Ok, that's it; nobody else move to Utah

[lemon boy]

Pardon my french, But who the fuck are you to tell people when they can and can't have a family? I know I would never have quailified to have a kid under your fuckwit plan. No drugs. But, I was unemployed and did not have a consitent emplyment history. I didn't mean that I was not ready for the responsibility and that I didn't buck up and do what had to be done immediatly after I found it (because I did). I just chose to live my life around different principles that making dough. So I never worked more than I had to becdause I wanted to spend my time skiing, climbing and doing other things I love. That doesn't give you the right to dictate my right to my daughter. It may not have happened under ideal circumstances, but I can honestly tell you that it is the best thing to ever happen in my life and if some fucking asshole who thinks he's better than every body else had been able to say I couldn't have her I'd be missing out on the greatest chapter of my life. I know maybe your clinic should also do a DNA check to make sure that there are no undesirable genetic "defects" that could possibly surface too, that way you can create a race of genetically superior people. It would be like Hitler without the killing.

FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK

Back to remedial reading comp for you.

here's a plan, read, digest; then smoke crack.

[Stoysluttie1]

I know that nobody is reading this thread now except for a few people, but, regressing just a bit to the conversation about water rights........There is an extremely interesting book called CADILLAC DESERT by Marc Reisner which is a history of water in the West. It's more exciting than you can imagine and very well-written. Anybody that lives west of the Mississippi should check it out. It talks all about the schemes to bring water from Canada and Alaska down to the lush deserts of the American southwest.

I'd also include books by Wallace Stegner, The man himself..Powell, Gary Snyder, Terry Tempest-Williams, and one other which the author slips my mind..Hell or High water..concerning water in the SW.

[Buzzworthy]

Hey, 2 of us moved into a house that had 4 people living in it. So, the population decreased in Sugar House.

Also, most of my clothes are still boxed up. I've been wearing the same pair of pants and few shirts for over a week now, so I'm doing my part to conserve water.

OK you hick, you are not in WestByGodVirginia no more. Wash yer damn clothes!


I agree and disagree with all or some of you. That is my story and I am sticking with it.


Edit: and I would like to add that my parents have a yard full of rocks and cacti in Tucson. 50 feet out the back though is the 8th Tee Box for the REALLY GREEN 18 hole course.


And where the hell does all the irrigation water go that flows down my damn street???

[Spats]

Here's what I would do with the health care issue:

The medical profession should not be socialized. If a doctor wants to do lipo and facelifts on aging LA society women, go ahead.

The government should provide for basic preventative and emergency care for all citizens. Routine physical? Covered. Routine dental exams, tooth cleaning, and fillings? Covered. Break a leg, burn yourself, blow a knee, car wreck? Covered. Vaccines, flu shots? Covered. Antibiotics and wound care? Covered. Childhood asthma and ear infections? Covered.

What the government can't afford to cover: end-of-life care, self-neglect, cosmetic, or elaborate/expensive treatments. Bypass surgery? Not covered. Need machines to breathe or pump your heart? Not covered. Stomach stapling? Not covered. Organ transplants? Not covered. And so on.

That does *NOT* mean doctors can't perform these operations, or that you can't purchase insurance covering them -- just that the *government* doesn't cover it.

This would be many times cheaper to administrate than the nightmare we have now, and improve the quality of most people's life tremendously.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I don't know, Spats, but I think what you propose would have the effect of leaving most people who need things like organ transplants and end of life care uninsured, as there would be few insurers charging reasonable premiums for care that was limited to the most expensive treatments. Favoring government coverage of blown knees over organ transplants? Doesn't sound right to me.

[Core Shot]

I'm with spats on this one - have been for years.
If I actually tought the govt could do a basic insurance plan without it growing to ridiculous bloated coverage and cost I would be more in favor.

With basic coverage included, insurers could charge $25 a month for the extreme organ transplants, etc (assuming of course that enough people are paying into that insurance pool). What makes insurance so expensive are the regular checkups, visits, prescriptions, treatments, etc. for the average guy with a medical condition.

Now the real question is do you still have a Medicaid or provider of last resort government program??
If so, then the insurance program will only be used by folks with enough money. Any normal schmo will realize that if he needs a kidney, all he has to do is give/spend all his money to become poor, and Medicaid will take care of him.
OTOH, to not have Medicaid leaves a world of images of sick and dying elderly and poor organ failures without insurance. Any politician would immediately fund a new program to take care of these folks. So I think you do have Medicaid also.

So now, the only point of a "basic national health care plan" is to have cost savings from 1) efficiency (one provider versus thousands of insurance cos) and 2) preventive care (e.g. seeing the doc earlier at the first symptom versus waiting for the tumor to grow cause you cant afford the office visit and xray expense).
I dont know how much money would be saved by #2, but #1 is questionable if this is a govt program. US Govt is never more efficient than private sector.
Maybe if this were a program run by a private co chosen as the low bidder? Even so, with the govt writing the rules and regulations and doing the oversight, it would still be a fiasco.



Insurance is totally screwed no matter how you look at it.

[shamrockpow]

I dont know how much money would be saved by #2, but #1 is questionable if this is a govt program. US Govt is never more efficient than private sector.
Maybe if this were a program run by a private co chosen as the low bidder? Even so, with the govt writing the rules and regulations and doing the oversight, it would still be a fiasco.



Insurance is totally screwed no matter how you look at it.

Yesterday's Paul Krugman column:

Passing the Buck
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The United States spends far more on health care than other advanced countries. Yet we don't appear to receive more medical services. And we have lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rates than countries that spend less than half as much per person. How do we do it?

An important part of the answer is that much of our health care spending is devoted to passing the buck: trying to get someone else to pay the bills.

According to the World Health Organization, in the United States administrative expenses eat up about 15 percent of the money paid in premiums to private health insurance companies, but only 4 percent of the budgets of public insurance programs, which consist mainly of Medicare and Medicaid. The numbers for both public and private insurance are similar in other countries - but because we rely much more heavily than anyone else on private insurance, our total administrative costs are much higher.

According to the health organization, the higher costs of private insurers are "mainly due to the extensive bureaucracy required to assess risk, rate premiums, design benefit packages and review, pay or refuse claims." Public insurance plans have far less bureaucracy because they don't try to screen out high-risk clients or charge them higher fees.

And the costs directly incurred by insurers are only half the story. Doctors "must hire office personnel just to deal with the insurance companies," Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing physician, wrote in The New Yorker. "A well-run office can get the insurer's rejection rate down from 30 percent to, say, 15 percent. That's how a doctor makes money. ... It's a war with insurance, every step of the way."

Isn't competition supposed to make the private sector more efficient than the public sector? Well, as the World Health Organization put it in a discussion of Western Europe, private insurers generally don't compete by delivering care at lower cost. Instead, they "compete on the basis of risk selection" - that is, by turning away people who are likely to have high medical bills and by refusing or delaying any payment they can.

Yet the cost of providing medical care to those denied private insurance doesn't go away. If individuals are poor, or if medical expenses impoverish them, they are covered by Medicaid. Otherwise, they pay out of pocket or rely on the charity of public hospitals.

So we've created a vast and hugely expensive insurance bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. The resources spent by private insurers don't reduce overall costs; they simply shift those costs to other people and institutions. It's perverse but true that this system, which insures only 85 percent of the population, costs much more than we would pay for a system that covered everyone.

And the costs go beyond wasted money.

First, in the U.S. system, medical costs act as a tax on employment. For example, General Motors is losing money on every car it makes because of the burden of health care costs. As a result, it may be forced to lay off thousands of workers, or may even go out of business. Yet the insurance premiums saved by firing workers are no saving at all to society as a whole: somebody still ends up paying the bills.

Second, Americans without insurance eventually receive medical care - but the operative word is "eventually." According to Kaiser Family Foundation data, the uninsured are about three times as likely as the insured to postpone seeking care, fail to get needed care, leave prescriptions unfilled or skip recommended treatment. And many end up disabled - or die - because of these delays.

Think about how crazy all of this is. At a rough guess, between two million and three million Americans are employed by insurers and health care providers not to deliver health care, but to pass the buck for that care to someone else. And the result of all their exertions is to make the nation poorer and sicker.

Why do we put up with such an expensive, counterproductive health care system? Vested interests play an important role. But we also suffer from ideological blinders: decades of indoctrination in the virtues of market competition and the evils of big government have left many Americans unable to comprehend the idea that sometimes competition is the problem, not the solution.

In the next column in this series, I'll talk about how ideology leads to "reforms" that make things worse.

Say what you want about Krugman, but he was an excellent economist at one time and this column does not go too far into his foaming at the mouth attacks on GWB and co.

[Trackhead]

Nice find shamrockpow! Good read.

The depth of this issue is staggering.

[FollowMe]

Good information on medical malpractice issues.

If you believe this is a credible source, I'm not sure how you believe insurance companies are crooks. It (and all their other med mal material) clearly states that insurance companies have left the industry because of poor performance. If it were such a scam, wouldn't more companies be doing just the opposite - - flooding in? Since 2000, insurance companies have been paying in excess of $1 for every dollar of med mal premium they have collected. Do the math and you'll quickly see why more companies have left and and the few that have stayed have increased their premiums.

I know we all like to think of the big bad insurance companies, but in this case, that's an excuse. What is the cause? I'll give you a hint - - it starts w/ a C and ends with an M.

Totally agree Shmerm. Why the F can't I find any decent catastrophic care insurance (even with a high deductable)? I haven't been to anything more than the free clinic in 5 years and I feel fine.

Check Kristen's post in this thread, she's paying $35 a month w/ a $1k deductible. Don't know much about the coverage, but it's a place to start:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=28988

[Trackhead]

Posted by Followme:
Do the math and you'll quickly see why more companies have left and and the few that have stayed have increased their premiums.

EXACTLY! I never said malpractice insurance providers were making money. My point was that their increase in premiums is affecting and dictating your health care. The premiums are rising because of our litigious society.

First hand info on malpractice prices for a PA and a Doc in our ER.

PA yearly premium:$5,000, raising $1500 dollars per year.
Doc:$30,000 this year, $35,000 next year.

We just had a class put on my malpractice insurance providers. When a complaint is filed, they typically just fork out $50,000 dollars to the plaintiff to avoid having to go to court, etc. Like a pacifier. And this is about illegit complaints, not wrongful amputations of limbs.

If you don't think expensive malpractice insurance premiums is affecting your health care costs, your mistaken. I see this every day at work. Every day.

[Trackhead]

When you go to the doctor, you are being treated by a lawyer and an insurance company, not an MD. How does that make you feel? The doctor is just a puppet for the attorney/insurance company behind the scene.

[FollowMe]

When you go to the doctor, you are being treated by a lawyer and an insurance company, not an MD. How does that make you feel? The doctor is just a puppet for the attorney/insurance company behind the scene.

I think that is a really scary thought. And, I think that's why you pick one primary care providor and stick w/ him/her over the long term to develop a trustworthy relationship that would alow you and the doc to throw all the BS out the window and get back to the issue at hand - - your health. There is some sort of misconception out there that doctors are perfect. We as patients have to accept that there are inherant risks involved w/ medical treatment. In some cases there has to be some moral high ground to be taken by the patient and/or family if a mistake is made by a doctor. Wouldn't that be refreshing (although highly unlikely)?

[13]

I love it -- a thread SLC's population ballooning has turned into a debate about health care.

[Trackhead]

I think in the Primary care side of practice, there is good honesty, etc.

But I have to be honest, in the ER up here in Logan, we order tests and do procedures that are in some part "cover your ass" and part because the doc can bill for them.

At Cottonwood ER in SLC where I use to work, the doctors starting doing splint application and not having the other staff do them. They said that way they could bill it as a doc procedure. Guess what, we still put them on in most cases, they just billed that they put them on. They didn't want to be tied up with the time it takes to put them on. But they wanted the bucks for it.

Like when an ER bills that a nurse did the blood draw, vs. the tech. You can bill more for when a nurse does it vs. the tech.

Quagmire.

[Trackhead]

I love it -- a thread SLC's population ballooning has turned into a debate about health care.

Seems to happen in 50% of the threads. They go to shit quickly.

Maybe it happened in this thread because health care costs are more easily discussed than ethical issues concerning limiting population growth.

[13]

TH -- I've been around long enough to expect this sort of thing to happen.

I was making an amusing observation -- better to debate health care instead of debate how to kill 'em all off, eh?

[Trackhead]

TH -- I've been around long enough to expect this sort of thing to happen.

I was making an amusing observation -- better to debate health care instead of debate how to kill 'em all off, eh?

It's more fun to talk about killing 'em off though. Beaurcratic issues are stale by nature.

[Red Baron]

Ok, since we're off topic, how about this tidbit from the news today?

LEWD BEHAVIOR -- A 20-year-old Orem resident was cited for lewdness around 6 p.m. Thursday after wearing thong underwear with a pair of jeans with the rear end cut out on State Street in Orem, according to police. The man was stopped at 50 S. State by an officer and cited for lewdness after passersby called police.

He was then given a trash bag to cover himself until he got home. However, he refused to wear bag and asked the officer to give him a ride. The officer declined on the basis of having just cleaned the seats in his car and called for a ride for the man instead. The officer then instructed the young man that he was to stay seated on the ground until his ride arrived or the officer would arrest the man for lewdness and book him into jail. The man apparently complied.

[Trackhead]

Ok, since we're off topic, how about this tidbit from the news today?

LEWD BEHAVIOR -- A 20-year-old Orem resident was cited for lewdness around 6 p.m. Thursday after wearing thong underwear with a pair of jeans with the rear end cut out on State Street in Orem, according to police. The man was stopped at 50 S. State by an officer and cited for lewdness after passersby called police.

He was then given a trash bag to cover himself until he got home. However, he refused to wear bag and asked the officer to give him a ride. The officer declined on the basis of having just cleaned the seats in his car and called for a ride for the man instead. The officer then instructed the young man that he was to stay seated on the ground until his ride arrived or the officer would arrest the man for lewdness and book him into jail. The man apparently complied.

Disgusting. But much more entertaining.

[Core Shot]

Your state frightens me. that is the only thing preventing me from moving there.

perhaps the Nazi police are part of the plan to keep no new people from moving to Yew-tahhh

[machschnell]

I recently gave a presentation on water conservation and it boiled down to one thing...curbing population growth. More natinal parks, monuemnts, wilderness, ets. Conservation land easements, no child tax credits to encourage growth, sustainability.

but the damn capitalist....enter mr. G.

Bravo!...You got it...Unfortunately, not enough people agree with you and me on this...The odds are stacked against us on this one...Global warming is advancing and the mountains are being overrun these days. Nobody cares about rampant population growth except for a few...Too much $$$ to be found these days in exploiting growth, resources, and the environment...And the concept of 'sustainable' has become 'elitist' in many minds...

[Elitist]

Lest we forget the subject at hand:



photo (with exception of the poor photo-shop steeze) courtesy of Shredgar.

[powdog]

I haven't looked at the statistics where religion is highlighted, but I've seen more Catholic and Orthodox churches (the two branches of the True Faith, everyone else is a heretic ). I go to Utah at least twice a year to ski, so I notice these things.

Hispanic immigration is growing by leaps and bounds in Utah. But the Mormon church has a stranglehold on the state (television, newspapers, state officials, city officials, etc.). That's why polygamy is tolerated or winked-at or glossed over - and almost all polygamy cases never go to trial, because the justice system (sheriffs, police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, etc.) does not care.

[cololi]

I think this thread exposes the heart of the growth issue in the west. most people just do not see it as ahigh priority issue. It is hard to argue with them sometimes, especially when we have a wet winter/spring like we have. Utah is a pretty dry state (historically). It will take a catastrophic drought to change the attitude about water resources. There is a lot that can be done to preerve water, not just through better landscaping practices, but also through improved infrastucture (supply lines, canals, etc). Salt Lake City did a study several years ago that showed that they lost 15-20% of there supply through leaks in their own supply lines. That is enough water to supply roughly 60,000 people (or 20,000 homes). Buzz hit something that is a huge issue as well, wasted canal water. While most canal water isn't suitable for drinking by the time it gets to the end user, it can be extracted earlier and used for other things, like recharging aquifers, reservoirs, etc. Better metering of water shares would be good. Most water shares now are timed, meaning you an open your head gates for a certain number of hours. Why not limit it to an amount instead of a time.

Better land use policies (including more flexible landscaping laws, increased densities, etc) are going to have to be a major part of any growth plan.

[skifishbum]

[QUOTE=Elitist]Lest we forget the subject at hand:



My pesonal fav is any time I bitched about the theocrathy or cult influence, the reponse was usually "We didn't ask you to come here" Looks like these cats above are holding personal invatations from the original "UTES"

"Manifest Destiny" I belive is the term