Maybe spending stupid amounts of money on power cords isn't entirely harmless

[PopPop]

Dagny Taggart should have built his railroad to North Dakota.

[Priaptor]

 

yes. and casino's are a tax on stupidity. but really marijuana and mushrooms should be entirely legal (while not driving).

 

I *do* care of course but statistically the chance of being killed by a terrorist is vanishingly small. If you are moving to Montana you need to be more worried about bears. I care about our core American principles more. Banning all Muslims is not acceptable nor justified. This horrifies me. You could make the same argument about one of your family getting killed by a gun. The same logic should be applied.

 

Jabbr,

 

If you look at the stats, maybe if you are looking at being killed by a bear who you hit with your car, but not an attack. Your point about terrorists is again spurious. Because it is relatively low per capita isn't an excuse to be as blind as those in Europe. I would say many more people were killed in Paris than all the people ever killed by bears in Montana to continue your straw man argument. Plus the reason our relatively low numbers regarding terrorism which isn't so low when you include 9/11, is because of our relative vigilance, which by the way includes infiltrating Mosques and neighborhoods of Muslims. A rational person tries to be proactive. Ergo, Europe is getting attacked by ISIS infiltrating the Syrian refugees, America is going to be no different so to use the information at your disposal is smart not xenophobic. He is talking about "banning" UNTIL a vetting process that can ensure the lack of infiltration by ISIS and to establish safe zones for the refugees in the middle east. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Priaptor]

The Ayn Rand Institute. Now that's where we are going to get a truly objective analysis of the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic system that allowed it to happen! An organization dedicated to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who worshiped at the throne of laissez-faire capitalism That is akin to looking to the National Rifle Association for an objective analysis of the system of gun sales and ownership in America.

 

More objective than your rants. At the Ayn Rand Institute relies on statistics unlike you who depends upon rhetoric

[Allan F]

You will take SCOTUS as the final arbiter? That's nice as I hate to tell you hey ARE the final arbiter. Having said that, without repeating, SCOTUS hardly interprets what is written and amended anymore so it has become a legislative body as to how they want to interpret.

As has been written before, the SCOTUS is not final because it is supreme. It is supreme because it is final. Funny how the Court "has become a legislative body" when it upholds Obamacare and a woman's right to have control over her body, but it is only "interpreting" when it guarantees a right to own firearms for personal use and extends the right to free speech to allow unlimited spending by Political Action Committees which unduly influences the outcome of "free" elections.

[Allan F]

More objective than your rants. At the Ayn Rand Institute relies on statistics unlike you who depends upon rhetoric

That piece is so full of twisted facts and logic that a more apt application of Mark Twain's "three kind of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" would be hard to find.

[Priaptor]

As has been written before, the SCOTUS is not final because it is supreme. It is supreme because it is final. Funny how the Court "has become a legislative body" when it upholds Obamacare and a woman's right to have control over her body, but it is only "interpreting" when it guarantees a right to own firearms for personal use and extends the right to free speech to allow unlimited spending by Political Action Committees to unduly influence the outcome of elections.

 

Let us not get into abortion as I can't stand another useless debate about that AGAIN and quite frankly think it is best left out of politics as it an issue mainly for doltish single issue left wingers. However, I guess the right of the fetus has no right over their body subjugating to the woman by your reasoning? I don't really give a damn to be honest. I have my own personal opinion and the legislative SCOTUS has spoken.

 

Guns, you are way off base. You want to morph the second amendment be my guest. Having said that I think there is some stupid things supported by both sides regardless on one's views of the second amendment.

 

NOW as to Obamacare, they (Obama and the banana republic DEMS who rammed it through using reconciliation) PURPOSELY didn't make it a tax because of the constitutional issues. Thank you Roberts for REWRITING the law and claiming it was a tax to justify it's constitutionality. Now if that ain't legislating from the bench then nothing is.

 

Like I said, we have been down this road. Lets move on to Medical Errors and all the claimed deaths it causes. "THEY" your buddies claim it's the 3rd leading cause of death "JUST BELOW" cancer and heart disease. Let's go down that road so you guys can go after me for killing innocent people by the twisted logic that I am a doctor. No more SCOTUS. DEAL? Please go after me for Medical Errors. Read up about it. A very nice lawyer wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ. Read it and attack me. At least that one is fresh.

[Allan F]

Let us not get into abortion as I can't stand another useless debate about that AGAIN and quite frankly think it is best left out of politics as it an issue mainly for doltish single issue left wingers. However, I guess the right of the fetus has no right over their body subjugating to the woman by your reasoning? I don't really give a damn to be honest. I have my own personal opinion and the legislative SCOTUS has spoken.

It's rather difficult to ignore Roe v Wade since it is the poster child that conservatives continually refer to in support of their contention that the Court has gone beyond its mandate to interpret the Constitution. Only those with blinders would consider it to be "an issue mainly for doltish single issue left wingers". Talk about rhetoric.

[wgscott]

<< Quoting myself, as I am incredibly busy at the moment >>

 

Well, there is self-serving mythology, and then there are the inconvenient facts.

 

[jabbr]

I'm eager to see how highway safety changes in states that legalize marijuana. It's not easy to tie use to impairment with marijuana as it is with alcohol.

 

Apparently (from Colorado) stoned drivers tend to drive too slow while drunk drivers tend to drive too fast. There is data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

[wgscott]

Apparently (from Colorado) stoned drivers tend to drive too slow while drunk drivers tend to drive too fast. There is data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

 

[Snowmonkey]

Not to understate the importance of medical errors, but it's important to appreciate that a lot of the practice of medicine involves "playing the odds". Almost all treatments have potentially harmful outcomes and a big part of a physician's job is weighing the probability of a harmful outcome from any given treatment or procedure against the likely benefit to a patient. By their nature, sometimes the odds play out against you and that turns out as an "error".

[Priaptor]

It's rather difficult to ignore Roe v Wade since it is the poster child that conservatives continually refer to in support of their contention that the Court has gone beyond its mandate to interpret the Constitution. Only those with blinders would consider it to be "an issue mainly for doltish single issue left wingers". Talk about rhetoric.

 

OK, I get it, given all the real problems in this country/world, something like "abortion rights" which is no longer an issue, let's make into an issue so the morons on the left can continue to think all issues begin and end with abortion. Yes Allan, those on the left so concerned about abortion are concerned about nothing other than abortion and lack the intelligence and reasoning to worry or be concerned about any other issue; except maybe their free birth control pills.

 

Come on take wg's lead and lets move onto medical errors. You are a lawyer, no? I figure medical errors is a good one for you to go after me, a doctor. We can have a good time with that one. We have beat all these other topics to death. I promise after that one I will let you start on how the UK hates Donald Trump and don't want him to ever enter their country, but first medical errors.

[crisnee]

Apparently (from Colorado) stoned drivers tend to drive too slow while drunk drivers tend to drive too fast. There is data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

 

That sounds about right, if memory serves. Way back when I used to use and drive, I remember having to push myself (and the pedal) to get up to speed--and stay there, because it always felt like I was going way faster than the speedometer indicated.

 

Chris

[Priaptor]

Not to understate the importance of medical errors, but it's important to appreciate that a lot of the practice of medicine involves "playing the odds". Almost all treatments have potentially harmful outcomes and a big part of a physician's job is weighing the probability of a harmful outcome from any given treatment or procedure against the likely benefit to a patient. By their nature, sometimes the odds play out against you and that turns out as an "error".

 

Snowmonkey,

 

Not fair. This forum is no place to use logic and good sense. Let's start the topic off with how doctors are villains, then let me defend my stance and Allan and the other lawyers can kick in and we can have a good old time. Maybe I can make some comments about motorcycles in the trauma centers and PopPop can get back in the action as well.

[sandyk]

Apparently (from Colorado) stoned drivers tend to drive too slow while drunk drivers tend to drive too fast. There is data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/09/stoned-drivers-are-a-lot-safer-than-drunk-ones-new-federal-data-show/

 

Does that mean that most elderly drivers are stoned?

[Priaptor]

<< Quoting myself, as I am incredibly busy at the moment >>

 

Thanks wg,

 

I forgot you posted that. That was the post along with the one about Palestinians, right? Lets stick with medical errors we beat the Palestinian thing to death, at for now. We can go back there but let's do the Medical Error thing first.

 

But I take exception to your graph. According to Mr. Lieber, in today's opinion in the WSJ, an attorney in Pittsburgh, author of "Killer Care: How Medical Errors Became America's Third Largest Cause of Death and What Can Be Done About It" the number is between 210,000 and 440,000 per year. Now how can you argue with the veracity of such claims when the incidence has a range of 230,000 people. I mean any "study" where that is so exact must be valid.

 

Allan your up!

[crisnee]

Thanks wg,

 

I forgot you posted that. That was the post along with the one about Palestinians, right? Lets stick with medical errors we beat the Palestinian thing to death, at for now. We can go back there but let's do the Medical Error thing first.

 

But I take exception to your graph. According to Mr. Lieber, in today's opinion in the WSJ, an attorney in Pittsburgh, author of "Killer Care: How Medical Errors Became America's Third Largest Cause of Death and What Can Be Done About It" the number is between 210,000 and 440,000 per year. Now how can you argue with the veracity of such claims when the incidence has a range of 230,000 people. I mean any "study" where that is so exact must be valid.

 

Allan your up!

 

So work with the minimum number (210,000). Unless that's not enough deaths or you don't believe Mr. Lieber at all.

 

Chris

[Priaptor]

So work with the minimum number (210,000). Unless that's not enough deaths or you don't believe Mr. Lieber at all.

 

Chris

 

I think any study where there is a range as wide as that which is quoted is faulty to begin with. I am sure we have some, including myself who could chime in and state that from a statistical standpoint any such study is nothing but crap. But let's ignore science and statistics and just start with lower number so all the news shows (including Fox by the way) and all the newspapers can quote it as fact.

 

I recommend you read what is considered a medical error as so eloquently elucidated by Mr. Leiber.

 

His opinion piece is classic left wing propaganda. He quotes some absurd data, he is filled with such hubris he actually states many of the "causes" of medical errors that has nothing to do with medical errors and then goes on to tell us how to fix "the problem"

 

If I were going to teach a course on American left wing propaganda, its origins, propagation and justifications AND how to bullshit most Americans I would start with his opinion piece. It really is a wonderful opinion piece.

[Allan F]

Come on take wg's lead and lets move onto medical errors. You are a lawyer, no? I figure medical errors is a good one for you to go after me, a doctor. We can have a good time with that one. We have beat all these other topics to death. I promise after that one I will let you start on how the UK hates Donald Trump and don't want him to ever enter their country, but first medical errors.

People forget that half the doctors finished in the bottom half of their classes at medical school. The same is true of lawyers, of course, but you want to discuss medical errors. How many deaths are the result of them may be debatable. That many of those deaths could and should have been avoided is not. Of course, that is equally true of non-fatal errors. When one considers some of the measures implemented after an avoidable error, it sometimes boggles the mind that those measures were not part of standard procedure in the first place, e.g. marking the area to be operated upon, counting the number of instruments, etc. before and after surgery. Similarly, when one reads about how many hours that medical residents are required to put in at many hospitals, with the corresponding lack of sleep, one has to believe that is one obvious area to be addressed in reducing the number of medical errors. Thankfully, a number of hospitals have recently done so.

[Jud]

When some hospitals instituted checklists to try to minimize various types of medical errors, and set up tracking to statistically check the effectiveness of such checklists, HHS initially attempted to ban it as illegal human experimentation without the required process (IRB, etc.).

 

Thus we can conclude deaths from medical errors are the result of pointy headed left wing government bureaucrats forcing doctors to kill people through over-regulation.

[jabbr]

I recommend you read what is considered a medical error as so eloquently elucidated by Mr. Leiber.

 

His opinion piece is classic left wing propaganda. He quotes some absurd data, he is filled with such hubris he actually states many of the "causes" of medical errors that has nothing to do with medical errors and then goes on to tell us how to fix "the problem"

 

Aside from the chirality of the wing nut argument I entirely agree that it would be good to see what exactly these errors are. Statistics are easily manipulated. For example I suspect that most of these deadly errors were the result of conditions that caused admission to the hospital in the first place. So if people stay home and don't seek medical attention at all then we could entirely eliminate deaths caused by medical errors. Similarly there was a craze caused by the suggestion that vaccines cause autism. Yes it is entirely appropriate to look at the data in much more detail before drawing conclusions. I find it very hard to believe that, for example, instituting checklist would dramatically reduce the incidence Of *deaths* caused by wrong site surgery. That said it would reduce the incidence of deaths caused by exploding amplifiers

[jabbr]

People forget that half the doctors finished in the bottom half of their classes at medical school. The same is true of lawyers, of course, but you want to discuss medical errors. How many deaths are the result of them may be debatable. That many of those deaths could and should have been avoided is not. Of course, that is equally true of non-fatal errors. When one considers some of the measures implemented after an avoidable error, it sometimes boggles the mind that those measures were not part of standard procedure in the first place, e.g. marking the area to be operated upon, counting the number of instruments, etc. before and after surgery. Similarly, when one reads about how many hours that medical residents are required to put in at many hospitals, with the corresponding lack of sleep, one has to believe that is one obvious area to be addressed in reducing the number of medical errors. Thankfully, a number of hospitals have recently done so.

 

Actually this has been looked at to the extent that mortality rates at university teaching hospitals are lower than non university non teaching hospitals -- perhaps it's better to have a sleep deprived resident close by that no doctor at all.

[PopPop]

 

Jud

 

Ironically, the regulation of the pointy heads often comes from right wing bureaucrats.

[wgscott]

I think any study where there is a range as wide as that which is quoted is faulty to begin with.

 

I haven't read it, but the range could be based on something as innocent as how a medical error is defined (eg: honest misdiagnosis vs. failing to read the medical charts).

 

During the time I was in medical school (1985), they told me the average resident kills two patients.

[wgscott]

His opinion piece is classic left wing propaganda..

 

This junior-high debate tactic of yours detracts from your argument and undermines it. The question at issue is not a political one, and even if it happens to be informed by a conservative or liberal or "left wing" perspective, so what? You use terms like "liberal" and "left wing" as terms of dismissal. You falsely label people like me, and then, once dehumanized, go into your attack mode, sometimes to an extent that appears psychotic.

 

Do yourself (and us) a favor and apply your considerable analysis skills in a more objective and dispassionate manner. You may find you are more likely to persuade people to your viewpoint (and as an added benefit, might find you get banned from fewer internet sites).

 

When I see you deploy labels in an attempt to dismiss a viewpoint you oppose, I stop reading. From what I can tell, "left wing" to you means anyone you happen to disagree with.