arteries? Get angioplasty or bypass surgery. Valves malfuctioning? Get new ones. Severe arythmia? Get a pace maker. At no point are you negotiating squat. Your lying there and hoping the people in scrubs are dong what they should ... even if you have a help mate to negotiate for you. Then the bill arrives.

Then there's Denmark. And it's not a utopian dream, it's a reality.

"Health care in Denmark is universal, free of charge and high quality. Everybody is covered as a right of citizenship. The Danish health care system is popular with patient satisfaction much higher than in the United States. In Denmark, every citizen can choose a doctor in their area. Prescription drugs are inexpensive. They’re free for those under 18 years of age. Interestingly, despite their universal coverage, the Danish health care system is far more cost-effective than ours. They spend about 11 percent of their GDP on health care. We spend almost 18 percent." .. Bernie Sanders

Per your custom here, 99% of what you wrote was just you spewing bile against your imaginary friends. Unusually, you almost actually posed one question worth answering (however briefly). I've edited it lightly to make it worth our attention:

Originally Posted by playwrite

So what medical delivery/billing system would [you] recommend?

As I've explicitly made mention several times in the past -- directly to you on at least one occasion -- I was fairly well impressed by the superiority of the system my family and I encountered and used in Russia. To wit: emergency and lifesaving care as a no-question-asked service offered by doctors and clinics when it was needed (easily fundable by somewhat higher charges assessed for medical care outside that limited purview). Childrens' care primarily through their schools or kindergartens (part of the tuition) Everything else pay-as-you-go. All of it allowed to be accessible to even low-earners thanks to an absolute lack of cartelization in medical training and licensing.

It seems very much to be a system that works very well. People's lives are saved, and nobody even fears (to say nothing of actually experiencing) medical bankruptcy.

I'm sure there are other ways that work well. But that system is at least one that is demonstrably better from the standpoint of the actual provision of actual medical care o actual people. Which, to fully disclose my biases, is what I want from a medical paradigm. You clearly want something else, so I'm certain my points hold no weight with you whatsoever. That's cool.