patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

justme says

Wait a minute: 850k previously uninsured have joined and paid. But how many of the 7.1M were previously uninsured, and just haven't paid yet?

The numbers given do not provide a complete picyure of what is going on.

You tell US why they have been hiding that number??

One report I saw said that 25% were previously uninsured, so that would make roughly 1.7 million NEW insured...

So, 5.4 million previously had insurance that was cancelled and they just re-signed up on the Obamacare web site...

1.7 million is a long way off from the 30 Million to 40 Million Obama said would get insurance with his awesome program....

You miss the point entirely. Less than .3% of the population went from uninsured to insured, pretty much an insignificant number. So what was the point of this entire exercise? Hmmm. How many people are now having their premiums subsidized? Who are these people that are now getting subsidized health care insurance? Maybe they are in the lower income levels. Maybe they are democrats. Maybe they are voters. What? Politicians buying votes with taxpayer money. Shocking. Say it ain't so joe. I really don't see how anyone could have missed the fact that obamacare was first and foremost a vote buying scheme.

I don't know if it's bad or good. I'm worried that this will turn politics into a bidding system of plutocracy, but I'm sure that already happens anyway so who knows what this will mean...

I have been reading here all along, but I was posting more to Japantoday.com. I will post again soon.

HeadSet says

A buyer's agent works with people wanting to purchase homes, by presenting listings and driving clients to properties.

Sure, they look at the mls and in the paper and fsbo sites and drive-bys - but they only show those homes where they'll get a commission. And they don't leave their seat to do it. They also favor listings with higher commissions or those that are "in-shop.' In other words, they don't do much for you.

FSBO is the way to go.

An unmitigated disaster, and the greatest cover-up in the history of human civilization.

This will surely destroy the entire solar system, and quite possibly the entire Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. Indeed: the entire local group of galaxies will never be the same.

If only we could have the Republican plan for health care, which is described as follows:

It is do-able selling your own house and yes the buyer will benefit too without 2 realtors cutting into the price. Orange
county prices have exploded here because of those commissions.
asking prices are 16% too high on a $500k house that's $80,000.

sbh says

In general we should be able to do as we please with our money, but at some point politicians will insulate themselves from the electorate by exploiting donors and redistricting.

That's what I'm worried about. Bribery won't really go away, and we are just making it easier.

"Who wants ICE CREAM!!!?!????!?"
(Everybody)
"Ooooh I do I DO!!!"

"Who can pay for it?!?"
(Crickets)

Call it Crazy says

Unfortunately, it will NEVER happen... The "sheep" are too pre-programmed to believe they HAVE to pay a realtor 6% to sell their house....

It's just like why a third party hasn't been able to take hold in this country... The "sheep" are too pre-programmed to think there is ONLY two teams... The Red team and Blue team (which are really the same in the end)....

When I look at RedFin, they don't even have a "buye agent", so they are changing it from commission to salary. I'm sure it can be done better too.

Using a realtor is an old system, that is probably going to be phased out on it's own. Internet makes MLS searches a lot easier. Back in the days there was no MLS, so that's where realtors/brokers were actually needed.

This is Good, Tony Starks should be able to finance my bid to Whitehouse.

Conservatives and the GOP simply can't stand that ACA is now starting to work and its becoming more popular. The billionaires who bought their politicians are probably also crying little bitter tears that they wasted billions of dollars on trying to stop it and lost. What a shame. They could have used that money for actual good works in society instead of trying to constantly stop the unstoppable progress which errodes the GOP's position as time goes on.

Yup. This event in history will prove once more that conservatives were once more on the wrong side of history and can add this loss to the mountain of losses they've accumulated over the course of the history of the US.

CaptainShuddup says

"Who wants ICE CREAM!!!?!????!?"

(Everybody)

"Ooooh I do I DO!!!"

"Kullyfornians shoont huff ta pay a cah tax!"

- Arnold "Buy Your Votes with Someone Else's Money" Schwarzeneggah

"We can cut taxes and boost military spending, and the budget will be fine."

- Ronald "Let Your Grandchildren Pay For It" Reagan

VA/Big Pharm's cocktails of their Block Buster Psychotropics drive much of this hideous outcome.

These poor suckers need psychedelics not toxic SSRIs.
Psilocybin, DMT, and MDMA regimens can effectively treat PTSD.

Well I mean Liberals have these nice one of, roll up solutions for everyone else, why not Suicidal vets?

CaptainShuddup says

Well I mean Liberals have these nice one of, roll up solutions for everyone else, why not Suicidal vets?

I can't really training for hours in diet mode. interestingly. strength, adequately training for hours. How can trying to meals consuming 5 in 3 weeks, 20lbs, despite the abnormality of eating so many, sleeping, speed and recovery of 4 sets of 4, one set of 5 day splits, 3 weeks and a minimum of 6-8 repped. Now you're green.

It will just result in creative bookkeeping, where they will interpret an absolute rule this way...

The only solution is to gut centralized government

errc says

Less access to western medicine often does result in better health. That crap will kill you

Total bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. There are numerous anti-anxiety, anti-depression medications which have been on the market for decades, some of which my family has been on and the result was a total and drastic improvement in their lives. Mental health is like anything else. If you have a heart problem that precribed medication can help remedy then naturally you would take those. The same is true for mental disorders. Your brain runs on chemicals and electricity. All these medications do is to help correct some of those chemical interactions so that the brain can then function more normally.

edvard2 says

There are numerous anti-anxiety, anti-depression medications which have been on the market for decades

Meta studies indicate SSRIs are no more effective than placebo past 3 months.
And yet people stay on them for years.
edvard2 says

If you have a heart problem that precribed medication can help remedy then naturally you would take those.

Or maybe you have arthritis and got prescribed Vioxx.
"It soon turned out Merck had known of potential lethal side effects even before launching Vioxx in 1999, but had brushed all such disturbing tests under the rug."
And up to a half MILLION people died…..oops.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/46535/when-half-million-americans-died-and-nobody-noticed#ixzz2xkMQH38M

jazz music says

So what's your message here?

I am advocating effective intervention, not more no-better-than-placebo-block-buster-profit-psychotropics that have 3 pages of side-effects discussing suicidal ideation.

Lotta jingoism going on here.
From both sides.
And as usual, it's the people stuck between these forces that get crushed.
Sometimes I despair of things getting better without AF-style change, which is a rapid descent into horrible awfulness, mostly so we can get rid of the awful people who govern us. Ugh, I will move somewhere remote while that is going on, if it does. I'd rather deal with weather and wild animals than bureaucrats or ravening Obama supporters.

Quigley says

From both sides.

Yes: both sides do it.

Both sides are always equally to blame, equally bad, to within 1 part in 10^(-15).

It's the weirdest coincidence.

jazz music says

So what's your message here? That death is too good for them?

I've read the studies RS is referring to. Look it up.

An example, one of many: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

With those numbers, of suicides in 3 months, there must be better therapies, whatever they might be. The government is not trying hard enough to deal with this. It's expensive, but they should have thought of that before going to war.

Robert Sproul says

Meta studies indicate SSRIs are no more effective than placebo past 3 months.

And yet people stay on them for years.

Whatever "studies" these are I would dearly love to see. Again- a bunch of horse shit. In fact, I can give you some personal examples. I am myself in fact on an SSRI , and so too is my brother. Anxiety issues run in the family and after spending years with issues, I started taking Celexa 4-5 years ago. You want proof? I and my brother are living proof. The difference in our lives has been dramatic. These drugs work and work very well. I'd tried therapy, and countless other things and the drug alone was what fixed it. For those of you who know diddly-squat about these, meaning anyone who doesn't take them, let me fill you in. These DO NOT stop you from having worries or anxieties. What they DO is help you to more rationally and thoughtfully deal with them and thus come to a rational conclusion. The difference is that I used to spend WEEKS being concerned about something, just simply beside myself because I could not get beyond a stage of having these concerns gnaw away at me for long periods. Now if I have something come up I can look at it, rationalize it, and come to a conclusion and move on. That's it. This was something I wasn't able to do before.

Secondly, these drugs often don't work immediately. There is a break-in period that lasts for sometimes weeks. If you were to place someone on a placebo they would not experience this at all. The break in period is actually really awful because your brain is basically resetting and many experience a heightened level of anxiety before the drugs start to work, and when they do work, the difference is dramatic.

So for those going on and on about these either being dangerous, ineffective, or otherwise needless don't know what they are talking about. If you've not experienced these then you're in no position to make an argument.

BTW,
I just read that study. The study had nothing to do with SSRI's. The Study was for covering the use of MDMA's, which is a totally different type of drug.

Edvard says "I myself am addicted to an SSRI"

And than he has a bunch of anecdotes supplanted as data.

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum. Every single last soul I come across that is hooked on these dangerous drugs, is also an ardent supporter of The State. Why is that?

Thanks for finally coming clean here Edvard, its nice to put some context to your unquestioning love of heritagefoundationcare

The plural of anecdote is not data. Some people improve coincidentally, just as rain sometimes follows rain dances, but the rain dances do not cause the rain. In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic. The purported benefits are mainly a placebo effect, as countless studies have shown.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

Even the manufacturers' own cherry-picked studies show only marginal benefit vs placebo, in the range of 10%, i.e. even the manufacturers admit that 90% don't benefit. And that's their best numbers, including "rescue countries" where they throw cash at some poor doctor in an impoverished foreign clinic in exchange for a study showing whatever they want, etc.

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

The actual benefits are financial (to the manufacturers and prescribers) and political (to the patronage networks that raise the price of all drugs and write mandatory subsidized insurance laws forcing everyone to pay for them). Contrary to the manufacturers' now abandoned "not habit forming" claims, which FDA finally made them stop claiming, the drugs do cause physical dependence including a nasty withdrawal ("discontinuation") syndrome, and the addicts are desperate to keep those subsidies coming at all costs. People who criticize SSRIs publicly get harangued by drug addicts, and even on PatNet I have observed that whenever I point to data on this topic, even if I only quote directly (and link to) well established sources, I rack up Dislikes that are most likely from addicts.

How high would house prices be if americans didn't have these astronomical payments for universities, childcare and healthcare? Why do people put up with this shit when they are already paying what they are paying for fed/state/property taxes?

errc says

Edvard says "I myself am addicted to an SSRI"

And than he has a bunch of anecdotes supplanted as data.

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum. Every single last soul I come across that is hooked on these dangerous drugs, is also an ardent supporter of The State. Why is that?

Thanks for finally coming clean here Edvard, its nice to put some context to your unquestioning love of heritagefoundationcare

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If we use your simpleton means of debate-as demonstrated on this site many a time- then anyone who takes aspirin, gets braces, or uses hemorrhoid suppositories is also " hooked" on "dangerous" drugs.

So far, the only "dangerous" issue that has come up with my particular drug is if you were to have serious heart issues and also take a large dosage of the medication. Its been around for over 40 years so far and not even remotely close to being shown as either toxic or dangerous. The same is true with my brother's medication.

What the fuck are your trying to say that " Everyone you've met" who takes SSRI's is an "Ardent supporter of the state". Yes- I support the United Stated of America. I use my rights to vote, enjoy the benefits of our constitution, and so on. So if that be the case I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to state. curious2 says

In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic.

Total nonsense. Ridiculous because if you look on the back of a bottle of aspirin, if you abuse it you can also suffer some serious health issues. The same is true with anything, and in the case of SSRi's, yes there are potential side effects, but they are NO DIFFERENT than any other drug in existence. And so I would ask- what the fuck is the point?

errc says

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum.

Wait a minute.

Aren't you the guy who believes that bacon is good for you because you eat it every day and haven't died yet?

Spending lifetime on SSRIs is really no solution. Honestly, the best way to address some of the issues that SSRIs try to remedy is to have a monthly "binge drinking" session - but it has to be on upper tier hard liquor and it has to be in solitude. It will reboot your "system" like nothing else can. There's a reason why hard liquor is referred to as "spirits" because it really is a conduit to your second soul.

edvard2 says

So far, the only "dangerous" issue that has come up with my particular drug is if you were to have serious heart issues and also take a large dosage of the medication. Its been around for over 40 years so far and not even remotely close to being shown as either toxic or dangerous.

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs. The issue is, when the patents on tricyclics expired, the manufacturers began advertising SSRIs on TV, and the SSRIs are much worse, but much more lucrative. If you found a doctor who recommended a tricyclic instead of an SSRI, score one point for that doctor, at least (s)he isn't prescribing whatever the drug companies are promoting this week.

BTW, since you mentioned a family history, beware any doctor who prescribes SSRIs to a female who is or may become pregnant. Some SSRIs are teratogens, and formerly "not habit forming" paroxetine ("As Seen on TV!") in particular is notorious for causing neonatal withdrawal syndrome including convulsions.

edvard2 says

curious2 says

In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic.

Total nonsense. Ridiculous because if you look on the back of a bottle of aspirin, if you abuse it you can also suffer some serious health issues.

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Veterans are at particular risk of being prescribed whatever is most profitable. PhRMA has got its hooks deep into the VA. These days, that would mean SSRIs, not tricyclics.

edvard2 says

BTW,

I just read that study. The study had nothing to do with SSRI's. The Study was for covering the use of MDMA's, which is a totally different type of drug.

Yes. RS said this:

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics not toxic SSRIs.

Psilocybin, DMT, and MDMA regimens can effectively treat PTSD.

And then Jazz Music said:

jazz music says

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics

So what's your message here? That death is too good for them?

To which I responded:

humanity says

I've read the studies RS is referring to. Look it up.

An example, one of many: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

I'm sure SSRIs sometimes work well, but it does seem that some less conventional therapies have been successful in treating PTSD. There has been a lot written about this.

There's a whole lot of lack of knowledge in regards to these medications in this thread. For the first time maybe ever I actually agree with Edvard.

Fwiw, I also agree that a suitable treatment for PTSD has not yet been discovered.

curious2 says

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs.

Uh... no its not. Its an SSRi, and if you want to read more about this, it might help enlighten your knowledge so that the next time you decide to generically spout off "facts" that aren't based in reality, maybe you'll have a valid point. According to Wikipedia, and also according to the data sheets that come with my medication, Celexa and others in its class is an SSRi.

"Citalopram (/sɪˈtælɵpræm/ or /saɪˈtælɵpræm/; brand names: Celexa, Cipramil) is an antidepressant drug of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class"

curious2 says

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Celexa ( Citalopram ) as I previously mentioned before has been around for decades and yes- it has proven to have a level of success- just like aspirin. The remainder of your comment is basically reiterating what I just said above.

edvard2 says

( Citalopram )

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Beware of Wikipedia though, it is heavily edited by PhRMA employees and prescribers, and compulsive addicts. Quoting Wikipedia is midway between quoting a TV advertisement and quoting a manufacturer-sponsored study: all three illustrate that misleading information ("We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction") can be terribly dangerous. By its own admission, Wikipedia is not a source; if you insist on reading it, at least balance it with some actual sources that are subject to fact-checking:

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

curious2 says

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Ok... so its been around for 25 years. So you should feel proud of yourself for correcting me on the one point of my post that made no difference otherwise to the overall lack of fact you previously presented. The rest of your response to me looks like a lot of stumbling around trying to prove this strange theory of yours in regards to "SSRI's", which BTW, covers a large class of drugs and their collective dangers, of which in almost all cases are not any different from any other drug on the market. as

And nice little hook, throwin' in some of classic right-winger crap at the end. Not sure how some of you always manage to pin politics to everything. My response had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with medical facts. So if you want to throw that in there at the end- fine. Still doesn't make your previous statements anymore true in the end.

edvard2 says

that made no difference

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them. As the old practitioners' adage says, "Always prescribe a drug in its first two years on the market, while it still works." The minute it goes off patent, a "new and improved" drug will be contrasted with the "old and lousy" drug that was previously hailed as a (financial) miracle. Sometimes, you can even look up how much your doctor was paid to prescribe PhRMA's latest and greatest moneymaker, although the reported numbers are only the tip of the iceberg; there is also the MCME treadmill etc.

edvard2 says

pin politics to everything.

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality. If you or the people you rely on watch the national commercial news on TV, count the ads to see who's paying the piper and calling the tune, then consider how that has shaped your worldview.

curious2 says

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them.

Stay on subject. I don't care about whatever dealings go on between pharma companies and doctors. My responses were directed at your previous comments regarding the effectiveness and dangers of SSRI's, none of which are true, and in the case of the study you used as an example, the study wasn't even about the same family or group of medications. The debate ended a long time ago.curious2 says

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality.

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA... IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE DEBATE. Like I said before- my comments had nothing to do- zilch- nada- zero to do with ACA and everything to do with drugs that have been around a lot longer than the ACA or even the Obama administration.

curious2 says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

You just insulted the entire anti-BenghaziCare contingent on this forum.

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!)

Iosef V HydroCabron says

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law. That's why the lobbyists wrote it: to maximize revenue. In the country that was already spending more than any other in the history of the world, they found a way to increase spending even further. And by all accounts spending has indeed increased, even above what we were spending before. Literally nobody disputes that, the Obamanauts only claim (falsely) that the cost increase curve has been bent downward, contrary to federal projections showing it has been bent upward. If you insist on seeing all opposition to that legislation as a vast right-wing conspiracy, then get together with bgamall and post about wonky arms in Sandy Hook.

edvard2 says

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA.

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. (Actual partisans insisted on calling it a bill, even after it became an Act. You call me a partisan, because that's the binary prism through which you see the world, you can't really consider issues on a case-by-case basis, and you certainly don't consider that in this case your team is wrong.) All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.