PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Polling on Palin


Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:33 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/poll-women-and-men-dont-see-eye-to-eye-on-palin/

Odd gender gap, eh?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:36 AM
9 points isn't really a "gap."


And there aren't that many fundie women out there. And those that are, probably don't believe a woman should be running for office.

Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:49 AM
9 points isn't really a "gap."


And there aren't that many fundie women out there. And those that are, probably don't believe a woman should be running for office.

I was thinking more of the 14% gap...not the 9%...both are well outside the margin of error is all.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:52 AM
True.


Well, she failed in one of the campaign's objectives, getting the female vote.

Davian93
09-09-2008, 10:05 AM
but guys like her so it evens out...I wonder why guys like her so much...Hmm.

Sodas
09-09-2008, 10:24 AM
2 words -

Buffalo Chip

Terez
09-09-2008, 11:23 AM
9 points isn't really a "gap."
It's a significant one.

And there aren't that many fundie women out there.
Are you serious?

Davian93
09-09-2008, 11:24 AM
It's a significant one.


Are you serious?

That actually leave the kitchen though?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 11:29 AM
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm getting at, Terez. A conservative is not a fundie. They're vaguely related, but not the same.

Terez
09-09-2008, 11:29 AM
Yeah, they leave the kitchen to vote. Trust me. Some of the craziest fundies are women. See my stepmom. See the darksided woman SBX was so kind to post. See all the studies that show the decline of religiosity in the US has a great deal to do with the fact that the women stopped going to church (because women have been primarily responsible for getting the family to church).

Cary Sedai
09-09-2008, 12:08 PM
I just figured out why guys like Palin! I admit, I'm slow sometimes! :p

She's the girl next door! Plus she goes hunting. She's everything a guy thinks he wants! (That was a very genereal statement.) Maybe, the Republican party was more interested in that aspect than her being a woman and pulling in the Hillary voters.

I'm not suprised by the gap. She can run in a beauty pagent and go hunting. She makes me think of a playboy centerfold.

Oh and is just me or does her hubby look just a little emasculated in all these pics?

Terez
09-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Here's a decent link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/church_poll020301.html) on church attendance demographics (you have to scroll down a bit, but it's ABC).

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Yeah, half the graphics on the page have errors.


And no, I'm not surprised at the statistic.

Ozymandias
09-09-2008, 10:32 PM
Its kind of sad that Palin receives any support at all. She's not only a hypocrite herself, but her presence on the McCain ticket is a repudiation of most major issues McCain believes in.

Frankly, the Democrats need to get off their high horse and hit back at McCain-Palin. I understand Obama is running on a platform built on distancing himself from those politics, the kind of despicable behavior that won Bush the election in 04, but c'mon... the inconsistency within the Republican campaign is just too easy! Its a crime not to point it out. Winning the election is more important than running an honorable campaign, a fact the right learned a long time ago and the Democrats need to embrace now. In an electoral environment where the sleazeball seems to win most often, its worth it to grease yourself up a bit in order to be able to dictate a better policy for four years.

tworiverswoman
09-09-2008, 10:57 PM
Winning the election is more important than running an honorable campaignhttp://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g7/tworiverswoman/bigw.gifBut it's the honorable campaign that is the only thing that might eventually make me give him my vote -- I respect the integrity he seems to be displaying.

Ivhon
09-09-2008, 11:06 PM
Honorable campaign got Kerry nowhere.

If the Dems dont point out the inconsistencies and hammer them hard, then the GOP will simply sit there and lie outrageously and sell snakeoil until it is too late to change things as they have done for the last 8 years.

Terez
09-09-2008, 11:09 PM
Its a crime not to point it out.
That's what the media is for. :rolleyes: Obama and his campaign don't have to harp on it, and it's not like they've ignored it altogether.

I know it's easy to forget cause it only happens every four years, but presidential campaigns have a tendency to run this country through the meat grinder. It will serve Obama well if he can stay calm until November, among all those who are truly undecided about their votes, and might be persuaded to vote for him. Kerry lost because he was boring. He didn't energize his base, and the fact that both he and John Edwards voted with Bush about Iraq in 2002 didn't help their campaign all that much, IMO.

tworiverswoman
09-09-2008, 11:38 PM
You can run an honorable campaign while still calling your opponent on lies, twists and shell games. What I haven't seen from Obama (directly) is PERSONAL attacks of an unsavory nature.

I hate politics.

Terez
09-09-2008, 11:49 PM
Honorable campaign got Kerry nowhere.
Somehow I read that as "Horrible campaign..." :D

Ozymandias
09-10-2008, 01:43 AM
That's what the media is for. :rolleyes: Obama and his campaign don't have to harp on it, and it's not like they've ignored it altogether.

I know it's easy to forget cause it only happens every four years, but presidential campaigns have a tendency to run this country through the meat grinder. It will serve Obama well if he can stay calm until November, among all those who are truly undecided about their votes, and might be persuaded to vote for him. Kerry lost because he was boring. He didn't energize his base, and the fact that both he and John Edwards voted with Bush about Iraq in 2002 didn't help their campaign all that much, IMO.

I won't say anything about what the liberal media is reporting, but after getting only FOXNews for the last month and a half after a lifetime of CNN and NBC, I have to say that FOX reports tend to be a lot more personal than do left wing stuff. Just a realization.

I also watched the most amazing Bill O'Reilly clip the other day (hes an absolute jackass, by the way, never realized), with him being totally owned by some 18 year old kid (or however old he was). But seriously... O'Reilly is a tool. He doesn't interview so much as scream at anyone who disagrees with him and its a sad commentary on the political consciousness of those who watch that show regularly at how little they care for actual political debate as supposed to watching the guy who shares their views scream at someone making a legitimate point. Has anyone seen the interview he does with Geraldo Rivera? It was weird, because Bill had some worthwhile concerns, but his total asshole-ishness and refusal to listen to reason totally overshadowed it.

Davian93
09-10-2008, 06:18 AM
For O'Reilly, go to Youtube and search "Bill O'Reilly, F*ck, Entertainment Tonight" "O'Reilly, Entertainment Tonight"

There's this awesome clip of him flipping out when he thinks the cameras are off...Joel McHale puts it on "The Soup" every once in a while and its absolutely hilarious.

Davian93
09-10-2008, 06:36 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/mccain-camp-says-lipstick-on-a-pig-is-trip-through-the-mud/

Again not really but the McCain camp basically accused him of it. Interesting, eh?

irerancincpkc
09-10-2008, 07:00 AM
I wish he would have, but he didn't. Didn't stop McCain from freaking out about it though. Anytime he can draw attention to the fact that there is a woman on his ticket he will. But here is the quote.

OBAMA: Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing, something different. But you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

If anything, he was calling McCain a pig.

tanaww
09-10-2008, 08:07 AM
That "lipstick on a pig" thing is such an old colloquialism I cannot believe that McCain's Moronic Minions would manage to construe that as an attack on Sarah Palin or anyone else. It is an attack on old guard policies. I was, frankly, aghast. Or is that just an Upper Midwest Thing?

I mean he has to find a more polite way to say "Hey! If it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit...."

Crispin's Crispian
09-10-2008, 10:16 AM
McCain himself said it earlier in the election with regard to Hillary's health care plans.

The only possible connection is with Palin's pitbull pig comment, but I seriously doubt Obama had that in mind.

tanaww
09-10-2008, 07:41 PM
http://site.despair.com/images/despairWear/pages/255_main

Bryan Blaire
09-10-2008, 09:51 PM
Damn straight on that poster, Tanaww... and SOOOOO many phallic symbols there... ;)

tworiverswoman
09-11-2008, 12:39 AM
McCain himself said it earlier in the election with regard to Hillary's health care plans.

The only possible connection is with Palin's pitbull pig comment, but I seriously doubt Obama had that in mind.Actually, that's exactly what he had in mind. And it's pretty obvious from the laughter of the crowd that they "got it."

Nevertheless - it's another mountain out of a molehill.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 08:16 AM
Actually, that's exactly what he had in mind. And it's pretty obvious from the laughter of the crowd that they "got it."

Nevertheless - it's another mountain out of a molehill.

Or he's just using an OLD colloquial expression! Here's the problem with our current election process:

The election season is too long. We've been seeing these guys campaign for what seems like forever. How about we alter the regulations to say you cannot file for candidacy until 12 months prior to the general election? Then we say you cannot campaign in any state or forum until March 1 of the year in which the election is held. Primaries can't start until June 1 and must conclude by September 1. Then, if you're the candidate, you've got two months to get your message out there. You've got to work smart and hard. The other advantage is that voters aren't dulled by the overstimulation of media hype and excessive advertising messages. Also, cap the amount they can raise at a reasonable amount - Say $2 million. This level of excess is absolutely absurd. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=auUmkmB4O6YE) Then no one's buying a candidate or an election. Ban all contributions from any but private sources and cap private donations at $1000 per donor, not per candidate to severely constrict the influence of lobbies and Political Action Groups on the election. A perfect world would be no donations. You run on the balance in that account each of us can donate to on our tax forms. At the beginning of the election season, every single candidate would get the same amount of money to run on. Then the candidate from each party (EVERY SINGLE ONE) would get another cash infusion from that fund after the primary season. This gives equal voice to the less well-funded candidates and allows real choice to the electorate.

But the next thing that must happen is that, frankly, people have to get smarter. We owe it to ourselves to dig through all the hype and sniping and finger pointing to look at real issues and the candidates' real positions on them. Hopefully having a lot less money for advertising will minimize smear attacks and make that easier, but as voters with strong opinions on many issues, we have a responsibility to do our own homework rather than have the biased media (and they are all biased) do it for us. Do the homework people, don't buy the Cliffs Notes.

And I can honestly say that I am a non-partisan person. I have my values and issues that are very important to me when I cast my vote. I vote for whichever candidate from whatever party best aligns with my positions. Unfortunately, that is getting very hard to do since no one really wants to take a stand.

I am:
Pro-choice

Pro-gun

Anti-No Child Left Behind but very Pro-Education

Pro- Healthcare reform but I'm not sure of the best way. Everyone has a right to healthcare at the same standard regardless of insurance coverage levels. Maybe we legislate that the coverage is the same no matter where your policy lies?

Pro-stem cell and all other research that can be applied to make the world better and strengthen our global competitiveness.

Anti-handout, pro-W2 style welfare. Hand ups, not hand outs.

Anti- big brother government. I can think for myself and am responsible for my actions even when I've been boned by government policies.

Anti-privatization of government services. The move toward faith based initiatives is complete crap. It cost us $4500 in our most recent adoption. Foster care adoptions shouldn't cost a cent.

Pro-Civil Union. I think we need to separate church and state at every single opportunity.

Pro-military and pro-mandatory public service.

Okay, this has gotten too long and no one will read it so I'll stop.
/rant

Mort
09-11-2008, 08:35 AM
I am:
Pro-choice

Pro-gun

Anti-No Child Left Behind but very Pro-Education

Pro- Healthcare reform but I'm not sure of the best way. Everyone has a right to healthcare at the same standard regardless of insurance coverage levels. Maybe we legislate that the coverage is the same no matter where your policy lies?

Pro-stem cell and all other research that can be applied to make the world better and strengthen our global competitiveness.

Anti-handout, pro-W2 style welfare. Hand ups, not hand outs.

Anti- big brother government. I can think for myself and am responsible for my actions even when I've been boned by government policies.

Anti-privatization of government services. The move toward faith based initiatives is complete crap. It cost us $4500 in our most recent adoption. Foster care adoptions shouldn't cost a cent.

Pro-Civil Union. I think we need to separate church and state at every single opportunity.

Pro-military and pro-mandatory public service.
/rant

I don't know about the W2 handouts since I'm not american, and since I'm swedish I'm anti-gun :P Other than that I'm pretty much in your camp :)

Davian93
09-11-2008, 08:36 AM
But the next thing that must happen is that, frankly, people have to get smarter

I'm sorry you lost me at that point.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 08:39 AM
I'm sorry you lost me at that point.

You are being funny, right? I hope you're being funny. I know you're being funny because you don't like being told what to think any more than I do. Which means, of course, as a God-Fearing American, you'll vote for me.

Sei'taer
09-11-2008, 08:59 AM
I am:
Pro-choice

Pro-gun

Anti-No Child Left Behind but very Pro-Education

Pro- Healthcare reform but I'm not sure of the best way. Everyone has a right to healthcare at the same standard regardless of insurance coverage levels. Maybe we legislate that the coverage is the same no matter where your policy lies?

Pro-stem cell and all other research that can be applied to make the world better and strengthen our global competitiveness.

Anti-handout, pro-W2 style welfare. Hand ups, not hand outs.

Anti- big brother government. I can think for myself and am responsible for my actions even when I've been boned by government policies.

Anti-privatization of government services. The move toward faith based initiatives is complete crap. It cost us $4500 in our most recent adoption. Foster care adoptions shouldn't cost a cent.

Pro-Civil Union. I think we need to separate church and state at every single opportunity.

Pro-military and pro-mandatory public service.

Okay, this has gotten too long and no one will read it so I'll stop.
/rant

Wow, I agree with a lot of that! And I think you are partisan, you are just partisan on the issues/ causes. The only things I don't agree on is your stance on healthcare, and while I am anti abortion, I take a totally libertarian view on it. In other words, it's your choice to do what you want...I don't have to like it and I won't stop you from doing it.

One question though, by mandatory public service, do you mean the draft? I'm hoping you can explain that one a little further.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 09:15 AM
Wow, I agree with a lot of that! And I think you are partisan, you are just partisan on the issues/ causes. The only things I don't agree on is your stance on healthcare, and while I am anti abortion, I take a totally libertarian view on it. In other words, it's your choice to do what you want...I don't have to like it and I won't stop you from doing it.

One question though, by mandatory public service, do you mean the draft? I'm hoping you can explain that one a little further.

You and I have the same view on abortion, 'Taer. Government intervention on the abortion issue is legislating morality which I am opposed to in every single situation.

What I mean by mandatory public service is that I think everyone needs to contribute according to skills, interests and abilities to the success of this nation. I favor two years of public service whether that is in the military or in some type of CCC-type organization. In exchange for that, you get two years of post-high school education paid for in addition to being paid while you're performing said service. I am incensed by people who think that they're above military or any other public service because they're a drain on the system as much as welfare recipients are in a lot of ways. Think of all the people who bitch constantly about military spending but are the first to call for the Guard to come in when they need crowd control or sandbags filled. My plan is for 18 year olds to take an aptitude test and undergo assessments to determine their proper placement whether that's the military or the other entity. Functions of the other entity would include working with the department of Interior on National Park maintenance as one example or possibly working in underserved areas assisting in schools (teacher's aides for example) or medical facilities (think Nurse's Aides and Orderlies). The logic is that we all have an obligation to support our country where it's needed. And clearly, thanks to budget cuts and fiscal mismanagement, there are a lot of places where it's needed.

I do, however, want to make sure we have mechanisms to prevent Richie or Regina Rich's dad from buying him or her a place outside the military when it's determined that's where their best use is. Keep in mind that the Military has lots of jobs that don't involve combat and those jobs have been contracted out so that the taxpayers are overpaying for those services now (see again Fiscal Mismanagement). Little Regina could just as easily be trained as a 42A (personnel clerk) or an Illustrator. I am not talking about a situation like Israel has by any means.

Ivhon
09-11-2008, 10:01 AM
Or he's just using an OLD colloquial expression! Here's the problem with our current election process:

The election season is too long. We've been seeing these guys campaign for what seems like forever. How about we alter the regulations to say you cannot file for candidacy until 12 months prior to the general election? Then we say you cannot campaign in any state or forum until March 1 of the year in which the election is held. Primaries can't start until June 1 and must conclude by September 1. Then, if you're the candidate, you've got two months to get your message out there. You've got to work smart and hard. The other advantage is that voters aren't dulled by the overstimulation of media hype and excessive advertising messages. Also, cap the amount they can raise at a reasonable amount - Say $2 million. This level of excess is absolutely absurd. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=auUmkmB4O6YE) Then no one's buying a candidate or an election. Ban all contributions from any but private sources and cap private donations at $1000 per donor, not per candidate to severely constrict the influence of lobbies and Political Action Groups on the election. A perfect world would be no donations. You run on the balance in that account each of us can donate to on our tax forms. At the beginning of the election season, every single candidate would get the same amount of money to run on. Then the candidate from each party (EVERY SINGLE ONE) would get another cash infusion from that fund after the primary season. This gives equal voice to the less well-funded candidates and allows real choice to the electorate.

But the next thing that must happen is that, frankly, people have to get smarter. We owe it to ourselves to dig through all the hype and sniping and finger pointing to look at real issues and the candidates' real positions on them. Hopefully having a lot less money for advertising will minimize smear attacks and make that easier, but as voters with strong opinions on many issues, we have a responsibility to do our own homework rather than have the biased media (and they are all biased) do it for us. Do the homework people, don't buy the Cliffs Notes.

And I can honestly say that I am a non-partisan person. I have my values and issues that are very important to me when I cast my vote. I vote for whichever candidate from whatever party best aligns with my positions. Unfortunately, that is getting very hard to do since no one really wants to take a stand.

I am:
Pro-choice

Pro-gun

Anti-No Child Left Behind but very Pro-Education

Pro- Healthcare reform but I'm not sure of the best way. Everyone has a right to healthcare at the same standard regardless of insurance coverage levels. Maybe we legislate that the coverage is the same no matter where your policy lies?

Pro-stem cell and all other research that can be applied to make the world better and strengthen our global competitiveness.

Anti-handout, pro-W2 style welfare. Hand ups, not hand outs.

Anti- big brother government. I can think for myself and am responsible for my actions even when I've been boned by government policies.

Anti-privatization of government services. The move toward faith based initiatives is complete crap. It cost us $4500 in our most recent adoption. Foster care adoptions shouldn't cost a cent.

Pro-Civil Union. I think we need to separate church and state at every single opportunity.

Pro-military and pro-mandatory public service.

Okay, this has gotten too long and no one will read it so I'll stop.
/rant


As different as ST and I seem to vote....I, too, am right with almost all of this. Im not SO much pro-military - as I think most of that budget is mishandled and could be better spent elsewhere while still maintaining the strongest military in the world (incidentally, I think a lot of our foreign policy problems stem from the fact that our armed forces are so strong and thus we - and the rest of the world - feel the need to use them as a police force instead of as a military force when WE ourselves are threatened).

The only big things I would add to this list - and they are the big reasons why I currently vote Democrat down the line - are government corruption (at its simplest, the influence of money on governance) and dirty politics (divisive wedge non-issues, swiftboating, promising the world with no intention to ever keep it). While both parties are guilty of gross violations on both of these issues, the Republican party is FAR worse currently, simply because they have had a lock on power for so long.

For the record. I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal (Republicans currently lose on both counts) and in my history of Presidential voting I have voted Republican twice and Democrat twice. I will be voting Democrat this year, had I been able to vote in 1988 (was 17) I would have voted Republican.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 10:20 AM
As different as ST and I seem to vote....I, too, am right with almost all of this. Im not SO much pro-military - as I think most of that budget is mishandled and could be better spent elsewhere while still maintaining the strongest military in the world (incidentally, I think a lot of our foreign policy problems stem from the fact that our armed forces are so strong and thus we - and the rest of the world - feel the need to use them as a police force instead of as a military force when WE ourselves are threatened).

The only big things I would add to this list - and they are the big reasons why I currently vote Democrat down the line - are government corruption (at its simplest, the influence of money on governance) and dirty politics (divisive wedge non-issues, swiftboating, promising the world with no intention to ever keep it). While both parties are guilty of gross violations on both of these issues, the Republican party is FAR worse currently, simply because they have had a lock on power for so long.

For the record. I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal (Republicans currently lose on both counts) and in my history of Presidential voting I have voted Republican twice and Democrat twice. I will be voting Democrat this year, had I been able to vote in 1988 (was 17) I would have voted Republican.

We are in full agreement. I actually think that my plan for mandatory public service would fix most of our fiscal mismanagement issues with the military. It's the contractors and the civilians that exacerbate these problems based on my observations.

I actually voted Dem in 88, 92, and 96. I am sorry (I feel dirty and ashamed) to have voted Republican in 2000 and Dem again in 2004. What type of cabinet position can I interest you in? Or would you like to be our Envoy in Moscow?

Neilbert
09-11-2008, 10:41 AM
Pro- Healthcare reform but I'm not sure of the best way. Everyone has a right to healthcare at the same standard regardless of insurance coverage levels. Maybe we legislate that the coverage is the same no matter where your policy lies?

Yes, but what standard is that? Do we keep everyone alive as long as possible, regardless of cost?

In my view, preventative care should be free and available to everyone. When people get problems taken care of early they tend to not grow into bigger problems. I feel this would also encourage people to be more involved in their own care. Public health education would need to be a part of this.

Same for things like broken arms, or pneumonia. The simple, cheap, easy to fix stuff should be free as much as possible.

Where I start to draw the line is end of life care, and ludicrously expensive surgeries and cancer treatments. I don't see the point in spending lots of dollars so someone who is going to die anyways in a few years can cling to life just a little bit longer.

I guess to sum it up I think the priority of medicine should be to keep people healthy, not keep them alive.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Where I start to draw the line is end of life care, and ludicrously expensive surgeries and cancer treatments. I don't see the point in spending lots of dollars so someone who is going to die anyways in a few years can cling to life just a little bit longer.

Um, excuse me?

tanaww
09-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Yes, but what standard is that? Do we keep everyone alive as long as possible, regardless of cost?

In my view, preventative care should be free and available to everyone. When people get problems taken care of early they tend to not grow into bigger problems. I feel this would also encourage people to be more involved in their own care. Public health education would need to be a part of this.

Same for things like broken arms, or pneumonia. The simple, cheap, easy to fix stuff should be free as much as possible.

Where I start to draw the line is end of life care, and ludicrously expensive surgeries and cancer treatments. I don't see the point in spending lots of dollars so someone who is going to die anyways in a few years can cling to life just a little bit longer.

I guess to sum it up I think the priority of medicine should be to keep people healthy, not keep them alive.

I agree with all of that. I don't think anyone should forego basic preventative care because of little or no coverage. And regarding end of life care, there has to be a point where we draw the line. I have lost many, many loved ones to cancer and I am sickened that they were treated to the extent of their insurance coverage rather than the extent to which they derived actual benefit from said care. Granted we all have the right to make choices but there comes a time when the voice of reason kicks in. In my father's case, his return of colon cancer was initially determined to be incurable. They reviewed the case (his insurance coverage IMO) and decided six weeks of Chemo would be appropriate. He did six weeks of chemo for over a year until he himself pulled the plug on it. He'd had enough. He was dying and he accepted that. Two and a half months later, he was gone. I would never willingly give up the fight if I were in that position but you have to know that some doctors are ordering treatments that are most likely to be unsuccessful just to avoid being the bearer of bad news.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 11:00 AM
Um, excuse me?

I don't think anyone is saying we don't treat cancer but we've all seen examples where treatment was extended past its usefulness. I think if it were me, I'd fight as long as I thought I could win but when I wasn't winning anymore, I'd focus on quality of life for as long as I had a life. Know what I mean?

Neilbert
09-11-2008, 11:07 AM
I don't think anyone is saying we don't treat cancer but we've all seen examples where treatment was extended past its usefulness.

Flies right over Gil's head and is caught by tanaww.

Yes, I was talking about pulling out all the stops to keep some guy alive an extra year, not giving someone with a potentially long and reasonably healthy life ahead of them treatment.

It's really one of those cost/benefit things. Of course just about anyone is going to say "keep me alive as long as possible dammit!" but if they aren't paying for it it shouldn't be their choice.

Cary Sedai
09-11-2008, 11:07 AM
I agree, too. (I also agree with everything in Tana's first post, then ST's then Ivhons... pretty much.)

My ma was a nurse. She worked in neo-natal. She would come home some days just so stressed and sad. (I know, I just went to the complete oppossite end...) She felt that most of those babies should not be undergoing the extreme measures to keep them alive. They are in pain, they can't be held or cuddled, and in most cases have severe medical problems the rest of thier lives. Of course there were the babies they call "grower/feeders". You feed them, they grow, they go home.

She also worked in ICU, and was against the extreme measures there. In the same ways that have already been pointed out.

She died of cancer. Her right kidney was engulfed in a 5lb tumor. Her first "battle" against cancer was the removal of that kidney. She never really bounced back. The cancer spread to her lymphatic system, and into her lungs. There was so much of it that she knew no matter how much treatment she recived, it would only extend her life a short time, and not cure her cancer.

She opted to stay home, do things to make her comfortable. Her colon was in covered in cancer, she got a colostomy bag. She started having trouble breathing, she got oxygen. From diagnosis to her death, took one year, almost to the date.

Also, even though she was a nurse, she worked contract. She had no insurance. I feel that if she did have insurance, she might have gone to the doctor when she first started having trouble, about a year before she was diagnosed. But, can't change the past so I don't worry about it.

I've seen this issue from a medical workers perspective, and as the daughter of one going through it.

Davian93
09-11-2008, 11:21 AM
Ideal and best form of government: Davocracy

Basically I run things as a benevolent (well sometimes) dictator. No more pesky decisions for folks...I'll make them all for you.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-11-2008, 11:22 AM
Flies right over Gil's head and is caught by tanaww.

Yes, I was talking about pulling out all the stops to keep some guy alive an extra year, not giving someone with a potentially long and reasonably healthy life ahead of them treatment.

Since you have no f'ing clue what I'm going through right now, I'm going to ignore your rather snotty dismissal and leave this dicussion posthaste.

Davian93
09-11-2008, 11:24 AM
In a Davocracy all serfs, ahem, Davizens will have universal healthcare free of cost.

Brita
09-11-2008, 11:38 AM
These are VERY personal decisions we are talking about. And they should remain decisions. If you pull funding on treatment for terminal illnesses (i.e. cancer, heart disease whatever) you rob people of their choice.

So someone has terminal lung cancer, and they want to live another 6 months to see their daughter get married. They are poor and don't have an extra $ 50, 000 kicking around. Do they get told no, because that extra 6 months is deemed meaningless by Neilbert? Be very careful when you make unilateral decisions that affect millions of people and their individual circumstances.

I agree- there are often situations where any further treatment is not helpful, and actually harmful. That is when the physician and patient discuss the options and a decision is made. I see this all the time. But I've also seen patients tolerate chemo and live 2 years longer than expected, and watch their baby grow into a toddler who may actually remember them. They were given 4 months, even with treatment.

Of course, I am speaking from the Canadian perspective, which highly values universal health care- i.e. the rich don't get to live longer just because they are rich.

To suggest taking away this option altogether (i.e. remove funding) shows a lack of understanding of the diversity of patients and their disease, and a lack of compassion of people's individual circumstances, a contempt for the millions of hours of work put into trying to find cures and treatments for terrible diseases and a utter lack of trust in physicians in general to make the ethical decisions for their patients.

READ THIS before replying:

I completely agree that more emphasis and funding needs to be given preventative measures and early treatment. In fact, the emphasis should be here, I couldn't agree more.

Ivhon
09-11-2008, 11:49 AM
We are in full agreement. I actually think that my plan for mandatory public service would fix most of our fiscal mismanagement issues with the military. It's the contractors and the civilians that exacerbate these problems based on my observations.

I actually voted Dem in 88, 92, and 96. I am sorry (I feel dirty and ashamed) to have voted Republican in 2000 and Dem again in 2004. What type of cabinet position can I interest you in? Or would you like to be our Envoy in Moscow?


Pfft. Ivhon for King.

What you two are pushing for is an Oligarchy. Appoint all your friends to the top posts, you agree on everything and thats what gets done. Now, your Oligarchy is an enlightened one, Ill grant (compared to the moronic and borderline evil Oligarchy we have been under for the last 8 years), however Oligarchy is just inefficient compared to monarchy. You get to all the right decisions, sure, but you waste so much time with the required formalities of cabinet meetings and debates and the like.

I cut all that crap out and just make the call.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 11:49 AM
These are VERY personal decisions we are talking about. And they should remain decisions. If you pull funding on treatment for terminal illnesses (i.e. cancer, heart disease whatever) you rob people of their choice.

So someone has terminal lung cancer, and they want to live another 6 months to see their daughter get married. They are poor and don't have an extra $ 50, 000 kicking around. Do they get told no, because that extra 6 months is deemed meaningless by Neilbert? Be very careful when you make unilateral decisions that affect millions of people and their individual circumstances.

I agree- there are often situations where any further treatment is not helpful, and actually harmful. That is when the physician and patient discuss the options and a decision is made. Period.

Of course, I am speaking from the Canadian perspective, which highly values universal health care- i.e. the rich don't get to live longer just because they are rich.

To suggest taking away this option altogether (i.e. remove funding) shows a lack of understanding of the diversity of patients and their disease, and a lack of compassion of people's individual circumstances, a contempt for the millions of hours of work put into trying to find cures and treatments for terrible diseases and a utter lack of trust in physicians in general to make the ethical decisions for their patients.

READ THIS before replying:

I completely agree that more emphasis and funding needs to be given preventative measures and early treatment. In fact, the emphasis should be here, I couldn't agree more.

I agree wholeheartedly.

1. Healthcare - especially primary care - needs to be accessible to everyone.
2. Patients and physicians need to be in control. Not insurers and not government.
3. Quality of care should not be dependent upon levels of coverage.
4. No one should be denied treatment based on ability to pay. The one advantage of Universal Healthcare, in my opinion, is that it does level the field as far as quality and access. I just have serious doubts about the bureaucrazy (sic) currently in charge and likely to be in charge for the near term to create a functional, successful plan with a minimum of red tape and rigmarole. It will also be expensive from a taxpayer standpoint. Lots of people want it. No one is willing to pay for it. But no one should suffer because they can't afford healthcare. Period. If you want to talk about torture, let's look right there. And before you tell me that insurance companies are behind rising costs, keep in mind I can see all the hospital expansion projects going on around here. Construction isn't cheap and I don't think I should be paying for it through inflated health care costs.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Pfft. Ivhon for King.

What you two are pushing for is an Oligarchy. Appoint all your friends to the top posts, you agree on everything and thats what gets done. Now, your Oligarchy is an enlightened one, Ill grant (compared to the moronic and borderline evil Oligarchy we have been under for the last 8 years), however Oligarchy is just inefficient compared to monarchy. You get to all the right decisions, sure, but you waste so much time with the required formalities of cabinet meetings and debates and the like.

I cut all that crap out and just make the call.

Well, what is so funny is that a lot of the people I talk with on a regular basis have similar positions. It is almost as if *gasp* Joe Politician has lost contact with Joe Everyman because of all the PAC noise in the middle. Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of it?

Brita
09-11-2008, 11:52 AM
My ma was a nurse. She worked in neo-natal. She would come home some days just so stressed and sad. (I know, I just went to the complete oppossite end...) She felt that most of those babies should not be undergoing the extreme measures to keep them alive. They are in pain, they can't be held or cuddled, and in most cases have severe medical problems the rest of thier lives. Of course there were the babies they call "grower/feeders". You feed them, they grow, they go home.


This is a tough one because the little babies aren't making the decision for themselves...I can definitely empathize with your mom's dilemma.

And I am not marginalizing your mom's experience (or tanaww's father)- this does happen regularly. And yes, sometimes people are treated longer than is beneficial on any level. I have seen that too. But for every story of extended suffering, there are stories of little miracles like the dad who saw his baby grow.

Brita
09-11-2008, 11:55 AM
to tana- Ahh- see I don't really know the whole "Insurance Company" aspect- and the fact that they determine patient care is definitely a foreign concept to me. I'll have to bow out of any discussion on that point. :)

tanaww
09-11-2008, 11:57 AM
This is a tough one because the little babies aren't making the decision for themselves...I can definitely empathize with your mom's dilemma.

And I am not marginalizing your mom's experience (or tanaww's father)- this does happen regularly. And yes, sometimes people are treated longer than is beneficial on any level. I have seen that too. But for every story of extended suffering, there are stories of little miracles like the dad who saw his baby grow.

/agree.

Brita
09-11-2008, 12:02 PM
/agree.

I vote Tana/Hopper!

Neilbert
09-11-2008, 12:13 PM
These are VERY personal decisions we are talking about. And they should remain decisions. If you pull funding on treatment for terminal illnesses (i.e. cancer, heart disease whatever) you rob people of their choice.

If you don't pay my bills, then you are robbing me of my choice to live here. I need $500 by the first of the month. Pay up, or are you going to rob me of my very personal decision?

Do they get told no, because that extra 6 months is deemed meaningless by Neilbert?

Yes. What I find interesting here is that you seem to be saying that the life of someone with family is worth less than the life of someone with out. Life is life.

Of course, I am speaking from the Canadian perspective, which highly values universal health care- i.e. the rich don't get to live longer just because they are rich.

The rich get to live longer because they are rich. Thats life. Money can be used to give people longer lives in ways that have very little to do with universal health care.

To suggest taking away this option altogether

It's really one of those cost/benefit things.

I'm not talking about taking away the option all together, I'm saying it should be a lot lower on the list of priorities.

But I've also seen patients tolerate chemo and live 2 years longer than expected, and watch their baby grow into a toddler who may actually remember them. They were given 4 months, even with treatment.

Anecdotes are useless. We have statistics for a reason.

Oh, and Brita. Even in systems of Universal Healthcare patients get told no, this treatment isn't worth the cost.

Davian93
09-11-2008, 12:24 PM
Neilbert is not welcome in the Davocracy.

tanaww
09-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Neilbert is not welcome in the Davocracy.

Well, there's one advantage to the Davocracy then. But Tana/Hopper is the way. Look how I'm already building consensus with the Canadians! Sei Taer, Ivhon and I are all in agreement. The stars are aligning, good sir. The stars are aligning!

Brita
09-11-2008, 01:09 PM
If you don't pay my bills, then you are robbing me of my choice to live here. I need $500 by the first of the month. Pay up, or are you going to rob me of my very personal decision?

This is a fundamental difference in policy. I strongly support Universal Healthcare- as in all people have equal access to treatment. Canada also carries that philosophy into housing, as in "All people have the right to have shelter". That is why we have such extensive social programs. It is probably a core value that we won't agree on. I do pay other people's bills through Welfare. And I don't mind.

Yes. What I find interesting here is that you seem to be saying that the life of someone with family is worth less than the life of someone with out. Life is life.

Nope, just saying everybody has different circumstances. I was alluding to your comment "someone is going to die anyway in a few years"- you were placing your own value on what time is worth. Which of course is totally subjective. A couple of years, or even a couple of months, can be very significant. I know statistics matter, but so does life. You wouldn't argue "Why cover the cost of morphine for the palliative patient, it is just a waste as the person is going to die tomorrow". Because you wouldn't deny the person pain relief- but purely from a monetary standpoint it is not beneficial. Yet you are willing to deny them time purely from a monetary standpoint- you know- statistics and all.

The rich get to live longer because they are rich. Thats life. Money can be used to give people longer lives in ways that have very little to do with universal health care.


Doesn't mean we have to accpt it as right or permanent.


I'm not talking about taking away the option all together, I'm saying it should be a lot lower on the list of priorities.

Agree.

Anecdotes are useless. We have statistics for a reason.

Agree (but they pull at the heartstring don't they?). However, my main issue with your premise is what is considered worthwhile and what is not? In my line of work (Lung Cancer) a success is determined in weeks for stage 4 lung cancer patients. I had a trial that had overall survival as an endpoint, and they hoped for an increase of 4 weeks in survival. When you minimize a few years of added life as not worthwhile- it seems ludicrous when I run trials by pharmacetical companies that are measuring success in weeks.

Oh, and Brita. Even in systems of Universal Healthcare patients get told no, this treatment isn't worth the cost.

True. That is if the treatment has no proven benefit. As in, it will not alleviate symptoms or increase life expectancy at all. That is why we run Clinical Trials, to gather that data and put the case to Health Canada (or FDA) for approval if the endpoint has been met. And most often the drug will be approved.

I threw my answers into your quote.

Seeker
09-11-2008, 05:24 PM
Its kind of sad that Palin receives any support at all. She's not only a hypocrite herself, but her presence on the McCain ticket is a repudiation of most major issues McCain believes in.

Frankly, the Democrats need to get off their high horse and hit back at McCain-Palin. I understand Obama is running on a platform built on distancing himself from those politics, the kind of despicable behavior that won Bush the election in 04, but c'mon... the inconsistency within the Republican campaign is just too easy! Its a crime not to point it out. Winning the election is more important than running an honorable campaign, a fact the right learned a long time ago and the Democrats need to embrace now. In an electoral environment where the sleazeball seems to win most often, its worth it to grease yourself up a bit in order to be able to dictate a better policy for four years.

Ahem!

White hats don't have plants in black hat offices. If they did, they'd be, you know... gray hats.

Is winning the election worth it if one has to sell one's integrity to do it. Presumably, one enters politics to make a difference. To accomplish that, one's moral compass must in tact.

Seeker
09-11-2008, 06:23 PM
Yes, I was talking about pulling out all the stops to keep some guy alive an extra year, not giving someone with a potentially long and reasonably healthy life ahead of them treatment.

It's really one of those cost/benefit things. Of course just about anyone is going to say "keep me alive as long as possible dammit!" but if they aren't paying for it it shouldn't be their choice.

I disagree. I can't support the government or a hospital's finance department or a client's financial circumstances dictating whether a terminally ill patient receives treatment.

The only valid standard for determining whether to treat a patient is triage. (And in the case of the terminally ill, triage only determines in what ORDER they should be treated). A patient may decline treatment, but cannot be denied it if he requires it.

It is the government and the public's responsiblity to ensure Doctors can follow triage appropriately by providing them with the necessary means to do so.