Wed Rock (feat. Rollins, Mould, Bernhardt, etc.)

[ggw]

It is illegal to deny treatment for lack of coverage.
 
 Why is it clear that there is overcapacity?
 
 
 

Originally posted by mark e smith:
 when people had to switch hospitals, did the new hospital deny to take people without coverage?
 
 Also, clearly, this is going on in an area with over-capacity for such operations, is it like that in the rest of the country?
 
 I might have to accuse you of being disingenuous soon.

[Bags]

(1) That's from the Cato Institute (to which the Fraser Institute in Canada is basically a sister organization -- libertarians).  I'll heed their research when you heed that of the New Republic or Michael Moore.
 
 (2) Do we know Clinton needed his surgery overnight?  I'd say....no.  He did not have a heart attack.  
 
 (3) Any chance he was scheduled for surgery that was not an emergency overnight because he's a former president?  Just a guess, it could have played a role.
 
 We've been through this before.  Gold-plated care for some comes at the denial of any care for others.  I'm finished on this, cuz we'll never agree.  Which is fine.  I am blessed with really excellent, corporately-funded healthcare.  Hope I don't lose my job.
 
 

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  If Bill Clinton lived in Canada, it would have taken him 39 days to get the bypass surgery he got in three days in the U.S.
 
   

Originally posted by Bags:
 I never said take health care away.  But don't get me started on health care.  It should be FAR easier to get/deal with.  I should probably live in Canada.

[/b]

[Bags]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 If you're against marriage, don't have one.
 

"If you're for marriage, have one."  Oh, except you and you and you and you.  You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
 
 You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit.

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  It is illegal to deny treatment for lack of coverage.
 
 Why is it clear that there is overcapacity?
 
 
   

[/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 I know someone who was in the operating theatre about to get a gall stone operation, they found out she didnt have insurance and cancelled the op....
 
 I think I made that up, probably mis-interpreting:
 
 "BUT CITY'S UNDERUSE RATE FOR BYPASS SURGERY AND ANGIOPLASTY IS SUBSTANTIAL"
 
 clearly that means more patients should get the treatment, not that there is overcapacity. I am not very familiar with this foreign language. Sorry.

[markie]

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 If you're against marriage, don't have one.
 

"If you're for marriage, have one."  Oh, except you and you and you and you.  You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
 
 You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]

I think you just put words in Rhetts mouth.
 
 I took what he said differently to you, but my comprehension is poor today.

[Bags]

Originally posted by bunnyman:
 Besides, this is just a rock'n'roll show. It would be great to see as many of you as possible show up to this gig. It would mean a lot to me and the folks that put this together. I am trying to help them get the word out.

Bunnyman, you're involved in this event?  That is awesomely cool, and in fact a greater reason for me to attend (wasn't planning on it, but it would be a good show....)

[ggw]

And that is the big fallacy of the healthcare debate.
 
 Nationalized healthcare does not mean that the current healthcare system is extended to everybody.  It means that medical care is rationed and everybody shares a lower quality of care.
 
 And, as I pointed out to Markie, one cannot be denied medical services due to lack of insurance coverage.  I've personally got $40,000 in medical bills to prove that.
 
   
 

Originally posted by Bags:
 We've been through this before.  Gold-plated care for some comes at the denial of any care for others.

[ggw]

I interpret that to mean that those in the city who would benefit from the surgery did not always use it, as the article pointed out.  I certainly don't think that meant that there were teams of cardiac surgeons twiddling their thumbs while waiting for patients.
 
 

Originally posted by mark e smith:
 "BUT CITY'S UNDERUSE RATE FOR BYPASS SURGERY AND ANGIOPLASTY IS SUBSTANTIAL"
 

[Bags]

I don't think I did put words in Rhett's mouth...he's defending his right to get married.  He said, "Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage."
 
 That's fine. That's not in question.
 
 The issue is that some want that same right and don't have it.  Hence, "If you want to get married, get married" rather than "If you don't want to get married, don't get married."  Everyone has the ability *not* to get married (the negative), some don't have the right to get married (the affirmative).
 
 He's arguing/defending the flip-side of the argument (though I think it comes from Chimbley's "fuck marriage" rant, but in the context of the thread and the event, his right to being married isn't an issue).
 
   

Originally posted by mark e smith:
   

Originally posted by Bags:
     

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 If you're against marriage, don't have one.
 

"If you're for marriage, have one."  Oh, except you and you and you and you.  You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
 
 You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]

I think you just put words in Rhetts mouth.
 
 I took what he said differently to you, but my comprehension is poor today. [/b]

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
 
 I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 If you're against marriage, don't have one.
 

"If you're for marriage, have one."  Oh, except you and you and you and you.  You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
 
 You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]

[Bags]

-edit-

[Bags]

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
 
 I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.

I hear ya.  Isn't it good to know that you have a defender in Markie?

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Well it's always good to have anybody on my side, but especially nice to have Markie.
 
 That didn't sound too gay, did it?
 
 

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
 
 I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.

I hear ya.  Isn't it good to know that you have a defender in Markie? [/b]

[RatBastard]

OK at the risk of being chastised (however the hell you spell that) this is my take on the issue.  Some may recognize ir from a few months ago...
 
 The problem is NOT that any given segment of society is/is not allowed to marry.  The real issue is that certain priviliges in society are attached to marriage when they should not be.  For example, in hospitals here when you are in ICU etc you can only have your spouse visit you.  Thats totally stupid.  I understand the need to keep it to one visitor but the patient should be able to choose anyone at all.  Thats is just one of many issues that are attached the same way.  What we need to do is separate the things that should not be attached to marriage and assign them where they should be.  Not do a band aid fix and change marriage.
 
 While I am not one of those ultra right wing religous freaks (hell I am quite the opposite in fact), but I do think that marriage in and of itself should be maintained M/F.  This is my belief, it isnt right or wrong but it is mine and I will stick to it.  I am all for everyone being able to live the life they choose and have no issue with anyone living and sleeping with whom they choose.  I fell that everyone should be given a fair shake at life.  I do though think we need to get rid of these laws that proport to protect groups.  All we need is one simple lasw that says (I'll leave it to the klawyers to word it right) in any action you cant make decisions based of issued not relevant.  BINGO!  Done!  No one gets left behind and no one gets special.
 
 OK I'm done... NEXT.  

[Bombay Chutney]

Originally posted by RatBastard:
   What we need to do is separate the things that should not be attached to marriage and assign them where they should be.  Not do a band aid fix and change marriage.
 

Those sounds like contradictory statements to me.  You think it's better to individually change every policy, law and benefit, rather than make one change that would level the playing field and make things completely fair and equal for everyone.  To me that sounds like thousands of band-aids without actually fixing the real issue.
 
 Unless you're talking about all-encompassing civil-unions or partner registries with all the benefits and responsibilites of marriage.  But then you're essentially dealing with semantics. They'd basically be in a marriage-style relationship, without having the word "marriage" associated with it.  And we all know how well "separate-but-equal" policies work out.
 
 And it doesn't deal with the fact that many gay people are in love and actually want to be married.   They're not just searching to close legal loopholes.  They want to be a family.